[normhead]

Is it possible here we are seeing a difference like the difference between gamers, who spend so much of their time in a digital world that they think it's normal to be looking at an electronic image, as opposed to those of us who get out in the real world and expect our photography to reflect what's in the real world?

I've certainly seen some high praise heaped on images I thought looked like landscapes from a computer game.

[Rondec]

Which is the classic Adam Smith definition of a properly functioning market system.

BTW this is my own actual practical experience with EVF-Mirrorless for what it's worth...
Optical finder or EVF? - PentaxForums.com

I just don't think birding photography is that hard to get good exposure on. At least I never found it difficult. In point of fact, the issue with exposure usually has more to do with keeping enough detail in the shadows while not blowing the highlights out. With a micro four thirds sensor, like you use, you probably just end up needing to shoot multiple exposures most of the time when dynamic range is high, but with larger sensors, you can do a lot better.

I will freely admit that landscapes don't move and that I don't use manual focus lenses, but I highly doubt that using an EVF would help me accurately judge whether I can shoot a single image with my K-1 and get what I want out of it or if I need to bite the bullet and shoot several with different exposures. When I'm shooting portraits or birds, honestly, I don't care if my exposure is a little dark because I set my iso where I know that I have room to bump it if necessary and those aren't high dynamic range situations. The only issue in those situations is making sure the focus is correct and I haven't had problems with that.

EVFs probably help in some situations and not so much in others. That's all.

[JohnBee]

The whole "what you see is what you get" argument is only true if you don't post process....

Not quite. The main purpose to this particular characteristic is to display TTL rendering in real time - OOF and /or Bokeh, highlights and /or any other optical arbitration that is specific to the shot.

To which I'd add, I'm somewhat surprised to find so many Pentax shooters overlooking this critical feature given the history associated with the mount. Whatever the case, and for those who are in the know, WYSIWYG has been an integral part of the Pentax system since the admission of the optical preview years ago. Whereas the EFV makes this a full time option without the need to raise the mirror - to which I'd add, is a highly rewarding experience and would recommend that anyone try it for themselves if the opportunity arises

---------- Post added 05-21-17 at 08:00 PM ----------

Moreover, "what you see is what you get" isn't even a very good property of a viewfinder except for double-checking the settings (i.e., chimping).

Try the optical preview - it's a Pentax function

One better solution is a hybrid OVF-EVF that provides an OVF's unrestricted view of the tonalities & color of the scene but then also offers an EVF's digital preview or captured image review.

This would seem like an overly complicated (and costly) approach to take to avert some minor technological penalties. In contrast to merely matching the OVF in terms of low light limitations, and retaining all of the benefits that come with EVF. Which would seem far more lucrative from a design and cost perspective from what I could see.

[Kunzite]

I wonder about that.
DoF depends on many things, including the observer's visual acuity and viewing conditions. I'd guess those are quite different, on a large-ish print hung on a wall vs. an EVF.
I do not believe the EVF with its limited display capabilities can accurately showcase a lens' rendering qualities. And WYSIWYG is a lie.

By the way... are you aware of the LaTeX vs. Word (or other WYSIWYG editor) debate? It seems it's easier to get superior, consistent results with the non-WYSIWYG editor.

[wildman]

EVFs probably help in some situations and not so much in others. That's all.

I'll let the images speak for themselves. See EXIF for details.

[JohnBee]

I do not believe the EVF with its limited display capabilities can accurately showcase a lens' rendering qualities.

As a long time vintage MF shooter, I can attest that the latest Sony EVF's will showcase a lenses rendering quality to the point of feeling as though it is optical. In much the same way the live-view on any recent Pentax camera will accurately display a TTL rendering also.

With that said, I'd recommend trying to find a store or person with an a7r II or a9 (if possible) to experience this for yourself. ie, attach your favorite MF lens and look through the viewfinder to compare with the LCD afterward - most everyone I've know who has done this, was impressed with the results

PS. am I correct in assuming that many (if not most) of the people arguing against EVF have not actually experienced Sony's latest viewfinders?

[Rondec]

I'll let the images speak for themselves. See EXIF for details.

There is a lot of noise....

[normhead]

As a long time vintage MF shooter, I can attest that the latest Sony EVF's will showcase a lenses rendering quality to the point of feeling as though it is optical. In much the same way the live-view on any recent Pentax camera will accurately display a TTL rendering also.

With that said, I'd recommend trying to find a store or person with an a7r II or a9 (if possible) to experience this for yourself. ie, attach your favorite MF lens and look through the viewfinder to compare with the LCD afterward - most everyone I've know who has done this, was impressed with the results

PS. am I correct in assuming that many (if not most) of the people arguing against EVF have not actually experienced Sony's latest viewfinders?

How many do you know, how many were impressed with the results? What is your sample size?

Just cruising the forum....
Coming from Sony looking to switch to Pentax - PentaxForums.com

Hello and a welcome return to DSLR country - PentaxForums.com

https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/36-sold-items/315258-sale-sold-sony-a7ri...-warranty.html

https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/76-non-pentax-cameras-canon-nikon-etc/30...ing-thein.html

A quick search says you don't really have a pulse on this, but I'm always open to new information.

[JohnBee]

How many do you know, how many were impressed with the results? What is your sample size?

Maybe up-to ten people on a personal level, not counting those in the camera shops
With that said, I'd say the Sony a7r II EVF (for example) is accurate enough to present an advantage in rendering TTL over OVF in most cases. ie, did I mention it would show lens flares and light source halo's?

With that said, I think EVF's are here to stay and will likely outpace OVF's in time. Whereas the current state of things seems sufficient to justify the implementations in spite of the downsides. ie, as a long time MF shooter, I can honestly say that the advent of the EVF is a godsend over its optical counterpart. To which I'd add, I've had the extensive pleasure of enduring over the years.

A quick search says you don't really have a pulse on this, but I'm always open to new information.

Given that people change mounts for various reasons, I doubt this would reveal anything outside the natural flow of product ownership, as I'm sure we've all been through ourselves. With that said, and with respect to the initial topic, I've discovered that mirrorless systems hold advantages over their DSLR's counterparts also, and so it all seems relative from what I can see.

[MarkJerling]

With that said, I'd say the Sony a7r II EVF (for example) is accurate enough to present an advantage in rendering TTL over OVF in most cases. ie, did I mention it would show lens flares and light source halo's?
With that said, I think EVF's are here to stay and will likely outpace OVF's in time.

The only problem is, the A7R II EVF is a truly horrible viewfinder experience, in my experience, and reason enough, for me to be firmly in the OVF corner.

[Kunzite]

As a long time vintage MF shooter, I can attest that the latest Sony EVF's will showcase a lenses rendering quality to the point of feeling as though it is optical. In much the same way the live-view on any recent Pentax camera will accurately display a TTL rendering also.

With that said, I'd recommend trying to find a store or person with an a7r II or a9 (if possible) to experience this for yourself. ie, attach your favorite MF lens and look through the viewfinder to compare with the LCD afterward - most everyone I've know who has done this, was impressed with the results

PS. am I correct in assuming that many (if not most) of the people arguing against EVF have not actually experienced Sony's latest viewfinders?

Oh, right; the "you didn't see the latest and greatest" trick! Every time a new camera appears, MILC fans would use this catchphrase as if something changed.
The A9, no, I didn't saw it; but it was an A7r II (or A7 II, can't be 100% sure) which gave me a sharp headache just by looking through it a few seconds. And the image presented was unmistakably artificial and wrong, I'd say not even to the level of a good monitor.
I don't expect much to be changed except a boost in speed (due to the faster sensor readout).

As a person equipped with eyes, I can attest that no EVFs I've seen can possibly "showcase a lenses rendering quality to the point of feeling as though it is optical".

[wildman]

WYSIWYG

In a technical sense, when using a camera, I really don't care what I, subjectively think I "see" but I do care very much what the sensor does in fact objectively "see".

[Kunzite]

So you're giving up making the camera see what you want it to see, instead your reality becomes that of a camera at default settings. From a creator you become a follower, and you call that "objectivity" just to feel better about it.
Then you're using an inadequate display method that can't even show you what the sensors sees, and you call that WYSIWYG.

[wildman]

So you're giving up making the camera see what you want it to see, instead your reality becomes that of a camera at default settings. From a creator you become a follower, and you call that "objectivity" just to feel better about it.
Then you're using an inadequate display method that can't even show you what the sensors sees, and you call that WYSIWYG.

It must be comforting living in world where you understand so perfectly and with such certainty what other peoples motives are.

[photoptimist]

As a person equipped with eyes, I can attest that no EVFs I've seen can possibly "showcase a lenses rendering quality to the point of feeling as though it is optical".

^^^^THIS!

And as long as cameras use only RGB sensors, they will be physically incapable to rendering the full color gamut. And as long as cameras use sensors with small pixels, they will be incapable of capturing the full DR of the human eye.

WYSIWYG

In a technical sense, when using a camera, I really don't care what I, subjectively think I "see" but I do care very much what the sensor does in fact objectively "see".

^^^^THIS TOO!!

Central Dilemma: An OVF can't show you what the camera is capturing and an EVF can't show you everything that the camera might capture.

Solution: a hybrid OVF/EVF that lets the user chimp the captured image through the eyepiece of the viewfinder but also see the optical view for composition and control. The complexity of the solution is irrelevant (and the complexity is not that bad compared to the crazy viewfinder design they manage to cram into point-and-shoot cameras). Complexity is a selling point for high-end cameras.