Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
12-26-2014, 06:52 AM   #601
Pentaxian
philbaum's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Port Townsend, Washington State, USA
Posts: 3,659
QuoteOriginally posted by Rondec Quote
I do think it's interesting that people keep saying the EVF sees what the sensor sees, when it shows a representation of a JPEG that you would create if you took a photo. Most RAW files have way more dynamic range and color depth than an EVF can express and so a good optical viewfinder is probably more accurate if you shoot RAW landscapes and plan to post process.
I find it interesting that you think an OVF is accurate in showing the results of exposure settings - it certainly doesn't. And of course there is no way any monitor or EVF can show the amount of data in a RAW file.

12-26-2014, 07:11 AM   #602
Pentaxian
LensBeginner's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2014
Photos: Albums
Posts: 2,490
QuoteOriginally posted by philbaum Quote
I find it interesting that you think an OVF is accurate in showing the results of exposure settings - it certainly doesn't. And of course there is no way any monitor or EVF can show the amount of data in a RAW file.
I believe he meant accurate with respect to the final product, i.e. the processed picture - or at least to the wide gamut of colors you could get a sound technique, because with an OVF you're only limited by your eyes' dynamic range, not the monitor's...
12-26-2014, 07:46 AM   #603
Pentaxian




Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 2,609
QuoteOriginally posted by Digitalis Quote
the problem being that shallow DOF is rarely used for cinematography* - the idea of cinema is to emulate how people see things, and unless you are in the verge of alcohol poisoning no one sees things the way an f/1.2 lens does.




Tried a K-01( no I haven't) or a mirrorless? I have worked with the Leica M system for over a decade. And you won't see me chucking DSLRS in favour of it. There are some things that mirrorless cameras simply cannot do. And even if they did it, would defeat the purpose of removing the mirror for a more compact system in the first place.

*for several very good: reasons shallow DOF means the focus pullers job gets a lot harder, image quality from the lens can be severely compromised - coma, Vignetting, astigmatism, longitudinal and transverse chromatic aberration are all worse with lenses with apertures faster than f/2 apertures - the only lens that doesn't have significant problems at wider apertures are certain Leica and Zeiss OTUS lenses - and those are hardly within the financial reach of your common DSLR user.
Extremely shallow DoF is rarely used, I totally agree. You'd have to be nuts to shoot that way. But less DoF than a camcorder provides you (absolutely everything is in focus) is common. When everything is in focus, the brain automatically starts to think it's video, it's cheap. The human eye doesn't see everything in focus, we are constantly refocusing, we just may not notice it.

---------- Post added 26-12-14 at 15:55 ----------

QuoteOriginally posted by philbaum Quote
I find it interesting that you think an OVF is accurate in showing the results of exposure settings - it certainly doesn't. And of course there is no way any monitor or EVF can show the amount of data in a RAW file.
Why not?
Hollywood Says “Meh” To 4K TV But “More!” To High Dynamic Range | Variety


Bigger contrast ratios seems to be the next thing. And you can always squeeze in the whole range of the sensor into an 8 bit image. It will look flat, and gradations (?) may not be smooth, but at least you will see what the sensor is able to capture.


I think to many the result is what counts, and an EVF makes it easier to get there and to get it right every time. Pioneer etc. sound like people who love to shoot film, develop the film themselves etc. That's fine, and I can understand the appeal. I doubt though that the majority of the market thinks that way. Who knows if there are even enough people like that to allow camera makers to keep making DSLRs. No one makes SLR cameras these days...
12-26-2014, 03:50 PM   #604
Loyal Site Supporter
Pioneer's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Elko, Nevada
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 1,167
QuoteOriginally posted by kadajawi Quote
I think to many the result is what counts, and an EVF makes it easier to get there and to get it right every time. Pioneer etc. sound like people who love to shoot film, develop the film themselves etc. That's fine, and I can understand the appeal. I doubt though that the majority of the market thinks that way. Who knows if there are even enough people like that to allow camera makers to keep making DSLRs. No one makes SLR cameras these days...
You are right kadajawi. There are different styles and different ways of thinking at play here. No one is really wrong, they just want different things.

I would hope that as technology improves that we are not forced to choose, but are provided options. The Leica M Model 240 digital camera provides both optical viewing and focusing alongside electronic viewing and focusing. I realize that the Leica is not an SLR, and I also realize it is outrageously expensive, but it is obviously possible.

An example would be the K-01 with an accessory optical finder which attaches to the hot shoe and provides focus and exposure settings in the finder. If you want optical, buy the OVF. If you want electronic, buy the EVF.

12-26-2014, 04:29 PM   #605
Pentaxian




Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 2,609
QuoteOriginally posted by Pioneer Quote
You are right kadajawi. There are different styles and different ways of thinking at play here. No one is really wrong, they just want different things.

I would hope that as technology improves that we are not forced to choose, but are provided options. The Leica M Model 240 digital camera provides both optical viewing and focusing alongside electronic viewing and focusing. I realize that the Leica is not an SLR, and I also realize it is outrageously expensive, but it is obviously possible.

An example would be the K-01 with an accessory optical finder which attaches to the hot shoe and provides focus and exposure settings in the finder. If you want optical, buy the OVF. If you want electronic, buy the EVF.
I agree, having the option to use either would be ideal. But how could they do it? To have an optical viewfinder that sits on the hot shoe... it doesn't really allow for precise framing, let alone what you do on the telephoto end. And if you're going down that route, some of the Fuji's have an OVF that with the flick of a switch turns into an EVF. (At least this would make it possible to use the wide angle OVF for wide to medium shots, and then switch to the EVF when you are at the tele end of things.


It might be possible to make DSLRs that have an EVF that can be switched into the image path when wanted. But all the size and weight benefits of a mirrorless system, the space savings on the lens that a mirrorless system would enable, all that would be gone. Even if you offer 2 different cameras, as long as they are supposed to share lenses you're basically stuck with a K-01. So the question is if there is a big enough market to allow maintaining 2 separate camera lines along with lenses, or to allow the mirrorless system to make sacrifices so that the mirrored system is still possible.


Btw., OLED screens can offer much more contrast than LCD screens... what if they are driven by electronics and software designed to reproduce exactly what the sensor sees?
12-26-2014, 08:36 PM   #606
Loyal Site Supporter
Pioneer's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Elko, Nevada
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 1,167
I am not a camera designer but I do suspect that translucent mirrors can be used, or parallax correction for off set viewfinders. Undoubtedly there are other solutions, but they are certainly not going to be as inexpensive as building an EVF and leaving it at that.

I have never used a Fuji digital, though I have used several of their film cameras, so I can't comment on their optical viewfinders with electronic overlay. I may have to try one if I get an opportunity.

In the end we will all end up with cheaper, less effective solutions, especially with lower end cameras, because, as you said, most people want their camera to tell them they have done it right.

Hopefully the higher end, pro-sumer, or pro cameras will maintain effective optical viewfinders. We have never really lost rangefinders, though they are a very small part of the entire market. I guess that is where the slr wil end up.

As others have said, this is probably a tempest in a teapot. A good photographer can work with anything. But that in itself is a bit misleading. Good photographers CAN probably work with about anything. But all the ones I have followed seem to choose the tool that fits their personal vision best.
12-26-2014, 09:06 PM   #607
Loyal Site Supporter




Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Southern Indiana
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 14,940
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by philbaum Quote
I find it interesting that you think an OVF is accurate in showing the results of exposure settings - it certainly doesn't. And of course there is no way any monitor or EVF can show the amount of data in a RAW file.
For me it is a familiarity thing. I know when I am shooting ISO 80 on a K5 what kind of detail I can get out of the shadows and if it will be better in this scene to under expose by a stop to be sure. I have much less familiarity with an EVF and so it is tougher, although I suppose I could get used to it. I usually chimp some too, paying attention to blinkies to see if I am blowing out my highlights. I can work with anything my experience to this point with EVFs hasn't been that great.
12-26-2014, 10:34 PM   #608
Pentaxian
philbaum's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Port Townsend, Washington State, USA
Posts: 3,659
QuoteOriginally posted by Rondec Quote
For me it is a familiarity thing. I know when I am shooting ISO 80 on a K5 what kind of detail I can get out of the shadows and if it will be better in this scene to under expose by a stop to be sure. I have much less familiarity with an EVF and so it is tougher, although I suppose I could get used to it. I usually chimp some too, paying attention to blinkies to see if I am blowing out my highlights. I can work with anything my experience to this point with EVFs hasn't been that great.
And i think familiarity is a good reason to stick with a design. Have a great new year!

12-27-2014, 05:21 AM   #609
Pentaxian




Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 2,609
QuoteOriginally posted by Pioneer Quote
I am not a camera designer but I do suspect that translucent mirrors can be used, or parallax correction for off set viewfinders. Undoubtedly there are other solutions, but they are certainly not going to be as inexpensive as building an EVF and leaving it at that.

I have never used a Fuji digital, though I have used several of their film cameras, so I can't comment on their optical viewfinders with electronic overlay. I may have to try one if I get an opportunity.

In the end we will all end up with cheaper, less effective solutions, especially with lower end cameras, because, as you said, most people want their camera to tell them they have done it right.

Hopefully the higher end, pro-sumer, or pro cameras will maintain effective optical viewfinders. We have never really lost rangefinders, though they are a very small part of the entire market. I guess that is where the slr wil end up.

As others have said, this is probably a tempest in a teapot. A good photographer can work with anything. But that in itself is a bit misleading. Good photographers CAN probably work with about anything. But all the ones I have followed seem to choose the tool that fits their personal vision best.
Yeah, I think a combo approach will cost the most.


As for the Fujis... they are good. I remember thinking the EVF was a bit rough, but that tech has improved.


Actually come to think of it, it might not be hard at all to do an EVF in a DSLR. Several years ago Samsung and LG have demonstrated transparent OLED screens. They could provide the overlay info as well as the EVF, as they emit light themselves. The main problem would be that they aren't fully translucent, there is some light loss involved. Alternative would be an LCD screen without the backlighting, which could be there all the time too. It just needs an even light source in EVF mode. Or a flexible OLED screen that can be rolled in and out of the viewfinder (I'd like to have it in front of the pentaprism, so that you can have an APS-C or FF sized screen (which should be enough for a really high resolution). Perhaps a screen that sits underneath the mirror, and a mirror that can be changed in it's reflectivity. Or really just one of those one way mirrors they like to use for interrogation rooms. They could work too I suppose? A problem are the traditional PDAF sensors, which are needed when you shoot in regular DSLR mode...


@Rondec: Hm. The blinkies can be built into the EVF... and set to only be triggered when really no data is left (or you might be able to adjust it... hopefully also in how strong they are. I've deactivated it on my K-5 because when shooting at night I'm blinded. A much more subtle effect would be more than enough). I think those problems are really just temporary. Screens are getting better and better, with a bigger dynamic range and steps in between. Processors are getting better and better too, so they may be able to render the output into an actual 14 stop image that is displayed in the viewfinder in real time.
12-27-2014, 03:33 PM   #610
Site Supporter
beachgardener's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Australia
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,928
For me Optical viewfinders are the way too go, and a flip out lcd, so I can face it inwards 99% of the time, on occasions it is good to see blinkies for hightlight areas.
12-27-2014, 04:42 PM   #611
Pentaxian
Digitalis's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Adelaide.
Posts: 8,535
QuoteOriginally posted by Pioneer Quote
A good photographer can work with anything. But that in itself is a bit misleading.
just because someone can work with something doesn't mean they would use it given a choice. I still use Rangefinders even though the cost of entry to the realm of digital RFs is very high. If Leica, Zeiss and Voigtlander didn't make such good lenses I don't think i would have bothered. When one commits to a system there is more to that choice than simply technology, sometimes it is the egonomics of a particular brand that attracts, sometimes it is the lens selection, or the flash system ( nikon CLS is great to work with).
12-27-2014, 06:33 PM   #612
Site Supporter




Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: Hamilton, Texas
Photos: Albums
Posts: 634
QuoteOriginally posted by DBGrip Quote
You just made this whole argument resolve for me just why DSLR's aren't dying. It clicked... the OVF is telling you what the lens is seeing, the EVF what the sensor is seeing. The medium behind that format is different, I've had a few bodies behind some of the same lenses. I want to look through the lens, I'll figure out how to record it later.
I find that I prefer producing a finished, or nearly-finished, image when I take the photo. This idea that we're going to shoot and shoot, and then later spend time (hours?) on the computer post-processing, fiddling with three or four different programs, adjusting, trying to coax some kind of pleasing image out of all it all... I know some people love all that, but I feel like it's not for me. I'd rather get it right when I'm there on the scene, looking through the camera.

And yes... I shoot JPEG. Not always... but a fair bit of the time, I do. It does limit the extent of adjustments I can make later on the computer, but each camera's firmware and settings impart their own character, which I find is often more interesting than whatever I would apply later with my Mac.

QuoteQuote:
That's why DSLR isn't dying, because people will want to look through their lenses, and see reflected light, not projected light.
Not me. I'll be perfectly happy to leave mirrors behind.
12-27-2014, 07:01 PM   #613
Pentaxian
Digitalis's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Adelaide.
Posts: 8,535
QuoteOriginally posted by Tony Belding Quote
I find that I prefer producing a finished, or nearly-finished, image when I take the photo
That is the fundamental problem at issue here, the EVF can't show you the finished image, because the DR fo the screen is too small, the Gamut of the display is too narrow (and it is an uncalibrated display too). OVFs overcome these limitations because of their inherent properties EVFs don't have these innate advantages. Do you really intend for your final image to be displayed as a postage stamp sized image in your viewfinder? No one does, and if you do then you need to change your process - because you're holding yourself back.

On large format the image from the lens is projected onto the ground glass upside down and laterally inverted* - this allows one to see the image independent of its content - and allows for a more objective process when it comes to composing an image. Only in print do you have a finalized image - not in the viewfinder.

*this is one of the reasons why I laugh when people say EVFs show the image how the sensor sees it - this is incorrect, if EVFs showed exactly what the sensor saw, the image would be upside down and laterally inverted. So EVFs are just as much of a lie as OVFs are, deal with it.

Last edited by Digitalis; 12-27-2014 at 07:09 PM.
12-27-2014, 09:39 PM - 1 Like   #614
Pentaxian
philbaum's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Port Townsend, Washington State, USA
Posts: 3,659
QuoteOriginally posted by Digitalis Quote
That is the fundamental problem at issue here, the EVF can't show you the finished image, because the DR fo the screen is too small, the Gamut of the display is too narrow (and it is an uncalibrated display too). OVFs overcome these limitations because of their inherent properties EVFs don't have these innate advantages. Do you really intend for your final image to be displayed as a postage stamp sized image in your viewfinder?
.
Well, your OVF is also postage stamp sized. So when you say EVF is flawed because its postage stamp size, then the OVF is also flawed because its typically no bigger. In fact, its possible for mfr to make EVFs really large - that capability does not exist with OVFs.

I think what you're missing here is that both EVFs and OVFs are used primarily to frame the image, and perhaps to capture that one moment in time that Henri Cartier Breeson talked about. You're not using the VF to tone the image. And as soon as you click the shutter after looking thru that OVF, it becomes a digital image just like the EVF image already is.

As far as "inherent properties", both OVFs and EVFs have inherent pros and cons. When posters say they prefer one type of VF over another type, it just means that poster prefers one set of inherent properties over another set of properties. I have both types of cameras, and don't find the switch is any big deal. In a low light situation, i can turn up the "gain" on the EVF and be able to see the details better than i can with the OVF. But thats not going to be important to someone who doesn't shoot in those situations. So neither the EVF proponents are wrong, nor are the OVF proponents wrong - its simply different choices.
12-28-2014, 06:47 PM   #615
Pentaxian




Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 2,609
QuoteOriginally posted by beachgardener Quote
For me Optical viewfinders are the way too go, and a flip out lcd, so I can face it inwards 99% of the time, on occasions it is good to see blinkies for hightlight areas.
Just set the screen to off (no review, no settings displayed). That's what I have done.

---------- Post added 29-12-14 at 03:10 ----------

QuoteOriginally posted by Digitalis Quote
That is the fundamental problem at issue here, the EVF can't show you the finished image, because the DR fo the screen is too small, the Gamut of the display is too narrow (and it is an uncalibrated display too). OVFs overcome these limitations because of their inherent properties EVFs don't have these innate advantages. Do you really intend for your final image to be displayed as a postage stamp sized image in your viewfinder? No one does, and if you do then you need to change your process - because you're holding yourself back.

On large format the image from the lens is projected onto the ground glass upside down and laterally inverted* - this allows one to see the image independent of its content - and allows for a more objective process when it comes to composing an image. Only in print do you have a finalized image - not in the viewfinder.

*this is one of the reasons why I laugh when people say EVFs show the image how the sensor sees it - this is incorrect, if EVFs showed exactly what the sensor saw, the image would be upside down and laterally inverted. So EVFs are just as much of a lie as OVFs are, deal with it.
Er... An OVF shows way more dynamic range than you can capture with the sensor. Waaaaay more. I'd say even an ordinary EVF is probably closer to the final image than a OVF.

Also, being rotated and inverted but otherwise fairly close is a difference to being both that, plus showing the DR of your eyes (which is huge, unlike the sensor... The DR of the screen at this point may be a bit less than that of the sensor, but OVFs show things that are just not there in the file).

Personally I'd rather have a screen that shows me what is guaranteed to be there, and in post I get a bit more, than one that shows what won't be there. It's easier to adjust this way, and it is safer.

Finally, why does everyone here seem to think that screen tech isn't improving? It is improving a lot. All the time. 10-15 years ago most of us have been looking at TV screens with 720x576 resolution, flickering, and most of them were clearly below that resolution and had poor contrast (I know tubes can be great, but they aren't too common). Now we are starting to look at 3840x2160 screens. And they are moving beyond 6/8 bit and a limited dynamic range. We have OLED screens. And our phones have gone from 20x40 resolution in black and green to 2k OLED screens that are so sharp our eyes can't even see the pixels anymore, that have massive dynamic range and extremely saturated colors (you can tone down the saturation, and in an enclosed EVF situation the lack of top end brightness isn't too much of an issue). The screens on my current and previous phone are far beyond what Pentax is offering on my K-5.

We will get screens that have the DR of the sensor or can even surpass it. It is only a matter of time.
Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
35mm, camera, cameras, canon, compromise, dslr, evf, frame, kit, lcd, lenses, market, mirrorless, ovf, pentax, photography, pm, post, rangefinder, sensor, size, slr, slrs, sony, steve, system, weight
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Nature Dying Flowers Dr Orloff Photo Critique 3 02-02-2014 07:36 PM
Landscape The living and dying. BigJPR Photo Critique 25 05-09-2013 05:51 AM
Dying voice of reason.... jeffkrol General Talk 3 12-14-2012 11:25 AM
GOP problem: 'Their voters are white, aging and dying off' jeffkrol General Talk 42 05-22-2012 08:40 AM
Are all FILM SLRs safe with older flashes? ismaelg Flashes, Lighting, and Studio 5 03-29-2012 08:53 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 12:48 AM. | See also: NikonForums.com, part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top