EVF vs OVF

[CGrieves]

Continued from willy-waving thread as it was OT.

An OVF wont be any worse than an EVF. My point is the EVF doesn't give an accurate indication of what is in the RAW file so it isn't that useful in those regards.

I still can't see how a mirror and eyepiece sending actual real-world photons would give a more accurate impression of the output of the sensor than the output of the sensor, which is what the EVF uses.

My point is when you are shooting a static scene, e.g. landscape then you can check the histogram after the photo.

Sure you can, but I find it much more useful to check before taking the photo.

I methodically scan the photos for highlight clipping as well, something an EVF doesn't really do well.

Same again, if I push the exposure comp up by three stops and look through the eyepiece, I don't see any highlight clipping, I see a real-life image through a lens, avoiding clipping is entirely down to experience of how the camera works. With my EVF I see the whole image preview clip, in real time.

In a dynamic scene like shooting a weeding you don't really have time to look at histograms.

That's kinda personal experience/preference. I find it trivial to keep an eye on it in real-time, same as keeping an eye on the exposure time.

I have a level in my D800 anyway, so agian no advntage in the EVF.

That's good, but it's not a common feature, especially in OVFs.

Don;t get me wrong about EVF, they are usable now but for most work an OVF is still better IMO at the current state of technology. EVFs and mirror less will overtake OVF someday soon and mirrors will all disappear. there are many reasons for htis (mirrors are expensive, big, heavy, slow, complex, fragile, mechanical, cause VF blackout, cause AF blackout, etc, etc.

At this stage not all EVFs are created equal obviously, but for my use, the Fuji's EVF has already overtaken OVFs.

 

[the_director]

For me - as I said in that thread - I can use manual focus lenses with shallow depth of field (300 2.8, 400 f4, 80-200 2.8, 50mm 1.4 etc) and with focus peaking I can track the line of focus in the image easily and focus - even for wildlife - accurately.

Furthermore, with regards to the final picture, I see pressing the shutter as just pausing the live stream I am watching. I know exactly what the end product will be. For landscapes I can alter shutter speeds and aperture and see what impact this will have on exposure etc and in particular with sunset / sunrise type images I can see what it's going to turn out like.

For me, when I shot with a Canon 30D, what the OVF showed me was the scene through my eyes, it often bore little relation to what the sensor would capture if I pressed the shutter. Granted, this is reflective of my level of expertise, but the point is that with the evf I feel completely in control of what I am shooting and I've taken far better photos as a result.

For me, personally, The EVF is better because I want to know what the sensor is currently seeing and what it will record should I hit the shutter. I've not been disappointed yet.

 

[robj20]

I'm an EVF convert, similar reasons to above, stuff like focus peaking and a live image of what the sensor see makes it so easy. There is still lag but its got to the point where its not a problem 99% of the time.
I don't see it as OVF or EVF just what you like to use and how you use each to its advantages.

 

[An Exception]

I still use OVF. Looking forward to switching to EVF when the time comes as per the reasons stated by the director.

 

[Amp34]

I love the idea of of EVFs but haven't found one yet that doesn't lag. The other things I dislike are the blown highlights because of the reduction in dynamic range over the eye. Yes it shows what the sensor will pick up but I'd rather know what I'm actually shooting and what is in that blown part of the image (same can be said for "underexposed" parts.

I've also found the pixelation in most EVFs rather annoying. They're normally pretty small compared to OVF, annoying when panning with both eyes open (for example).

On the other hand the significant reduction in size of the camera is a major positive for someone who does most of his shooting when travelling and hiking.

 

[Rojin]

I use both. To be honest I was against EVF but saw the size advantage (I wanted a smaller setup), after actually using them though I'm pretty happy with them. In low light their performance does suffer, but it's getting better (X-T1 is much better than the X-E1 for example). You get much more flexibility of information display etc as well. I still like using the OVF, and EVF performance still needs to get better but the tech will get there eventually.

 

[englishpremier]

I wasn't keen on the idea of an EVF, but after switching earlier this year I don't think I could happily go back to an OVF. I don't do much low light work though, that is where an EVF tends to suffer, but then again if it's that dark you can't see through the OVF either.

 

[Columbo]

EVF all the way for me.
No way I could go back to an OVF and lose focus peaking in the viewfinder.

I don't do much low light work though, that is where an EVF tends to suffer, but then again if it's that dark you can't see through the OVF either.

Never got the argument of OVF's being better in lowlight because through an OVF you cant see anything in the dark, I can use the EVF on my NX30 in near total darkness.

 

[D.P.]

Biggest issue I have with EVF cameras at the moment is when the mirrow is taken away and you loose the dedicated phase detection sensors the AF performance is heavily degraded right now. Sure, some sensors have phase detection built in but they almost all suck in comparison to even an entry level DSLR, especially as it gets dark or for continuous and tracking modes. The Nikon 1 series is actually the closest but it is still noticibly worse than a DSLR.

Until then I wont give up an OVF. none of the EVF advantages really change the game that much, things like live histograms are nice but wont change the way I shoot, wont change the images I produce and wont increase my keeper rate.

 

[D.P.]

Continued from willy-waving thread as it was OT.

I still can't see how a mirror and eyepiece sending actual real-world photons would give a more accurate impression of the output of the sensor than the output of the sensor, which is what the EVF uses.

I never said an OVF givs a more accurate impression, I'm simply saying an EVF doesn't give an accurate impression of what the sensor records either so there simply isn't an advantage in the EVF, in fact the EVF has a lower DR than the sensor so you are going to end up clipping highlights and loosing shadows in the EVF image and not seeing important details - details that you will see looking through an OVF. The only way to really expose properly is to have plenty of experience in shooting and processing the RAW files from the camera shooting- that way you know how much shadows can be pulled or if the clouds will clip, or the bride's dress will be OK.

Sure you can, but I find it much more useful to check before taking the photo.

As I said, a nice feature but isn't a deal break for me. Most of my work is much slower and more methodical, or too fast paced to worry so I just have to use good technique and intuition.

Same again, if I push the exposure comp up by three stops and look through the eyepiece, I don't see any highlight clipping, I see a real-life image through a lens, avoiding clipping is entirely down to experience of how the camera works. With my EVF I see the whole image preview clip, in real time.

But it clips in a different way to the RAW file beign saved by the sensor, so it isn't helping you.

That's kinda personal experience/preference. I find it trivial to keep an eye on it in real-time, same as keeping an eye on the exposure time.

Perhaps, again another nice feature but not that critical to me. I would like it but I wont put up with the short comings to have.

That's good, but it's not a common feature, especially in OVFs.

all high end Nikon's have it by default now.

At this stage not all EVFs are created equal obviously, but for my use, the Fuji's EVF has already overtaken OVFs.

The real issue I have with EVF is not really the EVF in itself but the autofocus performance of camera that have lost the mirror. If I could get an AF system like my D800, with a viewfinder that is as big as the OFV without lag and noise then I would snap up that camera.

Not only do EVFs have to get better but sensor based AF has a long way to go still. All depends what you shoot though. For landscape work where AF is less critical cameras like the A7r are pretty enticing.

 

[Rojin]

The tech is still improving, the biggest issue I have is the EVF blackout time which is an issue when tracking with servo AF and spring high fps. I haven't used an entry DSLR lately to be honest, but my X-T1 does a lot of things better than my old 40D ever did. It's also done better in servo AF at 56mm f1.2 than my 1Ds2 at 85mm f1.8 or the 7D at 50mm f1.4. When the centre pdaf points hit it's very quick, but that doesn't happen every time. Once they have fill sensor pdaf rocking along with fast processor AF is going to be prey awesome.

The Fuji implementation of back button focusing sucks as well, although they are changing that in the next firmware. I did buy into their mirror less system knowing that it's not quite there yet, but it's good enough. I'm still running a DSLR alongside it at the moment, but don't expect to be in a couple of years time.

I get the odd completely missed focus shot, but as on sensor AF is inherently more accurate I actually get a lot more keepers. Also having a smaller camera that I take with me more means I also get shots I never would have had otherwise.

 

[D.P.]

The size is why I have an Olympus EPM-2, fits in my trouser or jacket pocket but gives DSLR image quality.

In a few years most new DSLRs will have lost their mirrors, there are just so many advantages, we just aren't there yet. Plus imagine at the very high end an OVF DSLR will always exist, again partly due to autofocus. The PDAF on sensor technologies has the distinct disadvantage that the sensors have to be very small so they don't take up much of the sensor, with a mirro you can make the PD sensors arbitrarily big.
The ad range of sensor based methods is that in the future with better algorithms, and more powerful CPUs form smartphones we can have very advanced computer vision based solutions to tracking, auto detection? We already have some basics, like face detectin autofocus.

 

[englishpremier]

Biggest issue I have with EVF cameras at the moment is when the mirrow is taken away and you loose the dedicated phase detection sensors the AF performance is heavily degraded right now. Sure, some sensors have phase detection built in but they almost all suck in comparison to even an entry level DSLR, especially as it gets dark or for continuous and tracking modes. The Nikon 1 series is actually the closest but it is still noticibly worse than a DSLR.

The Sony a6000 has the fastest phase detect auto focus in the world, and 11 fps shooting with subject tracking.

 

[Rojin]

The size is why I have an Olympus EPM-2, fits in my trouser or jacket pocket but gives DSLR image quality.

In a few years most new DSLRs will have lost their mirrors, there are just so many advantages, we just aren't there yet. Plus imagine at the very high end an OVF DSLR will always exist, again partly due to autofocus. The PDAF on sensor technologies has the distinct disadvantage that the sensors have to be very small so they don't take up much of the sensor, with a mirro you can make the PD sensors arbitrarily big.
The ad range of sensor based methods is that in the future with better algorithms, and more powerful CPUs form smartphones we can have very advanced computer vision based solutions to tracking, auto detection? We already have some basics, like face detectin autofocus.

I very nearly went the OMD route, but didn't like the handling too much and for me m4/3 IQ is a step too far away from FF (I don't shoot much of anything stopped down really apart from panini no shots) so it was between Fuji and Sony. Using an EVF with focus peaking is so good I'm tempted by the Sony FF mirror less with quality manual lenses, and a DSLR for all the action stuff. I'm waiting to see what they announce in the new year. The Fuji's are just so fun to use at the moment.

PDAF will eventually be all over the sensor. On the Fuji it is almost enough now as it covers the main AF points I use (centre and third points), so they're not far off.

 

[Rojin]

The Sony a6000 has the fastest phase detect auto focus in the world, and 11 fps shooting with subject tracking.

I read an interview somewhere and a Sony exec said that the pdaf system in the A6000 would be improved on with the next FF release. So interesting times ahead.

 

[the_director]

I hope they bring out a A6000 mk2 with the IBIS system from the A7 mk2.

 

[D.P.]

The Sony a6000 has the fastest phase detect auto focus in the world, and 11 fps shooting with subject tracking.

According to Sony, but according to anyone that has used it they would rather have a DSLR.
From Thom Hogan's review

On a dog chasing Frisbees at the parkway at 70mm (105mm equivalent), my D7100 was 9 for 10 on sharp shots. The A6000 was 4 for 10. All 10 shots from both cameras were probably what most people would call usable. The A6000 had more trouble with erratic motion than continuous motion, by the way (dog changing direction as opposed to running linearly).

We aren't there yet. The Nikon 1 performs somewhat better for AF but we still need a few more iterations at least.

 

[Rojin]

According to Sony, but according to anyone that has used it they would rather have a DSLR.

You only have to read the relevant forums to know that your statement isn't true. People's requirements are different, so some are happy with the performance now (I'm not). Loads of people on the various mirrorless forums who have chucked in 5D3's, D800's etc. and are more than happy. Even some wedding shooters, I haven't seen many sports or wildlife shooters though

The erratic motion is where they lack at the moment, not that DSLR's are always perfect at predicting that either.

Edited for clarity and continuity.

 

[Rojin]

I hope they bring out a A6000 mk2 with the IBIS system from the A7 mk2.

The ibis coming to these bodies is interesting. I'm quite looking forward to seeing what the A9 or whatever brings. I just plain don't like the handling of the A6000, although the main reasons I went Fuji are the 23mm and 56mm lenses. Also the long tele that may one day appear!

 

[D.P.]

What statement isn't true? I've posted a personal opinion that EVF and mirrorlews aren't there yet for me and that DSLRs still have the upper hand when performance matters. It is an opinion, I can't be wrong, it is personal.

Now I also believe the same constraints and issues hold true for many professionals which is why DSLRs still dominate and sony/fuji/olympus/Panasonic are failing to grab any significant market share from canikon.


If I only shot landscape I would drop the D800 for the A7r (as long as Sony adds a true 14bit RAW).
As it is I use my Oly emp-2 more than my D800 for casual use because the IQ is better than my old D90.


Some people seem to think I'm against EVF and mirrorless, I'm not. I'm a big fan of the concept and look forward to a lighter, smaller, faster future. But currently there are some downsides and non of the advantages of an EVF are important enough for me to lose an OFV, yet. The only real advantage I care about now is the weight loss, But that is variable because it only really matters if you use smaller lighter lenses on a smaller sensor.if you are still trekking around with several KGs of glass, several KGs of tripod and head, plus a bag of filters and batteries, couple of liters of water, food, rain jacket etc, then a few hundred grams lost from the mirror doesn't change things much