[mrNewt]

What counts the most? The experience you get when looking through the VF? Or the end result maybe?

Both!

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...

Both ... if you know what you are doing.
OVF does the same job as an EVF ... without the strain on your eyes.

In the end ... is whatever the user is used to and what the user prefers.

[Kunzite]

Whith which camera will the user be most aware of incorrect settings before losing the moment? Be honest now...

With an OVF you won't be in danger of losing the moment (not because of the camera)

[Clavius]

With an OVF you won't be in danger of losing the moment (not because of the camera)

Yeah Really? What camera are you using?!

OVF: User composes and focuses. -> Subject looks like it could be in focus, but not sure. Oh well, only one way to find out. -> Click! -> Take camera away from face to look at result. -> Dang! The focus is in the wrong spot! -> Quick! Camera back to face. -> Recompose and refocus. -> Dang! Son was taking his first steps, but by now has fallen flat on his face and is crying his eyes out. Moment gone forever.

EVF: Peaking function lights up the in-focus parts like a Christmas tree. -> Focus incorrect? User adjusts with quick shift before taking picture. -> Click!

In this respect, the EVF is actually MORE capable for handling fast action then the OVF will ever be.

Apart from the focus, the EVF will also always show the DOF preview exactly as the sensor perceives it. So, exactly like the output. Something the OVF can't do. It can show the DOF preview, but we all know how lame that is. Even if it was improved tenfold, it will never equal exactly what the sensor will perceive, because it's not being interpreted by the same sensor, but a focus screen.

Now that was only focussing and DOF preview. Then we have WB, inbody digital filters, selective colour shooting, etc.

[ElJamoquio]

Yeah Really? What camera are you using?!

OVF: User composes and focuses. -> Subject looks like it could be in focus, but not sure. Oh well, only one way to find out. -> Click! -> Take camera away from face to look at result. -> Dang! The focus is in the wrong spot! -> Quick! Camera back to face. -> Recompose and refocus. -> Dang! Son was taking his first steps, but by now has fallen flat on his face and is crying his eyes out. Moment gone forever.

I think in most shots the child also breaks his leg.

If you love your children, buy an EVF.

[mrNewt]

Yeah Really? What camera are you using?!

OVF: User composes and focuses. -> Subject looks like it could be in focus, but not sure. Oh well, only one way to find out. -> Click! -> Take camera away from face to look at result. -> Dang! The focus is in the wrong spot! -> Quick! Camera back to face. -> Recompose and refocus. -> Dang! Son was taking his first steps, but by now has fallen flat on his face and is crying his eyes out. Moment gone forever.

EVF: Peaking function lights up the in-focus parts like a Christmas tree. -> Focus incorrect? User adjusts with quick shift before taking picture. -> Click!

In this respect, the EVF is actually MORE capable for handling fast action then the OVF will ever be.

Apart from the focus, the EVF will also always show the DOF preview exactly as the sensor perceives it. So, exactly like the output. Something the OVF can't do. It can show the DOF preview, but we all know how lame that is. Even if it was improved tenfold, it will never equal exactly what the sensor will perceive, because it's not being interpreted by the same sensor, but a focus screen.

Now that was only focussing and DOF preview. Then we have WB, inbody digital filters, selective colour shooting, etc.

I think the problem in your example is that your camera's continuous AF doesn't work properly ... or you don't know how to use it properly .
You could have this problem with a manual lens (something that can be corrected with the right tools) ... but then again you won't have "quick shift" .

Either way, the kid looks like its going to get it no matter what ... .

[Kunzite]

Indeed, learning how your camera works before attempting to capture the decisive moment is the way to do it. I'm far from being an accomplished photographer, however even I would rather have everything set and working, and only worried about capturing the picture when the moment comes.

Clavius, from what you say the EVF scenario it's more like:
- check and eventually correct focus using any assist available
- check DOF and choose a suitable aperture
- check WB, adjust if necessary
- check histogram, adjust exposure
- check saturation, contrast etc
- check digital filters (because there's no way you could process later), choose one that fits
Congratulations, now you can take a picture of your now-in-college son!

I still don't buy the EVF is perfect image, as the reality is so much different than your words.

[mrNewt]

Indeed, learning how your camera works before attempting to capture the decisive moment is the way to do it. I'm far from being an accomplished photographer, however even I would rather have everything set and working, and only worried about capturing the picture when the moment comes.

Clavius, from what you say the EVF scenario it's more like:
- check and eventually correct focus using any assist available
- check DOF and choose a suitable aperture
- check WB, adjust if necessary
- check histogram, adjust exposure
- check saturation, contrast etc
- check digital filters (because there's no way you could process later), choose one that fits
Congratulations, now you can take a picture of your now-in-college son!

I still don't buy the EVF is perfect image, as the reality is so much different than your words.

[JinDesu]

I've shot almost 50,000 shots with my k-x now. It's been 2 years. I don't think my OVF has been a hindrance at all for my end results.

But again - my dislike of the EVF stems from using the NEX7, where it looked ugly and was a bit laggy. Please let me know what is the best EVF out there, and I'll go to B&H to try it out if possible.

[Ash]

NEX-7 is about as good as you'll get at the moment. The OM-D rates pretty well too.
There's discussion around technique here, making a case for EVFs on account of reliable focusing and overall speed to getting the job done. Being honest, it is the OVF that I have found to allow me to get to the business of releasing the shutter as quick as I can grab a hold of the camera to shoot a scene at the spur of a moment. Switching on the camera I have a couple tenths of a second before it's ready to shoot, in which time I'm quickly composing through the OVF and focusing, mostly using the centre point AF, which although large has been accurate for me every time I have it focusing on a subject. Actuate, and review (if there is time). The process takes barely a second. On reviewing there are a minority of instances that I need to reshoot on account of missing focus, and most of these are due to missing the exact point on the subject for AF. In low light I have issues at times, but I have the K-5 classic, and there is now SAFOX X in the K-5 II. I'm tipping this standard will continue to improve with each new camera model, and MILC will do the same.

[audiobomber]

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.

[Clavius]

Indeed, learning how your camera works before attempting to capture the decisive moment is the way to do it. I'm far from being an accomplished photographer, however even I would rather have everything set and working, and only worried about capturing the picture when the moment comes.

Clavius, from what you say the EVF scenario it's more like:
- check and eventually correct focus using any assist available
- check DOF and choose a suitable aperture
- check WB, adjust if necessary
- check histogram, adjust exposure
- check saturation, contrast etc
- check digital filters (because there's no way you could process later), choose one that fits
Congratulations, now you can take a picture of your now-in-college son!

I still don't buy the EVF is perfect image, as the reality is so much different than your words.

So, you prefer to discover a wrong setting after the shot during image review, instead of instantly seeing it the moment you peep through the EVF? You know very well the situation you describe doesn't apply. You see if something is off in a single glance.

And if you're really THAT slow as you described here, then you would have the same problem with checking all the info at the bottom of the OVF. Heck, then I sure don't hope you have a drivers license. All that information on the dashboard. How do you handle traffic?

The SLR was a revolution, because it was the first camera that looked through the lens. The EVF is the next, because it essentially looks "through" both sensor and lens, getting much closer to the end result. In that respect an EVIL finally is a real DSLR, because an OVF is an analogue feature. That's why I don't see how photography enthusiasts can dislike such advancements.

[Ash]

Audio, the debate is over whether a well refined EVF will replace OVF once it can get good at all those critical things like low light viewing and insignificant lag. It may be a while, but the EVF proponents here will argue that it's 'the way of the future' and any attempt to stifle its impending replacement of OVF is futile. The advantages noted with EVF are useful for some users, but not all share the value of them since OVF focusing and low light composition have been undertaken just fine to date using existing OVFs. The issue then arises that if EVFs are destined to become standard, even for high end cameras, then so to will the MILC design, replacing the more mechanical dSLR. I personally don't see this happening for quite a while yet, if at all. The OVF has insufficient deficiencies to the enthusiast or pro to warrant its overhaul. However to the CSC and casual shooter it poses the greatest advantages, including smaller size and weight. Pros and enthusiasts would take functionality and utility over slightly less size and weight every time (unless arthritis is an issue).


Pros still have to carry lights/flashes, umbrellas/reflectors and light stands, which aren't getting any lighter or less cumbersome to lug around in the field.

[Rondec]

Battery life, ability to frame with your camera off are significant issues with regard to EVFs. Focus issues are over blown with regard to a pentaprism viewfinder, particularly on a full frame camera. Some of the proponents of EVF technology make it sound like it is impossible to tell if your image is in focus with an OVF, but it isn't that hard. This whole process whereby you have to chimp your image before you can tell if it is in focus is a fabrication. I seldom chimp and still can tell right after I take a photo if I had it in focus or not.

[audiobomber]

Oh, so we're discussing a fictional, high performance EVF. I tried the current SOTA on the NEX7 and it has a looooong way to go.

[Ash]

So, you prefer to discover a wrong setting after the shot during image review, instead of instantly seeing it the moment you peep through the EVF? You know very well the situation you describe doesn't apply. You see if something is off in a single glance.

Correct technique on an OVF ensures that you can confidently take a shot knowing your settings are right and that the focusing is correct. All within a split second.

And if you're really THAT slow as you described here, then you would have the same problem with checking all the info at the bottom of the OVF. Heck, then I sure don't hope you have a drivers license. All that information on the dashboard. How do you handle traffic?

This is irrelevant and a personal comment. Please avoid.

The SLR was a revolution, because it was the first camera that looked through the lens. The EVF is the next, because it essentially looks "through" both sensor and lens, getting much closer to the end result. In that respect an EVIL finally is a real DSLR, because an OVF is an analogue feature. That's why I don't see how photography enthusiasts can dislike such advancements.

EVIL is no more a digital camera than the current dSLRs since the end results are the same. The 'analog' component you speak of is not really analog since it is simply a series of prisms reflecting an existing light source into a VF, which is real time and at the speed of light. EVF as a means to an end is still quite lagging behind and as an image of an image it has to be processed by the camera before being made available for view in the VF, continually lagging behind real time. RAW shooters will hardly have much use for the feature of 'seeing what a processed image would look like on the fly' and the process of shooting will be no quicker on an EVIL for a pro who knows his/her stuff. And I think that's what it comes down to for higher end users and their gear.
EVIL is much more suited to the casual shooter than the serious or professional photographer.