[Clavius]

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.

EVF = mirrorless = mount change = "Oh no, my lens collection!"

[mecrox]

EVF = mirrorless = mount change = "Oh no, my lens collection!"

Sure, but some folks say they don't like EVFs because they don't like them, not because of questions over the mount. It's perfectly possible to have an EVF without changing the mount at all. There are two separate issues here. Anyway, the point is likely to become a little moot because I suspect that EVFs will be imposed on the majority of the market anyway sooner or later. The production savings behind the camera-on-a-chip idea are just too tempting for most camera-makers to pass up. There will still be OVF cameras perhaps but they will gradually become more and more of a special niche. In terms of all cameras sold, and especially including smartphones, OVF cameras are already a minority.

[Kunzite]

I'm surprised at the amount of resistance to EVFs generally which I put down to innate conservatism.

Not conservatism, but experience: we know what works and don't want that replaced with something which doesn't
To make an analogy - we're replacing the classical book with an electronic equivalent. There are advantages, right? Storage space, don't need to cut trees, and we can do amazing things like web searches, commenting directly from the book's text... Yet we have a problem: the electronic viewfinders LCD displays just can't match the good old paper in terms of reading comfort.
Thus, the e-ink screen was made: it's purpose being to emulate the good old paper. Quite close, but not perfect.

IMO the reason for the eventual OVF decline would be that young people just wouldn't know what a good OVF looks like.

P.S. (and a bit off-topic) Perhaps the most important advantage of e-books is that Amazon can remotely wipe up your Kindle, if it chooses so. Much easier to do than getting the Police to raid your home and burn your library

[osv]

Not conservatism, but experience: we know what works and don't want that replaced with something which doesn't

quite the opposite, in fact; thinking that an ovf "works" indicates a complete failure to evaluate modern technology.

in all the mirrorless forums that i'm on, there are very few people who learn how to use magnification on an evf, that want to go back to an ovf.

[Kunzite]

Asking exclusively in the mirrorless forums, no wonder...

The optical reflex viewfinder worked for decades, and it didn't stop working just because some people are way too eager to hype up EVFs.

[normhead]

quite the opposite, in fact; thinking that an ovf "works" indicates a complete failure to evaluate modern technology.

in all the mirrorless forums that i'm on, there are very few people who learn how to use magnification on an evf, that want to go back to an ovf.

I guess just the fact they are on mirrorless forums is a pretty good indication they couldn't master focus on a OVF system, so that's not at all surprising. If you can't do something on one system, and you can do it on another, no matter how tedious, why would you go back?

[rawr]

On the subject of EVF's, they seem to vary a lot in quality.

I have a very nice high resolution (2359K dots) and high contrast ratio (3,500:1) Sony FDA-EV1S EVF on my NEX-F3. It's normally very nice to use, particularly since it tilts and has a nice wide dioptr adjustment range, but it isn't fun at all to use once the light dims even slightly, or if you are looking into shadows. LOTS of horrible splotchy image noise appears on screen, same on the rear LCD, and the display also seems to slow down. I must admit that this negative experience has shaped my perception of EVF's a lot.

However a little while ago I picked up a Canon SX-50 superzoom for fun at half-price, and have found that the very basic 202k dots EVF in it works totally fine in low light, with no image degradation on screen at all.

So now I have a more open mind on EVF's.

Can anyone say if the EVF on the Sony A7 series is an improvement on the external Sony FDA-EV1S EVF? The basic specs seem identical.

[osv]

Asking exclusively in the mirrorless forums, no wonder...

you surely don't think that everyone who shoots mirrorless started out with mirrorless do you?

please...

---------- Post added 12-10-2014 at 02:18 PM ----------

I guess just the fact they are on mirrorless forums is a pretty good indication they couldn't master focus on a OVF system

k3: 0.95x magnification
a7r: 13x magnification

that's why they are on mirrorless forums

---------- Post added 12-10-2014 at 02:32 PM ----------

Can anyone say if the EVF on the Sony A7 series is an improvement on the external Sony FDA-EV1S EVF? The basic specs seem identical.

it got 4.5 stars at b&h, out of 88 reviews... i wonder if there is a problem with that specific camera.

Sony OLED Electronic Viewfinder for Select NEX Cameras FDA-EV1S

that said, the a7r viewfinder is not something that you'd use for gamma-checking dark areas of the photo... but neither is any lcd on a back of a camera, either.

[normhead]

you surely don't think that everyone who shoots mirrorless started out with mirrorless do you?

please...

---------- Post added 12-10-2014 at 02:18 PM ----------



k3: 0.95x magnification
a7r: 13x magnification

that's why they are on mirrorless forums

As I said, because for some reason they can't get the job done with .95x.

[Kunzite]

you surely don't think that everyone who shoots mirrorless started out with mirrorless do you?

please...

Oh, I see... because some of them started out with DSLRs, everything's OK; it doesn't matter at all that you're only asking people who chose the EVF. And you'd ask only people sipping their coffee at Starbucks, if you'd want to know if coffee is preferred to tea
Don't you think it's way too obvious?

[rawr]

i wonder if there is a problem with that specific camera.

Perhaps not - the display on the rear LCD of my older NEX-5 used to also get pretty ugly in the dark.

But next time I am in a camera store, I'll look into the EVFs on the A6000 or A7r, or maybe a Fuji or Panasonic EVF, just to see how the tech is getting along. I'm still an OVF guy, but I keep an open mind.

[osv]

Oh, I see... because some of them started out with DSLRs,

i specifically stated "that want to go back to an ovf."

which could only mean those who have used dslrs.

people in a mirrorless forum who have never used dslrs are not relevant to anything that i said.

have you ever used a real evf?

---------- Post added 12-10-2014 at 06:08 PM ----------

As I said, because for some reason they can't get the job done with .95x.

you personally can not get the job done at 0.95x.

but we see how you think that you can

do you have any experience with a real evf?

[normhead]

i specifically stated "that want to go back to an ovf."

which could only mean those who have used dslrs.

people in a mirrorless forum who have never used dslrs are not relevant to anything that i said.

have you ever used a real evf?

---------- Post added 12-10-2014 at 06:08 PM ----------



you personally can not get the job done at 0.95x.

but we see how you think that you can

do you have any experience with a real evf?

I've always been able to get the job done using a .95x OVF. so, why would I buy an EVF?

but we see how you think that you can

You couldn't see anything before, but now you can... A-400.


By the time you framed this guy then switched to 16x to check your focus, he'd be long gone. Focused by hand in a .95x viewfinder.

Would there be anything else you'd like to tell me I can't do?

[Kunzite]

i specifically stated "that want to go back to an ovf."

which could only mean those who have used dslrs.

people in a mirrorless forum who have never used dslrs are not relevant to anything that i said.

have you ever used a real evf?

Yes, I understand perfectly. You:
- considered only people who already decided that MILCs (and not DSLRs) are for them (which is a very biased sample to start from)
- a part of those used DSLRs before
- a part of those discovered they actually want DSLRs
And you think that part of part of your biased sample being very small means that EVFs are better.

By the way, if optical viewfinders don't work (in your highly biased opinion), what Pentax product are you using and why?

[Digitalis]

if optical viewfinders don't work (in your highly biased opinion), what Pentax product are you using and why?

Good question..

IF OVF's didn't work how come I was able to get an image like these with manual focus?


Pentax K10D - Sigma 100-300mm f/4 APO EX DG - ISO 400 1/1000th f/8 @300mm


Pentax K10D - Sigma 100-300mm f/4 APO EX DG - ISO 200 1/1000th f/5.6 @ 160mm