[MarkJerling]

I find it really nice, the big thing is to make sure it is set to high quality, by default they are set to standard quality, they say that by going to high quality it affects battery performance, but in reality that performance hit is negligible

Aha. I'll have to have a play with that when I next visit my mate who has one. In 'standard' it's not very nice at all.

[zkarj]

Do not write off the always improving EVF tech...

... by going to high quality it affects battery performance, but in reality that performance hit is negligible

Therein lies the rub. It's like the old (apocryphal) story about NASA inventing a pressurised pen to write in microgravity, whereas the Russians just used a pencil. There's a lot to be said for a hunk of glass.

[Class A]

Do not write off the always improving EVF tech,...

Well, I checked out the Fuji GFX 50S and the Fuji X-H1 very recently and was shocked how bad the viewfinder experience was. I have no interest in these cameras, I just picked them up to see how far viewfinder technology has evolved. One of them, I think it was the X-H1, occasionally started to stutter; the viewfinder would freeze for a moment and then continue as normal. That would irritate the heck out of me. Both cameras developed a strong and consistent stutter when I engaged AF. As long as I pressed the AF button, the viewfinder framerate was atrocious and to call the experience "off putting" would be flattery in my book.

Even if such issues are ironed out, personally, I'll never become a fan because a viewfinder always has to choose some white balance setting and in a number of environments that won't just not look right, it will look downright ugly (think artificial lights with wonky colour temperatures which you can find everywhere). I experienced it first hand when trying the Fuji models. Honestly, it puzzles me how anyone who is into photography because they have a sense for aesthetics would voluntarily live with such a crappy viewfinder experience.

EVFs will also present one with a certain brightness level that may or may not be suitable for the situation. EVFs can definitely be too bright in low light situations and create a jarring experience or destroy the low light adaptation of the eye.

There is the standard argument that EVFs have the advantage of showing one immediately how one's photo will look like, even before one presses the shutter release button, no chimping required afterwards either. However, that argument falls flat for me for two reasons:

1. My images never end up looking like an out-of-camera JPG. I always tweak them in significant ways. What an EVF can offer is some immediate feedback about exposure but it will tell me next to nothing about how my final image will look like. As I learned to get my exposure settings right without the aid of an EVF, an EVF does not add any value for me in that regard.
2. I very often use flash. An EVF doesn't show you how the scene will look like with flash. You'll have to take a shot to see the effect, just like with a DSLR.

I realise that some people love EVFs and good for them. Personally, I don't like them at all and I'm deeply disappointed with dee pee raveview for downplaying issues with mirrorless technology. For instance, banding caused by OPDAF (which DSLRS don't need) is mentioned but downplayed by stating it depends on your shooting style whether you'll be affected. With that kind of reasoning, they could just as well say that the K-1's continuous AF (which is not "industry leading" or "class leading, gosh, how I hate these phrases) may not concern you, depending on your shooting style. Somehow, however, they don't do that.

One may think that dee pee raveview wouldn't mind whether DSLRs stay or MILCs take over the world, but of course their overlords at Amazon would much rather see everyone buy a new camera -- and here's the real motivation -- plus a host of new lenses. Having said that, I don't think the amateurs at dee pee raveview think that way or are controlled in this manner. They are probably just infatuated with the newflanged technology. No doubt, MILCS have advantages, but they also have disadvantages and dee pee raveview never gives one a balanced picture.

Sorry for the rant.

[GUB]

Well, I checked out the Fuji GFX 50S and the Fuji X-H1 very recently and was shocked how bad the viewfinder experience was. I have no interest in these cameras, I just picked them up to see how far viewfinder technology has evolved. One of them, I think it was the X-H1, occasionally started to stutter; the viewfinder would freeze for a moment and then continue as normal. That would irritate the heck out of me. Both cameras developed a strong and consistent stutter when I engaged AF. As long as I pressed the AF button, the viewfinder framerate was atrocious and to call the experience "off putting" would be flattery in my book.

Even if such issues are ironed out, personally, I'll never become a fan because a viewfinder always has to choose some white balance setting and in a number of environments that won't just not look right, it will look downright ugly (think artificial lights with wonky colour temperatures which you can find everywhere). I experienced it first hand when trying the Fuji models. Honestly, it puzzles me how anyone who is into photography because they have a sense for aesthetics would voluntarily live with such a crappy viewfinder experience.

EVFs will also present one with a certain brightness level that may or may not be suitable for the situation. EVFs can definitely be too bright in low light situations and create a jarring experience or destroy the low light adaptation of the eye.

There is the standard argument that EVFs have the advantage of showing one immediately how one's photo will look like, even before one presses the shutter release button, no chimping required afterwards either. However, that argument falls flat for me for two reasons:

1. My images never end up looking like an out-of-camera JPG. I always tweak them in significant ways. What an EVF can offer is some immediate feedback about exposure but it will tell me next to nothing about how my final image will look like. As I learned to get my exposure settings right without the aid of an EVF, an EVF does not add any value for me in that regard.
2. I very often use flash. An EVF doesn't show you how the scene will look like with flash. You'll have to take a shot to see the effect, just like with a DSLR.

I realise that some people love EVFs and good for them. Personally, I don't like them at all and I'm deeply disappointed with dee pee raveview for downplaying issues with mirrorless technology. For instance, banding caused by OPDAF (which DSLRS don't need) is mentioned but downplayed by stating it depends on your shooting style whether you'll be affected. With that kind of reasoning, they could just as well say that the K-1's continuous AF (which is not "industry leading" or "class leading, gosh, how I hate these phrases) may not concern you, depending on your shooting style. Somehow, however, they don't do that.

One may think that dee pee raveview wouldn't mind whether DSLRs stay or MILCs take over the world, but of course their overlords at Amazon would much rather see everyone buy a new camera -- and here's the real motivation -- plus a host of new lenses. Having said that, I don't think the amateurs at dee pee raveview think that way or are controlled in this manner. They are probably just infatuated with the newflanged technology. No doubt, MILCS have advantages, but they also have disadvantages and dee pee raveview never gives one a balanced picture.

Sorry for the rant.

Naa - great rant. Question tho-- I am always in liveview with a lcd viewfinder permantly attached to the K1. I find this easily the most precise way to use MF lenses. There is no flicker - no banding or for that matter any question of a sensor capture difference between LV and OVF. Is EVF totally different technology rather than just a very small lcd screen with a magnifying eyepiece?.

[Kiwi645hauler]

Well, I checked out the Fuji GFX 50S and the Fuji X-H1 very recently and was shocked how bad the viewfinder experience was. I have no interest in these cameras, I just picked them up to see how far viewfinder technology has evolved. One of them, I think it was the X-H1, occasionally started to stutter; the viewfinder would freeze for a moment and then continue as normal. That would irritate the heck out of me. Both cameras developed a strong and consistent stutter when I engaged AF. As long as I pressed the AF button, the viewfinder framerate was atrocious and to call the experience "off putting" would be flattery in my book.

Even if such issues are ironed out, personally, I'll never become a fan because a viewfinder always has to choose some white balance setting and in a number of environments that won't just not look right, it will look downright ugly (think artificial lights with wonky colour temperatures which you can find everywhere). I experienced it first hand when trying the Fuji models. Honestly, it puzzles me how anyone who is into photography because they have a sense for aesthetics would voluntarily live with such a crappy viewfinder experience.

EVFs will also present one with a certain brightness level that may or may not be suitable for the situation. EVFs can definitely be too bright in low light situations and create a jarring experience or destroy the low light adaptation of the eye.

There is the standard argument that EVFs have the advantage of showing one immediately how one's photo will look like, even before one presses the shutter release button, no chimping required afterwards either. However, that argument falls flat for me for two reasons:

1. My images never end up looking like an out-of-camera JPG. I always tweak them in significant ways. What an EVF can offer is some immediate feedback about exposure but it will tell me next to nothing about how my final image will look like. As I learned to get my exposure settings right without the aid of an EVF, an EVF does not add any value for me in that regard.
2. I very often use flash. An EVF doesn't show you how the scene will look like with flash. You'll have to take a shot to see the effect, just like with a DSLR.

I realise that some people love EVFs and good for them. Personally, I don't like them at all and I'm deeply disappointed with dee pee raveview for downplaying issues with mirrorless technology. For instance, banding caused by OPDAF (which DSLRS don't need) is mentioned but downplayed by stating it depends on your shooting style whether you'll be affected. With that kind of reasoning, they could just as well say that the K-1's continuous AF (which is not "industry leading" or "class leading, gosh, how I hate these phrases) may not concern you, depending on your shooting style. Somehow, however, they don't do that.

One may think that dee pee raveview wouldn't mind whether DSLRs stay or MILCs take over the world, but of course their overlords at Amazon would much rather see everyone buy a new camera -- and here's the real motivation -- plus a host of new lenses. Having said that, I don't think the amateurs at dee pee raveview think that way or are controlled in this manner. They are probably just infatuated with the newflanged technology. No doubt, MILCS have advantages, but they also have disadvantages and dee pee raveview never gives one a balanced picture.

Sorry for the rant.

Fuji's EVF tech is quite different, but again like the Sony's if the cameras are in default factory settings the lag and stutter can be pretty bad. One of my first things for anyone going into mirrorless, turn off the instant playbacks and image disps for EVFs, this instantly improves frame rates. Any camera that i get instore for demo, that is the first setting changed, use High Quality & turn off displays in the EVF to create a better working environment.
As for Banding not being a DSLR problem, tell that to Nikon D610, 750 & 850 owners, there are banding issues with those cameras.
The Fuji & Sony Banding issue seems to be more because of the silent electronic shutters used in various modes, not because of the OSPDAF. As for DSLR's not needing OSPDAF, talk to DSLR videographers using legacy lenses, very much a needed thing for AF if using. Sony didnt need it because they had the fixed mirror to a second sensor for PDAF in the SLT cameras.
As for Dee Pee Raveiw, there are a couple of their reviewers who trash anything except Nikon or Canon, and there are a couple of Panasonic & Sony lovers too, i take any of their reviews with a grain of salt, much like anything that comes out of Tony Northrup or Ken Rockwell's mouths

[Class A]

Is EVF totally different technology rather than just a very small lcd screen with a magnifying eyepiece?

It's exactly that. It means that your main sensor is always powered while you are composing which reduces battery life (along with power needed to operate the EVF) and may cause a tiny bit more noise in some extreme situations, compared to a sensor that is only powered when an image is actually captured.

[Class A]

Fuji's EVF tech is quite different, ...

How so?

Just curious; I doubt I'll ever be convinced by an EVF because some of the issues I mentioned are inherent to looking at a reproduction of a scene, rather than the scene itself (through passive optics) In order to address all current issues associated with that difference, a lot of technology hast still to be developed.

As for Banding not being a DSLR problem, tell that to Nikon D610, 750 & 850 owners, there are banding issues with those cameras.

I didn't say that banding doesn't occur on DSLRs. I said that DSLRs do not need OSPDAF.
There are plenty DSLR models that do not exhibit any banding, nor suffer from any of the other issues that may be caused by using the main image for phase detect focus as well.

The Fuji & Sony Banding issue seems to be more because of the silent electronic shutters used in various modes, not because of the OSPDAF.

There are definitely phenomena that are specific to OSPDAF. I guess I should have written "striping" rather than "banding". Striping is clearly an OSPDAF-specific issue. Some OSPDAF sensors have trouble with certain backlit scenes and create visible stripes as a response (similar to the "green line syndrome" of the K-7).

As for DSLR's not needing OSPDAF, talk to DSLR videographers using legacy lenses, very much a needed thing for AF if using.

DSLRs for still photography do not need OSPDAF. If one wants a device that takes still pictures and does video, and wants continuous AF while filming (the latter requirement is not a given, considering how poorly most continuous AF systems still operate; although they got a lot better, there is still focus pumping in the background when the lens tries to lock on a target while overshooting a bit every time, etc.) then of course OSPDAF can be useful, even on a DSLR. I maintain that a DSLR has a suboptimal form factor for video (and look at the contraptions people add to get external recording, focus pulling, etc.) and that there is a place for DSLRs that unashamedly prioritise still photography. As long as there are no downsides for still photography (note that current CMOS sensors were partly chosen to support live view and video but gave us the "rolling shutter" phenomenon even for still photography; a problem that CCD sensors did not have), a DSLR surely can support video. However, if OSPDAF is introduced mainly to support video and then has detrimental consequences for still photography, I feel that is a case of the tail wagging the dog (when the device is supposed to first and foremost take still pictures).

Granted there are people -- Hi Richard! -- who want to use a single camera for both still photography and video and there is nothing wrong with that. I'm convinced that many current MILCs and/or DLSRs with OSPDAF are fantastic devices for such users and they may never be bothered with any of their downsides. All I'm asking dee pee raveview for is to acknowledge that some people would like to see still photography prioritised and stop the brain dead, sales pushing narrative of DSLRs belonging into museums.

[pixelsaurus]

What is this OSPDAF of which people speak?

[richandfleur]

What is this OSPDAF of which people speak?

On Sensor Phase Detect Auto Focus points. As seen on the Pentax K-70 model camera.

This is how mirrorless cameras (and DSLRs in live view) are still able to offer Phase Detect AF, which was traditionally only available in DSLRs.

[pixelsaurus]

On Sensor Phase Detect Auto Focus points. As seen on the Pentax K-70 model camera.

This is how mirrorless cameras (and DSLRs in live view) are still able to offer Phase Detect AF, which was traditionally only available in DSLRs.

Kule. I have a K-70 but never use live view. Have to admit, I see an acronym these days and my eyes glaze over.

[GUB]

This is a bit weird - I went back to that site to have another look at the dynamic range comparison
Nikon Z7 Review: Digital Photography Review
and after inserting the K1 it came up with this strange layer across the image that is limited to a certain area of the test image. (you can move the detail around in the boxes). Do you get the same result if you set the same settings as I did?

[MarkJerling]

This is a bit weird - I went back to that site to have another look at the dynamic range comparison
Nikon Z7 Review: Digital Photography Review
and after inserting the K1 it came up with this strange layer across the image that is limited to a certain area of the test image. (you can move the detail around in the boxes). Do you get the same result if you set the same settings as I did?

No, I don't get that issue if I copy your settings.

[richandfleur]

That pixel shift really is amazing for static scenes.

[Kiwi645hauler]

How so?

Just curious; I doubt I'll ever be convinced by an EVF because some of the issues I mentioned are inherent to looking at a reproduction of a scene, rather than the scene itself (through passive optics) In order to address all current issues associated with that difference, a lot of technology hast still to be developed.


I didn't say that banding doesn't occur on DSLRs. I said that DSLRs do not need OSPDAF.
There are plenty DSLR models that do not exhibit any banding, nor suffer from any of the other issues that may be caused by using the main image for phase detect focus as well.


There are definitely phenomena that are specific to OSPDAF. I guess I should have written "striping" rather than "banding". Striping is clearly an OSPDAF-specific issue. Some OSPDAF sensors have trouble with certain backlit scenes and create visible stripes as a response (similar to the "green line syndrome" of the K-7).


DSLRs for still photography do not need OSPDAF. If one wants a device that takes still pictures and does video, and wants continuous AF while filming (the latter requirement is not a given, considering how poorly most continuous AF systems still operate; although they got a lot better, there is still focus pumping in the background when the lens tries to lock on a target while overshooting a bit every time, etc.) then of course OSPDAF can be useful, even on a DSLR. I maintain that a DSLR has a suboptimal form factor for video (and look at the contraptions people add to get external recording, focus pulling, etc.) and that there is a place for DSLRs that unashamedly prioritise still photography. As long as there are no downsides for still photography (note that current CMOS sensors were partly chosen to support live view and video but gave us the "rolling shutter" phenomenon even for still photography; a problem that CCD sensors did not have), a DSLR surely can support video. However, if OSPDAF is introduced mainly to support video and then has detrimental consequences for still photography, I feel that is a case of the tail wagging the dog (when the device is supposed to first and foremost take still pictures).

Granted there are people -- Hi Richard! -- who want to use a single camera for both still photography and video and there is nothing wrong with that. I'm convinced that many current MILCs and/or DLSRs with OSPDAF are fantastic devices for such users and they may never be bothered with any of their downsides. All I'm asking dee pee raveview for is to acknowledge that some people would like to see still photography prioritised and stop the brain dead, sales pushing narrative of DSLRs belonging into museums.

The Fuji viewfinders in the X-H1 & GFX50s are the same 3.7 million dot 100fps capable screens i am not 100% sure, but i did read somewhere that they are specific to Fuji designs.
As for the OSPDAF, remember, this tech in reality, is still in its infancy, there are strides being made in the sensor tech for the OSPDAF, much like early AF systems in SLR cameras, I am sure many of us remember cameras such as the ME-F, and its AF lenses, the SF-X & SF-7 cameras being the early steps in the AF journey for SLR's,
The biggest issue is as a retailer, The Majority of camera makers are now being run as electronics companies, so new models are being released at a still hectic pace driven by marketing departments fueling the cellphone like gotta have the latest and greatest every year. So even if tech is not 100% it is being forced to market early, and early adopters become an advance BETA tester.
There are issues with all cameras that do not suit someone's needs or is a comprimise. One of the biggest issues i have with d p rev is unless it is Sonikonanon they do not rate anything well. DXO mark is always a good one because they do not have affiliate programs etc or owned by a retailer.
Oh and as for still images not needing OSPDAF, it is super handy when doing macro and closeup work because you can use live view and focus where you want and not cast shadow on the subject leaning into to check focus when the shutter is released.

[pixelsaurus]

That pixel shift really is amazing for static scenes.

Cheers. I seem to have lost my mojo at the moment.