Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
01-20-2013, 06:04 AM   #166
Pentaxian




Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Romania
Posts: 15,132
QuoteOriginally posted by Ash Quote
Laurentiu, this thread is not titled aggressively.
Inviting discussions about "Pros and cons" of both EVFs and OVFs, it definitely isn't; and I can't understand how it could be seen this way.

I have nothing with people's liking of EVFs, I'm only defending my own preference (by pointing out there are reasons to want an OVF) and I want my company of choice to continue (and speed up, now that we're talking about Pentax Ricoh and not Hoya) developing the product lines I'm interested in. With a market exceeding several times that of MILCs (and much more so the EVF MILC market, since most of them are viewfinderless), I'm not worried that my choice will disappear anytime soon, nor that it would become a niche.
People liking EVFs already have multiple choices, why does it have to be Pentax? There is an obvious solution which would make all of us happy.

From a technical point of view, we made some good points favoring the OVFs and against some OVF perceived disadvantages, which again are not meant to persuade anyone to forget about EVFs. Some of our arguments were not-so-nicely rejected, some were down to individual workflows (e.g. using OVF in the dark with vs. without dark adaptation). No matter how strong the denial, there are still many reasons to like OVF better, even if their importance varies from person to person.

About higher than 24fps movie - 48 fps is only the beginning; there are talks about 60fps and even 120fps. Why is that? I found the motion blur on the 24fps Hobbit disturbing at times (our eyes don't have motion blur, do they?), and the 48fps version much better (IMAX vs. "normal", yes, I saw both versions), this was confirmed by others. Is our experience something to be ridiculed, like it was done?
On the old CRTs, a less than 80Hz refresh rate is definitely noticeable, by the way; even now, some people are complaining about PWM LED flickering. Having a miniature TV just centimeters away from your eyes can be tiring, for some people (others might have no issue). Some people are calling WYSIWYG something which IMHO is nothing like the end result. Why can't we accept that YMMV?

I do not think an EVF I would enjoy using would appear faster than 5 years. I'm only guesstrapolating, but it is difficult to improve all EVF basic characteristics; higher resolution requires higher bandwidth, low light refresh speed depends on the sensors (which are already incredibly efficient), there's no amazing display technology on the sight, to alleviate the "miniature TV few cm from your eye" feeling. In other words: incremental improvements (which BTW are fine, if you already like current EVFs).
So, I see no point to assume dramatic EVF improvement which are nowhere to be seen, in this thread. We would compare real products with speculation and guessing, which isn't really fair.

01-20-2013, 09:42 AM   #167
Veteran Member
audiobomber's Avatar

Join Date: May 2008
Location: Sudbury, Ontario
Photos: Albums
Posts: 6,806
QuoteOriginally posted by Ash Quote
Or perhaps it should more accurately be TTS (through the sensor)?
I think TTC is more accurate. Viewfinders reflect the camera settings (WB, Image Tone, etc) in the screen. If I set the camera for Monochrome for example, that's what I see in the VF, but the sensor is seeing full colour.
01-20-2013, 12:44 PM   #168
Ash
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter
Ash's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Toowoomba, Queensland
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 23,920
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by audiobomber Quote
I think TTC is more accurate. Viewfinders reflect the camera settings (WB, Image Tone, etc) in the screen. If I set the camera for Monochrome for example, that's what I see in the VF, but the sensor is seeing full colour.
TTC it is, then, for MILCs as opposed to TTL for dSLRs. (TM) by Ash.

Indeed, a TV screen can cause eye strain. Having one relatively close to the eye looking through a glass darkly, so to speak, would have a similar effect if having to use it for long periods of time. But I think this is a minor issue compared with the current technology refresh rate/lag and resolution. More importantly, personal preference plays an important part in deciding over the two formats. The virtues of EVF have to at least be beneficial over those of the OVF for a practical advantage to a photographer before it is worth going for. Clearly, each person's preferences (and tolerances) are different, and as such there will always be a market for both formats.

To satisfy both customer groups, both EVF and OVF should be available in future products, but I believe Pentax chiefs have the right idea in focusing their flagship developments with dSLR technology, whilst keeping MILCs (with EVFs) for more casual photographers.
01-20-2013, 05:03 PM   #169
Veteran Member
JinDesu's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: New York City
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 5,638
Tried the EM-5 today, on High Refresh rate mode. Much better performance than the A99 while panning, but still not great for me. There is some odd blur that just feels unreal. While playing with several different EVFs in the store, I noticed a few flaws (for me, anyways).

1) The EVF has a limited dynamic range. The over-bright areas were just blown out completely, and I couldn't figure out what I was looking at in those areas. The too dark areas, which my eyes could see naturally, were just dark.
2) The constantly changing exposure in the screen. There must be a way to lock it, right? For me, pointing the camera at a guy in a black shirt instantly turned everything else into a blooming bright mess. I understand that it prevents me from incorrectly exposing the scene, but I've used my DSLR long enough that I don't have that issue (exposure meter).
3) The resolution on the A99 is the best - the EM5 was kinda meh. The problem is that whenever there was fine patterns, it came up looking really bad. This includes clothing, any sort of stacks of stuff, or even just distant details.

Those are the items that stuck in my mind. If the A99 and the EM5 are the best of the bunch right now, they still have a long way to go.

On a side note - the A99 with the Zeiss 50 1.4 in the store performs so sexy.

01-20-2013, 11:38 PM   #170
Banned




Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: WA
Photos: Albums
Posts: 3,055
QuoteOriginally posted by Ash Quote
Some, as you and Clavius, see EVF as the way of the future - it permits focus peaking, 'TTC' (through the camera) review of a scene in almost real time (this will surely improve with the technology) and 'improved' night vision (but at the cost of a slow/grainier image).
That part is just false. The frame rate does not slow down in low light and it only gets grainy in situations where an OVF would show nothing at all. This is just another example of a biased statement.

QuoteOriginally posted by Ash Quote
If 100, 200, 600Hz were so irrelevant as refresh rates, why would TV technology be implemting them?
Because the size/resolution of TVs keeps increasing but the viewing distance remains the same. Look at the size of your OVF and then look at the size of those TVs. Are you sitting far enough from them that they look as large as an OVF and in that case can you see much difference between those different refresh rates at such distance? Turn your head fast - how many frames can you observe during such movement?

QuoteOriginally posted by Ash Quote
I don't believe this is an accurate picture of the scenario, since OVF technology in itself can be advanced to much greater levels and has advantages over EVF that aren't made obsolete by EVF.
Wow, this is really an interesting statement - can you elaborate on it - in what ways can OVF technology "be advanced to much greater levels"? It's been around for over half a century now and it only worsened after the introduction of autofocus. Why would it get better now?

QuoteOriginally posted by JinDesu Quote
Tried the EM-5 today, on High Refresh rate mode. Much better performance than the A99 while panning, but still not great for me. There is some odd blur that just feels unreal. While playing with several different EVFs in the store, I noticed a few flaws (for me, anyways).

1) The EVF has a limited dynamic range. The over-bright areas were just blown out completely, and I couldn't figure out what I was looking at in those areas. The too dark areas, which my eyes could see naturally, were just dark.
Well, do you prefer to see the over/underexposure in your shot or before you take it? For exposure evaluation, I use the blinkies - those tell you exactly what gets overexposed or underexposed, so you don't have to guess - use the Info button to cycle to that mode. And if the exposure is off, the front wheel allows me to adjust it to where I can see everything (in Av mode, which is what I use most of the time).

QuoteOriginally posted by JinDesu Quote
2) The constantly changing exposure in the screen. There must be a way to lock it, right?
Yes, you can use the exposure lock button, as you do on your SLR. The exposure changes because that's what the camera does all the time - it adjusts the exposure - you cannot see that in the OVF because, well, because it's just an OVF. But the EVF shows you what the camera does at each moment. I see that as an advantage.

QuoteOriginally posted by JinDesu Quote
3) The resolution on the A99 is the best - the EM5 was kinda meh. The problem is that whenever there was fine patterns, it came up looking really bad. This includes clothing, any sort of stacks of stuff, or even just distant details.
That was my impression too, with the implementation on the NEX-6. The resolution of the E-M5 is fine for me - I can focus manually without zooming in and with the zoom in feature I can do very precise focusing. If you use AF, I am not even sure what you need high resolution for.

EVFs will keep improving, but the ones we have today are already good enough to satisfy the needs of 95% of DSLR users. 80% would probably not even need a VF if they had a decent implementation of LiveView and a lighter camera.
01-21-2013, 05:23 AM   #171
Veteran Member
JinDesu's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: New York City
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 5,638
QuoteOriginally posted by Laurentiu Cristofor Quote
Well, do you prefer to see the over/underexposure in your shot or before you take it? For exposure evaluation, I use the blinkies - those tell you exactly what gets overexposed or underexposed, so you don't have to guess - use the Info button to cycle to that mode. And if the exposure is off, the front wheel allows me to adjust it to where I can see everything (in Av mode, which is what I use most of the time).
Again - as a user of an OVF for the last 2 years (yes, I haven't shot for that long), I know when there's over or under exposure. My little exposure meter in my viewfinder tells me that, and my experience in using spot metering and recognizing bright and dark areas ensures that I almost always shoot properly exposed. As far as the blinkies go - it's distracting enough on my live view screen when using it on my k-x, I'd rather not have something that annoying in my viewfinder.

To be clear: having used my k-x for long enough, I know what's going to be overexposed, underexposed, properly exposed based on a quick glance at my exposure meter and just looking at the scene.

QuoteQuote:
Yes, you can use the exposure lock button, as you do on your SLR. The exposure changes because that's what the camera does all the time - it adjusts the exposure - you cannot see that in the OVF because, well, because it's just an OVF. But the EVF shows you what the camera does at each moment. I see that as an advantage.
The main issue here is that because the camera can't match the DR my eye sees, it changes exposure where my eyes wouldn't need to. The only issue I can see with using exposure locking to avoid the annoying shifting in brightness is that it affects the image being taken - the image will be taken with the exposure lock. Perhaps it's because I'm so used to shooting with an OVF where nothing distracting happens in the viewfinder, and I know what exposure I want to achieve based on the meter.

QuoteQuote:
That was my impression too, with the implementation on the NEX-6. The resolution of the E-M5 is fine for me - I can focus manually without zooming in and with the zoom in feature I can do very precise focusing. If you use AF, I am not even sure what you need high resolution for.
The cool thing about the EVF and the higher resolution was that peaking was very nice in the viewfinder. But even with AF, I'd want high resolution to just make the image in the viewfinder look nice. I tried a few of the older EVFs and they look really ugly with the lower resolution. Perhaps not a practical issue, but it certainly wasn't enjoyable to use.

QuoteQuote:
EVFs will keep improving, but the ones we have today are already good enough to satisfy the needs of 95% of DSLR users. 80% would probably not even need a VF if they had a decent implementation of LiveView and a lighter camera.
The way I see it is that if they improve resolution by the same difference between the A99 and the previous generation, and they all get the high refresh rate, then it's going to be quite comparable to OVF. The exposure and dynamic range issues will still remain, but most users don't care about that - as far as I can see. It's just a personal thing; I dislike distracting things happening across my view in the viewfinder.
01-21-2013, 05:45 AM   #172
Pentaxian




Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Romania
Posts: 15,132
QuoteOriginally posted by Laurentiu Cristofor Quote
EVFs will keep improving, but the ones we have today are already good enough to satisfy the needs of 95% of DSLR users. 80% would probably not even need a VF if they had a decent implementation of LiveView and a lighter camera.
87.54% of all statistics are made up on the spot

The human eye can see incredibly well in low light, if adapted to darkness. I already talked about seeing DSOs through the K-5's optical viewfinder, while the LCD could only show the brightest stars (very useful for precise focusing).
IMHO seeing is not an issue, however there is an interval when focusing is much easier with LV/EVF.

01-21-2013, 01:07 PM   #173
Ash
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter
Ash's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Toowoomba, Queensland
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 23,920
Original Poster
There isn't anything wrong with EVF technology in itself, only the current level of technology is a let down of what EVF can become - it will indeed take many years for this to improve. I doubt that most users, particularly enthusiasts, would be satisfied with the current generation's EVF resolution and refresh rates, and i would also think that a good proportion of them dislike a TV screen of a depiction of what they will approximately get as a photo result. But if low-light shooting is an issue, the AF system would be the biggest barrier, not our eyesight in framing a low light scene. Dark scenes can quite well be composed with our ability to adapt to the dark, and the VF isn't a significant limitation in these circumstances since mostly photographers are capturing a static subject for an extended exposure time.

Where OVF has developed has been in the ease and detail given in its digital readout display, and since AF there has been a shift away from split focusing screens to allow for accurate manual focusing. This may be perceived as a downgrade, but the modern user in seeking a more automated focusing system, would prefer to rely on the camera making the accurate judgement as to whether their subject is is focus rather than relying on their eye to judge it through a VF. the pentaprism VF is not what I suggested would 'improve' as it is not itself dependent on technology, but the utility of its display features on screen with focusing accuracy and reliability.as such, I don't believe the OVF has been worsening with time.
01-21-2013, 01:58 PM   #174
Banned




Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: WA
Photos: Albums
Posts: 3,055
QuoteOriginally posted by Ash Quote
But if low-light shooting is an issue, the AF system would be the biggest barrier, not our eyesight in framing a low light scene.
The only reason why we are discussing viewfinder use in low light is because a few pages back audiobomber made a claim and that claim had nothing to do with focusing:

QuoteOriginally posted by audiobomber Quote
AFAIK, it is pretty universally accepted that an OVF is far superior to an EVF in dim light. In low light an EVF gets even grainier than in good light, and has trouble refreshing. I don't know what these guys are talking about.
QuoteOriginally posted by Ash Quote
Where OVF has developed has been in the ease and detail given in its digital readout display, and since AF there has been a shift away from split focusing screens to allow for accurate manual focusing.
So the OVF improvements that you were mentioning were all in the area of digital display. That helps, but that is also something that can be done much better on an EVF, particularly in terms of display customization. I would say that OVFs are a stale technology - there has been no improvement since film era and no improvement is in the works either. And we know what happens to stale things in general.
01-22-2013, 01:12 PM   #175
Ash
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter
Ash's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Toowoomba, Queensland
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 23,920
Original Poster
There must be a practical advantage to new technology or the new technology will itself not succeed in replacing the older established technology. The reason there aren't advances on an OVF viewfinder display is simple: there isn't anything to advance on an optical real-time display (within the OVF format). The size of the display is the biggest determinant of the advancement of the OVF, which is increased with larger format (FF vs APS-C).
01-22-2013, 09:15 PM   #176
Banned




Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: WA
Photos: Albums
Posts: 3,055
QuoteOriginally posted by Ash Quote
There must be a practical advantage to new technology or the new technology will itself not succeed in replacing the older established technology.
And we've covered the practical advantages of EVFs over the previous pages.

BTW, one other nice example of an advantage was recently provided to me by a friend who got a NEX-6. He's using a phone app to change his phone into a viewfinder for taking group shots.

QuoteOriginally posted by Ash Quote
The reason there aren't advances on an OVF viewfinder display is simple: there isn't anything to advance on an optical real-time display (within the OVF format). The size of the display is the biggest determinant of the advancement of the OVF, which is increased with larger format (FF vs APS-C).
Yes, but here the EVF has another advantage in that its size is not restricted by format, only by the resolution of the sensor. You can project what your camera sees on whatever device you want.


It's hard not to draw a parallel with the film vs digital debates. Until 5 years ago people would still feverishly discuss the advantage of film over digital - the wider DR, the realistic colors, whatever - much like the arguments we've seen here for OVFs. One could also say - why can't we have both, side by side, tools for all preferences? Sure, but it didn't work that way for film, so why would that work for OVFs and SLRs? All the arguments made for OVFs were made for film and it's not like they were not valid - it is just that their importance kept decreasing in time until they pretty much became irrelevant. And that is exactly what will happen with SLRs and their OVFs - they will be made irrelevant. It took about a decade for digital to kill film once consumer DSLRs started to appear. I expect about the same for MILCs vs SLRs - we're about midway now - MFT will be 5 years old this August (it's amazing how much happened in just 5 years), so 2018 will be the 10 year anniversary and I rounded that up to 2020, because that's the hindsight people will have on this issue then.
01-22-2013, 09:25 PM   #177
Veteran Member




Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 4,873
QuoteOriginally posted by Laurentiu Cristofor Quote
All the arguments made for OVFs were made for film and it's not like they were not valid - it is just that their importance kept decreasing in time until they pretty much became irrelevant. And that is exactly what will happen with SLRs and their OVFs - they will be made irrelevant.
Eventually SLR's will be a dying breed, I agree. I still think it's quite a ways off in the advanced amateur and up categories, as the advantages:disadvantages for digital:film is much greater than EVF:OVF right now. Digital went gangbusters four years after introduction. What do you consider EVF... live view has been around for at least 7 years and it's still not capturing the advanced amateur category.
01-23-2013, 01:33 AM   #178
Pentaxian




Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Romania
Posts: 15,132
QuoteOriginally posted by Laurentiu Cristofor Quote
Yes, but here the EVF has another advantage in that its size is not restricted by format, only by the resolution of the sensor.
This is an advantage only for smaller formats (i.e. 4/3 and APS-C); it also means we won't necessarily get better viewfinders, as the sensor size increases.
WiFi tethering can be easily implemented on a DSLR, in Live View mode.

QuoteOriginally posted by Laurentiu Cristofor Quote
It's hard not to draw a parallel with the film vs digital debates. Until 5 years ago people would still feverishly discuss the advantage of film over digital - the wider DR, the realistic colors, whatever - much like the arguments we've seen here for OVFs. One could also say - why can't we have both, side by side, tools for all preferences? Sure, but it didn't work that way for film, so why would that work for OVFs and SLRs? All the arguments made for OVFs were made for film and it's not like they were not valid - it is just that their importance kept decreasing in time until they pretty much became irrelevant. And that is exactly what will happen with SLRs and their OVFs - they will be made irrelevant. It took about a decade for digital to kill film once consumer DSLRs started to appear. I expect about the same for MILCs vs SLRs - we're about midway now - MFT will be 5 years old this August (it's amazing how much happened in just 5 years), so 2018 will be the 10 year anniversary and I rounded that up to 2020, because that's the hindsight people will have on this issue then.
I don't think drawing a parallel film vs digital is a pertinent approach; of course, it helps to draw parallels with technologies which were replaced The single most important advantage of the digital, by the way, was the ability to get immediate results. OTOH, the EVF adds lag - good luck with your parallel

Are you saying the OVFs should or will be phased out soon, because "it didn't work that way on film", even if the DSLRs are vastly outnumbering the EVF-equipped MILCs, probably by more than 10:1?

Yes, yes, I know, the EVFs just need more time, and then, they'll take over the world. Sounds like the Pinky and the Brain, even the fatal flaws which goes uncorrected
It's already how many years, since the first EVF consumer cameras were launched?
01-23-2013, 04:31 AM   #179
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter




Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Gladys, Virginia
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 27,606
The goal of an EVF is to be as good and as comfortable in use as a good OVF. Some day it will be there, but currently it isn't.
01-23-2013, 11:44 AM   #180
Pentaxian




Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Romania
Posts: 15,132
This is the viewfinder I saw at Photokina (Japanese):
http://dc.watch.impress.co.jp/docs/news/20130123_584720.html
It has 1024*768*3 (R, G and B), totaling 2.36 million subpixels. Unlike the current OM-D's viewfinder (which was available for a direct comparison), it manages to look as good as a cheap TN monitor

The EVFs are evolving. Slowly.
Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
crappy, evf, home, ovf, photo industry, photography, pros and cons, screen, viewfinders
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
K-5 IIs -- The Pros and Cons of Omitting an AA-Filter Class A Pentax DSLR Discussion 114 12-18-2012 10:22 PM
From K20D to 645D, Pros and Cons. Reportage Pentax DSLR Discussion 12 11-10-2010 03:13 PM
Decision: Pentax K10D, K20D, or K7? Pros and cons? Lulerfly Pentax DSLR Discussion 32 11-04-2010 09:14 AM
Limited edition prints - pros and cons? Wombat Photographic Industry and Professionals 5 07-30-2009 04:09 PM
Pros and cons of the Pentax KM/2000 lesmore49 Pentax DSLR Discussion 109 05-01-2009 11:51 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 06:08 AM. | See also: NikonForums.com, CanonForums.com part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top