EVF - How good are they really?

[JBPhotog]

Any camera manufactured with a digital sensor whether it is a DSLR or MILC is a computer, full stop. Digital information gathered from the capture device to generate an image on a screen uses computational electronics, essentially computing data. The advantages of an EV over an OV are exponential when it comes to previewing your final output before capture. Being able to view WB, histogram and focus zooming before capture are just three benefits of a MILC.

One gripe I had with DSLR's over SLR's was their poor implementation of the focusing screen detail. Shooting with fast shallow DoF lenses was much easier on an analogue film based SLR than a DSLR, a MILC solves that issue in spades.

 

[Grandpa Ron]

In the context of switching from auto to manual and back it sounds like you're talking about exposure settings -- chimping exposures then taking others until you get it right and/or deciding the best exposure later. That's a lot of rigmarole to take a photo. Why not just set the perfect exposure to start, be completely confident you've done that with no need to chimp it, take the photo once and move on?

When I talk about digital giving you the freedom to shoot multiple images I am talking about the ability to shoot dozens of different angles, try different framing and cropping, experiment with depth of field etc. With digital you can try about anything you can think of. 3 shots or 13 shots make little difference. Deciding which is the best is the hard part. If you can look at a scene and know exactly how you what to shot it, that is a gift I do not have. When I approach a scene or object that grabs my attention, I shoot the shots I think I will use. Then a little voice says, what happens if you try this....

The digital camera and post-processing are so ubiquitous, you really have to mess up your settings to shoot something that cannot be salvaged. Compare that to my 1909 Seneca 4x5 view camera. You must, focus and frame on an upside down and reversed image on the frost glass, close then cock the shutter, estimate the light or read a meter, set the aperture, set the shutter speed, about press the shutter release. Sounds easy but at times there can be a lot of intuitive thinking before the shot feels right. And sometime the feeling that another view might had been better. Usually there is a limit on the film you wish to shoot and process.

Why do all this? Because I enjoy the challenge. I like being the one that took the readings, processed the information, set the camera variables, and took the picture; not some nameless camera guru who wrote the software so I could just point and shoot the majority of my pictures. It adds a whole new dimension to the word "Photographer."

To answer the Skyblot's original question, "How good are they"? Camera gear value is dependent on your perspective and preferences. Photography is a big tent, full of interesting advice and opinions.

 

[Skyblot]

G'day SB

I realise that we're all different - but here's one of the reasons / things that I enjoy the EVF so much:
The immediate and visual response I get in the VF as I adjust settings

The image from yesterday is one of bright orange flowers - nothing special there
The meter did its job, gave me its determined exposure settings
As I critically examined the flower stamens, I could see that they were over-blown - they needed to be dimmed a bit to bring out the colours ... so the EV+/- came into play and the VF darkened as I clicked thru 1/3-stop intervals, and as I did so the background darkened, bringing out the flowers and the stamens turned orange from their over-blown white. All in the VF and before exposure

This the 'magic' I refer to with my use of the EVF, and something that the older OVF cannot supply to me
ps- perhaps I could also add that I (like many others here) are 'old-school' whereby I try to get 95%+ sorted in-camera with very little PP via the keyboard. ALL - 100% of my shooting is in JPG mode
Hope this helps
Phil

The real time preview of the exposure is certainly a very attractive feature, if there is time to critically review the shot. Coming from a 35mm SLR background since the '70's, I realise I have naturally over/under exposed the shot based on what I see in the viewfinder (and guess what I needed). Quick and easy on a manual SLR, less intuitive on a DSLR.

One of the "lightbulb" moments for me was fnally understanding the histogram, and especially the option to highlight the overexposed sections during review - simply great if there is the chance of having another go.

The other big lightbulb was realising that ISO can be varied as needed - I know the camera was doing it anyway - but finally appreciating that it was another variable under my control took a long time to sink in.

By the way, your photos have sent me off to look at the specs of your camera...very competitive pricing whencompared toa new body/lens. Something else to consider!

 

[Ozzie_Traveller]

By the way, your photos have sent me off to look at the specs of your camera...very competitive pricing when compared to a new body/lens. Something else to consider!

G'day mate

I run 2x Panny Lumix cameras .... the FZ-300 as a walk-around + theatre / low-light work, and the FZ-2500 as a slight;y larger sensor and a 20x zoom on board. Each has its strong points - and weaknesses
If you wish, talk some more via email ... Ozzie_Traveller@Yahoo.com
Phil

 

[Ysarex]

When I talk about digital giving you the freedom to shoot multiple images I am talking about the ability to shoot dozens of different angles, try different framing and cropping, experiment with depth of field etc. With digital you can try about anything you can think of. 3 shots or 13 shots make little difference. Deciding which is the best is the hard part. If you can look at a scene and know exactly how you what to shot it, that is a gift I do not have. When I approach a scene or object that grabs my attention, I shoot the shots I think I will use. Then a little voice says, what happens if you try this....

The digital camera and post-processing are so ubiquitous, you really have to mess up your settings to shoot something that cannot be salvaged.

Never salvage. Set the best possible exposure every time without doubt and get the best possible IQ every time. Not necessarily easy or possible with a DSLR but trivially easy with a MILC.

Compare that to my 1909 Seneca 4x5 view camera. You must, focus and frame on an upside down and reversed image on the frost glass, close then cock the shutter, estimate the light or read a meter, set the aperture, set the shutter speed, about press the shutter release. Sounds easy but at times there can be a lot of intuitive thinking before the shot feels right. And sometime the feeling that another view might had been better. Usually there is a limit on the film you wish to shoot and process.

Why do all this? Because I enjoy the challenge. I like being the one that took the readings, processed the information, set the camera variables, and took the picture; not some nameless camera guru who wrote the software so I could just point and shoot the majority of my pictures. It adds a whole new dimension to the word "Photographer."

To answer the Skyblot's original question, "How good are they"? Camera gear value is dependent on your perspective and preferences. Photography is a big tent, full of interesting advice and opinions.