EVF - How good are they really?

[Tartness9094]

I have an EVF on my 2012 Olympus Stylus 1 and that is very sharp and clear for me and I wear glasses.

 

[RScottie]

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.

Your post highlights my feelings pretty much spot on.

Coming from the film era and only previously owning a totally manual film SLR and having access to a few different relatively low end Jr. High and High School Photography Club Camera's, I am amazed at the capabilities of today's DSLR's.

Of course I do not have the latest and greatest mirrorless camera but the camera I do have, the Rebel T7, has already shown me that what is in the viewfinder is not what is on the monitor screen.

The camera interprets what goes on the screen and it is not my eyes. Computers may be smart, but they have no idea what I am thinking or what I am attempting to capture that I have composed in my mind.

It seems that computers are taking over everything and their role in photography is relegating the photographer to nothing more than an editor that has to approve the cameras vision and again, through editing, a final picture that is technically perfect but lacking creative soul.

I take a lot of pictures and a lot do not come out the way I envisioned. That is a fact.

That being said, I am not ready to cede control of my shots to the computer at this time.

 

[Grandpa Ron]

Computer control of almost everything these days, is nothing more than another tool in your hobby's toolbox. Often a very handy feature, but it' use is not mandatory. If it does not do what you want, then switch to the manual mode. Your device will not feel insulted, and you have simply returned to the time when the "auto" setting was not available.

I tinker with a lot of classic film gear; manual control is the norm. When I switch to digital and I do not like the option I am given, my biggest question is "How did I which this thing to manual mode the last time?"

The "auto" setting is handy then you need it and can be switch off when you do not.

The biggest advantage is you do not have to count exposures. If you preview your shot and do not like it erase it and take another. Or, you can keep shooting shot after shot until you get it right. Unlike film you do not have to pounder, which shot not to take. Later you can decide the best shot, in the comfort of your chair on a monitor and photoshop.

The biggest downside for me is the time wasted deciding which of the five photos to took I like better. I often fine it easier to just do "one and done" and live with the results.

 

[Ysarex]

Your post highlights my feelings pretty much spot on.

Coming from the film era and only previously owning a totally manual film SLR and having access to a few different relatively low end Jr. High and High School Photography Club Camera's, I am amazed at the capabilities of today's DSLR's.

Of course I do not have the latest and greatest mirrorless camera but the camera I do have, the Rebel T7, has already shown me that what is in the viewfinder is not what is on the monitor screen.

That's a disadvantage to using an OVF -- limited information. Typically an OVF will include a way to inform you of the camera's metering of the scene. How the camera will process the exposure to a final image you're not seeing in an OVF. Do you care? I never use the output image from the camera but only save and process raw files. An EVF adds the additional information of how the camera will process the image but of course that can typically be turned off. My mirrorless cameras include an option to disengage that feature. In a DSLR it's off by design unless you activate the camera's live-view function.

The camera interprets what goes on the screen and it is not my eyes. Computers may be smart, but they have no idea what I am thinking or what I am attempting to capture that I have composed in my mind.

All our digital cameras whether DSLR or mirrorless or phone or whatever process the sensor exposure to an output image. All of them as such pretend there's film in the camera and apply a film simulation tone curve in processing. They also include a battery of controls, e.g. white balance, contrast, highlights/shadows, sharpness, clarity, input profiles, etc., etc. that the user can apply to customize the output image. Or, ignore all of that and save and process raw files.

It seems that computers are taking over everything and their role in photography is relegating the photographer to nothing more than an editor that has to approve the cameras vision and again, through editing, a final picture that is technically perfect but lacking creative soul.

They have an off setting.

I take a lot of pictures and a lot do not come out the way I envisioned. That is a fact.

That being said, I am not ready to cede control of my shots to the computer at this time.

I take a lot of pictures and they all come out exactly as I envision them. To make sure that happens I never let the camera do anything outside my control and I use mirrorless cameras that conveniently give me the information I need to set the exposure I want, i.e. the brightest diffuse highlight in the scene and the exposure that will place it at the sensor's saturation threshold.

 

[cgw]

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

Find this faux Luddism about EVFs a bit overcooked. They can deliver as much or as little info a su gusto according to settings. Love the flip screen on my Fuji MILCs that does duty as a WLF. Besides, the Fuji VFs also put exposure info at the bottom, regardless of camera orientation. Nice.

 

[RScottie]

Find this faux Luddism about EVFs a bit overcooked. They can deliver as much or as little info a su gusto according to settings. Love the flip screen on my Fuji MILCs that does duty as a WLF. Besides, the Fuji VFs also put exposure info at the bottom, regardless of camera orientation. Nice.

Are you saying that the rendering done in an electronic viewfinder is what the eye sees through the viewfinder of a camera that has a mirror? No matter how you parse it, electronic viewfinders display what the camera's computer feeds it, not the "mirror image".

That is all I have said with my point being that I PREFER to see the scene with MY EYES not the interpretation done by the computer.

What is overcooked about that? And I have nothing against changes but there is no valid reason to replace DSLR's when there are people that prefer them.

I am glad you "love the flip screen" on your camera. I personally do not prefer using the screen either for anything other than video.

 

[cgw]

Are you saying that the rendering done in an electronic viewfinder is what the eye sees through the viewfinder of a camera that has a mirror? No matter how you parse it, electronic viewfinders display what the camera's computer feeds it, not the "mirror image".

That is all I have said with my point being that I PREFER to see the scene with MY EYES not the interpretation done by the computer.

What is overcooked about that? And I have nothing against changes but there is no valid reason to replace DSLR's when there are people that prefer them.

I am glad you "love the flip screen" on your camera. I personally do not prefer using the screen either for anything other than video.

So get a view camera. Better still, a pinhole camera!

 

[RScottie]

So get a view camera. Better still, a pinhole camera!

Thanks for the advice!

Made one of them thar pin hole cameras in Jr. High.

You had to make the hole perfectly round and I guess I pulled it off. Got an A!

It actually took a pretty good picture, at least mine did.

I have a few old view cameras but they use sheet film which is pricey nowadays.

I will keep my DSLR, perhaps upgrading to a full frame, and get a few lenses to cover what I like to shoot.

Have a nice Canon 50mm prime coming from Amazon in a few days I will be trying out soon. Can't wait to see how it does in low light.

 

[Ozzie_Traveller]

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

 

[Ysarex]

Are you saying that the rendering done in an electronic viewfinder is what the eye sees through the viewfinder of a camera that has a mirror?

Pretty much yes or very close to it. Default setting for a mirrorless camera typically has the EVF simulate the JPEG the camera will produce. But you can turn that all off. My Fuji's have an option to set an OVF simulation -- they call it "natural live view" -- set that and turn down the brightness of the EVF and you've got it. I just tried it and looking back and forth between the viewfinder and just my eyes on the scene appears identical to me. Of course I then set the camera back because I much prefer the additional information. Why cripple my camera to make it function like a DSLR?

When you take photos with a DSLR how do you determine exposure? Do you rely on the camera meter?

No matter how you parse it, electronic viewfinders display what the camera's computer feeds it, not the "mirror image".

That is all I have said with my point being that I PREFER to see the scene with MY EYES not the interpretation done by the computer.

So with a mirrorless camera turn the computer interpretation off.

What is overcooked about that? And I have nothing against changes but there is no valid reason to replace DSLR's when there are people that prefer them.

Absolutely use what you prefer. If the differences between a mirrorless ILC and DSLR don't provide you with value there's no reason to switch. When I bought my first mirrorless camera the viewfinder wasn't an issue for me. I was looking to pick up an APS-C camera and before I settled on a brand I started my search looking for lenses. I was delighted to find the Fuji 14mm f/2.8 and right then and there decided that was the first lens I wanted. The camera it came with happened to be mirrorless and the decision was made. The Fuji 14mm f/2.8 is unique in that with an 81 degree angle of view the lens produces zero distortion. That was valuable to me and because of the mirror you can't get that on a DSLR. I now have two zero distortion lenses that I'm very pleased with -- mirrorless cameras required for use.

I am glad you "love the flip screen" on your camera. I personally do not prefer using the screen either for anything other than video.

 

[Ysarex]

Computer control of almost everything these days, is nothing more than another tool in your hobby's toolbox. Often a very handy feature, but it' use is not mandatory. If it does not do what you want, then switch to the manual mode. Your device will not feel insulted, and you have simply returned to the time when the "auto" setting was not available.

I tinker with a lot of classic film gear; manual control is the norm. When I switch to digital and I do not like the option I am given, my biggest question is "How did I which this thing to manual mode the last time?"

The "auto" setting is handy then you need it and can be switch off when you do not.

The biggest advantage is you do not have to count exposures. If you preview your shot and do not like it erase it and take another. Or, you can keep shooting shot after shot until you get it right. Unlike film you do not have to pounder, which shot not to take. Later you can decide the best shot, in the comfort of your chair on a monitor and photoshop.

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?

The biggest downside for me is the time wasted deciding which of the five photos to took I like better. I often fine it easier to just do "one and done" and live with the results.

 

[AlanKlein]

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.

Don't DSLR viewfinders get dark when the light is low? You don;t have that problem with EVFs.

 

[VidThreeNorth]

The last problem addressed by Mfrs was viewfinder "latency". The problem was that if you waited for something to happen and then tried to shoot it, what you saw in the viewfinder was already too late. The main answer to that was to start buffering before the shutter release. Personally, I felt that a better way was to either use both eyes (which works for me to a limited degree, when I use a Sony a6400 because my left eye is not blocked by the camera). The problem with that technique is that it takes practice and I probably can't do it now because I haven't done it in a while. A better way might be to add a direct viewer of some kind that fits in the hot-shoe (which as far as I know, nobody has done yet). I don't know exactly how the Fuji's work. The range finders use partly optical in some bodies, but not adequate for sports use -- at least from what little I know. The thing about latency is that it was always a problem for still photography. You NEVER had a "film camera" that could take a picture the "instant" you pressed the release. SLR cameras had to flip up a mirror before a shutter opened. "Rolling shutter" is another latency problem. But there's a lot of discussion about that lately, so I'll leave it alone for now.

 

[Peeb]

Of course, now mirrorless cameras have pre-release capture, which 'solves' latency to a great degree.

 

[KJ_North]

Love my EVF and can shoot at 30 FPS with no blackout. Just one of the many reasons I love mirrorless. Certainly not dishing on the DSLR just stating newer technology should be appreciated not frowned upon. I can capture wildlife shots that were not possible with my DSLR or my first Mirrorless camera due to technology changes. But of course each person has there own needs due to what they mainly shoot hence why a DSLR can satisfy the majority of people still to this day and produce outstanding images.