[Art Vandelay II]

I personally hate live view, even when it is well implemented. I have a hard enough time fighting camera shake when I hold my arms in, control my breathing and have the camera up to my eye. When I have a camera where I can see the live view, I shake like crazy and no amount of shake reduction can fight it. The only place I use it is on tripod shots where I am manual focusing.

This is where really good EVF's come into play; a good EVF solves those issues. Plus, once you get used to true DOF preview in the view finder, it's very tough to do wihout it. Reviewing your photo in the EVF is also great, especially when shooting outdoors. Besides, an issue I've always had with APS-C viewfinders, and especially 4/3's view finders is their size. They is simply can't compare to full frame view finders; even 30 year old viewfinders like in my LX. EVF's have no size restrictions based on mirror/prism size like DSLR's do.

As far as the comment further up about my m4/3's agenda...I simply use m4/3's as an example because it is currently the best mirrorless system, but there's a very real possibility my next camera will in-fact be the NEX-7 if the rumors are true. I just wish Pentax would release a large sensor CSC before then to save me from buying a camera from a company that also makes/d computers, laser discs, memory sticks, toasters, TV's, A/V equipment, and damn near any other gadget under the sun. Let's just say I have a soft spot for traditional optical brands like Pentax, Nikon, Olympus, and Leica.

---

Last edited by Art Vandelay II; 07-23-2011 at 09:06 AM.

[asw66]

I think live view is an acquired taste and most people use it because it is the only option on their camera (cell phone, point and shoot). At the same time, most people who are interested in more expensive cameras (500 dollars and up) have no problem at all composing using a viewfinder and many prefer it that way.

If anything, I'd say that optical viewfinders are an acquired taste nowadays, since most people have used the camera on their phone, but many remain unfamiliar with SLRs. By extension, I would expect OVFs to increasingly be seen as the domain of purists, like audiophiles who zealously hang on to vinyl records and turntables.

(FWIW, I'm in no hurry to give up my OVF, but this is just the way that I see the market going.)

[RioRico]

I personally hate live view, even when it is well implemented. I have a hard enough time fighting camera shake when I hold my arms in, control my breathing and have the camera up to my eye. When I have a camera where I can see the live view, I shake like crazy and no amount of shake reduction can fight it. The only place I use it is on tripod shots where I am manual focusing.

There are just two instances when I find LV useful: When I've hyperfocused and set a high enough shutter speed, and *must* hold the camera away to frame a shot; and when on a tripod, sometimes with a dark cloth covering if in bright light. Yes, I'm used to using LV on a P&S when I want a proper composition, but that's because the P&S OVF isn't as accurate as the dSLRs VF. I haven't tried an m4/3 or NEX to judge their VF performance (there are none on display anywhere near me) so I don't know if any EVF or LV display is adequate. Maybe those would also require me to wear a black hood, like a hangman. Beware the togger!

[Pål Jensen]

A key difference in end of world predictions and camera market share predictions is the former is almost always based on silly dogma or superstitions, where as the latter is based on market share growth data as well as simple common sense. .

But theres no data predicting this development. DSLR are increasing in sale. EVILs are alternative to cell phones and P&S that don't have optical finders anyway. The main DSLR makers haven't been making EVIL's as yet as they are no threat to their DSLR lines. EVILS are simply an another market segment in an increasing fragmented market.
An EVIL camera is a DSLR without in important feature. You won't change the market by removing a feature. Optics will not go away. People wiill prefer optics for all viewing, aiming a compositional devices forever, augmented but not replaced by electronic screens.

[TomB_tx]

Optics will not go away. People wiill prefer optics for all viewing, aiming a compositional devices forever, augmented but not replaced by electronic screens.

While I would like to think that is true, the younger generation has seen everything on electronic screens, and things seem more "real" to them when seen that way.

It reminds me of the book/movie "Blowup" from the '60s, about a photographer who found a dead body when he didn't have his camera, and it was gone when he came back with it. He couldn't be sure it was real without having seen it through his camera.

How many kids today drive past natures scenic wonders watching movies on little DVD screens, because that seems more "real."

[Pål Jensen]

While I would like to think that is true, the younger generation has seen everything on electronic screens, and things seem more "real" to them when seen that way.

I think it is the other way around. It is real when you see it directly. Most photographers (as opposed to those who takes pictures) spend more than 90% of the time they look in the viewfinder seeing, aiming, visualizing and composing. For seeing and aiming most still prefer optics whether it is binoculars, rifle scopes or windows. Only in latter stages of the visual process does the factor that make an electronic finder useful come into play. Photography is and will remain a visualisation process for creating still images, and for that optical finders will play an important role in the foreseeable future in instruments dedicated to serious photography.
Future DSLR's will incorporate electronic finders to larger extent than they already do. In that way their represent the best of both worlds...

[Zygonyx]

I wish you were right Pal.

[Aristophanes]

If anything, I'd say that optical viewfinders are an acquired taste nowadays, since most people have used the camera on their phone, but many remain unfamiliar with SLRs. By extension, I would expect OVFs to increasingly be seen as the domain of purists, like audiophiles who zealously hang on to vinyl records and turntables.

(FWIW, I'm in no hurry to give up my OVF, but this is just the way that I see the market going.)

The market went there long ago with P&S!

The ? is whether those paying premiums will give up the superiority of the OVF.

[RioRico]

I wish you were right Pal.

An unrecorded event is a non-event.
If you don't photograph it, you never saw it.
If you don't write it down, it never happened.
Memory is not enough. Memories decay, distort.
You have no life if you haven't documented it.
That's why techno-kids shoot and tweet.
It's augmented memory, like writing.

[Art Vandelay II]

Photography is and will remain a visualisation process for creating still images, and for that optical finders will play an important role in the foreseeable future in instruments dedicated to serious photography.

I'm still a huge fan of really good OVF's (which unfortunately excludes almost all non-full frame OVF's), but honestly the visual process is the same whether I'm looking through an EVF or looking through a prism. I'm about to head out to do some street shooting with my G1 in a few mins so I just did a quick camera check before heading out; almost every single time I look through that EVF it impresses me. Being able to see lens flaws, DOF, bokeh quality, custom grid lines, histogram, and exposure all while you compose is simply wonderful. Of course you can turn as much of that on/off as you please. I'll use film SLR's until the day I die, but will I ever switch back to an OVF in the digital world? It's doubtful. It would take a Pentax 645-like OVF to get me back I'm afraid.

[TomB_tx]

Well, I agree fully that for me an eye-level optical finder is necessary. I've used EFVs on various Lumix, and they are getting better, but I still prefer the optical finders on my old MX, LX, and H1a. It's a more intimate "connection" to the subject.
The K-5 is still marginal: too small an image and too cluttered with extra stuff. But that's likely the best things will get now.
I still use Leica rangefinders more than SLRs, again for a simple, intimate view. But then I'm part of the Medicare set.

[Rondec]

If anything, I'd say that optical viewfinders are an acquired taste nowadays, since most people have used the camera on their phone, but many remain unfamiliar with SLRs. By extension, I would expect OVFs to increasingly be seen as the domain of purists, like audiophiles who zealously hang on to vinyl records and turntables.

(FWIW, I'm in no hurry to give up my OVF, but this is just the way that I see the market going.)

Actually, SLRs are more prevalent now than they have been for years. The cost of them has come down so much that soccer mom's etc are buying them to take photos of their kids.

[Aristophanes]

Actually, SLRs are more prevalent now than they have been for years. The cost of them has come down so much that soccer mom's etc are buying them to take photos of their kids.

This may be the SUV era for the SLR system as not only have sales exploded in the last 6 years, the cameras are larger than their forebears. In weight they most certainly are.

In the history of the industry most profits have come from making cameras larger, not smaller. The 35mm P&S market was that of $5 margins per unit sometimes. So much so that many pro stores carried no P&S at all. It was a drugstore camera.

The whole idea that the market naturally craves an M43 size camera is simply wrong. If that was the case, then from the mid-1970's onwards Olympus and Pentax should have been the top dogs. Instead, the Big 3 of Nikon, Canon, and Minolta made even larger camera systems and sold even more at higher profits. Even the Pentax K1000 was a big seller but one of the largest of the Pentax models of that era.

I can see lenses getting smaller due to mirrorless, and that is the big advantage, but the argument over the bodies is one of a divided market where larger bodies will be evident because a great many people want a meaty camera in the palm.

[Zygonyx]

An unrecorded event is a non-event.
If you don't photograph it, you never saw it.
If you don't write it down, it never happened.
Memory is not enough. Memories decay, distort.
You have no life if you haven't documented it.
That's why techno-kids shoot and tweet.
It's augmented memory, like writing.

Yep, so true nowadays.
I personnaly use photo as a life-reminder wire, even with ordinary shots.
But this point has nothing to do with pleasure you take when shooting, hence preference you will have btw screen, EVF or OVF shots (and there is for sure some complementariness among them).

[falconeye]

That's why techno-kids shoot and tweet.

Always nice to see non techno-kids write about techno-kids. Theories about why they do what they do.

From my personal experience, (techno-)kids do what they consider cool because the right icons do it. It's all about group dynamics. If you're young enough, belonging into the group is the major goal.

If this is tweeting or using EVFs is completely irrelevant. If the proper icons all start to use rangefinders then techno-kids will too (But this is unlikely because too many older guys uses rangefinders and they're uncool, or sort of). And eventually, this discussion is unrelated to photography. Because the desire to log life is now satisfied by smart phones.