[MarkJerling]

An EVF provides a good view no matter how dim the light is - especially an advantage with cameras that provide good high ISO.

An EVF can provide a histograph right in the viewfinder

An EVF provides focus peaking, which can be very good for manual focus.

You don't have to value those advantages - but other users do.

An EVF is nothing like an optical viewfinder when you're looking through it.
This weekend I played with a friend's latest new (expensive) mirrorless Canon. It was too small for my hands - and looking through the inferior EVF viewfinder hurt my eyes pretty quickly. The balance between body and lens was compromised too. In all, a very poor experience, when you're used to a large, clear optical viewfinder.
I'm just not seeing the advantages, sorry.

---

Last edited by MarkJerling; 04-16-2019 at 04:16 PM. Reason: Typo

[ThorSanchez]

I guess it doesn't matter that I'm not really interested in that info in my viewfinder?

No more or less than it matters that others want it there.

[normhead]

No more or less than it matters that others want it there.

Why would you want the road shoulders in your viewfinder?

[monochrome]

IMO there is already too much info in the VF frame. I don’t want to look at it, or into my viewfinder at all. I want to look through my viewfinder at the actual reality. I don’t even have the histogram turned on for the LCD. And I don’t believe - based on my experience with film cameras - that I could ‘see’ actual DoF in any useful way in a viewfinder either. If I can’t ‘see’ it on the 3+” LCD how would I see it in a .7x FF EVF.

[reh321]

An EVF is nothing like an optical viewfinder when you're looking through it.
This weekend I played with a friend's latest new (expensive) mirrorless Canon. It was too small for my hands - and looking through the inferior EVF viewfinder hurt my eyes pretty quickly. The balance between body and lens was compromised too. In all, a very poor experience, when you're used to a large, clear optical viewfinder.
I'm just not seeing the advantages, sorry.

There are some people who want these advantages and some who do not, just as there are some people who like what the 'accelerator' does and some who are upset by it, and there are some people who like AF and some who stick with MF, and some who use an 'auto' mode such as 'TAv' or 'Tv' and some who stick to manual exposure.

[MarkJerling]

There are some people who want these advantages and some who do not, just as there are some people who like what the 'accelerator' does and some who are upset by it, and there are some people who like AF and some who stick with MF, and some who use an 'auto' mode such as 'TAv' or 'Tv' and some who stick to manual exposure.

How is a tiny little dull pixelated viewfinder in a brand new expensive mirrorless camera an advantage?

[reh321]

How is a tiny little dull pixelated viewfinder in a brand new expensive mirrorless camera an advantage?

I've already covered this ground - I'm not going to run around the same path over and over again with any person - certainly not with a moderator.

[Culture]

I dont miss OVF. Not a single bit.

[Rondec]

The whole EVF versus OVF discussion is fairly futile. On one hand, you have a group of people who say that they don't need (and don't want) the additional clutter in the viewfinder that could be offered and furthermore, that EVFs cause them eye strain. On the other hand, there are a bunch of folks who say that EVFs are the way of the future, they can help you get good exposures in difficult situations and make manual focusing a dream. As far as I can tell, there is little common ground between these groups and probably the best thing is to agree to disagree.

I'm sure that Photoptomist is correct in that some type of a hybrid viewfinder is the way forward, although the way things work, both parties will be somewhat dissatisfied with such a compromise.

[Culture]

You are right. I think its pretty futile. The way some describe EVF, You had think its the most useless thing on a mirrorless camera.

For me OVF or EVF, its a feature for seeing my target. Period.

[MarkJerling]

I've already covered this ground - I'm not going to run around the same path over and over again with any person - certainly not with a moderator.

As long as we obey the rules, we're both just members having this conversation. Having had the chance to try this brand new EOS mirrorless camera, and finding the viewfinder even worse than the Sony one I tried a year or so back, I'm really intrigued how this can be seen as an improvement over the classic DSLR OVF experience.

But, you're, of course, welcome to not offer any advice as to how that little dim pixelated viewfinder is so much "better" than the DSLR experience. For the record, I'm not bashing the technology. I'd be happy to adopt new technology if it truly is better, but, what i'm seeing is a massive compromise by mirrorless shooters. They appear to believe they have all these "advantages" but they're looking at their images through, a very poor viewfinder. It really makes no sense to me and I find the experience distracting and very unnatural looking. Anyway, if you enjoy it - all good. I'm just giving my point of view - not as a moderator, but as a happy Pentax shooter.

[Rondec]

As long as we obey the rules, we're both just members having this conversation. Having had the chance to try this brand new EOS mirrorless camera, and finding the viewfinder even worse than the Sony one I tried a year or so back, I'm really intrigued how this can be seen as an improvement over the classic DSLR OVF experience.

But, you're, of course, welcome to not offer any advice as to how that little dim pixelated viewfinder is so much "better" than the DSLR experience. For the record, I'm not bashing the technology. I'd be happy to adopt new technology if it truly is better, but, what i'm seeing is a massive compromise by mirrorless shooters. They appear to believe they have all these "advantages" but they're looking at their images through, a very poor viewfinder. It really makes no sense to me and I find the experience distracting and very unnatural looking. Anyway, if you enjoy it - all good. I'm just giving my point of view - not as a moderator, but as a happy Pentax shooter.

Not all OVFs are created equal, nor EVFs for that matter. If you are used to a K-1, full frame pentaprism OVF, that currently is about as good as you can get and a hard bar to measure up to. On the other hand, comparing an EVF to a pentamirror OVF on an APS-C camera is much easier to see that an EVF could be better. But even with EVFs, they vary greatly. The best ones are in really expensive cameras, like the A9. They have relatively little lag. They still have the limitations of displaying tonality on a tiny TV screen. There just has to be some flattening of the image in order to display it if there is wide dynamic range in the image.

But in the end, both can be used (pretty successfully) as a tool for framing/composing images and that's probably the important thing. But I agree with you that folks who love EVFs tend to overstate their benefits while minimizing their drawbacks.

[MarkJerling]

Not all OVFs are created equal, nor EVFs for that matter. If you are used to a K-1, full frame pentaprism OVF, that currently is about as good as you can get and a hard bar to measure up to. On the other hand, comparing an EVF to a pentamirror OVF on an APS-C camera is much easier to see that an EVF could be better. But even with EVFs, they vary greatly. The best ones are in really expensive cameras, like the A9. They have relatively little lag. They still have the limitations of displaying tonality on a tiny TV screen. There just has to be some flattening of the image in order to display it if there is wide dynamic range in the image.

There's no doubt that the K-1 viewfinder is a hard thing to measure up to. And, I've not had the chance to use a A9. Closest I've come was a Sony A7RII. So, I can't comment on the A9. I thought the A7RII felt nicer than the Canon EOS. That's subjective of course, as I have not handled those two cameras at the same time. The A7RII is now, after all, a good few years old, and the EOS was introduced fairly recently. But, both those, felt worse than my K5 in terms of viewfinder experience.

But in the end, both can be used (pretty successfully) as a tool for framing/composing images and that's probably the important thing. But I agree with you that folks who love EVFs tend to overstate their benefits while minimizing their drawbacks.

That's the feeling I'm getting, yes. Certainly, they have advantages, but until the viewfinders improve, it's too distracting in my view.

[ThorSanchez]

Why would you want the road shoulders in your viewfinder?

Haing the shoulders clearly marked in your viewfinder could be invaluable if you're posting in the "Street Photography (No, Not THAT Street Photography) - Share your Shots of the Roads" thread. I don't know how many times I've tried to frame a photo for that exact purpose and ended up with shoulder-centric shots. It's a vexing problem.

[Fcsnt54]

As long as we obey the rules, we're both just members having this conversation. Having had the chance to try this brand new EOS mirrorless camera, and finding the viewfinder even worse than the Sony one I tried a year or so back, I'm really intrigued how this can be seen as an improvement over the classic DSLR OVF experience.

But, you're, of course, welcome to not offer any advice as to how that little dim pixelated viewfinder is so much "better" than the DSLR experience. For the record, I'm not bashing the technology. I'd be happy to adopt new technology if it truly is better, but, what i'm seeing is a massive compromise by mirrorless shooters. They appear to believe they have all these "advantages" but they're looking at their images through, a very poor viewfinder. It really makes no sense to me and I find the experience distracting and very unnatural looking. Anyway, if you enjoy it - all good. I'm just giving my point of view - not as a moderator, but as a happy Pentax shooter.

Was it the R or RP model? They use two different evfs. The evf on the RP is horrible, but the R model is much better and easier on the eyes.