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.

 

[Grandpa Ron]

Ysarex,

If I could set the best possible exposure every time I shot a picture, always hit the "X" ring with my rifle, or simply, always play the correct notes and chords on my guitar. I would indeed be a happy camper. Or maybe not.

"Those who are highly organized, rarely experience the thrill of finding something they though was lost. " I have found that worrying about whether the glass is half empty or half full, means you may have not considered, that you have the wrong size glass.

Hobbie to me are fun past times to be enjoyed, or another learning experience.

 

[AlanKlein]

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.

With SLR or DSLR, you needed heavier, more expensive lenses with larger apertures to see the subject better, especially in poor light. EVs allow lenses with smaller apertures that are lighter and cheaper. The camera's computer lightens the view in the EV.

 

[Ysarex]

Ysarex,

If I could set the best possible exposure every time

You can now if you want -- it's trivially easy. A couple posts above the OP said, "...I realise I have naturally over/under exposed the shot based on what I see in the viewfinder (and guess what I needed)." He used the word guess and indeed there was always a element of educated guessing involved in setting an exposure. The reflected meters in our cameras always had a fudge factor -- e.g. in a snow scene they'd make the snow grey so we had to overexpose. When lighting contrast didn't match the film tone curve we had to consider a compensation in exposure and possibly composition. Photographers talked about selecting an exposure as an art or skill that they honed through practice and experience. Simply letting a light meter decide wouldn't always work -- still won't.

But easily accessible technology in a modern MILC can end all that educated guessing and take you directly to the best possible exposure effortlessly and assuredly. It's actually really nice to stop worrying about are you under/over exposing, will you blow the highlights, etc. and just concentrate on the photo you want to take. With all that educated guessing, metering fudge factor, etc. behind you, it's possible to set up a modern MILC to allow you to set the best possible exposure every time mechanically and pretty much effortlessly.

Here's a simple example: My wife has a Plectranthus in a pot on the porch. I took a snapshot in soft open shade light. First I used my camera as if it was a DSLR. I set the metering to pattern, the white balance to auto, and the meter to zero. I did have the advantage of being able to preview the camera output image (JPEG) and it looked like a decent exposure so click -- it's below on your left. Then I reset my camera to the way I usually work and instead of using the meter, ignoring the output image preview, and doing no educated guessing I set the best possible exposure. I turned the EC control to add exposure. At +1.7 EC the highlight alert started flashing on the rim of the pot. I turned the EC back to +1.3, the alert went out and I clicked the shutter fully confident I had just taken the best possible exposure.

"Best possible exposure" is the exposure that delivers the highest IQ the camera is capable of. You get that when you use all of the sensor's recording capacity. Best possible IQ and therefore best possible exposure is the exposure that fully utilizes the sensor's recording capacity. I did that and the camera did not. How much of the sensor's capacity did the camera leave unused? More than half. That's a lot. They all do it if you use them to create a "good exposure" camera JPEG. Why? Because the camera JPEG is pretend film. It's a film simulation and the same problem we had setting an exposure for film when the lighting contrast was a poor match to the film's tone curve exists for a digital camera if you're trying to set an exposure to get a good JPEG. So the engineers adjust the metering systems to hedge. Hedging more than 1/2 the sensor's capacity is a lot.

Below the two photos is an illustration containing the raw file histograms of the two exposures' green channels. The magenta line is the sensor's clipping threshold. You can see the waste in the camera's exposure. And if you're setting the camera's exposure as you would using a DSLR then you're still engaged in educated guessing, metering fudge factors, and salvaging the end result. I get better results and all that guessing stuff is out of my life and good riddance to it.

I shot a picture, always hit the "X" ring with my rifle, or simply, always play the correct notes and chords on my guitar. I would indeed be a happy camper. Or maybe not.

"Those who are highly organized, rarely experience the thrill of finding something they though was lost. " I have found that worrying about whether the glass is half empty or half full, means you may have not considered, that you have the wrong size glass.

Hobbie to me are fun past times to be enjoyed, or another learning experience.