[GibbyTheMole]

Optical viewfinders will go the way of the film that necessitated their use.

And people who shoot sports and fast action will be S.O.L.

To me EVFs are like putting complex computer circuitry in a ballpoint pen to regulate ink flow.

[Jodokast96]

To me EVFs are like putting complex computer circuitry in a ballpoint pen to regulate ink flow.

Gibby, that is an excellent quote. Hope you don't mind my new sig.

[GibbyTheMole]

Hope you don't mind my new sig.

Ha! Not at all... :-)

[Anvh]

. Power consumption will be easily controlled, by only switching on when an eye is there.

While you call it easy i still need to see it actually work like it should.
Now when you set the eyepiece to your eyes you first stare into a black void and then suddenly the screen goes on that blinds you since your eyes where adapting to the dark...

[emalvick]

I can see EVF's eventually making OVF's obsolete, but they have a ways to go as far as I can see; i.e. they have to gain in all the departments that OVF's are better at.

The problem will be that EVF's will be forced before they are really ready, i.e. before they really are equal to OVF's. That seems to be the way. The elimination of the mechanical parts with respect to SLR's (i.e. mirrorless cameras) and the financial benefits to the industry will outweigh the suitability of an EVF.

I'm pessimistic. I hated my old zoom p&s camera with an EVF. The EVF was worthless.

[pinholecam]

( Photo/U.S. Coast Guard Sara Raymer)

Land Ho!


thats not a sailing ship... its all the captain's fault. They used the damn motor.

[RioRico]

Now when you set the eyepiece to your eyes you first stare into a black void and then suddenly the screen goes on that blinds you since your eyes where adapting to the dark...

Let's see -- how about if the EVF doesn't "flash on", but increases in luminosity over 1/2 second or so? Or how about a slight touch of the shutter turns the EVF on, and releasing finger pressure turns it back off? This kind of engineering isn't difficult; it's certainly less complicated than face-recognition warez.

[.a.t.]

Land Ho!
thats not a sailing ship... its all the captain's fault. They used the damn motor.

Details, details.....

[Clavius]

The elimination of the mechanical parts with respect to SLR's (i.e. mirrorless cameras) and the financial benefits to the industry will outweigh the suitability of an EVF.

Yes, that's the real and probably only reason why the EVF is forced through our necks: Financial gain.

A camera involves optics and can therefore NEVER be totally solid state. Zooming and focussing wil always require moving parts. So striving to solid state is useless and not the real reason. It's an excuse. The consumer price (MIGHT) lower a little, but it is much more profit for the manufacturers.

[Alizarine]

I am actually afraid of how fast technology evolves versus my learning curve, lol.

Now when you set the eyepiece to your eyes you first stare into a black void and then suddenly the screen goes on that blinds you since your eyes where adapting to the dark...

Anyway, would it be energy inefficient to just dim the EVF to like, 5% or 10%when not in use? I remember when I was a kid, I turned the TV on before I turned the lights, was half blind for like 2 or 3 seconds because of the sudden initial pop of the light

[Jodokast96]

Let's see -- how about if the EVF doesn't "flash on", but increases in luminosity over 1/2 second or so? Or how about a slight touch of the shutter turns the EVF on, and releasing finger pressure turns it back off? This kind of engineering isn't difficult; it's certainly less complicated than face-recognition warez.

And when time is critical? You just missed the shot waiting for the VF to light up. The fact remains that, while you can make EVF's better than they are, it doesn't seem you can make them better than an OVF.

[bossa]

And when time is critical? You just missed the shot waiting for the VF to light up. The fact remains that, while you can make EVF's better than they are, it doesn't seem you can make them better than an OVF.

Please tell me why the EVF should take any longer to light up than the camera itself? There just seems to be a prejudice against EVF's in this thread based on what's already been dished up. I understand that as I can't stand using Live View for the very same reasons expounded in these posts. But I feel there are way too many opinions in this thread that are pure speculation and not based on any real insight drawn from the absolute latest technologies. I have no idea just how good the latest EVF can be based on the tech news report that this thread is based on.

PS: And as far as OVF's working in the dark, pull the other one. The OVF might work but my eyes sure don't.

[Jodokast96]

That was in direct response to this:

Power consumption will be easily controlled, by only switching on when an eye is there.

this:

Now when you set the eyepiece to your eyes you first stare into a black void and then suddenly the screen goes on that blinds you since your eyes where adapting to the dark...

and this:

Let's see -- how about if the EVF doesn't "flash on", but increases in luminosity over 1/2 second or so?

[konraDarnok]

To me EVFs are like putting complex computer circuitry in a ballpoint pen to regulate ink flow.

It's more like replacing a printing press with desktop publishing. It's all about WYSIWYG. Arguments that EVF are relatively slow, are similar to arguments that digital is relatively low resolution; Moore's law will take care of that. OVF are now at their peak in terms of reliability and refinement -- but so are turntable cartridges. It's called plateau after obsolescence.

[Clavius]

It's more like replacing a printing press with desktop publishing. It's all about WYSIWYG. Arguments that EVF are relatively slow, are similar to arguments that digital is relatively low resolution; Moore's law will take care of that.

Yep, time will take care of that... But we'll be dead by then. EVF is just to bad on many points, and not only at speed and resolution.

- Laggy, as mentioned.

- When battery reach ~75% the laggy screen gets even more laggyer.

- No matter how much development is put in this, the speed will never ever be able to surpass the speed of the OVF. OVF = speed of light. EVF can never be realtime.

- Resolution can never match that of the OVF. The real image has infinitely higher resolution then any EVF. Even it would have 9 gigapixels.

- IR, UV and FP photography is impossible with cameras without OVF. Well it's possible, but the viewfinder will be black.

- It eats batteries like there's no tomorrow. My NEX5N only got around 70 shots max on a full charge. It could do more after that, but the screen gets so laggy after that, that it's not funny any more.

- And if you think the oilpainting-like screen of a EVF is WYSIWYG, then you have different eyes then I, my friend. It's like looking at a live HDR screen. Maybe that's why the biggest fan of the EVF, Trey Ratclif, is only capable of producing very ugly untastful HDR images.

- No phase detection autofocus! Yikes! The NEX5N for example took forever to AF.

- Sensor overheating issues. Moore's law can't really take care of that. Maybe we should put some active cooling in? I believe there is some room for a fan or peltier cooling where the mirror used to be.

OVF are now at their peak in terms of reliability and refinement -- but so are turntable cartridges. It's called plateau after obsolescence.

That could be the case... If it were true. New materials and technologies are constantly being developed. You don't know what new developments are right around the corner.

A new material that makes semi-transparant sensors possible already exists. Moore's law will make the EVF absolete, when we use our mirrorless cameras with OVF, looking through the sensor and the lens. And DLP technology also promises lots of improvement possibilities for OVF's. So no, the plateau hasn't been reached yet.

Rant over! Now I'm going to do some FP astrography shots in my backyard, while I still can.