[RobA_Oz]

… people like you don't know anything about the best manual focusing system ever made...

Full-frame, too! And, no mirror!

[osv]

What's a "computer"? I'm writing this message on a wax tablet... because sticking with proven and still superior technology means you're allowed to make snide remarks, right? Come on, make up more BS... because ad hominem is so cool.

ad hominem vs. your overopinionated gross misgenerializations?

The best manual focusing system ever made is a large ground glass with a loupe, FYI. But if you're looking for "the best" you won't find it in the small format.

prove it.

---------- Post added 03-29-2014 at 02:56 PM ----------

Full-frame, too! And, no mirror!

i'll take the evf magnification, thanks

i've actually looked into using stitching with a technical camera bellows system... super cool stuff.

[Kunzite]

Can you find and quote some of my supposed "overopinionated gross misgenerializations"?
Maybe you're talking about the fact that I don't want to jump ship from the K-mount and adapt my lenses on a Sony? This will be a surprise to you, but it's entirely within my rights (and no, it doesn't make me an awful person as you appears to believe).
And I can't help but notice that you have nothing with Clavius' "gross misgeneralization" that "Pentaxians would gladly buy such an adapter"; only with me saying that I wouldn't. Double standards, taking sides, not knowing what a "generalization" is?

What "proof" are you expecting? Some internet link where a bloke would hype up EVFs just because they're trendy? Go and look through a real viewfinder.

[Rondec]

There is no arguing over taste. I will just say that the goal for EVFs is to get to the level of usability of good full frame OVFs. To this point, I feel that all of them suffer in respect that I feel like I am watching TV when I am looking at them and I suffer eye strain after awhile.

[osv]

Can you find and quote some of my supposed "overopinionated gross misgenerializations"?

"it's terribly awkward to buy new expensive lenses in a foreign mount and adapt them to the system you're actually using."

complete rubbish... all adapted lenses bolt right up to the NEX system, there isn't anything "awkward" about it.

And I can't help but notice that you have nothing with Clavius' "gross misgeneralization" that "Pentaxians would gladly buy such an adapter";

i'm a "pentaxian", i bought a bunch of adapters for the a7r, and so did a lot of other people.

so why would i object to his statement that people would buy adapters? the problem there is that you can't see the forest for the trees.

What "proof" are you expecting? Some internet link where a bloke would hype up EVFs just because they're trendy? Go and look through a real viewfinder.

you ask for examples, then provide one in the next sentence!!

you've obviously never used magnification on the a7/a7r, but you still insist on offering totally biased uneducated opinions about how well it works.

---------- Post added 03-29-2014 at 06:19 PM ----------

There is no arguing over taste. I will just say that the goal for EVFs is to get to the level of usability of good full frame OVFs. To this point, I feel that all of them suffer in respect that I feel like I am watching TV when I am looking at them and I suffer eye strain after awhile.

have you ever used the a7/a7r evf? it's the best evf, or the second best evf, ever put on a camera, depending on who you talk to... it has a very wide-range diopter adjustment, just like a good ovf.

i think that evf's are constantly improving, and it's where the future of cameras is headed.

the problem with 'em is that some(all?) of 'em black out for a split-second when the shutter is pressed.

[RobA_Oz]

Interesting point about EVFs, and eye-strain there, though. It's similar to the discussion people have been having about reading on a self-illuminated screen versus the reflected light from paper, though reading incurs a longer exposure than looking into a viewfinder. I'm not taking one side or the other here, because I haven't used an EVF for a prolonged period. Suffice it to say that my reference point on viewfinders shifted quite a bit when I bought my LX, as much an improvement as the K-3's is, over those of previous APS-C DSLRs.

[Kunzite]

osv:
If you don't want to understand, it doesn't make it "rubbish". I stand by my words, that having to buy expensive lenses and adapt them to your camera's mount (compared to buying and using native lenses) is awkward. It's even more awkward when you would buy into a dead system, and fight with sluggish AF (think Olympus).
By the way, what are the most expensive Sony A lenses you bought for the A7r?

Are you a Pentaxian, or a Sony user who jumped ship from Pentax?
His statement was a generalization. No, "Pentaxians" don't buy adapters - some do, but many are opposed to that. You live in a world favouring optical viewfinder-equipped ILCs, and not MILCs + adapters.

Don't be silly; you were talking about "the best manual focusing system ever made"; that's no small claim. Yet I know the A7's EVF, quite nice for what it is, but it definitely isn't the best I ever saw (note that I'm not claiming I saw the best viewfinder ever). That's my informed opinion.
Again you're using double standards; your claims are automatically correct and nobody should dare to challenge them... yeah, right.

[osv]

osv:
If you don't want to understand, it doesn't make it "rubbish". I stand by my words, that having to buy expensive lenses and adapt them to your camera's mount (compared to buying and using native lenses) is awkward. It's even more awkward when you would buy into a dead system, and fight with sluggish AF (think Olympus).
By the way, what are the most expensive Sony A lenses you bought for the A7r?

your posts indicate little if any experience with adapted lenses, so when you cry about how difficult it is, how can we take your opinion seriously.

autofocus? i have a pentax for that... this is about the best possible picture quality, which you can't get from any pentax, canon, fuji, olympus, etc., because they don't have the sensor technology.

Are you a Pentaxian, or a Sony user who jumped ship from Pentax?

are you splitting hairs over nothing?

Don't be silly; you were talking about "the best manual focusing system ever made"; that's no small claim. Yet I know the A7's EVF, quite nice for what it is, but it definitely isn't the best I ever saw

the point that was made is that you have zero experience with the a7/a7r evf, and the magnify functionality therein.

if you knew what i was talking about, we wouldn't have to discuss it, you'd understand.

[Kunzite]

I said awkward, not difficult; and it's about spending those money on non-native lenses, not easy of use. As I said, you don't understand - yet you attack.
And since you forgot to say what's the most expensive Sony A mount lenses you bought for your A7r, that's most likely because you bought none. I wonder why is so...

No, where you stand is important. I'm a Pentaxian, both an user and a customer; I'll continue to buy into the K-mount for the foreseeable future. What are you?

The point you made is that you can't accept someone tried the Sony 2.4MP viewfinder, including the magnification function, and didn't reach the same conclusion as you.

[osv]

I said awkward, not difficult; and it's about spending those money on non-native lenses, not easy of use. As I said, you don't understand - yet you attack.

swapping lenses on to an adapter is no different than swapping lenses onto the camera body.

which you would know, if you had ever actually done it.

No, where you stand is important. I'm a Pentaxian, both an user and a customer; I'll continue to buy into the K-mount for the foreseeable future.

platform fanaticism...

The point you made is that you can't accept someone tried the Sony 2.4MP viewfinder, including the magnification function, and didn't reach the same conclusion as you.

i specifically said that *you* have no experience with the a7/a7r viewfinder, and it's focus magnification functionality, yet you continue to bash something that you know nothing about.

[philbaum]

There is no arguing over taste. I will just say that the goal for EVFs is to get to the level of usability of good full frame OVFs. To this point, I feel that all of them suffer in respect that I feel like I am watching TV when I am looking at them and I suffer eye strain after awhile.

Its getting to a tipping point where i don't think its a matter of EVFs catching up to the usability of OVFs, but the other way around. When are OVFs going to be improved to offer what EVFs have. Perhaps a hybrid mod of the ovfs, i'm not sure what's possible.

For example: OVFs cannot be amplified to show detail under low light conditions. My house is dark in some areas, because its nighttime and i don't have all the lights on. I walked around with my Nex 6, and i can easily see detail where i can't with the OVF on my K3. Yes, one could use live view instead of the ovf, but there may be environments where one doesn't want to use their liveview.

For example 2: An EVF shows one what there exposure settings will produce - all the time. With an OVF, one has to enter a preview mode or something to see the effects of the exposure settings.

Example 3: I can see a variable magnify view for focusing purposes right in the EVF - even in dark conditions, OVF can't do that.

There are some cons to the EVF, battery drain is one IMO, the lag before the next shot (but this lag is getting smaller apparently, based on the A6000}

Rondec says he suffers eyestrain when looking through them, In 2-3 years of usage, i have yet to feel any eyestrain and i'm happy enough with the Nex 5n, i went out and bought the Nex 6. Evestrain - really. How come there aren't any complaints about eyestrain on the Sony Nex forum on dpreview? Rondec - i'm not saying you aren't feeling eyestrain, but i am saying that thousands of people are taking pics with EVFs and not complaining about eyestrain.

Use what you want, by all means. But i think the industry is at a tipping point where the optical viewfinders are falling behind the EVFs in some areas.

[Kunzite]

swapping lenses on to an adapter is no different than swapping lenses onto the camera body.

which you would know, if you had ever actually done it.

platform fanaticism...

i specifically said that *you* have no experience with the a7/a7r viewfinder, and it's focus magnification functionality, yet you continue to bash something that you know nothing about.

Thanks for proving my point.
+ not being willing to understand what was clearly written - check.
+ ad hominems - check. Wait, that's an attack on all Pentaxians who doesn't want to jump ship to Sony. Who's the fanatic here?
+ thinking that not calling Sony "the best manual focusing system ever made" is bashing - check.
+ being told that *I* tried it but still claiming that I have no experience blah blah blah - check.
We have an extreme case of Sony fanboyism here, and unfortunately I lost more time I should have with you.

philbaum:
I agree, the OVFs will have to evolve as well - and they did that to a certain extent, for example now we have affordable cameras with 100% viewfinders.
Regarding low light shooting, OVFs are depending on the dark adaptation. I found out that, once you're properly adapted, you can see more through the OVF; for example you can still distinguish M31/Andromeda. Yes, that's quite an extreme example and it requires specific preparation to work (while an EVF won't go as low but doesn't need any preparation - in fact it will ruin any dark adaptation).

Eye strain occurs very differently from people to people. For me it's not eye strain, just some discomfort (however, I never worked with EVFs for extended periods of time). Even with the latest versions, it's so obvious I'm looking at a miniature TV shining just centimeters from my retina.
But I can understand why for some people it works just fine. Isn't it wonderful to have both options on the market?
P.S. Strangely, Fuji's was the easiest on my eyes, and closest to "hey, that might just work".

[jogiba]

I said awkward, not difficult; and it's about spending those money on non-native lenses, not easy of use. As I said, you don't understand - yet you attack.
And since you forgot to say what's the most expensive Sony A mount lenses you bought for your A7r, that's most likely because you bought none. I wonder why is so...

No, where you stand is important. I'm a Pentaxian, both an user and a customer; I'll continue to buy into the K-mount for the foreseeable future. What are you?

The point you made is that you can't accept someone tried the Sony 2.4MP viewfinder, including the magnification function, and didn't reach the same conclusion as you.

[RyanW]

My own take on EVF's is they are the future, but the future is not now. They will deliver many things an OVF can't, but right now, resolution, DR, refresh rate do not approach OVF, so much so that I'd rather use current OVF technology and be without a wysiwyg eye level finder. The most recent one I've used is the OLY em-1 EVF. Unless Sony's is several orders of magnitudes better than the Olympus one, I would take an OVF over it any day.

I wear glasses, so and EFV on a bright sunny day is no treat due to the light leakage around the cup. I have to use my hand to shield external light, not so with the OVF. Also sometimes I shoot with sunglasses, polarized sunglasses. Switch from landscape to portrait orientation and find out that the EVF is polarized to and I can't see much of anything.

I wonder if the camera manufacturers are trying to make the best EVF they can, or just incrementally advance them hoping that at some point we all say "good enough" even thought that point is not the equivalent of the OVF.

Oh, wasn't this about medium format digital. I'd like a digital Holga.

[mecrox]

My own take on EVF's is they are the future, but the future is not now. They will deliver many things an OVF can't, but right now, resolution, DR, refresh rate do not approach OVF, so much so that I'd rather use current OVF technology and be without a wysiwyg eye level finder. The most recent one I've used is the OLY em-1 EVF. Unless Sony's is several orders of magnitudes better than the Olympus one, I would take an OVF over it any day.

I wear glasses, so and EFV on a bright sunny day is no treat due to the light leakage around the cup. I have to use my hand to shield external light, not so with the OVF. Also sometimes I shoot with sunglasses, polarized sunglasses. Switch from landscape to portrait orientation and find out that the EVF is polarized to and I can't see much of anything.

I wonder if the camera manufacturers are trying to make the best EVF they can, or just incrementally advance them hoping that at some point we all say "good enough" even thought that point is not the equivalent of the OVF.

Oh, wasn't this about medium format digital. I'd like a digital Holga.

I suspect a part of the problem is that many camera-makers seem undecided whether they are making solid, practical and very carefully thought-through items of photography equipment or, instead, fashion statements or almost throw-away items for the consumer electronics industry. The Sony A7/A7r are classic examples of the second tendency, I'd have thought. They do have the sensor and the form factor spot on but almost everything else about them suggests lack of thought, lack of clarity and a hasty rush to the beancounters' deadline. If light-leakage around the VF cup is an issue for any manufacturer then it needs to be studied, remedied and appropriate accessories offered. Alas, fat chance with many camera outfits these days.