Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
01-10-2013, 04:08 PM   #31
Veteran Member
Laurentiu Cristofor's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: WA
Photos: Albums
Posts: 3,044
QuoteOriginally posted by Ash Quote
And as you attest, it may make certain work a little easier, but doesn't change the fundamentals of good photography, which OVF is no hinderance to.
Were rangefinders a hindrance to good photography? Or film? If your argument doesn't work for those, why do you think it holds water for OVFs?

QuoteOriginally posted by Ash Quote
240fps is pretty close to being perceptually close to reality.
Well, 24fps (much less than even the default 60fps rate of the E-M5) is what is used for movies and nobody is complaining about the action being choppy. All I hear is how "realistic" movies are these days.

QuoteOriginally posted by Ash Quote
I wonder if that's the same expectation for doctors, nurses and laboratory workers - develop gadgets and machines to do the work instead of acquiring the necessary analytic and technical skills to master their vocation.
If you could teleport one of the doctors of today, which are aided by nurses and advanced equipment, to a battlefield of WWI, do you think they would be as effective as the doctors of those days?

Skills get lost in all fields, no matter how dependent those fields are on human intellect. Take programming, for example. In the beginning, everyone knew low level code and assembly languages. Once high level languages and compilers were designed, the knowledge of low level machine language became sparse.

Do you think a digital camera engineer today is still able to build a manual film camera like my Kodak Retina Automatic III, which uses no batteries, yet can operate in Tv mode?

Technology allows you to focus more on the goals than on the details of achieving them. How many photographers today can judge exposure by eye? Most depend on the metering of their cameras.

QuoteOriginally posted by Ash Quote
Whilst photography is no life-or-death craft, your statement assumes technical and experiential skill of the photographer can take a back seat to more sophisticated gear which will do the thinking for them.

Good luck with that.
No such luck is needed. Metering and focusing are already allowing people to take images without the skills of judging exposure or manually focusing. It happened. You just don't seem to have processed these events yet.

QuoteOriginally posted by Ash Quote
There's an intuitive aspect to the creation of a work of photographic art, just as there is to the diagnostic and practical skills of a good health care worker. Letting smarter machines to do the analytic work for the practitioner leaves little room for human intuition, which has proven invaluable (as fallible as it can be).
The point is that in photography, you can do all that "creative/intuitive/whatever-you-want-to-call-it" work in post processing and the actual capture of an image is requiring less and less skill.

QuoteOriginally posted by Ash Quote
Again, experiential learning of the craft no longer needs guess work - all exposure settings are calculated based on knowledge and desired personal effect.
I do not understand what you are trying to say here. You seem to imply that all photographers work in manual mode and select settings fully aware of their result for a given scene - is that it?

QuoteOriginally posted by Ash Quote
Saying that an EVF greatly improves productivity says more about the photographer than it does about the camera (this forum has a long history of discussions and debates on whether the gear makes the photographer)
Perhaps those discussions say more about the importance that photographers attribute to their gear than about the importance their gear actually has? Photographers in general seem to lack intellectual honesty on this topic. On one hand they dismiss their equipment as being unimportant, on the other hand they dismiss any other brand of equipment than theirs as not being up to the job. They cannot eat their pie and keep it as well. But for some reason, this field of photography seems to involve a lot of delusions.

QuoteOriginally posted by Ash Quote
I don't get it. Pentax OVFs have been just fine to date. Professionals use the K-5, K-7, K20D, K10D and have had no problems getting the results they needed with them through the so terrible OVFs.
I doubt that they had no problems. They had no better alternatives and they couldn't think of any, so they had no reason to complain. But saying that they had no problems is disingenuous. One could say the same for the rangefinders (used by such iconic photographers as HCB), and yet they were displaced in the market by SLRs.

QuoteOriginally posted by Ash Quote
Even the K-x and K-r VFs are fine to compose and shoot through. I can't see the difficulty you claim there is with APS-C VFs. The APS-C matte display may not be as big and bright as an old FF VF, but it sure isn't blurry to my eyes, and I've had no issues with critical focusing.
Try focusing at wide apertures on the K-x. Then again, like you said, maybe this says more about you than about the camera - I hope you see that this kind of argument can work both ways.

QuoteOriginally posted by Ash Quote
Your negativity is becoming a joke now.
Try to stick to arguments and leave the speculations outside the discussion. You're a moderator, you should know better.

QuoteOriginally posted by Ash Quote
Now that's just laughable.
Should I also qualify your statements?

QuoteOriginally posted by Ash Quote
What we don't seem to have a shortage of is the same naysaying that ostentatiously critical members here have been vocalising from day 1.
Are you saying that is the kind of member that I am? That is insulting.

I was vocally supportive of the K-7 against the critics of that camera. I was also vocally supportive of the Q against the critics of that system. I was indeed vocally critical of the K-01 - but Ricoh/Pentax have discontinued that camera, so maybe I had a point there. I cannot say I am critical about Ricoh yet because they have not yet made their plans clear. So how exactly am I "ostentatiously critical" in general? My views over the years have been balanced. You may not agree with my predictions, but stating that is all you need to do. I haven't qualified your statements, so try to not qualify mine, or we'll fail to get anywhere.

01-10-2013, 04:10 PM   #32
Site Supporter
Site Supporter




Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Gladys, Virginia
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 19,445
QuoteOriginally posted by Ash Quote
I started the thread to tease out the thinking behind the EVF hype, and as many SLR users have been in the past, they are generally pleased with what a good OVF offers them in framing and composing an image. If there is any practical advantage in an EVF, it is hard to appreciate, since I can't think of a photograph that cannot be taken with a good OVF that can be taken with an EVF.
Well, I think the biggest advantage is the ability to "chimp on the fly." That is to say, you can see you EV adjustments, etc in your viewfinder, whereas, with an OVF, you see a light or dark image and have to trust your light meter to make proper adjustments to get a proper exposure. This isn't a make or break thing. I will chimp a shot or two initially to see that I am getting the right exposure, but once I am going, I don't really do it very much.

Clearly, the actual photo is taken by the sensor and so as long as the framing and exposure are the same, it makes not a lick of difference what type of viewfinder you are using in the end.
01-10-2013, 04:33 PM   #33
Pentaxian




Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Romania
Posts: 11,499
QuoteOriginally posted by Laurentiu Cristofor Quote
Well, 24fps (much less than even the default 60fps rate of the E-M5) is what is used for movies and nobody is complaining about the action being choppy. All I hear is how "realistic" movies are these days.
Guess what - I complained quite recently about this (the image was not choppy, but blurry). And I wasn't the only one who saw the same thing...
01-10-2013, 04:45 PM   #34
Ash
Community Manager
Ash's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Toowoomba, Queensland
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 23,291
Original Poster
I like LED lighting, it's crisp, punchy, energy efficient and amazingly responsive.
But even the most expensive LED lighting exhibits perceptible flicker, and has such a poor angle of dispersion compared to either halogen or incandescent lighting. I find it irritating to be under, especially when the flickering becomes more prominent, and photographing with such lighting as the primary source of light needs quite expensive gear to make happen.

Halogen lighting is probably the best of both worlds, but needs more power than what the incandescent equivalent indicates to get adequate brightness, therefore not being quite as energy efficient as marketed.

So as with these forms of lighting, there are pros and cons just as it with with EVF and OVF. I don't see the technology in the EVF bringing us to the point of canning OVF quite yet, as I note with LED and halogen/incandescent lighting.

01-10-2013, 11:29 PM   #35
Veteran Member
Emacs's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Moscow
Posts: 1,223
Dudes make multiple wrong assumptions here. Photography is not an reality. EVF resembles the final result much more precise than OVF. And thus it's much preferable piece, especially over the crap APS-C OVFs.
01-11-2013, 12:40 AM   #36
Pentaxian




Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Romania
Posts: 11,499
We don't have the right to our own opinion?
Please name one electronic viewfinder able to show a comparable image to a calibrated quality monitor. The only one I saw that was getting close to an uncalibrated cheap monitor was the next generation Epson, displayed at Photokina.
01-11-2013, 01:49 AM - 2 Likes   #37
Pentaxian
Clavius's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: De Klundert
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 4,103
As photographer, I don't care what my eye sees through the VF during the shooting. Photography is not about the experience I get whilst looking through the finder'. (That's what binoculars are for.) Because the next day, I won't remember what the VF showed. And when the pictures are up on my wall, or with my client, nobody will care how my VF experience was. The only task of the VF is to help me interpret what the output is going to look like as closely as possible. Where the focus is, what DOF I get, what my current WB/sharpness/inbody filter/-settings wil look like. That is how a viewfinder helps you shoot better pictures. Not by -at best- relaying the exact image that is in front of the camera, because I can just see that without my camera. It is clear that even the crappiest EVF's do a better job at this, then the OVF.

But those are only the direct pros of the EVF vs the OVF. The most important pro of the EVF is indirect though!

The biggest indirect advantage that the EVF has over the OVF, is the possibility of removing all the mechanical components to make that OVF work. Without the prism, mirror and mirrorbox all lights turn green for much shorter registry distances and a new mount. As a photographer, the prospect of being able to mount ultra high quality glass alone, is enough for me to want mirrorless with EVF.

Alternatively, Pentax could work on bringing back 3rd party mount support from the ultra high quality lens manufacturers. The biggest clue for the ever smaller demand for K-mount glass is the 3rd party lens manufacturers not being interested in K-mount anymore. I don't think there would be much demand left for EVF/mirrorless and new mounts if that was solved. Bringing back that 3rd party lens support requires the K-mount to be interesting again to those manufacturers though, so Pentax would have to expand their userbase with lots of new users. Back to square one. Breaking out of that downward spiral and changing it into upward is very hard to do without kicking up dust.

I think that's really all what this discussion is about. And why it always turns into a heated discussion: People heavily invested in K-mount being afraid of it's declining support, and the others only seeing the solution for Pentax without that K-mount. Any inovation that makes a new mount possible is always automatically discreted by the heavily invested userbase. No matter how many advantages that inovation has. If they would only be honest about that, then the discussion would be much more open and productive.

Last edited by Clavius; 01-11-2013 at 03:20 AM.
01-11-2013, 02:53 AM   #38
Pentaxian
gazonk's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Oslo area, Norway
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 3,541
QuoteOriginally posted by Clavius Quote
The biggest indirect advantage that the EVF has over the OVF, is the possibility of removing all the mechanical components to make that OVF work. Without the prism, mirror and mirrorbox all lights turn green for much shorter registry distances and a new mount. As a photographer, the prospect of being able to mount ultra high quality glass alone, is enough for me to want mirrorless with EVF.
Not all Leica lenses are working well on digital bodies, are they?

The short registration distance meme makes people forget that Olympus actually had a valid point about telecentricity with their original 4/3 mount...

01-11-2013, 01:01 PM   #39
Veteran Member
Laurentiu Cristofor's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: WA
Photos: Albums
Posts: 3,044
QuoteOriginally posted by gazonk Quote
Not all Leica lenses are working well on digital bodies, are they?
The Ricoh GXR was doing a particularly good job with Leica lenses. So Ricoh does have an advantage here that they can exploit.
01-11-2013, 08:12 PM   #40
Pentaxian
johnmflores's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Somerville, NJ
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 5,287
OVFs are still the best at realistic image quality, but I like being able to see in shot in black and white, high key or low key as desired, and in the format (1:1, 4:3, 16:9) that I happen to want at the time. I also like to zoom in for manual focus and focus peaking. So I'll take the lower IQ of EVFs for these reasons, because they'll help me get the shot that I want, the image that I have in my mind's eye.

That's what I like at least. Your mileage may vary. As a matter of fact, it probably will.
01-12-2013, 05:58 AM   #41
Ash
Community Manager
Ash's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Toowoomba, Queensland
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 23,291
Original Poster
We see life in colour and available light, and OVF portrays this. EVF allows the photographer to 'see' beyond this and this suits some. Shooting RAW, however, means the resultant image will reflect more of the natural scene being framed. Exposure settings only determine the DoF and total light hitting the sensor, which the photographer must appreciate to get their intended result. It's all a matter of preference, but with RAW, there isn't much to gain from EVF in light of this.
01-12-2013, 07:13 AM   #42
Pentaxian




Join Date: Nov 2011
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 3,995
QuoteOriginally posted by Ash Quote
For those looking to continue the discussion on EVFs and OVFs, here it is: https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/general-photography-industry/211471-pros-cons-evf-ovf.html

So now we can move onto discussion of what Ricoh will be up to this year in this thread...
QuoteOriginally posted by Laurentiu Cristofor Quote
The Ricoh GXR was doing a particularly good job with Leica lenses. So Ricoh does have an advantage here that they can exploit.
Laur, this is meant to be a thread discussing EVF versus OVF.
Are you trying to make it about Ricoh cameras?
01-12-2013, 11:05 AM   #43
Veteran Member
Laurentiu Cristofor's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: WA
Photos: Albums
Posts: 3,044
QuoteOriginally posted by lytrytyr Quote
Laur, this is meant to be a thread discussing EVF versus OVF.
Are you trying to make it about Ricoh cameras?
I just reply to what people say, so don't blame me for where the discussion goes. I am not trying to control its flow.
01-13-2013, 01:58 PM   #44
Junior Member




Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Turku, Finland
Posts: 42
I'd take the Sony A77 viewfinder over an APS-C ovf any day of the week. I have not read too much griping about the Oly OM-D evf either.

APS-C viewfinders are just too small. I use the magnifying eyecup and a Canon Ees focusing screen and while those help manually focusing is still quite often a pain especially with shorter focal lenghts (28mm and wider in my case). Bigger view and focus peaking, please.
01-13-2013, 03:27 PM   #45
Ash
Community Manager
Ash's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Toowoomba, Queensland
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 23,291
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by Laurentiu Cristofor Quote
No such luck is needed. Metering and focusing are already allowing people to take images without the skills of judging exposure or manually focusing. It happened. You just don't seem to have processed these events yet
Fast-paced photography or once-in-a-lifetime shooting in tough lighting conditions will separate the men from the boys. Being under pressure will make the experienced rely on their experience, and the underexperienced spray and pray.

QuoteOriginally posted by Laurentiu Cristofor Quote
You seem to imply that all photographers work in manual mode and select settings fully aware of their result for a given scene - is that it?
No, don't assume I'm referring to a purist all-or-nothing way of shooting. Of course Av and Tv modes assist the photographer in metering. And of course metering is technology that photographers appreciate. But an experienced photographer will look at the scene in front of him/her, see what exposure settings the camera has metered it to, and change those settings based on their desired effect - and they will know how to do this from their knowledge and experience.

QuoteOriginally posted by Laurentiu Cristofor Quote
I doubt that they had no problems. They had no better alternatives and they couldn't think of any, so they had no reason to complain. But saying that they had no problems is disingenuous.
I'm afraid I don't share your views here. Professionals know what other tools there are around in the market, so call me disingenuous, but people who shoot for a living will shoot with what tools will get the job done. Brand loyalty plays a much smaller role in their lives than it does with enthusiasts.

QuoteOriginally posted by Laurentiu Cristofor Quote
Try focusing at wide apertures on the K-x.
Had no problem - ever.

QuoteOriginally posted by Laurentiu Cristofor Quote
Were rangefinders a hindrance to good photography? Or film? If your argument doesn't work for those, why do you think it holds water for OVFs?
Use the tool that gets you your results. It doesn't matter what they might be. That's all my argument is.

QuoteOriginally posted by Laurentiu Cristofor Quote
Well, 24fps (much less than even the default 60fps rate of the E-M5) is what is used for movies and nobody is complaining about the action being choppy. All I hear is how "realistic" movies are these days.
24fps - definitely choppy.
50Hz TVs - still choppy.
100Hz - starting to smoothen up
newer 200Hz TVs - quite smooth indeed but still perceptible jerking on fast action videos
brand new 600Hz LED TV by Samsung - just brilliant
So the human eye can perceive much more than what you are happy with.
And that's why I prefer OVFs and you EVFs.
c'est la vie.

Last edited by Ash; 01-13-2013 at 04:25 PM.
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 09:44 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