EVF - How good are they really?

[Skyblot]

Like many others, I'm considering another camera to supplement/replace my aging but still good Canon EOS600D. Mirrorless seems the way of the future.
After having a traumatic experience with the electronic viewfinder many years ago with a minolta Z3, I'm having trouble coming to terms with using an EVF verses the "real time" of the optical finder.

So, just how good is a modern EVF? Sadly there's no shop accessible to me to have a play with the various goodies... Some of the digital camers reviews have made veiled comments like "missing the directness of the OVF" that just reinforces my nagging concern. My head tells me that there is no functional difference (or there's be many complaints) but my heart is not convinced!

What's the real user experience been like?

Camera's I'm looking closely at are the Cannon R10, and the OM Systems OM5ii.

 

[Jeff15]

The EVF on my Sony is fine ...

 

[petrochemist]

I still prefer my DSLR over my mirrorless cameras for airshows & motorports, but I think that may be more down to available lenses than anything else. I can't afford a super telephoto for the Sony!
Even though my cameras are getting old, there's never any noticeable viewfinder delay.

 

[Peeb]

The EVF on my Nikon Z6 is pretty dated, but honestly a non-issue. To my eye, it looks just like my old OVF viewfinders, except I get the advantage of real-time exposure info, and focus-peaking. Still have and shoot a DSLR for some purposes, but I love my mirrorless EVF. The Nikon mirrorless focuses the adapted nikon DSLR lenses just fine as well.

 

[cgw]

My only issue with EVFs is how they add to MILCs' battery appetites. Buy extras. Keep 'em charged.
Don't miss crudded-up mirrors and focus screens. Flapping mirror noise could be a problem
in some settings, too.

 

[Ysarex]

Like many others, I'm considering another camera to supplement/replace my aging but still good Canon EOS600D. Mirrorless seems the way of the future.
After having a traumatic experience with the electronic viewfinder many years ago with a minolta Z3, I'm having trouble coming to terms with using an EVF verses the "real time" of the optical finder.

So, just how good is a modern EVF? Sadly there's no shop accessible to me to have a play with the various goodies... Some of the digital camers reviews have made veiled comments like "missing the directness of the OVF" that just reinforces my nagging concern. My head tells me that there is no functional difference (or there's be many complaints) but my heart is not convinced!

What's the real user experience been like?

All of my cameras are mirrorless as of 2013. I no longer own that first 2013 camera but the EVF was adequate (Fuji X-E2). If it were only about the viewfinder I'd prefer an OVF, but there's much more involved and there's no way I would ever go back to using a DSLR.

Using the live-view exposure aids in the EVF has changed how I work -- much for the better. I no longer rely on the camera's meter reading in any way. Metering mode? I could care less as it no longer matters for me. I set exposure now using the camera's live-view highlight alert. That feature immediately identifies the brightest highlight in the scene. All I have to do is select between diffuse versus specular highlights. I then set the same exposure without regard to the subject or lighting for every photo I take (conditions permitting -- in low light hand-held I shift to expose as much as possible). I place the brightest diffuse highlight at the sensor's saturation threshold and click. To be able to do that accurately I have the WB in my cameras set to unity (all WB multipliers = 1). The highlight alert is then accurate to the sensor.

Here's an example photo where I set an exposure that differed from what the camera meter determined by +2.3 stops. I used the EC control to add 2 and 1/3 stops of exposure beyond what the camera would have set. The exposure I set is perfect; the raw file histogram is below the photo. Consider you're standing in front of this scene using a DSLR. Do you use the camera's metered exposure? When you differ from the camera's metered exposure how do you know by how much? Any chance you would have looked at this scene and decided to add 2.3 stops? I wouldn't have using a DSLR, but I did using a mirrorless camera (with no need to chimp) completely confident that +2.3 stops was exactly right.

 

[Skyblot]

Thank you for all the replies, it has been very reassuring. It looks like mirrorless is the way to go and I'm worried over nothing!
The many mirrorless advantages are clear, and I really like the idea of real time exposure checking.

 

[nerwin]

EVFs are pretty impressive these days, especially ones with high refresh rates. But I do miss the DSLR experience which I why I shoot with one for now. There's something satisfying taking photo looking through an OVF seeing the image optically and not a digital representation interpretation by the camera's computer. OVF's have no lag except the lag from your eyes to your brain. Plus its satisfying to not know exactly what your photo is going to look like until later.

I like both. I really liked the Fujifilm X100V i had. Having both an OVF and an EVF or the ability to use OVF and have a small EVF over top of the OVF was a delight to use.

Not saying you have to listen to what I say, just sharing my thoughts. I have experienced them all so to me it doesn't matter much. For me you know, I look at screens all the time and so personally its just refreshing to not have to look at one sometimes. Its one of the reasons why I like shooting film once in a while.

Get whatever you like and what you can afford. If buying new, obviously it's gonna be an EVF.

 

[Grandpa Ron]

The more mirrorless cameras improve, the more obsolete optical finders become.
Good news for those who see no particular advantage of one over the other for their particular photographic needs.

 

[RScottie]

I like a mirror showing exactly what I am looking at instead of what the computer is interpreting.

 

[lenspeeper]

Like many others, I'm considering another camera to supplement/replace my aging but still good Canon EOS600D. Mirrorless seems the way of the future.
After having a traumatic experience with the electronic viewfinder many years ago with a minolta Z3, I'm having trouble coming to terms with using an EVF verses the "real time" of the optical finder.

So, just how good is a modern EVF? Sadly there's no shop accessible to me to have a play with the various goodies... Some of the digital camers reviews have made veiled comments like "missing the directness of the OVF" that just reinforces my nagging concern. My head tells me that there is no functional difference (or there's be many complaints) but my heart is not convinced!

What's the real user experience been like?

Camera's I'm looking closely at are the Cannon R10, and the OM Systems OM5ii.

EVF's will never be as bright or as sharp as a DSLR or RF viewfinder, but I have to say they are now good enough for the job. That is especially so if you use the highlight feature that makes the outlines shimmer if it is in focus. I am using a Leica CL APSC format rangefinder style and a Panasonic SR-1R FF "reflex style". Both are several years old and I've never missed a focus. Unless you are a fanatical VF purist, go for it. You won't be sorry.

 

[Grandpa Ron]

I suppose when it is point and shot, for most people it is a toss-up, But I like to tinker, remove the lends and use a pin hole or adapt it to my telescope for a 700 mm lens plus.
So, a simple lens/shutter system works for me.

 

[petrochemist]

EVF's will never be as bright or as sharp as a DSLR or RF viewfinder,

Maybe not as sharp, but in poor light EVFs have always been brighter than optical viewfinders.
Even my humble G1 from over a dozen years ago always gave bright views for macro & night shots.
Indeed I've found times when they were too bright dazzling me & destroying my night vision.

 

[Ozzie_Traveller]

G'day SB

After 40+ yrs with film SLRs I went digital back in 2002 with an early EVF camera. Back then the VF was (by today's standards) pretty crude. I trialled it with the final image results and decided that I could live with it

Over the years and with various updated cameras, I have seen the 'power' and resolution of EVFs develop to the point where in my opinion they surpass the OVF mirror system 'by miles'.

Yes there are specific advantages, and 'yes' there are disadvantages ... and this can be applied to anything & everything these days.
Disadvantages - battery consumption ... you'll only get 1/2- the exposures per battery than otherwise
Advantages - how long a list do you want?

The 'magic' as I see it is the self-regulating extremes-of-brightness of the EVF ie: if I am shooting a sunset, the ball of the sun does not damage my eye as it would / could with the OVF; in lo-light the EVF attempts to show me the shadows that otherwise would be 'just-black'.

In use, as I move the lens across the scene, the screen immediately responds with screen brightness and the exposure readings show immediate changes. As I pop the EV +/- button to vary exposure to concentrate on hi-lights or shadows, the screen shows it immediately and along with the in-screen histogram, my mental-vision of the result all comes together neatly. All live and before the button is pressed, I know what result I will get

Depending upon what your primary use of the camera will be, then the manner in which you use the entire camera will determine whether an EVF system will work for you. The one area where OVF systems are better is hi-speed fps as found in super-sports and Olympic imagery. If you need 30fps -all the time- for your capture of the exact moment something happens, then the OVF is still for you ... along with the price for that sort of camera body

Depending upon the camera body you choose, the image refresh rate during continuous mode might become an issue occasionally with the higher fps numbers. My 'basic' Panasonic superzooms give me instant image refresh up to 12fps, but if I select the 20fps option, the screen does not refresh between images. So I use the 12fps option and get perfectly good results for me and I don't really bother with the 20fps option.

I could go on - but I feel that I have said enough
Hope this helps
Phil

 

[Skyblot]

G'day SB

After 40+ yrs with film SLRs I went digital back in 2002 with an early EVF camera. Back then the VF was (by today's standards) pretty crude. I trialled it with the final image results and decided that I could live with it

Over the years and with various updated cameras, I have seen the 'power' and resolution of EVFs develop to the point where in my opinion they surpass the OVF mirror system 'by miles'.

Yes there are specific advantages, and 'yes' there are disadvantages ... and this can be applied to anything & everything these days.
Disadvantages - battery consumption ... you'll only get 1/2- the exposures per battery than otherwise
Advantages - how long a list do you want?

The 'magic' as I see it is the self-regulating extremes-of-brightness of the EVF ie: if I am shooting a sunset, the ball of the sun does not damage my eye as it would / could with the OVF; in lo-light the EVF attempts to show me the shadows that otherwise would be 'just-black'.

In use, as I move the lens across the scene, the screen immediately responds with screen brightness and the exposure readings show immediate changes. As I pop the EV +/- button to vary exposure to concentrate on hi-lights or shadows, the screen shows it immediately and along with the in-screen histogram, my mental-vision of the result all comes together neatly. All live and before the button is pressed, I know what result I will get

Depending upon what your primary use of the camera will be, then the manner in which you use the entire camera will determine whether an EVF system will work for you. The one area where OVF systems are better is hi-speed fps as found in super-sports and Olympic imagery. If you need 30fps -all the time- for your capture of the exact moment something happens, then the OVF is still for you ... along with the price for that sort of camera body

Depending upon the camera body you choose, the image refresh rate during continuous mode might become an issue occasionally with the higher fps numbers. My 'basic' Panasonic superzooms give me instant image refresh up to 12fps, but if I select the 20fps option, the screen does not refresh between images. So I use the 12fps option and get perfectly good results for me and I don't really bother with the 20fps option.

I could go on - but I feel that I have said enough
Hope this helps
Phil

Good answer, thanks!
Mind you, all the answers so far have been very useful.

I'm thinking that, on balance, if I buy new it will be EVF/mirrorless. There are very significant advantages in the new auto focus and exposure systems to be had and if the EVF had horrible refresh rates I'm sure there would be howls of protest.