(09-30-2019, 04:08 PM)davidmanze Wrote: ....... to have as high an IQ as possible .... as in a VF image, that doesn't look like an EVF ...... or at least ... near to that.
If you ignore that every OVF also is altering the "reality" you demand an EVF to be much better than the gros of the already existing OVFs.
Question is, what are you preferring: a picture coming as close as possible to the end-result - then it's an EVF.
Why? Because - lens correction is already shown,
- it shows close to 100% of the sensor area (average OVFs show like 93-95 %),
- white balance,
- JPG-profiles,
- sharpness,
- even lens flare which are a result of sensor reflection (and no OVF will ever show this flaw of the ML system - but then, I can't remember any DSLR being that bad in terms of sensor reflections like I've seen with some ML systems dues to shorter flange distance)*
- medium strong ND filters don't make the OVF useless, as there's still enough amplification to allow focusing
- You also see the troubles based on flickering LEDs or incandescent lights - something you'll never see in an OVF, but very much on the pictures - and just too late to repeat the shot.
if you prefer an OVF, you basically - save electrical energy and increase battery life massively
- see all optical flaws of a lens uncorrected
- see a de-cluttered finder picture without dozens of icons as most informations are displayed in extra display lines
- can't see the proper focusing if you have a lens which needs a lot of AFMA or have a camera with a slightly misaligned matte screen or mirror
- don't see problems based on low frequency refresh rates or low resolution EVF
All finders are a compromise and no finder system shows the final result, the real dynamic-range of f-stops you can get out of a picture or the ammount of motion blurr (on most EVFs). So, this part is correct, there still is room for development - but all this added functionality can't be delivered by an OVF.
* this part is a systemic problem of ML and short flange distances. Not caused by EVF and also not improved by using an OVF instead (I have that on two Sigma Merrils, and the dp0 quattro can be quite nasty in this aspect)
(10-01-2019, 08:43 AM)JJ_SO Wrote: (09-30-2019, 04:08 PM)davidmanze Wrote: ....... to have as high an IQ as possible .... as in a VF image, that doesn't look like an EVF ...... or at least ... near to that.
If you ignore that every OVF also is altering the "reality" you demand an EVF to be much better than the gros of the already existing OVFs.
Question is, what are you preferring: a picture coming as close as possible to the end-result - then it's an EVF.
Why? Because - lens correction is already shown,
- it shows close to 100% of the sensor area (average OVFs show like 93-95 %),
- white balance,
- JPG-profiles,
- sharpness,
- even lens flare which are a result of sensor reflection (and no OVF will ever show this flaw of the ML system - but then, I can't remember any DSLR being that bad in terms of sensor reflections like I've seen with some ML systems dues to shorter flange distance)*
- medium strong ND filters don't make the OVF useless, as there's still enough amplification to allow focusing
- You also see the troubles based on flickering LEDs or incandescent lights - something you'll never see in an OVF, but very much on the pictures - and just too late to repeat the shot.
if you prefer an OVF, you basically - save electrical energy and increase battery life massively
- see all optical flaws of a lens uncorrected
- see a de-cluttered finder picture without dozens of icons as most information is displayed in extra display lines
- can't see the proper focusing if you have a lens which needs a lot of AFMA or have a camera with a slightly misaligned matte screen or mirror
- * **don't see problems based on low frequency refresh rates or low resolution EVF
All finders are a compromise and no finder system shows the final result, the real dynamic-range of f-stops you can get out of a picture or the ammount of motion blurr (on most EVFs). So, this part is correct, there still is room for development - but all this added functionality can't be delivered by an OVF.
* this part is a systemic problem of ML and short flange distances. Not caused by EVF and also not improved by using an OVF instead (I have that on two Sigma Merrils, and the dp0 quattro can be quite nasty in this aspect)
Firstly I just wanted to give a simple opinion of what I found trying the Z6's EVF ........ as I found it and without any preconceptions ....... I wasn't posting to change anybody's experience/pleasure or personal opinions ........
I will reply to your points with brevity as there are many.
The EVF plus points ....... with screen coverage being 100% for the D500 and 97% D750 ....... equal.
....... ND filters, I have a 9 stop ..... yeah dark OVF ...so you have to shoot LV from the rear screen ..... +1
...... AF accuracy remains a weak point for TPM's DSLR lenses and we all know about lens calibrating! .... +1
........ I suppose corrections play a role when shooting ..... but very little. ........+ 1
The EVF minus points.
..... battery life ....... big DSLR advantage ...... . ....... +1
..... yeah a nice clear screen "" "" "" ........+ 1
........ the D500 shows "flicker" in the OVF when there are flickering LEDS. ........equal
....... there is none lag in the DSLR (not including LV) DSLR technical win
....... AF consistency will always be better with ML ML technical win
So ML has many advantages now and will continue to pull in front of the DSLR and I can see quite clearly these advantages are good for what your doing .... especially when it come to nailing focus with a nice large aperture Sigma.
So, the situation is one of suitability of a camera to the shooter, if it's an "always bright finder" with corrections, super accurate focus and all the other things you stated, ML out ways the shortfalls that DSLRs inherently have, plus the great improvements of shorter registration distance, it's certainly the way forward!.......
...... but, that's not where I am, I need good battery life, fast AF-C and a OVF where I can see clearly all the gestures of the bird I'm waiting on.
Maybe I'm even biased ...... through long formed habits .... I've been shooting DSLRs for fifty years
(10-01-2019, 03:06 PM)davidmanze Wrote: Firstly I just wanted to give a simple opinion of what I found trying the Z6's EVF ........ as I found it and without any preconceptions ....... I wasn't posting to change anybody's experience/pleasure or personal opinions ........
I will reply to your points with brevity as there are many.
The EVF plus points ....... with screen coverage being 100% for the D500 and 97% D750 ....... equal.
....... ND filters, I have a 9 stop ..... yeah dark OVF ...so you have to shoot LV from the rear screen ..... +1
...... AF accuracy remains a weak point for TPM's DSLR lenses and we all know about lens calibrating! .... +1
........ I suppose corrections play a role when shooting ..... but very little. ........+ 1
The EVF minus points.
..... battery life ....... big DSLR advantage ...... . ....... +1
..... yeah a nice clear screen "" "" "" ........+ 1
........ the D500 shows "flicker" in the OVF when there are flickering LEDS. ........equal
....... there is none lag in the DSLR (not including LV) DSLR technical win
....... AF consistency will always be better with ML ML technical win
So ML has many advantages now and will continue to pull in front of the DSLR and I can see quite clearly these advantages are good for what your doing .... especially when it come to nailing focus with a nice large aperture Sigma.
So, the situation is one of suitability of a camera to the shooter, if it's an "always bright finder" with corrections, super accurate focus and all the other things you stated, ML out ways the shortfalls that DSLRs inherently have, plus the great improvements of shorter registration distance, it's certainly the way forward!.......
...... but, that's not where I am, I need good battery life, fast AF-C and a OVF where I can see clearly all the gestures of the bird I'm waiting on.
Maybe I'm even biased ...... through long formed habits .... I've been shooting DSLRs for fifty years
We both forgot something simple: You always can look through an OVF without switching anything ON. 
I think, if you'd shoot once with one of the latest Sonys and observe how the focus point is glued to the bird - in real time and while shooting 10+fps bursts - the bias could melt quickly - or remain.
To me, the EVFs vary: the Fujis and Sonys before really sucked, the one of the 1V 2 (the small father of the Z 7) as well, but with operational focus points - just only for genuine lenses. The one of the P7800 is like 5-8 year old tech. The Z 7 is the first EVF I use and found it equal to the D850 (except in DX mode, as the EVF doesn't tell me about the crop, except with a tiny icon - it shows the same area.
As for the cluttered EVF, I need to correct myself: It's the LCD which is full of icons and signals, the EVF is clean.
Of course the Sony A9 and the new 600mm F4 not forgetting the zoom to complete series ........
....... but I fear it would be my route to bankruptcy !!
10-09-2019, 02:27 PM
(This post was last modified: 10-09-2019, 02:44 PM by Brightcolours.)
The Nikon Z50 materializes (at least in picture form):
https://twitter.com/nokishita_c/status/1181733678361169920
Does not look that much smaller than the Z6/7, though (regarding the "insanely small" line).
z50size.jpg (Size: 59.56 KB / Downloads: 7)
10-09-2019, 03:30 PM
(This post was last modified: 10-09-2019, 03:54 PM by JJ_SO.)
I've seen other pictures with a separation gap in the sides of the EVF. I guess, the price of around 900.- is without EVF. Else than that, the size of the mount doesn't leave much space to reduce the height. If they also left out the tilt display, the might save a couple mm in depth and else than that, it's sort of a "poor man's mirrorless Nikon". If you see the kit lenses... dp you recall any APS-C kit lens 16-50/3.5- 6.3 ? 
That's sort of a compact camera's specs and it sucks. But admittedly the lens is rather flat.
And here's a bit extended information for the ones of us less fluent in Japanese 
Edit: After viewing the pictures, the EVF is not detachable, but there's an inbuilt flash and a selfie LCD (but maybe only selfies?). I think they also cut costs with a low res EFV (as APS C doesn't need that 3.9 MP of the Z 6/7). And the connectivity possibly lacks of micro/headphone/remote jacks?
On the other side of the price range, an 8000 $ 50/0.95 with a tripod socket which AGAIN doesn't have an Arca profile. Nikon, you're just bloody stubborn. The Sigma 105/1.4 costs 1370.- and comes with Arca foot.
The Nikon has an aperture Ø of 61.05 mm (58 / 0.95), the Sigma 75 mm, I wonder which shows the more creamy bokeh...
(10-09-2019, 03:30 PM)JJ_SO Wrote: I've seen other pictures with a separation gap in the sides of the EVF. I guess, the price of around 900.- is without EVF. Else than that, the size of the mount doesn't leave much space to reduce the height. If they also left out the tilt display, the might save a couple mm in depth and else than that, it's sort of a "poor man's mirrorless Nikon". If you see the kit lenses... dp you recall any APS-C kit lens 16-50/3.5-6.3 ?
That's sort of a compact camera's specs and it sucks. But admittedly the lens is rather flat.
And here's a bit extended information for the ones of us less fluent in Japanese
Edit: After viewing the pictures, the EVF is not detachable, but there's an inbuilt flash and a selfie LCD (but maybe only selfies?). I think they also cut costs with a low res EFV (as APS C doesn't need that 3.9 MP of the Z 6/7). And the connectivity possibly lacks of micro/headphone/remote jacks?
On the other side of the price range, an 8000 $ 50/0.95 with a tripod socket which AGAIN doesn't have an Arca profile. Nikon, you're just bloody stubborn. The Sigma 105/1.4 costs 1370.- and comes with Arca foot.
The Nikon has an aperture Ø of 61.05 mm (58 / 0.95), the Sigma 75 mm, I wonder which shows the more creamy bokeh...
The latest/cheapest iteration of the Canon EF-S 18-55mm IS STM is f 4-5.6 haha.
I guess Nikon is taking the Canon EF-M 15-45mm f3.5- 6.3 IS STM as example?
I wasn't expecting Nikon to use their biiiiig Z-mount for APS-C sensor bodies. But when I look at it: it's a rather clever move, instead of starting another mount for mirrorless APS-C bodies, sell a couple of hundreds and let them die again. The body looks rather small (and has unfortunately another battery size  ) I'm slightly interested. I would not gain more MP, but smaller focus points for tele reach. Really? No. Just counted on the Z 7 209 focus points in DX mode, 19.5 MP - so actually there's nothing I gain compared to a Z 7 in crop mode.
|
