[Ash]

Are you saying that is the kind of member that I am? That is insulting.

Generic statement Laurentiu. Don't make this about you - but you can if you so please.
There is no shortage of negativity on this forum. If you wish to dispute this on account of feeling insulted, then that's fine.

Try to stick to arguments and leave the speculations outside the discussion. You're a moderator, you should know better.

I reserve judgement from this statement but I will ask that you desist from patronising. I was addressing your own assertions that were made without objective substantiation - just conjecture put forward, intended for widespread acceptance.
I apologise if you took the referred statement personally, as it was made in light of your previous pervasive obstruction to others' views.

Some context:

:
Lack of intellectual honesty? Confirmation bias? Who knows, but it sure is interesting to watch what's coming next.

Reading between the lines isn't hard to see.
But can we just move on and keep on topic?

http://www.adorama.com/alc/0012789/article/Buying-Guide-The-Best-EVF-Cameras-Right-Now

Has anyone handled the (currently) most responsive EVF on a camera? Fujifilm X-E1? Sony NEX-7? How does it compare (in terms of clarity, responsiveness and reality) to OVFs (of the same format size)?

---

Last edited by Ash; 01-13-2013 at 05:09 PM.

[Laurentiu Cristofor]

Generic statement Laurentiu. Don't make this about you - but you can if you so please.

Ash, it's easy: if you want to make a generic comment, then say so, don't just reply to a post if you want to make generic statements. Is that what your statement was? Generic? I'll leave it at that on your confirmation.

[Ash]

Ash, it's easy: if you want to make a generic comment, then say so, don't just reply to a post if you want to make generic statements. Is that what your statement was? Generic? I'll leave it at that on your confirmation.

Yes, now can we please drop this and move on?
EVFs - there are other client groups that want it on a larger format too: 51% of the readers would buy a Full Frame mirrorless camera. Share the features you wish. | sonyalpharumors

But this article discusses the OVF/EVF preferences quite nicely:
Buying a camera: Optical versus electronic viewfinders | Macworld
One particular argument I've mentioned with EVFs is this (for the current technology in EVFs):
"Even high-resolution video cannot match the human eye for seeing detail in shadow and bright areas at the same time, picking out fine details, and instant responsiveness — all of which are crucial for studio, sport, and fully manual photography. An EVF can also look jerky and noisy in very low light."

The K-5 with O-ME53 gives a nice broad view without considerable loss of illumination. A FF OVF would be big and bright enough without any magnifying eyepiece.

[Laurentiu Cristofor]

Yes, now can we please drop this and move on?

Sure, let's move on...

The K-5 with O-ME53 gives a nice broad view without considerable loss of illumination. A FF OVF would be big and bright enough without any magnifying eyepiece.

Yes, however, the problem here is that the eye can do a lot more than the lenses can do in combination with a sensor. So, the question remains: do you want to watch or do you want to photograph? The eye can adjust focus and exposure on any one point in a scene - but the camera cannot do that - the camera has to pick one place to focus and one exposure for the entire scene. An EVF can do a better job at telling you what the sensor can see vs what your eye can perceive. An OVF may be closer to what your eyes see in some situations, but then this is irrelevant to what your camera can capture.

Let me get back to some of your other statements...

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.


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.

This is interesting. If this was true, then pros (men, apparently), should equally flock to Pentax as they do to Canon. After all, Pentax cameras are as competent as Canon ones when used in fully manual mode. Yet pros still favor Canon by a large margin. Could it be that maybe, just maybe, these fabled pros actually like their cameras to second guess their experience and do a great job at that? Not to mention the vaster numbers of aspiring pros, enthusiasts, and amateurs? What do you think?

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.

I think you missed the point here. If all that professionals could choose until now were SLRs, what choice did they really have (other than Canon vs Nikon vs whatever else)? Now that they have another choice, some have already chosen MILCs. Brand or technology loyalty indeed does not carry much weight with pros.

Had no problem - ever.

Well, maybe you are amazing then. I thought I was doing pretty well too, but I wouldn't claim I had no problem, ever.

Use the tool that gets you your results. It doesn't matter what they might be. That's all my argument is.

That is not an argument. That is just a principle. And it's a good one too. Except, when it comes to market preference, it doesn't matter even if everyone follows the same principle. What matters is how the majority applies it. In other words: what gets results for most people? Early P&S all had an OVF and then they lost it - it became unusual - that is the trend - whether we like it or not.

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.

I might be missing something here, but what are you watching on a 600Hz TV that is actually recorded at that rate? NTSC is 30Hz. Yes, the human eye can perceive a lot more, but it can also handle a lot less. The goal of an EVF is not to overwhelm the eye with information that the brain cannot process (the limit is around 12fps anyway), but to provide it with enough information suitable for the task at hand.

[Ash]

So, the question remains: do you want to watch or do you want to photograph? The eye can adjust focus and exposure on any one point in a scene - but the camera cannot do that - the camera has to pick one place to focus and one exposure for the entire scene. An EVF can do a better job at telling you what the sensor can see vs what your eye can perceive. An OVF may be closer to what your eyes see in some situations, but then this is irrelevant to what your camera can capture.

OK point taken, though it seems to be going full circle now in that it comes down to personal preference. We can decide that what we want to see through the VF is what the sensor sees, or prefer to stick with what the eye sees in real life and capture that. As far as I can see, the chief outcome of getting an image at the end of this process isn't going to be any more complicated or harder for a photographer with a dSLR than it is for the same photographer with a MILC.

After all, Pentax cameras are as competent as Canon ones when used in fully manual mode. Yet pros still favor Canon by a large margin. Could it be that maybe, just maybe, these fabled pros actually like their cameras to second guess their experience and do a great job at that? Not to mention the vaster numbers of aspiring pros, enthusiasts, and amateurs? What do you think?

You know and I wouldn't have to suggest it that Canon and Nikon are currently offering FF cameras, which pros prefer. So if Pentax don't offer one, there will be fewer pros using their gear. Secondly, both companies market aggressively - much more so than Pentax. Even Sony does well from their marketing, despite their FF models being clunky and more of an electronics gadget than a tool made for a photographer (if you know what I mean). When Pentax come out with an FF camera (let's say it's a dSLR), then there should at least be a proportionally equal spread between each comparable FF offering across the brands according to market share - and if lower than this, then we can consider Pentax not doing well for the higher end group (and I have not even mentioned the 645D).

If all that professionals could choose until now were SLRs, what choice did they really have (other than Canon vs Nikon vs whatever else)? Now that they have another choice, some have already chosen MILCs.

It would be interesting to see the stats now that there are some MILC choices available, including a FF one.

[Ash]

Well, maybe you are amazing then. I thought I was doing pretty well too, but I wouldn't claim I had no problem, ever

No, not amazing - I recognise when focusing errors are due to user error - and in the shots I've taken wide open with all of my cameras, I have found that each time I can attribute the misfocusing to my technique rather than the tool.

Except, when it comes to market preference, it doesn't matter even if everyone follows the same principle. What matters is how the majority applies it.

P&S cameras are designed to be compact.
So are MILCs.
dSLRs have some size and weight to them for the added mechanical parts involved - they may well be replaced by MILCs in the future. But there are still a large contingent that prefer dSLRs for their OVF. That too will drive the market.

but what are you watching on a 600Hz TV that is actually recorded at that rate?

These modern TVs are able to oversample and produce a smoother transition between frames, most noticeable in the modern HD animation movies. Moreover, I have seen examples of 30Hz recordings that have been effectively smoothed out by this technology to create a beautiful motion of objects across the TV screen. Essentially, the eye can notice these things, well above 50Hz.

The goal of an EVF is not to overwhelm the eye with information that the brain cannot process (the limit is around 12fps anyway), but to provide it with enough information suitable for the task at hand

What the eye perceives and what the brain interprets are not limited to the brain processing speed you refer to. The poorer refresh time means a slower, less smooth framing and shooting experience that many people aren't satisfied with. And that isn't the issue anyway, since you note correctly that modern day EVFs are a lot more responsive than this. However even still, they haven't come to the standard (yet) to make them responsive *enough* to satisfy the needs for photographers in certain niches, as well as even enthusiasts who don't necessarily need the speed (but rather just prefer the OVF).

[Kunzite]

The main reason I am against EVFs replacing OVFs is the difficulty in fixing all the main issues. Higher resolution, better colors, higher refresh rates, faster processing; improving some would hinder the others (e.g. higher resolution needing more processing power/bandwidth), and let's not forget everything depends on the sensor readout; which needs to be done at an acceptable frame rate, even in low light.
This is why I believe it will take time until EVFs could reach a level I would enjoy using them; while the OVF technology is already there (needs a larger than APS-C sensor if you want a good viewfinder). I'd guess that, for the time being, people who likes OVFs better will continue to do so, while EVF fans will enjoy incremental improvements.

I see no point in arguing what people should prefer to see while looking through viewfinder: the reality or a heavily processed scene (I know the OM-G, erm OM-D's viewfinder, and it looks very artificial; next generation will be much better). I too have a strong preference towards one particular approach, but it's OK if you go with the other; I only take issues with claims that my preference is "pointless" and that a company making products which suits me MUST change their strategy and go EVF, asap (no matter what the current K-mount user base thinks).

12fps? How come I'm able to detect flickering at much higher refresh rates? Or that I can see the difference between a 24fps and a 48 fps movie (the 48fps one not being perfect, either)?
Certainly, there's something wrong with my brain and I must fix it to only process 12fps

About why pros prefer Canon/Nikon, I would add both a complete professional product range and professional support. And I strongly object to the idea that pros likes their gear to second guess what they want; but to works in a consistent, reliable manner.

[Clavius]

The maximum framerate a human eye can see is a very much debated subject at the game-forums, like 100fps.com and overclockers.com. Usually ending up in very heated discussions. The graphics card manufacturers are having an ongoing FPS-war. The higher FPS, the better. Each new graphics card has higher specs then the other. And with each new FPS-record, the endless debate lights up again. The jury still isn't out, but overall, 60fps is regarded as the framerate where the human eye is unable to perceive any lag in the screen. Off course, there are always people claiming they can see things that others can't. And they may be telling the truth, because that maximum detectable FPS is depentant on how fast objects are moving.

So, - back to cameras - a camera with a 60FPS EVF may not show any flickering or jerking whatsoever in 99,99% of the cases. Untill you use it at F1 race circuit, right next to the track, panning one of those F1 cars at maximum speed. The most important thing though, the final image, will not suffer from this at all. IMO, to be able to suffer from a laggy EVF at 60FPS, you have to be panning and tracking a fast moving object so fast, that making a decent picture is based on luck anyway, no matter what VF you're using.

And about OVF or EVF: I don't think anybody wants to stop Pentax from making cameras with an OVF completely and turn to making EVILs entirely. But we all want Pentax to survive and be ready for the future, and have an ILC product line with a high quality EVF too. Pentax is in a very nice position to do exaclty that. They could have themselves focus on DSLRs and have their Ricoh brand focus on the next GXR type of camera. A DSLR-sized FF camera with high quality EVF and exchangeable mounts from Ricoh would do magic. Exhangeable lenses, mounts, sensors and VF. Actually, that the description of a digital LX. That would mean Ricoh is going to market a truly inovating product that would typically be expecting from Pentax.

[gazonk]

So, - back to cameras - a camera with a 60FPS EVF may not show any lag whatsoever in 99,99% of the cases.

Ahem, the FPS number doesn't tell you much about what the lag is. For instance, modern TVs may well have up to 100ms lag, but that doesn't mean they show only 10fps...

[Clavius]

Ahem, the FPS number doesn't tell you much about what the lag is. For instance, modern TVs may well have up to 100ms lag, but that doesn't mean they show only 10fps...

Amended.

[Kunzite]

And about OVF or EVF: I don't think anybody wants to stop Pentax from making cameras with an OVF completely and turn to making EVILs entirely. But we all want Pentax to survive and be ready for the future, and have an ILC product line with a high quality EVF too. Pentax is in a very nice position to do exaclty that. They could have themselves focus on DSLRs and have their Ricoh brand focus on the next GXR type of camera. A DSLR-sized FF camera with high quality EVF and exchangeable mounts from Ricoh would do magic. Exhangeable lenses, mounts, sensors and VF. Actually, that the description of a digital LX. That would mean Ricoh is going to market a truly inovating product that would typically be expecting from Pentax.

You are assuming that it's OK, if they won't stop making DSLRs completely; it isn't. The K-mount needs to be properly maintained, with new, higher end cameras and many new lenses. I am talking about their survival, they need to keep and grow their customer base in order to have a steady revenue flow as a basis for continuous development (including an eventual MILC system).
It's easy to say "MILCs are the future", but a MILC system would not be able to sustain itself in the beginning (think years); and looking at the troubled MILC companies I'm not feeling that confident it would happen quickly.

We can see the "magic" in the Ricoh's modular GXR system, looking at their sales; most people would call that niche. I'm afraid going for a larger sensor won't make it mainstream.

[mrNewt]

Until I will see whit my own eyes an EVF that can render images just as perfect as an OVF, I will always believe OVF to be superior (from a "render image quality" view point).
EVFs gets the job done and has some more gimmicks up its sleeve ... but those pixels and light will always "scratch my eyes" ...

Now excuse me while I'm going in the shed to pick up my torches and pitchforks .

[Clavius]

You are assuming that it's OK, if they won't stop making DSLRs completely; it isn't. The K-mount needs to be properly maintained, with new, higher end cameras and many new lenses. I am talking about their survival, they need to keep and grow their customer base in order to have a steady revenue flow as a basis for continuous development (including an eventual MILC system).
It's easy to say "MILCs are the future", but a MILC system would not be able to sustain itself in the beginning (think years); and looking at the troubled MILC companies I'm not feeling that confident it would happen quickly.

Where did I say that DSLR shouldn't be properly maintained? I actually actively denied that. You've now incorrectly interpreted my posts so often, that I can hardly maintain belief that you're doing that by accident.

Convenience always wins the market:

The CD didn't replace the vinyl records completely. They're still manufacturing the tools to play those. Which of those is "better" is open for debate. CD are more convenient though. It's replacement, the MP3, is even more convenient. And look now, who still buys and plays CD anymore? I step into my car, my car hooks up to my phone via bluetooth and plays the music on my phone. Then I step out again and enjoy the very same music during my workout at the gym. MP3's quality is worse again then the CD, but convenience wins. That car was more convenient then the horse and won. And that bluetooth in its turn enable me to read the books that are on my phone, via my E-reader, my laptop, my desktop. Books are still being printed, but that market is getting smaller and smaller, because the amount of people preferring paper books is getting smaller and smaller.

Yes, it's easy to say that EVIL cameras are the future, probably because it really is. They're more convenient.

[Kunzite]

And you were in a hurry to prove my point, even contradicting yourself
I'm sorry, but - seeing your analogies - you are talking about pushing DSLRs into a niche, making just enough so they won't completely disappear. That's not the "properly maintained" thing I was talking about.
By the way, I will remind you the DSLR market is still several times larger than the MILC one, and growing.

[Clavius]

What counts the most for the photografer? The experience he gets when looking through the VF? Or the end result maybe?

Imagine two cameras that are exactly the same, except for one difference: One has an OVF, the other an EVF with all the gimmicks: focus peaking, constant DOF preview, WB previewed in the VF, instant preview without having to take the camera away from the eye, etc. Which one will produce the most keepers? Which one will produce the highest number of pictures where the focus is exactly where the user wants it? Whith which camera will the user be most aware of incorrect settings before losing the moment? Be honest now...