[PuxaVida]

[quote name='Klaus' timestamp='1309514659' post='9685']

What is exactly objectively "better" when using an optical VF in low light ? It provides an even darker VF image ... wow ... now what exactly do you do with that ?

An EVF shows an amplified images. Yes, it's noisy. Yes, it has a slow refresh rate. Yet ... you can actually evaluate your scene. Personally I rather prefer to see "something" than very little.

[/quote]



I didn't mean OVF at low light, I meant OVF and low light capabilities of the sensor. Actually, I believe that the EVF will get better and better but personally I find the visual capabilities of OVF still unsurpassed. What I see as a drawback for MFT is the low light capabilities of the small sensor with tiny pixels. And there, maybe the MFT might utilize the back side illuminated sensor technology (as Fuji did for EXR models).



So, I believe that they will be the new stars in the near future, I just can't accept that for now <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/blink.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=':blink:' /> (provided that I invested a lot on DSLR technology). The new models you've enlisted were really encouriging, and I'm not a conservative DSLR lover type. But frankly (and as a very subjective opinion), I think the low light capabilities of the sensor and shallow DoF are essential as I can still carry my big old & heavy D700 set with me. Surely right now this subjective opinion make me omit the advantages of these new MFTs, but when I get older I guess MFT will be the choice (regardless of technical details).



Serkan

[Martin_MM]

[quote name='Klaus' timestamp='1309514134' post='9682']

Actually ... I do.

What exactly do you consider to be "better" in a mirror viewfinder ? I mean objectively. Not subjectively.

Subjectively it feels nicer, of course.

[/quote]



LOL, you really mean it...? ;-)



First of all, clarity and sharpness of the view. Sorry, comparing Sony´s A55 to Alpha´s 900 vf for instance is still no real comparison. Despite A55 EVF being really very good, the overall clarity and sharpness still have an edge in FF optical vf.



Second, there are still many issues with EVFs (despite being much more suppressed today than anytime in the past of course). There is so called rainbow 'tearing' which I personally do mind. Then there i another kind of tearing when you move your camera faster. Then there is the low refresh rate in low light, then there is the noise....

And finally the gain! You are saying you welcome that. OK, it may be a matter of personal preference again but I don´t welcome any "view amplification" at all. I want to see in the finder exactly what my eyes are seeing. I definitely don´t want the image in the finder to be aplified and bright when in reality I´m looking at a dark scene.



To be objective, I must admit thought that the A55 EVF (the only one I have seen actually but it is considered one of the best anyway) is beautifully large and in the APS-C segment it is a real benefit. Actually despite all my EVF "bashing" above and despite the fact that I wouldn´t pick this EVF in full frame cam over good optical VF yet, I actually kind of preferred this EVF in APS-C cam - it was better overall than the small and dim "window at the end of a tunnel" that most reduced-frame DSLRs currently offer.



But anyway, the day of the all-conquering EVF in full frame cams just isn't here yet.



p.s. which also leads me to conclude: EVFs are great now for mid-to-low-end cams but still too limited for prosumer/pro use where the OVF will survive for quite a long yet I think.

[Brightcolours]

[quote name='Klaus' timestamp='1309519312' post='9689']

As far as the 3D aspect is concerned - I sort-of-agree. However, again, the final result is different to your OVF image. The EVF feedback may not be 100% accurate but I think it's still closer to the final result and you're not interested in your OVF view but in the output.

[/quote]

I agree with you on that, that an EVF/LCD gives a much closer idea of the final 2D image. That certainly is true. But what I love about the OVF is that it helps me get where I want to be, instead of showing where I am, with its 3D character.



Another downside to EVFs in current implementations is when you want to shoot with studio lighting. The OVF shows the scene without taking note of any exposure settings, where EVFs just show darkness due to the exposure settings. This of course can be worked around with enough thought about the different lighting set ups, it can all be put in firmware. But for now, most EVF cameras have a problem there.

[Klaus]

[quote name='Brightcolours' timestamp='1309520172' post='9694']

Another downside to EVFs in current implementations is when you want to shoot with studio lighting. The OVF shows the scene without taking note of any exposure settings, where EVFs just show darkness due to the exposure settings. This of course can be worked around with enough thought about the different lighting set ups, it can all be put in firmware. But for now, most EVF cameras have a problem there.

[/quote]



I'm not sure regarding the mentioned issue. Sounds camera-specific to me.

[Brightcolours]

[quote name='Klaus' timestamp='1309520559' post='9695']

I'm not sure regarding the mentioned issue. Sounds camera-specific to me.

[/quote]

Well, I know the not-mirrorless Sony SLTs have a problem here, for instance... Have been reading about this issue that some studio photographers ran into.

[popo]

[quote name='Klaus' timestamp='1309511616' post='9676']

- no mirror slap

- Live histogram

- Live WB view

- faster fps

- super-imposable whatever

- accurate focusing via magnified view

- at least potentially independent from focus shift issues in AF mode



Actually there are no reasons for a mirror full frame body (other than the possible lack of maturity on the mirrorless side although you may discuss this already).

SLRs were introduced as a workaround and it is time that this workaround dies. It's a past concept.

[/quote]

I think the focus peeking or whatever it is called as recently added to the NEX would be a nice feature for all EVF going forwards.



n the low light usage, already I have seen on another forum where the GH2 was preferred over a selection of SLRs in very low light usage due to the amplification of viewfinder image, although I'm more impressed they found enough light to take a photo with if it got that bad. Not all implementations are equal either, I believe the Sony live view features low light amplification, whereas Canon do not. So Canon live view is of limited usability in low light conditions. They would have to address that as and when they go EVF too.



Definitely the lack of maturity will prevent mirrorless taking over DSLRs in the short term, at least at the mid to higher end. And until then, full frame DSLRs are the "value" option for big sensor digital.



All the talk of a full frame mirrorless, I think the biggest question is who will make such a thing? I can't see the existing mirrorless players re-defining their mount for it, nor producing a parallel system in addition. Legalities aside, the only other option I see would be a lower cost Leica copy.



In the short to medium term future I find it hard to see mirrorless killing DSLRs except only in the lowest market segments. I think DSLRs could remain a higher end niche in full frame like medium format is now.

[joachim]

[quote name='Martin_MM' timestamp='1309512321' post='9680']

Well, not ready to die yet. It will take a long time I believe. Just like you have suggested, there is very crutial reason for a mirror viewfinder today: Quality of the view. Despite all the improvements having been done recently, even the best EVF is still behind the optical VF as far as the view quality is concerned. Hope you won´t question that ;-).

[/quote]



Right now it doesn't seem to be dying, I agree. But I expect at some point it will, and it will be dying quickly over the period of at most 2 years. Same story as with film. Once DSLR were in the 700€$£ range it went quickly and film became a niche product.



I assume the same will happen with the DSLR. A good optical finder will always cost money and require a lot of precision in moving parts (e.g. mirror). It is easier to get a decent magnification from an EVF, something which APS-C and even more FT SLRs struggle with. On top of which are all the neat things you can do in an EVF (superimposing info, marking problem areas, live histogram).



I think in not so far a time, the remaining quality gap will have closed, the EVF will be cheaper and better for many applications.



Having written all this, I sometimes still wonder whether to upgrade my DSLR. I am still using an old Olympus E-300 and a E-P1 for my more serious projects. I sometimes wish for a look in finder on the E-P1 in bright sunlight, which this one doesn't support <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/sad.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' />.

[Martin_MM]

[quote name='joachim' timestamp='1309521899' post='9699']

Right now it doesn't seem to be dying, I agree. But I expect at some point it will, and it will be dying quickly over the period of at most 2 years. Same story as with film. Once DSLR were in the 700€$£ range it went quickly and film became a niche product.



I assume the same will happen with the DSLR. A good optical finder will always cost money and require a lot of precision in moving parts (e.g. mirror). It is easier to get a decent magnification from an EVF, something which APS-C and even more FT SLRs struggle with. On top of which are all the neat things you can do in an EVF (superimposing info, marking problem areas, live histogram).



I think in not so far a time, the remaining quality gap will have closed, the EVF will be cheaper and better for many applications.



Having written all this, I sometimes still wonder whether to upgrade my DSLR. I am still using an old Olympus E-300 and a E-P1 for my more serious projects. I sometimes wish for a look in finder on the E-P1 in bright sunlight, which this one doesn't support <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/sad.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' />.

[/quote]





Look, yes, I admit one day EVFs will probably replace the OVF. EVFs have made tremendous journey compared to their quality say 10 years ago. Lets say there has been 90% improvement but please note that the last 10% - to fully match the quality of OVFs - may easily require another 10 years of hard development work (which is by the way my rough estimation when it may happen). I definitely don´t think it will happen as soon as in 2 years (unless there is some really major, unexpected scientific breakthrough in the EVFs development which I can never rule out of course).

[finaldesignrb]

[quote name='Martin_MM' timestamp='1309525562' post='9704']

[Electronic viewfinder] EVFs...to fully match the quality of [optical viewfinder] OVFs - may easily require another 10 years of hard development work

[/quote]

100% agree that it will be years before an EVF's image quality matches an optical viewfinder's. Similarly agree with the common feeling that it is usually more pleasant and fun for the photographer to look through an optical viewfinder at a scene, than it is to look at the scene via an electronic viewfinder. Optical viewfinder image quality is superior except when it's not too dark. Which unfortunately happens both at night, and during many kinds of flash setups where there are not great preview lamps.



The quite literal beauty of the optical viewfinder's performance is due to its fantastic assistance from the human eye and brain. The eye-brain system is operating with an extremely familiar type of image, to always see a reasonable scene. (Were infants affixed with an electronic viewfinder at birth that they used continuously through their formative first 3 years of life the eye-brain system would not find an OVF so comfortable.) The eye-brain system brightens a dark scene, dulls a bright one, almost always corrects the color balance to something reasonable, always look sharp even when the subject is moving (thanks to IBIS in-brain-image-stabilization), always shows detail in extreme highlight and shadow areas via rapid scene scanning and unconscious image gain adjustments, etc etc.



So if the priority of a photographer is to enjoy their in-field visual experience of looking through a camera, an optical viewfinder is going to be superior. Superior for years to come, as Martin MM suggests. And I don't mean to dismiss such a priority as misguided. A happy and enthusiastic photographer is nearly certain to be better photographer than one who is continuously understimulated by a poor electronic viewfinder experience. And most good photographs require a photographer in a good, alert (probably enthusiastic) state of mind, as well as great equipment.



In fact, for photographs taken with something between a mild wide angle and mild telephoto (perhaps most photos), where parallax mismatch is not a problem, one can make a case for a wireframe viewfinder as sort of the ultimate OVF. The view through a wire frame is much more natural(hey it can even be 3D), familiar, and full of just-outside-of-the-scene cues than an OVF will ever be. Yet the dominance of an OVF over wireframe also speaks to the inevitable dominance of electronic viewfinders, perhaps sooner rather than later for many image-quality-demanding people.



Most of us don't think of using a wireframe viewfinder, even if there are no parallax and magnification problems with it. And even though the view through and around a simple wire frame is so much richer than squinting through the tiny box of an optical viewfinder. We don't take a wireframe viewfinder seriously, because that nice viewing experience is just so much farther removed from the 2-dimensional photograph we are heading towards, than the properly cropped, environmentally-isolated view we have through an optical viewfinder.



It's just too much work for the camera operator to imagine how a wireframed scene will translate to an isolated, cropped photograph, no matter how effortless and pleasant the wireframe may be to look through, in comparison to a wireframe's benefits.



And am similarly claiming that it's already, in 2011, just too much work for many a camera operator to imagine how an optical viewfinder scene will translate to a increasingly-probably-viewed-on-the-web, transistorized electronic image, in comparison to an optical viewfinder's benefits.



My Sony Nex's EVF electronic viewfinder gives me continuous, no-delay verification of the camera's knowledge of a scene's general white balance. It gives me continuous, no-delay verification of what highlights are likely blank or shadows are likely empty. I.e. the whole concept of "metering" a scene is pretty much gone. There is absolutely no chance of having a way wrong exposure if I'm paying attention to the live view. I.e. if I can see everything I want to in the viewfinder there's no chance that those details are going to be washed out or dropped out in the raw file. Particularly if I took the time when first setting up the camera to permanently adjust the camera's contrast and LCD brightness settings to correlate with what the raw files can typically preserve.



When I take a photo, the Nex EVF even gives me a fleeting glimpse of what just got captured, including a hint of subject blur in the final image. And I'm not forced to use an unnecessarily bulky, fragile, expensive, and failure-prone camera body that houses a fixed or flipping mirror.



I don't enjoy looking through an optical viewfinder as much as using a wireframe finder on my twin lens reflex equipment. And I don't enjoy my Nex EVF as much as looking through my optical viewfinder equipment. But in compensation I do enjoy, in the field on professional gigs, smaller, more reliable (for a given expense) equipment, and an EVF's near-zero anxiety about unwittingly screwing up exposure, white balance, and too-slow shutter speeds.



In looking over the pros and cons, it is true that the statistically average photographer is going to favor having a fun picture-taking experience over making it easier to have a higher percentage of perfectly exposed, color-balanced photos. Thus perhaps an optical viewfinder is always going to be nicer than an electronic viewfinder for most people, for years to come. Maybe it's only time-pressured, human-error-capable professionals, with a priority for reliably well-metered images, who will latch onto electronic viewfinder's predictive accuracy--long before the sheer electronic viewfinder image quality catches up to the IQ of an optical finder.

[mst]

[quote name='RussellB' timestamp='1309539281' post='9705']

long before the sheer electronic viewfinder image quality catches up to the IQ of an optical finder.

[/quote]



Yep, my impression, too. I might be old-fashioned, but I'd prefer an optical viewfinder any time and have yet to see an EVF that would make me consider it as an replacement of an OVF, especially when it comes to resolution.



On the other hand, I see the advantages of an EVF and my impression is the best approach seems to be to mix both worlds. If you get the chance, look through the hybrid viewfinder of a X100 to get an impression of what I mean.



-- Markus (melting in the sun of South France)