Originally posted by Laurentiu Cristofor ... It's spelled "keen", not "kin". And he's not keen on that idea - you are - you're doing a
loaded question and a
strawman argument at the same time. Not nice ...
Regarding the spelling mistake ... what would I do without you?
Thank you for teaching me so much! Now, I can sleep at night ...
As for the second part, no idea how you come up to that conclusion ... but I'll leave it at that since there is no point to argue on semantics. In the end each person can interpret things differently, I guess.
I asked the question based on how he defends his position. EVF this, EVF that. I can only guess that he is assuming that our opinion is not based on experience as well. Yes, I have played with old and modern EVFs and yes, I know how good they are
for me. And contrary to what Apple might of said, I DO KNOW what I want, based on what is being offered.
From what I see, my point of view and how I perceived the discussions until now, there are basically 2 arguments and 1 confusion ...
First argument, is that you cannot compose (in low light conditions) with an OVF just as well and just as fast with an EVF. That is false and history and thousands of photographers that used OVFs can prove this, time and time again in all kind of situations. True now, some can do better or faster than others ...
I am even willing to have a meet and prove that I can do it without a problem. From P&S film with tiny window to modern DSLR.
As for the
second argument you guys are saying that we are opposing "the new" and we are bound to use what we are used with and so on ...
I don't know about the others, but I am very opened to new technology ideas and I am more than welcome to embrace the change ... as long the new is better than the old, for me!
The fact that some of us still prefers OVF over the EVF doesn't mean that we are opposed to technology and new innovations.
Is just that basically, right now, today, this year (not a "presumably feature" - I know, hard to digest that one), an OVF is still a better tool basically ... for us at least.
Except the the fact that an EVF makes your image brighter in low light conditions and that it allows to have cameras without mirrors ... I see no other benefits.
And for
the confusion ... while an LCD screen might be an essence quite similar with an EVF, you do not look at both in the same way ... nor do both have the same quality (as of today). So for me, and LCD screen and EVF are 2 different things. I'd rather use an LCD screen than an EVF.
You look at the LCD screen at a bigger distance (arms-length) and that is more easier and pleasing to the eye. Is harder if not impossible to notice the pixels. Image appears smooth with clean straight lines (on a good LCD screen).
You look trough the EVF at a screen with artificial light mm away from your eye. I don't know about others, but personally, after a while my eyes are getting tired because of the light and because I can clearly see those damn pixels. Image is pix-elated and the closer a screen is to the eye, the better you see the pixels - at least this is true for me.
So, as a conclusion, based on my experience, as of today, in this order, I prefer: OVF, LCD screen and lastly, EVF.
That being said, all 3 offers a way to compose, focus and take your picture
.
Whatever works for you, use it!!!
However, stop assuming that if you cannot get good results with one of them, doesn't mean that others cannot and thus, what you like and use is the ultimate thing.
From my point of view, let them all be on the market, don't close your options and use whatever suits you best!
Now I didn't spelled checked this ... so if I did any mistakes, I apologize so please, do refrain from being a "Grammar Nazi" cus is just such a weak come back ...
Thanks!