[Kunzite]

Why not just look at things and forgo the photography?

Rather EVF fans should give up both photography and looking directly at things - searching for images with Google, instead?

[Quicksand]

Rather EVF fans should give up both photography and looking directly at things - searching for images with Google, instead?

That would certainly save me some money.

[redrockcoulee]

An EVF is no more "unnatural" than using the upside-down, backwards ground glass of a view camera, which many previous generation purists claimed tended to improve composition by forcing you to see objects, shapes, tones and their arrangement. Perhaps that's why Thoreau liked to look at the world by bending over and looking back between his legs.

As some one who does use a backwards viewfinder on my Medium Format and upside down and backwards on the large format. They take some time getting used to and for my MF it is not really that easy to follow action shots unless one uses it all the time. The upside down and backwards is unique but then again the cameras they are in are slow to set up and to focus hence certainly not used in the same way as EVF or the "normal" viewfinder.

Not sure why anyone has to like all types of viewing systems or even the latest technology. I like the hybrid system in the Fuji X100 but not sure I would want it in my next camera. I do not think that looking at the ground glass is unnatural but it is also not a natural way of looking at an image, it just is a different style.

[WPRESTO]

As some one who does use a backwards viewfinder on my Medium Format and upside down and backwards on the large format. They take some time getting used to and for my MF it is not really that easy to follow action shots unless one uses it all the time. The upside down and backwards is unique but then again the cameras they are in are slow to set up and to focus hence certainly not used in the same way as EVF or the "normal" viewfinder.

Not sure why anyone has to like all types of viewing systems or even the latest technology. I like the hybrid system in the Fuji X100 but not sure I would want it in my next camera. I do not think that looking at the ground glass is unnatural but it is also not a natural way of looking at an image, it just is a different style.

More-or-less my point. Whatever works, even if it seems "unnatural," is just fine. We do not see the world outlined within a bright white rectangle, yet for years projected frame viewfinders were "the thing." The tiny right angle prisms mounted adjacent to the lens of many folding roll film cameras were adequate to take many fine pictures, and the dreadfully dim ground glass of twin-lens reflexes, with impossible fall-off and vignetting, nevertheless served the purpose. SLRs viewfinders have come a long way, quickly verified by anyone who tried to use a long telephoto on an Alpa.

[mattdm]

Not sure why anyone has to like all types of viewing systems or even the latest technology. I like the hybrid system in the Fuji X100 but not sure I would want it in my next camera. I do not think that looking at the ground glass is unnatural but it is also not a natural way of looking at an image, it just is a different style.

An anecdote: I borrowed a Fujifilm X-Pro 1, with the same hybrid finder, for three weeks. At first, I used the optical version almost exclusively, but by the end, I was almost entirely using the electronic setting instead. The convenience and features of the EVF outweighed the drawbacks most of the time. In a few more years of technological improvement, there will be no contest.

[Ash]

The convenience and features of the EVF outweighed the drawbacks most of the time. In a few more years of technological improvement, there will be no contest.

Both have their utility, but as for real-time fidelity, EVF would be like trying to replace a person with a look-alike robot (Artificial Intelligence comes to mind).

[thibs]

Both have their utility, but as for real-time fidelity, EVF would be like trying to replace a person with a look-alike robot (Artificial Intelligence comes to mind).

There's another difference. On an X100/Xpro1, the EVF will be the image seen by the sensor. The OVF will not since you get the parallax probs.
So for a DSLR user, it may get ennoying very quickly to get pictures you not framed as you wished.
It is easier to switched to the EVF than to understand how you must correct your framing with the OVF.

I myself did this with a friends Xpro1. I still like OVF better but in the case of rangefinder (and the likes), other considerations come into play.

[civiletti]

Both have their utility, but as for real-time fidelity, EVF would be like trying to replace a person with a look-alike robot (Artificial Intelligence comes to mind).

I have a hard time seeing the value of this view. The image recorded by the camera can be represented better by an EVF than by an OVF, and it is that image the photographer is after. If one is after the reality of the view, one should put down the camera and use two eyes.

[IchabodCrane]

I have a hard time seeing the value of this view. The image recorded by the camera can be represented better by an EVF than by an OVF, and it is that image the photographer is after. If one is after the reality of the view, one should put down the camera and use two eyes.

Actually, I don't think an EVF can represent what the camera is recording as well unless you like viewing photographs through a tiny electronic viewfinder. The main point of photography is to use a camera to record what the eye sees, especially when you make something like a 20 x 30 print.

[philippe]

Look: The Online Photographer: Pentax Lenses, FF (- zooms) on its way?

[civiletti]

Actually, I don't think an EVF can represent what the camera is recording as well unless you like viewing photographs through a tiny electronic viewfinder. The main point of photography is to use a camera to record what the eye sees, especially when you make something like a 20 x 30 print.

You are considering present technologicsl limitations of EVF's. I addressed the concept that EVF can never equal an OVF. Also, I do not agree that the "main point of photography is to use a camera to record what the eye sees." Photographers have a variety of "main points." Also, using an OVF makes the captured image no more like "what the eye sees" than does an EVF.

[Ash]

You are considering present technologicsl limitations of EVF's. I addressed the concept that EVF can never equal an OVF. Also, I do not agree that the "main point of photography is to use a camera to record what the eye sees." Photographers have a variety of "main points." Also, using an OVF makes the captured image no more like "what the eye sees" than does an EVF.

Indeed, the way in which we 'see' the framed scene prior to the photograph being taken is immaterial, but the only point I was making was that OVF is not limited by a refresh rate (I acknowledge that EVF will eventually eclipse the detectable refresh rate of the human eye) and that it just looks more pleasant to see the scene as is and rely on skill to get the intended exposure/artistic effect right. I'm sure there's an argument against this, but I guess beyond that, it's just my (current) personal preference.

[cfraz]

I have a hard time seeing the value of this view. The image recorded by the camera can be represented better by an EVF than by an OVF, and it is that image the photographer is after. If one is after the reality of the view, one should put down the camera and use two eyes.

My reaction to cameras with EVF's so far has been, "OK, now I'm going to take a picture of this (poor quality) picture of what I want to take a picture of." Not at all inspiring to me, very unlike how I respond to a camera with an OVF. The OVF puts me "there" while the EVF puts me in "a picture of what 'there' looks like" mindset. The very last thing I want in a viewfinder is WYSIWYG.

Maybe that will change as EVFs improve. For me, they've got a long ways to go.

[Laurentiu Cristofor]

but the only point I was making was ...<snip>... that it just looks more pleasant to see the scene as is and rely on skill to get the intended exposure/artistic effect right. I'm sure there's an argument against this

Well, the OVF does not really show the scene "as is" either - its luminosity will depend on the maximum aperture of the lens rather than on how the scene is actually lit.

Also, seeing the scene "as is" can be counter productive. It doesn't help at all with a dark scene, whereas an EVF/LCD can show a brighter scene that corresponds better to the recorded image and will help with framing and focusing. And if you want to estimate the DOF, the EVF/LCD will again do a better job than the OVF.

I could barely see this scene with my eyes, but I could bump the exposure and check the framing on the LCD screen:

40 second exposure:


Getting the defocused lights to have exactly the shape I wanted was trivial using an LCD for the following scene:



And then, of course, there is the benefit of being able to manually focus exactly where I want to, by zooming into the image and seeing more than the eye can see:



Then there's the ability to see things with an EVF that you would only notice after taking a shot if you were to depend on an OVF; these are the effect of compensating exposure and the areas that would be overexposed/underexposed.

The funny thing is that in practice, I forget that I am using an EVF - I am too focused on processing all the information that the camera makes available, to think that I might not be seeing the scene "as is".

[Kunzite]

My reaction to cameras with EVF's so far has been, "OK, now I'm going to take a picture of this (poor quality) picture of what I want to take a picture of." Not at all inspiring to me, very unlike how I respond to a camera with an OVF. The OVF puts me "there" while the EVF puts me in "a picture of what 'there' looks like" mindset. The very last thing I want in a viewfinder is WYSIWYG.

Same here. Why should I give up on seeing, being instead presented a rough interpretation of what the sensor sees? It's like the difference from going there to searching Google for images; if all you need are some already processed JPEGs displayed on a low-ish quality uncalibrated display, no need to get up from your chair.

I would use either the OVF or the back LCD, of course, but I like having this choice.