Ugly Hedgehog - Photography Forum
Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register
Main Photography Discussion
Optical Viewfinder (OVF) vs Electronic View Finder (EVF). Which is better?
Page <<first <prev 6 of 10 next> last>>
Feb 11, 2019 09:53:52   #
Blurryeyed Loc: NC Mountains.
 
Bill_de wrote:
Not shooting RAW?

---


I only shoot RAW, and as I said, my experience has been that there is nothing better than a properly exposed image to work with, adjusting white balance and exposure in post can add noise and it is probable that the image was not as sharp from the get go as it could have been. I see so many overly processed images on this site, especially when it comes to sharpening, nothing beats an image that hardly needs correction in post.

Reply
Feb 11, 2019 09:54:24   #
Blurryeyed Loc: NC Mountains.
 
[quote=Bill_de]Not shooting RAW?
Double post...

Reply
Feb 11, 2019 10:01:10   #
Tomcat5133 Loc: Gladwyne PA
 
Mirrorless EVF's are really good. my a6300 is awesome. The small RX100 mark 4 viewfinder
is really great for a time device. I don't shoot nature or birds so EVF is so helpful in seeing
and composing with smaller format cameras.

Reply
 
 
Feb 11, 2019 10:03:18   #
Bill_de Loc: US
 
Blurryeyed wrote:
I only shoot RAW, and as I said, my experience has been that there is nothing better than a properly exposed image to work with, adjusting white balance and exposure in post can add noise and it is probable that the image was not as sharp from the get go as it could have been. I see so many overly processed images on this site, especially when it comes to sharpening, nothing beats an image that hardly needs correction in post.


What software do you use to process your RAW files.

----

Reply
Feb 11, 2019 10:18:43   #
GENorkus Loc: Washington Twp, Michigan
 
mas24 wrote:
I don't own a mirrorless camera. My Nikon DSLR has an optical viewfinder. Mirrorless cameras have electronic viewfinders. I have read on this forum, that some don't like the EVF. Especially, if you're accustomed to the OVF. Is one really better than the other?


Given some time, most people can get used to anything.

Reply
Feb 11, 2019 10:26:04   #
User ID
 
Bill_de wrote:
Color balance or saturation - OVF no, EVF yes
White balance - OVF no, EVF yes


Aren't these two moot points when shooting RAW?

---


No.


Not moot point, but yes, somewhat less important.

.

Reply
Feb 11, 2019 10:30:47   #
dave.m
 
dsmeltz wrote:
What was the last EVF you tried? The new ones in the Canon EOS R and the Nikon Z line as well as the last few Sony's are reported to be awesome.


At this time - like RAW vs. JPEG - this topic seems as emotive as gun laws, blood sports, religion and politics I think :) In a few years time I think it will be a source of constant amusement on what the debate was all about.

I can vouch the EOS R has a stunning EVF - in future I will never buy a camera by choice that doesn't have EVF. Apart from the superb sharpness and brightness, I can see what I want in the VF in real-time, can set it to emulate exposure/ DoF or stay bright (great for poor light/ night time.)

In a tangential way EVF vs. OVF is a similar argument to RAW vs. JPEG - there is little difference in ideal or even good lighting conditions, but if that doesn't apply cos lighting is difficult or downright bad, then with EVF you can actually see what is being pointed at, and with RAW you have a much improved chance to change light balance, exposure and have much more dynamic range to work with

Reply
 
 
Feb 11, 2019 11:14:41   #
Rab-Eye Loc: Indiana
 
CHG_CANON wrote:
Go grab your DSLR. Turn it on and raise it to your eye. What do you see? The meter, the focus points, the exposure settings?

You can configure your EVF to include a histogram showing the exposure with dynamic changes as you adjust the exposure. The EVF also can zoom the display to 100% on the target, all with the EVF held there to your eye.

Sound some possible improvements?


Bingo.

Reply
Feb 11, 2019 11:17:42   #
User ID
 
GENorkus wrote:

Given some time, most people can get used to anything.


And the rest can either quit photography
or put a wire frame finder in the hot shoe.

.

Reply
Feb 11, 2019 11:26:20   #
User ID
 
dave.m wrote:


.....this topic ... In a few years time I think it will
be a source of constant amusement on what the
debate was all about.



You are really one tough audience !

It's already hilariously amusing today ! If not
for the amusement, why are we all here ? If
it's supposedly edumacational, thaz just part
of the comedy.

I realize some peeps DO take these issues
verrrrrry seriously. Comedy usually requires
a "straight man", to bounce the gags off of.
Most of those "serious, concerned experts"
around here serve that function to a tee :-)

"See ya in the funny papers"

.

Reply
Feb 11, 2019 11:33:01   #
BebuLamar
 
User ID wrote:
And the rest can either quit photography
or put a wire frame finder in the hot shoe.

.


I am old. My DSLR possibly outlast myself. I don't need to use the EVF nor quit photography. Never use the wire frame. I can frame without the viewfinder if I have to.

Reply
 
 
Feb 11, 2019 11:38:45   #
amfoto1 Loc: San Jose, Calif. USA
 
mas24 wrote:
I don't own a mirrorless camera. My Nikon DSLR has an optical viewfinder. Mirrorless cameras have electronic viewfinders. I have read on this forum, that some don't like the EVF. Especially, if you're accustomed to the OVF. Is one really better than the other?


Each type of viewfinder has it's pluses and minuses.

An EVF such as most mirrorless use can show "exposure simulation". That's a preview of what an image will look like based upon the current camera settings. As a result, you have immediate indication whether your settings are correct and are able to adjust accordingly, if needed. Assuming your settings are good, this also will brighten up the EVF if shooting in low light conditions or with manually stopped down lenses. Optical viewfnders can't do either.

However, an EVF also draws power constantly while in use. In addition, the camera's image sensor has to be continuously powered up to provide a signal for the EVF to display. It's much like using Live View with a DSLR.... And both put a heavy drain on batteries. In many mirrorless this is further compounded by the small format batteries that many of them use in an effort to keep the camera small and light. Optical viewfinders themselves draw no power at all and the camera's sensor isn't active continuously either. As a result, compared to a DSLR with an OVF, most mirrorless cameras with an EVF get far fewer shots per charge so you may need to buy and carry more spare batteries.(Of course, readout displays and AF systems seen in the viewfinder draw some power in both EVF and OVF... there's no difference in this respect.)

There used to be a noticeable lag with EVF, too... What was displayed in the EVF was slightly delayed. Manufacturers have worked hard to counteract this and newer models show little lag. However, although it's very little now, there still may be enough delay to make difficult extremely precise timing of certain types of shots that require it.

It's more than just the different types of viewfinders too.

Today most DLSRs with OVF actually have two autofocus systems. First, they use an array of sensors that you see in the viewfinder, plus there's another array of senors embedded in the image sensor itself, to function during Live View and while recording video.

Mirrorless cameras with EVF only have one AF system, the latter type that's embedded in the image sensor.

In older DSLRs and earlier mirrorless the sensor-based AF system relied upon contrast detection and was slow. It was unusable with moving subjects. The DSLRs using the separate array with phase detection AF system were much faster and better tracking subject movement.

Today with recent mirrorless and DSLRs there's now a form of image sensor-based phase detection being used with them too, which makes for much more responsive AF that's more usable with moving subjects. However, it's still not equal to what a top-of-the-line DSLR with a separate phase detection array can do.

And while many mirrorless claim fast frame rates, if you read the fine print you'll notice many specify "with AF locked" or something similar. With continuous AF such as is used for sports and other types of action photography (where you will be using fast frame rates too!), many mirrorless have to slow their frame rates considerably because their AF system cannot "keep up". Where a DSLR with an advanced AF system might be able to shoot at 10 or even 12 frames per second, many mirrorless slow to 4 to 6 fps when used similarly.

Another difference is that OVF-based AF system arrays have between 9 and about 150 individual points, plus are somewhat centered in the image area (the number and layout varies by brand and model). EVF's sensor-based arrays commonly have far more AF points... some have literally thousands... and they tend to cover a larger portion of the image area. Some are very near 100% coverage, which means you can focus on subjects much closer to the edges and corners of the image, if you wish.

Many or most EVF/sensor-based AF systems also have a feature such as "focus peaking", which gives visual indication of what's in focus, making them ideal for use with manual focus lenses. OVFs can't do this.

And, finally, OVF with a separate AF sensor array need to be calibrated to focus the image on the image sensor. This can require fine tuning with a feature such as Micro Focus Adjust on many DSLRs, with whith the user can adjust various lenses for best possible focus accuracy, but it's rarely absolutely perfect, especially with zoom lenses that have become more and more the norm. In contrast, because the mirrorless/EVF camera's AF sensors are embedded right in the image sensor itself, there's no need for this sort of calibration.

So, in summary: In some ways EVF are superior... But in some other ways OVF are still superior. Overall, if shooting sedentary subjects such as posed portraits or products or landscapes or architecture... an EVF will work just as well as an OVF... In fact, the EVF may even be a better choice in some situations. However, if shooting fast action such as sports, wildlife and similar... both for better tracking, faster frame rates and more shots per battery charge... a DSLR with an OVF may still be a better choice.

Something neither can do.... Back in the days of film I used a variety of types and formats of cameras for different purposes. Many rangefinder cameras had optical viewfinders that showed more than 100% of the image area, had a "bright line" indicating the image area, but also visible was some additional portion of the scene outside that area. This was handy for some types of photography because you could see both what you were including in the image, as well as what was slightly outside it that you were excluding. The photographer could then choose to recompose, if they wished. Instead of a viewfinder, some view cameras I used also had a ground glass focusing screen that covered a bit more than the actual image area and could be used similarly. This was a nice feature that isn't the possible with modern EVF or OVF. All I've ever seen, at best show 100% of the image area (some show a little bit less).

Reply
Feb 11, 2019 11:43:39   #
Ed Chu Loc: Las Vegas NV
 
amfoto1 wrote:
Each type of viewfinder has it's pluses and minuses.

An EVF such as most mirrorless use can show "exposure simulation". That's a preview of what an image will look like based upon the current camera settings. As a result, you have immediate indication whether your settings are correct and are able to adjust accordingly, if needed. Assuming your settings are good, this also will brighten up the EVF if shooting in low light conditions or with manually stopped down lenses. Optical viewfnders can't do either.

However, an EVF also draws power constantly while in use. In addition, the camera's image sensor is also continuously powered up to provide a signal for the EVF to display. It's much like using Live View on a DSLR.... And both put a heavy drain on batteries. In many mirrorless this is further compounded by the small format batteries that many of them use in an effort to keep the camera small and light. Optical viewfinders themselves draw no power at all and the camera's sensor isn't active continuously either. (Of course, readout displays and AF systems seen in the viewfinder draw some power in both EVF and OVF.)

There used to be a noticeable lag with EVF, too... What was displayed in the EVF was slightly delayed. Manufacturers have worked hard to counteract this and newer models show little lag. However, although it's very little now, there still may be enough delay to make difficult extremely precise timing of certain types of shots that require it.

It's more than just the different types of viewfinders too. DLSRs with OVF mostly actually have two autofocus systems. They use an array of sensors that you see in the viewfinder and another that's embedded in the image sensor to function during Live View.

Mirrorless cameras with EVF only have one AF system, the latter type that's embedded in the image sensor. In older cameras the sensor-based AF system relied upon contrast detection and was slow. It was unusable with moving subjects. The DSLRs using the separate array with phase detection AF system were much faster and better tracking subject movement.

Today with recent mirrorless there's a form of image sensor-based phase detection being used with them too, which has made for much more responsive AF that's more usable with moving subjects. Howerver, it's still not equal to what a top-of-the-line DSLR with a separate phase detection array can do.

And while many mirrorless claim fast frame rates, if you read the fine print you'll notice many specify "with AF locked" or something similar. With continuous AF such as is used for sports and other types of action photography (where you will be using fast frame rates!), many mirrorless have to slow their frame rates considerably because their AF system cannot "keep up". Where a DSLR with an advanced AF system might be able to shoot at 10 or even 12 frames per second, many mirrorless slow to 4 to 6 fps when used similarly.

Another difference is that OVF-based AF system arrays have between 9 and about 150 individual points, plus are somewhat centered in the image area (the number and layout varies by brand and model). EVF's sensor-based arrays commonly have far more AF points... some have literally thousands... and they tend to cover a larger portion of the image area. Some are very near 100% coverage, which means you can focus on subjects much closer to the edges and corners of the image, if you wish.

Many or most EVF/sensor-based AF systems also have a feature such as "focus peaking", which gives visual indication of what's in focus, making them ideal for use with manual focus lenses.

And, finally, OVF with a separate AF sensor array need to be calibrated to focus the image on the image sensor. This can require fine tuning with a feature such as Micro Focus Adjust on many DSLRs, with whith the user can adjust various lenses for best possible focus accuracy, but it's rarely absolutely perfect, especially with zoom lenses that have become more and more the norm. In contrast, because the mirrorless/EVF camera's AF sensors are embedded right in the image sensor itself, there's no need for this sort of calibration.

So, in summary... In some ways EVF are superior... But in some other ways OVF are still superior. Overall, if shooting sedentary subjects such as posed portraits or products or landscapes or architecture... an EVF will work just as well as an OVF. The EVF might even be a better choice in some situations. However, if shooting fast action such as sports, wildlife and similar... both for better tracking, faster frame rates and more shots per battery charge, a DSLR with an OVF may still be a better choice.

Something that neither can do.... Back in the days of film I used a variety of types and formats of cameras for different purposes. Many rangefinder cameras had optical viewfinders that showed more than 100% of the image area, had a "bright line" indicating the image area. This was handy for some types of photography because you could see what you were including in the image, as well as what was slightly outside it. The photographer could then choose to recompose, if they wished. Some view cameras I used also used ground glass that was larger than the actual images area, which could be used similarly. This isn't the case with either modern EVF or OVF. All I've ever seen, at best show 100% of the image area (some show a little bit less).
Each type of viewfinder has it's pluses and minuse... (show quote)


GREAT STUFF !! thanks for the explanation

Reply
Feb 11, 2019 13:04:46   #
Blurryeyed Loc: NC Mountains.
 
Bill_de wrote:
What software do you use to process your RAW files.

----


Photoshop CC, Many of my photos are of raptors in flight so they are heavily cropped and any imperfections significantly impact the image, but even everyday portraits of family or my macro stuff, I have always found it better to start with an image that does not need a lot of pushing in post, I don't mind a little over exposure in fact I will do that on purpose knowing that correction is not destructive in post, but trying to lighten shadows or the entire scene is something that I would prefer to avoid.

Reply
Feb 11, 2019 13:28:13   #
photogeneralist Loc: Lopez Island Washington State
 
Put me solidly in the EVF camp. I enjoy the increased functionalities and have noted no downside to EVF especially in regard to focusing or time lag (It does take about 1.5 seconds for the camera to "boot up" when its first turned on but after that the focus is fast and the response to the shutter button seems instantaneous. My EVF cameras are not the newest on the market but their spec.s show split second response times. My experience confirms that. As for shooting action or sports, most of us use the motor drive where the absence of mirror blackout in the viewfinder is a fantastic plus.

Reply
Page <<first <prev 6 of 10 next> last>>
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
Main Photography Discussion
UglyHedgehog.com - Forum
Copyright 2011-2024 Ugly Hedgehog, Inc.