Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
07-25-2018, 01:19 AM   #46
Pentaxian




Join Date: Jan 2015
Location: mid nth coast,nsw
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 5,608
QuoteOriginally posted by Dan Rentea Quote
If Nikon will adopt when comes to mirrorless the same policy that thay did with D500, D850, D5, then we will have some interesting cameras to play with at the end of this year.
Yes, throw in the new Fujis/Canons and the secretive Olympus(something quite different is the leaked news) and theres lots of playthings!

07-25-2018, 04:36 AM - 2 Likes   #47
Site Supporter
Site Supporter




Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Gladys, Virginia
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 23,674
QuoteOriginally posted by Ian Stuart Forsyth Quote
People like to think that a EVF will help in this area but until manufactures allow the user to see what is being recorded in the raw file this preview really does not help the raw shooter use the sensor to the best of what the sensor can recordered or even how much one can raise the iso before clipping. We still run into the very same problem we have had from the start of raw output files, whenever we view or attempt to interpret what is collected in the raw file has already had WB, predetermined highlight headroom, and tonal curves and other processing being applied as if it was a jpeg image even when it has been shot as a raw file. This will vastly influence what we see in the EVF viewfinder and also the histogram to the point that if someone want to see how the image is being captured the user in the end has to use outside processes to determine how to best use the camera and how data is collected in the raw file.



This is another problem in that DOF is dependant on the final size of the outgoing image, so if you are using the DOF preview the only time you really know you have the correct amount of DOF is when you are viewing the image in camera at the final outgoing display size when you get it home.

If manufactures allowed the end user to see data contained within the raw file and simply used a built in AP that allowed the user to set the print size and showed a real time DOF scale using where the camera is focused, the F stop and the FL then we would have truly helpful aids in photography. But this is not something that would be inherent to ether EVF or OVF as most OVF now have LCD overlays in the viewfinder that can be customized to the users needs.
You might be surprised at the number of folks who shoot out of camera jpegs and do minimal post processing. For them, the EVF really is what you see is what you get.

I am on the other side of the fence. I'm often shooting under exposed to protect the highlights and in point of fact, in that situation, the EVF (if it really does show what the jpeg is going to look like) is actually going to make things more difficult as it will be darker than the scene. Beyond which, I am one of the unfortunate folks who gets headaches and eye strain when using EVFs for any length of time and so from a physical standpoint, I prefer OVFs.

I think for people who do much post processing you are exactly right. EVFs are no better than OVFs. It is going to be up the photographer to figure out how much to underexpose a particular scene and how much detail he thinks he can get from the shadows and if maybe the best thing would be to shoot a couple of different exposures to be on the safe side.

I'm sure EVFs are here to stay, I just think for photographers who do much post processing and don't shoot manual focus lenses, their benefits have been dramatically overstated by those who love them.
07-25-2018, 09:16 AM   #48
Veteran Member




Join Date: Oct 2013
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 346
QuoteOriginally posted by Rondec Quote
I think for people who do much post processing you are exactly right. EVFs are no better than OVFs. It is going to be up the photographer to figure out how much to underexpose a particular scene and how much detail he thinks he can get from the shadows and if maybe the best thing would be to shoot a couple of different exposures to be on the safe side.

I'm sure EVFs are here to stay, I just think for photographers who do much post processing and don't shoot manual focus lenses, their benefits have been dramatically overstated by those who love them.
While I appreciate the WYSIWYG nature of LV/EVF as a nice-to-have, for me it's not the primary appeal of a MILC with EVF. Rather, I see it as:
  • Not having to worry about autofocus microadjustment when using the viewfinder (and that can be appreciated even by those who don't shoot MF lenses)
  • Focus peaking in the viewfinder
  • Easy lens adaptation without replacing the mount on either camera or lens
And, of course, the potential for significantly smaller lenses, but that hasn't yet been exploited as fully as I'd hope.
07-25-2018, 10:03 AM   #49
retired sw engineer
Loyal Site Supporter
reh321's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: South Bend, IN, USA
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 19,690
QuoteOriginally posted by Ian Stuart Forsyth Quote
People like to think that a EVF will help in this area but until manufactures allow the user to see what is being recorded in the raw file this preview really does not help the raw shooter use the sensor to the best of what the sensor can recordered or even how much one can raise the iso before clipping. We still run into the very same problem we have had from the start of raw output files, whenever we view or attempt to interpret what is collected in the raw file has already had WB, predetermined highlight headroom, and tonal curves and other processing being applied as if it was a jpeg image even when it has been shot as a raw file. This will vastly influence what we see in the EVF viewfinder and also the histogram to the point that if someone want to see how the image is being captured the user in the end has to use outside processes to determine how to best use the camera and how data is collected in the raw file.

This is another problem in that DOF is dependant on the final size of the outgoing image, so if you are using the DOF preview the only time you really know you have the correct amount of DOF is when you are viewing the image in camera at the final outgoing display size when you get it home.

If manufactures allowed the end user to see data contained within the raw file and simply used a built in AP that allowed the user to set the print size and showed a real time DOF scale using where the camera is focused, the F stop and the FL then we would have truly helpful aids in photography. But this is not something that would be inherent to ether EVF or OVF as most OVF now have LCD overlays in the viewfinder that can be customized to the users needs.
It will be hard for technology to "solve" the issues you're talking about. I speak as someone who follows the same standards used by those who record events like the Olympics for organizations like Reuters or Getty. Technology, in the form of higher useable ISO values, can help me catch the moment under previously "impossible" conditions, but only if I can see the moment. EVF helps by allowing me to see what the sensor sees ,,,, you artists are still partly on your own, though.


Last edited by reh321; 07-25-2018 at 10:38 AM.
07-25-2018, 11:00 AM   #50
retired sw engineer
Loyal Site Supporter
reh321's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: South Bend, IN, USA
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 19,690
QuoteOriginally posted by reh321 Quote
It will be hard for technology to "solve" the issues you're talking about. I speak as someone who follows the same standards used by those who record events like the Olympics for organizations like Reuters or Getty. Technology, in the form of higher useable ISO values, can help me catch the moment under previously "impossible" conditions, but only if I can see the moment. EVF helps by allowing me to see what the sensor sees ,,,, you artists are still partly on your own, though.
Maybe an example will help. I took the picture below in a dark corner of the mockup factory at Greenfield Village in Dearborn MI; I don't know why this display was there, instead of in the adjacent museum, but it was. I had to use an ISO setting of 3200 .... the camera could see this automobile, but the viewfinder was useless for composing; this was one of the times I used LV, even though holding the camera stable was an issue for me. Having an EVF would have made this process so much easier.
Attached Images
View Picture EXIF
PENTAX K-30  Photo 
07-25-2018, 02:05 PM - 1 Like   #51
Pentaxian
Dan Rentea's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Bucharest
Posts: 1,716
QuoteOriginally posted by reh321 Quote
Maybe an example will help. I took the picture below in a dark corner of the mockup factory at Greenfield Village in Dearborn MI; I don't know why this display was there, instead of in the adjacent museum, but it was. I had to use an ISO setting of 3200 .... the camera could see this automobile, but the viewfinder was useless for composing; this was one of the times I used LV, even though holding the camera stable was an issue for me. Having an EVF would have made this process so much easier.
Switch your DSLR to live view. Problem solved.

Ah, you did that. Why is difficult to hold a camera stable in live view? I tried shooting in live view with me standing in a small boat last week and it was fun and easy. There is no Sony, Fuji, Oly that can focus in live wiew as good as my camera does so I have some kind of EVF by shooting in live view and in the same time I also have the beautiful OVF which I love more than any EVF from any mirrorless camera.

Last edited by Dan Rentea; 07-25-2018 at 02:17 PM.
07-25-2018, 03:48 PM   #52
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
RGlasel's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Saskatoon
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 2,976
99% of mirrorless cameras (the ones with a built-in cell phone) don't have viewfinder. Sometimes there is an advantage to holding the camera away from our face and in those situations it does not matter if the camera has an EVF or an OVF or no viewfinder at all. A viewfinder is an advantage when ambient light is very bright or if the subject is moving fast, but electronic viewfinders are not superiour to optical viewfinders in those situations. In conditions that are so dark you don't want the rear display to be visible and you can't see enough in an optical viewfinder to frame your shot, the camera's metering and autofocus are likely to be ineffective. Using focus peaking to manually focus must be more effective with the much larger rear display than an electronic viewfinder.

Electronic viewfinders have only one purpose, to make mirrorless cameras less useless in situations where photographers want to hold the camera to their face. Otherwise a much larger rear display can do everything an EVF can, but better. With live view and electronic shutters in some DSLRs, the only advantage left to mirrorless cameras is size and all indications are that the new Nikon FF mirrorless will have no more advantage in size over DSLRs than Sony FF cameras, which is to say there is no real advantage. If this is innovation, then perhaps photographers should stick with old and proven instead of new and improved.

07-25-2018, 04:08 PM   #53
retired sw engineer
Loyal Site Supporter
reh321's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: South Bend, IN, USA
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 19,690
QuoteOriginally posted by Dan Rentea Quote
Switch your DSLR to live view. Problem solved.

Ah, you did that. Why is difficult to hold a camera stable in live view? I tried shooting in live view with me standing in a small boat last week and it was fun and easy. There is no Sony, Fuji, Oly that can focus in live wiew as good as my camera does so I have some kind of EVF by shooting in live view and in the same time I also have the beautiful OVF which I love more than any EVF from any mirrorless camera.
With over fifty years of experience I have learned to hold a camera very stably, with a tripod consisting of two forearms {pressed against my abdomen} and my forehead. Even without stabilization, I was able to take photos at 1/15 or less with film cameras. My experience with cell phones and my Q-7 have not changed the opinion which caused me to purchase a K-30 instead of a K-01. As soon as I move the camera, even just an inch or two away from my forehead, I now am supporting the camera with two long levers - essentially the complete length of each arm, because very little distance is required to lose support against my abdomen as well as against my forehead. I am not willing to pay that price.
07-25-2018, 06:48 PM   #54
Veteran Member




Join Date: Oct 2013
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 346
QuoteOriginally posted by RGlasel Quote
A viewfinder is an advantage when ambient light is very bright or if the subject is moving fast, but electronic viewfinders are not superiour to optical viewfinders in those situations.
My point about autofocus microadjustment still stands in that scenario.

QuoteOriginally posted by RGlasel Quote
Using focus peaking to manually focus must be more effective with the much larger rear display than an electronic viewfinder.
Except that said rear display has only half the resolution of the EVF, or possibly even less on the newest and most expensive cameras.

QuoteOriginally posted by RGlasel Quote
Electronic viewfinders have only one purpose, to make mirrorless cameras less useless in situations where photographers want to hold the camera to their face.
For stability's sake, I personally find those situations to equal pretty much all the time. Unusual angles (like over a crowd) excepted.
07-25-2018, 10:08 PM   #55
Pentaxian




Join Date: May 2009
Location: Somewhere over the rainbow
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,001
QuoteOriginally posted by reh321 Quote
It will be hard for technology to "solve" the issues you're talking about.
It really is not that difficult to solve, some camera manufactures had already implemented features that would allow one to set a UniWB but sadly later models they removed this feature. Some cameras you can load your own custom camera profiles in the camera and when combined with a UniWB you get very close view to what is contained within the raw file, This also applies to the cameras histogram. It is a lot of work setting up a camera to do this and manufactures could easily implement this.


So here is an example, if I was to look at the histogram on the camera or even the preview image on the back of the camera this is what would showup.
With the K7 it was one of the camera models that was important to raise iso as doing so will decrease the noise the camera produces, with the K7 I found it best to set the exposure that was best for the conditions I was shooting at and then raising the iso to the point just before data starts to clip in raw.

This is more less shows what is contained in the raw file



Note this is not a artistic rendering of the photo just a starting point from which you would process the raw file without any manufactures baked in process that would lead to clipping in the outgoing final image.

Last edited by Ian Stuart Forsyth; 07-25-2018 at 10:28 PM.
07-25-2018, 10:21 PM   #56
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
disconnekt's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Riverside, CA
Photos: Albums
Posts: 1,366
As I see it they took they "Wait & See" approach, as in "lets wait & see if this mirrorless thing is going to succeed or fail". Now that they see that it's not crashing & burning (and that $ony is making $$$), they are in the perfect place to put out their own Mirrorless FF to match what $ony has.
07-25-2018, 10:34 PM   #57
Pentaxian




Join Date: May 2009
Location: Somewhere over the rainbow
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,001
QuoteOriginally posted by Rondec Quote
I am on the other side of the fence. I'm often shooting under exposed to protect the highlights and in point of fact, in that situation, the EVF (if it really does show what the jpeg is going to look like) is actually going to make things more difficult as it will be darker than the scene. Beyond which, I am one of the unfortunate folks who gets headaches and eye strain when using EVFs for any length of time and so from a physical standpoint, I prefer OVFs.
We are in the same boat, I want to have a camera that would give me real time as to what is contained the raw file and would love to have that function in a EVF and would consider this for a landscape camera and would even put up with headaches as I am also prone to them also

Last edited by Ian Stuart Forsyth; 07-25-2018 at 10:59 PM.
07-25-2018, 10:39 PM   #58
retired sw engineer
Loyal Site Supporter
reh321's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: South Bend, IN, USA
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 19,690
QuoteOriginally posted by Ian Stuart Forsyth Quote
It really is not that difficult to solve, some camera manufactures had already implemented features that would allow one to set a UniWB but sadly later models they removed this feature. Some cameras you can load your own custom camera profiles in the camera and when combined with a UniWB you get very close view to what is contained within the raw file, This also applies to the cameras histogram. It is a lot of work setting up a camera to do this and manufactures could easily implement this.
So, if you know how to solve this "problem" why hold it up as an issue for EVF? My point was that OVF shows what is there; once you get away from that, you no longer have OVF - an overlay may provide additional information, but it doesn't modify what is already there. The power of EVF is that it can apply processing to what is there - in particular it can amplify the light to help the user compose the photo while still using the standard stance that has served many of us over the years, but with sufficient processing power it could apply any known algorithm to show how the image would look after processing.
07-25-2018, 10:41 PM   #59
Pentaxian
Dan Rentea's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Bucharest
Posts: 1,716
QuoteOriginally posted by reh321 Quote
With over fifty years of experience I have learned to hold a camera very stably, with a tripod consisting of two forearms {pressed against my abdomen} and my forehead. Even without stabilization, I was able to take photos at 1/15 or less with film cameras. My experience with cell phones and my Q-7 have not changed the opinion which caused me to purchase a K-30 instead of a K-01. As soon as I move the camera, even just an inch or two away from my forehead, I now am supporting the camera with two long levers - essentially the complete length of each arm, because very little distance is required to lose support against my abdomen as well as against my forehead. I am not willing to pay that price.
Everyone has different needs and expectations. That's why some love EVF and others love OVF. I don't think that I've ever took a shot in a situation where I couldn't see anything in the viewfinder. As long as I see something in viewfinder, I take the shot.

I don't shoot astrophotography and when my friends convince me to go with them to shoot some astro, I usually make some tests in daylight and see where the infinity focus is on my lens and I put a mark on the lens so that I can start shooting immeadiately. I take a test shot in order to see the compositiin and I'm good to go. A noisy EVF is not much of a help in really dark situations, at least this was my impression.

I do like eye af and the lack of front back focus when comes to mirrorless cameras, but I also saw enough images taken with A7 III (even with A9) in restaurants where the eye af missed focusing on the eye even when people didn't move. But a good marketing and with the help of Sony fanboys, these things don't come up to surface.
07-25-2018, 10:55 PM   #60
Pentaxian




Join Date: May 2009
Location: Somewhere over the rainbow
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,001
QuoteOriginally posted by reh321 Quote
So, if you know how to solve this "problem" why hold it up as an issue for EVF?
One its only a work around that still doesn't show you what is contained within the raw file it only gives you a best guess as to what is contained and is still very easy to clip data,

not all cameras allow you to install custom profiles into the cameras body,

you also need to have a profile basically for every iso you would shoot at,

if the user wants to pre use a white balance lens filter to better balance light being captured as to reduce clipping in one or more channels your histogram and review will be off

and lastly its rather time consuming to run a full set of images thru software and set the camera to a best guess as to hide what hidden processing is being done behind the curtains.
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!
adapter, base, camera, camera equipment, cameras, canon, contacts, cr, discussion, glass, ii, k1, k3, lenses, mark, mirrorless, nikon, nikon mirrorless, pentax, post, size, sony, system, tablet, time, video, vs, youtube
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Mirrorless sales collapsing worse than -30% in Japan the homecountry of mirrorless beholder3 Photographic Industry and Professionals 21 04-05-2017 04:58 AM
Nikon V1 and J1: the new mirrorless cameras from Nikon ogl Non-Pentax Cameras: Canon, Nikon, etc. 81 09-23-2011 02:11 AM
Misc Computer "teaser" photos vroom_skies Post Your Photos! 2 11-17-2009 11:43 AM
Just a teaser from my weekend little laker Post Your Photos! 9 06-05-2007 11:17 AM
An Orchid "teaser" NaClH2O Post Your Photos! 4 02-21-2007 11:44 AM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 04:59 PM. | See also: NikonForums.com, CanonForums.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