One EVIL/MILC/etc advantage

Eruditass · 06-04-2010, 11:34 PM

Originally posted by fractal

I already said it looked great. The camera shop was not exactly what i'd call low light so I can't really comment on that.

I said it was the best EVF I had seen. I'm just not a big fan of EVF, period.

I'm trying to understand the differences you perceive between EVF and OVF.

fractal · 06-05-2010, 01:08 AM

It's electronic! Is it really so hard to understand?

spystyle · 06-05-2010, 03:56 AM

It's like comparing a television to a window

Looking out the window at the real world, there is such depth

Looking at that same scene on a television, it's not the same

Eruditass · 06-06-2010, 01:05 PM

Originally posted by fractal

It's electronic! Is it really so hard to understand?

It's quite all right if you can't describe it.

Last edited by Eruditass; 06-06-2010 at 01:13 PM.

Eruditass · 06-06-2010, 01:07 PM

Originally posted by spystyle

It's like comparing a television to a window

Looking out the window at the real world, there is such depth

Looking at that same scene on a television, it's not the same

I don't find this a useful analogy. An optical viewfinder focuses onto one thin plane of focus in front of your eyes. You can change the plane of focus without adjusting the lens. You look at the matte nearly 2D focusing screen. I believe this completely different than a binocular, which actually outputs the image into your eyes, although the focus is still controlled by the lenses.

Now, there many other things that affect the perception of depth that could make a electronic screen look more flat than an OVF.

Looking out a window is something that will never be achieved through an optical magnification device (without some kind attachment to eye muscles) for many reasons.

nosnoop · 06-06-2010, 06:21 PM

There is one key area that many people do not consider when comparing optical viewfinder (OVF) vs electronic VF (EVF).

Sure, some may find OVF "better" - but this is what your eyes see, and not how the sensor sees the same image! OVF basically is a simulation/estimation of your captured image; and it may not be 100% accurate. E.g. the coverage is most likely less than 100%; and you can have front focusing or back focusing. OTOH, EVF is more relevant to me, as it is how the sensor sees the image.

You can have the biggest and clearest optical viewfinder in the world, but it is of little use if the image captured is not quite the same.

EVF allows immediate white balance preview, exposure preview, real time histogram, 100% coverage - i.e. how your captured image would turn out! Isn't that what we want? Obviously, current generation EVF is not ideal, and resolution and refresh rate can be improved. But in a few years time, I think I would prefer EVF over OVF.

BadVlad · 06-07-2010, 05:14 AM

Originally posted by nosnoop

Sure, some may find OVF "better" - but this is what your eyes see, and not how the sensor sees the same image!

It is not exactly what the sensor sees - the EVF is just a display. But I see your point.

06-05-2010, 03:56 AM	#18
spystyle Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Maine, USA Posts: 424	It's like comparing a television to a window Looking out the window at the real world, there is such depth Looking at that same scene on a television, it's not the same Last edited by spystyle; 06-05-2010 at 11:12 AM.

06-06-2010, 01:07 PM	#20
Eruditass Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2009 Photos: Gallery Posts: 2,207 Original Poster	Originally posted by spystyle It's like comparing a television to a window Looking out the window at the real world, there is such depth Looking at that same scene on a television, it's not the same I don't find this a useful analogy. An optical viewfinder focuses onto one thin plane of focus in front of your eyes. You can change the plane of focus without adjusting the lens. You look at the matte nearly 2D focusing screen. I believe this completely different than a binocular, which actually outputs the image into your eyes, although the focus is still controlled by the lenses. Now, there many other things that affect the perception of depth that could make a electronic screen look more flat than an OVF. Looking out a window is something that will never be achieved through an optical magnification device (without some kind attachment to eye muscles) for many reasons. Last edited by Eruditass; 06-06-2010 at 01:17 PM.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Sony to launch MILC soon	kevinschoenmakers	Canon, Nikon, Sony, and Other Camera Brands	16	04-26-2010 01:17 PM
Could someone explain FF advantage ?	Wulifou	Pentax DSLR Discussion	162	12-23-2008 01:17 AM
advantage of SDM lenses	Wulifou	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	16	10-20-2008 10:02 AM
Advantage of carrying the camera	weatherwise2	Post Your Photos!	2	08-06-2008 08:13 PM
advantage of CMOS	vanguy	Pentax DSLR Discussion	4	01-23-2008 10:27 PM

06-04-2010, 11:34 PM	#16
Eruditass Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2009 Photos: Gallery Posts: 2,207 Original Poster	Originally posted by fractal I already said it looked great. The camera shop was not exactly what i'd call low light so I can't really comment on that. I said it was the best EVF I had seen. I'm just not a big fan of EVF, period. I'm trying to understand the differences you perceive between EVF and OVF.

06-05-2010, 01:08 AM	#17
fractal Inactive Account Join Date: Nov 2008 Location: Melbourne Photos: Gallery Posts: 3,547	It's electronic! Is it really so hard to understand?

06-06-2010, 01:05 PM	#19
Eruditass Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2009 Photos: Gallery Posts: 2,207 Original Poster	Originally posted by fractal It's electronic! Is it really so hard to understand? It's quite all right if you can't describe it. Last edited by Eruditass; 06-06-2010 at 01:13 PM.

06-06-2010, 06:21 PM	#21
nosnoop Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2007 Posts: 1,299	There is one key area that many people do not consider when comparing optical viewfinder (OVF) vs electronic VF (EVF). Sure, some may find OVF "better" - but this is what your eyes see, and not how the sensor sees the same image! OVF basically is a simulation/estimation of your captured image; and it may not be 100% accurate. E.g. the coverage is most likely less than 100%; and you can have front focusing or back focusing. OTOH, EVF is more relevant to me, as it is how the sensor sees the image. You can have the biggest and clearest optical viewfinder in the world, but it is of little use if the image captured is not quite the same. EVF allows immediate white balance preview, exposure preview, real time histogram, 100% coverage - i.e. how your captured image would turn out! Isn't that what we want? Obviously, current generation EVF is not ideal, and resolution and refresh rate can be improved. But in a few years time, I think I would prefer EVF over OVF.

06-07-2010, 05:14 AM	#22
BadVlad New Member Join Date: May 2010 Location: Montreal Posts: 16	Originally posted by nosnoop Sure, some may find OVF "better" - but this is what your eyes see, and not how the sensor sees the same image! It is not exactly what the sensor sees - the EVF is just a display. But I see your point.