[Kunzite]

WYSIWYG EVF? Is there such a thing, or it's just an illusion/marketing claim?

[Digitalis]

WYSIWYG EVF? Is there such a thing, or it's just an illusion/marketing claim?

It is for unimaginative dullards who want to see things the way a camera does. Photography has always been about people and how we see things. A WYSIWYG EVF would stunt people photographically and I would sooner sell all my gear and never touch a camera again than have to deal with that crap.

[osv]

Who the hell uses Sunny f/16? rule.

"It’s also worth noting that the Sunny 16 rule has held true through every technological breakthrough from tinplates straight through modern-day digital imaging. It held true way back then and it holds true today."
The "Sunny 16" Rule | explora

---------- Post added 12-09-2014 at 04:41 PM ----------

It is for unimaginative dullards who want to see things the way a camera does.

that was hilarious! i couldn't stop laughing... nominated for pentaxforums.com rant of the week award!

probably 90% of the time, i know what my shot is before i put my eye up to the viewfinder... the only thing that i need a viewfinder for is setting focus with magnification, and checking the exposure, neither of which can be done with a crippled ovf.

"Yet the viewfinder is perhaps the single most fudged and botched aspect of today's 35mm SLRs. With the exception of the Contax Aria of the late '90s and the more recent Minolta Maxxum 7, virtually all entry-level to mid-range cameras skimp on the viewfinder."
Understanding Viewfinders

[Exroadie]

Mirror or not, I'd love to see something that will let me use the lenses I've already got. If they do a full frame that will take my old glass, I'm in.

[Lakai]

I am updating my previous posts because I was not aware that Sony had released the A7 II. Sony has developed its sensor shift ( if I am not mistaken, their early high ends used sensor shift as IS ) and is no longer exclusive to Olympus and Penatax mirrorless cameras. In due time the realization of the Z shift, a Contax original concept , a concept way ahead of its time and did not materialize during the film era but definitely will have a big impact on manual lens+digital body users. The concept had short comings and limitations though.

[Kunzite]

It is for unimaginative dullards who want to see things the way a camera does. Photography has always been about people and how we see things. A WYSIWYG EVF would stunt people photographically and I would sooner sell all my gear and never touch a camera again than have to deal with that crap.

My point is, can a miniature, uncalibrated display with limited resolution, DR, with added noise, an exposure time of its own and no awareness of how you'll postprocess the image later be called WYSIWYG?

[Clavius]

My point is, can a miniature, uncalibrated display with limited resolution, DR, with added noise, an exposure time of its own and no awareness of how you'll postprocess the image later be called WYSIWYG?

WYSIWYG in this respect is impossible for a broad scala of reasons and therefore shouldn't even be the goal. However, a good EVF does approximate what the sensor "sees" at that moment many times better then any OVF ever has. If that is not important, then why are we using a through-the-lens-VF at all?

[Digitalis]

However, a good EVF does approximate what the sensor "sees" at that moment many times better then any OVF ever has.

However in terms of gamut and contrast - EVFs have a long way to go before they can match 16 bit capability of high end sensors. A vast majority of LCDs are only 8 bit.

[Clavius]

However in terms of gamut and contrast - OVFs have a long way to go before they can match 16 bit capability of high end sensors. A vast majority of LCDs are only 8 bit.

That's just because OVFs are to dark to display the gamut and contrast. In theorie OVFs have unlimited contrast and gamut and will always beat EVFs, but when I look down a OVF not much seems to be left to really be of any use. Moreover, I don't think OVFs still have a long way to go, they can't really be developed any further then they are, can they?

[Kunzite]

There is an essential difference: the EVF tries to approximate the end result and it fails short, OTOH the OVF tries to show what you need to see in order to take the picture. For photography, the subject's image projected on a matte screen is a good approach. Making assumptions about the end result and crudely approximating those assumptions, perhaps not so much
We are using TTL viewfinders mostly to avoid parallax errors and to cover a wide range of focal lengths.

I think Digitalis meant EVFs. You can see much more in an OVF, thanks to an incredibly adaptable human vision.

[Clavius]

There is an essential difference: the EVF tries to approximate the end result and it fails short, OTOH the OVF tries to show what you need to see in order to take the picture and falls even shorter.

I've added what you forgot to mention there for you. You're welcome. The OVF doesn't even match the format of what the sensor captures exactly. So, it even fails at being a crude compositional aid.

Making assumptions about the end result and crudely approximating those assumptions, perhaps not so much

So, being left completely in the dark (pun intended) about the end result is better then a relatively good (and constantly improving) approximation? That like saying "missing both eyes is better then only missing one."

[Digitalis]

think Digitalis meant EVFs. You can see much more in an OVF, thanks to an incredibly adaptable human vision.

I did...whoops I should lay off the cognac...

I don't think OVFs still have a long way to go, they can't really be developed any further then they are, can they?

Actually they can: larger, higher quality prisms can improve brightness the screens can be improved as well. It is just the technology required to accomplish this may well end up being redundant in the distant future.

being left completely in the dark (pun intended) about the end result is better then a relatively good (and constantly improving) approximation?

I don't know about you but I don't want my viewfinder shifting WB on me, I fix my cameras at 5000K - all of them. None of the automatic WB system any manufacturer uses nails the lighting perfectly yet, I'd hate to be at the mercy of an EVF that changes values at a split seconds notice. And as for exposure simulation, well I have the ability to mentally calculate exposure pretty accurately before I have the camera to my eye* the reason I enjoy working with OVF based cameras is because the only real limit is my own eyes. If I can't see it there is little point in pressing the shutter and hoping that the camera can.

[Kunzite]

@Clavius: Please do not edit my posts to make them appear I've said the exact opposite; that's just a lame attempt at dismissing other's opinion. Please never associate your own claims with my name again.

It's not like the OVF is perfect: it directly depends on the frame size, it needs precise calibration and the matte screen is a compromise of accuracy and brightness. However, a typical 100% Pentax DSLR will give you an accurate enough framing for all practical purposes. You "found" the most irrelevant "fault" while avoiding the real issues, congratulations.

If you know what you're doing, you'd "see" the end result well before raising the camera to your eyes (I'm still working on that, but there are people for which this is a natural process). If you're clueless and have to set/confirm WB each time you're looking through the viewfinder... does anyone do that?

[Clavius]

I did...whoops I should lay off the cognac...

I understand typo's. I don't understand laying off cognac to prevent them though.

Actually they can: larger, higher quality prisms can improve brightness the screens can be improved as well.

But why hasn't that been done then? Why do we need to fidget a product into being acceptable with the help of third party parts?

I don't know about you but I don't want my viewfinder shifting WB on me, I fix my cameras at 5000K - all of them. None of the automatic WB system any manufacturer uses nails the lighting perfectly yet, I'd hate to be at the mercy of an EVF that changes values at a split seconds notice.

You're assuming that you can disable AWB of the camera whilst the EVF will ignore that and continues to AWB. Now I fully agree that that would be highly undesireable. Not to mention stupid.

the reason I enjoy working with OVF based cameras is because the only real limit is my own eyes. If I can't see it there is little point in pressing the shutter and hoping that the camera can.

To each his own. But the limits of your eyes is not in line with the limits of sensors, film, optics or whatever viewfinder. What about IR-photography? Astrography? Super-tele? Ultra-macro?

And what about being able to see movement with your eyes, but not in the OVF? (video)

[mecrox]

I don't know about you but I don't want my viewfinder shifting WB on me, I fix my cameras at 5000K - all of them. None of the automatic WB system any manufacturer uses nails the lighting perfectly yet, I'd hate to be at the mercy of an EVF that changes values at a split seconds notice. And as for exposure simulation, well I have the ability to mentally calculate exposure pretty accurately before I have the camera to my eye* the reason I enjoy working with OVF based cameras is because the only real limit is my own eyes. If I can't see it there is little point in pressing the shutter and hoping that the camera can.

I'm sure that if/when EVFs move up the chain into Canonikon professional territory or its equivalents, they will become much more sophisticated in terms of how they can be set up and used (if this is not the case today - I've no idea though I'll note that all the world's greatest wildlife documentaries in recent years seem to have been taken via an EVF). And as time goes by EVFs will likely get better, too. I'm surprised at the amount of resistance to EVFs generally which I put down to innate conservatism. People who can afford big bucks systems tend to be older and, being older, their vision tends not to be what it was. They are folks who would likely benefit more from an EVF than someone in their twenties. Maybe we are not that far off the point at which for some folks, no EVF = no sale. Imagine how successful smartphones would have been as cameras if instead of a nice big screen in real time you had to clip a sighting glass onto the phone eighteenth-century stylee and were only able to review a shot after you had taken it.