Originally posted by Nicolas06
More intuitive, advenced tools allow to go next level. That the whole EVF argument. EVF is supposed to be better overall with few drawback that will soon disappear. The OVF is the old outdated thing. Why the argument would have to suddenly change when we speak of better AF were old inferior tools would then become beautiful ?
Because photography
is not about AF, AF-C, EVF. It is about being there, and seeing the event. It is about witnessing the moment.
Sport photographers are present in the competitions, but they enjoy nothing of the spectacle -- they are too busy chasing their focus points.
Got it?
1. For some people, they need to deliver certain results, and that means not quite being there, nor experiencing the moment. They leave that to the photographs, and finding out a right millisecond from a continuous bust of images. Human consciousness cannot record such tiny fractions of time, and thus sports photographers leave much to their cameras to deliver to them.
2. The others, do not care about all that. They want to gather impressions, be there in person, immerse in the event, and take just some pictures that serve as memories later on. Their main SD card or film roll is their bran. A photograph, even very imperfect, is just a reminder that ignites the perfect feelings inside.
3. There are third kinds; who are worse off than both of those above. They stare at the reality through the artificial reality.
EVF will always be inferior experience because it interprets the reality and augments it / changes it / and then delivers to your brain. OVF on the other end, delivers that what happens
without interpretation.
When using the EVF, you actually
are not there and not experiencing it directly because you have blocked your vision with an interpreter. When using the OVF,
you actually are there and experience the moment very directly, the way you see it.