Originally posted by Clavius With the OVF, there is a lot of guessing involved. There is three different images:
- The world we see with our eyes.
- The dark tunnel we see through the OVF is vastly different from that.
- Then the actual output is different from both again.
I find OVF's to be a more satisfying technology in making pictures than (any currently available) EVF. Here's why:
- The world I see with my eyes, and
- The world I see through the (OVF) viewfinder, purposely limited to a particular field and angle of view, are one in the same.
- Of course the output is different! The creative aspect of viewing a scene, imagining how it could be presented, and expressing it as my own in a way that no one else would is in fact why I like to make photographs.
The OVF puts me right there, in the scene. The light rays entering my eye are the same ones that would if I didn't have the camera up to my eye. The creative challenge and reward of photography is making a picture from that scene.
In contrast, an EVF gives me an interpreted picture (based on someone else's idea of the best parameters to use for "developing" the signal into a picture and the limits of EVF technology). Or more accurately, the EVF gives me somebody else's picture of what was there a moment ago. Whenever I use an EVF camera, my mind goes to "OK, I'm going to take a picture of this picture of what I want to take a picture of." Ugh.
I'd rather use my own interpretation of the scene than someone else's. If photography is ever reduced to WYSIWYG, I suspect I'll take up painting.
Originally posted by Clavius Nobody, except you, said anything about lousy viewfinders. We don't want lousy EVF's, just as much as we don't want lousy OVF's.
Originally posted by Clavius What else can be expected from a merge of digital and analog?
The EVF will have the ability to show the output, exactly as the RAW file will be, in the VF.
Some of us are more interested in using what is available than talking about what someday might be produced.