For the pro working photographers on here - Optical or EVF?

[lance70]

Hello, I was curious what the working photographers on here prefer.... do you find the optical viewfinder still works the best for you and your photography or is the EVF your choice? Thanks.

 

[pixmedic]

switched from full frame Nikon to fuji and so far we love the EVF. its pretty handy to be able to change aperture or ISO settings and actually see the changes in real time through the viewfinder.

 

[AlanKlein]

switched from full frame Nikon to fuji and so far we love the EVF. its pretty handy to be able to change aperture or ISO settings and actually see the changes in real time through the viewfinder.

Do you use a histogram or just the general exposure view in the EVF when you adjust exposure settings?

 

[Braineack]

I could see it being very useful in a studio setting, but out and about shooting around I dislike it.

 

[tirediron]

I'm sure it has its advantages, but this particular old dog isn't in to learning that new trick. Having picked up my first camera around 1980 or so, I've been doing it long enough that I "know" how a scene should look through an optical viewfinder.

 

[pixmedic]

switched from full frame Nikon to fuji and so far we love the EVF. its pretty handy to be able to change aperture or ISO settings and actually see the changes in real time through the viewfinder.

Do you use a histogram or just the general exposure view in the EVF when you adjust exposure settings?

just general exposure. now i can get it using the EVF instead of chimping. i dont think ive ever looked at a histogram on the cameras display.

 

[Christie Photo]

I'm sure it has its advantages, but this particular old dog isn't in to learning that new trick. Having picked up my first camera around 1980 or so, I've been doing it long enough that I "know" how a scene should look through an optical viewfinder.

Absolutely. I can't imagine not looking through the lens.

-Pete

 

[Christie Photo]

i dont think ive ever looked at a histogram on the cameras display.

huh.... the histogram is the only thing I really pay attention to.

-Pete

 

[pixmedic]

i dont think ive ever looked at a histogram on the cameras display.

huh.... the histogram is the only thing I really pay attention to.

-Pete

meh...
after enough years of shooting i just kinda know where i want things. i may chimp a little every half dozen shots or so just to be sure, but 97.2% of the time just looking at the exposure meter in the viewfinder tells me as much as i need to know. EVF is basically auto-chimping.

 

[tirediron]

i dont think ive ever looked at a histogram on the cameras display.

huh.... the histogram is the only thing I really pay attention to.

-Pete

I use the histogram for highlight checking; I have my "blinkies" set a couple of steps lower than default (ie, they start to blink before things are truly blown) and I can compare that against the histogram to see how close I can/need to come to preserve highlight detail.

 

[ac12]

Both and it depends.

For general shooting, for me, it does not make a real difference. I've used an OVF for so long that I am comfortable with it.

In funky/difficult lighting, I find it easier to watch the EVF as I adjust the exposure/EC to correct for the lighting. That way I fix the shot BEFORE I press the shutter. Rather than shoot, chimp, adjust, repeat.
I set the EVF to display blown highlights, so I can see what is blown. The histogram is a partial picture. The histogram may show something blow, but I have no idea what, until I look at the blown highlight display. I don't care about a bright reflection off a trumpet, but I do care about the face.

For sports and fast action, so far, I prefer the OVF. But I have not used a high end, high $$$$$ mirrorless sports camera with an EVF, which may perform better than my EM1.
But just as critical as the viewfinder is the AF performance. As I understand it, in general, mirrorless cameras still lag behind dSLRs for sports AF performance. Again the high end, high $$$$$ mirrorless sports cameras may AF well, but not the prosumer level mirrorless cameras. As long as I need to get a $4,000 mirrorless, just to match the AF performance of a $1,000 dSLR, the mirrorless performance lags.

I am an old foggie from the film days, but I like the data display on the EVF. It is kinda like a 'heads up display.' I learned to ignore all that data and concentrate on the shot, so the extra data does not bother me, yet it is there when I want it. And I can press the 'info' button to clear the screen.

 

[jcdeboever]

When I had my Xpro 2, I used the optical 90% of the time. I prefer it over the WYSIWYG. You can really screw up a shot using the EVF, especially in spot metering mode. When it comes to proper exposure, you really got to understand what your looking at, it may look cool in the EVF but wait till you get home and try to recover zero data in the shadows. Once you understand what your looking at, it's not a big deal. I shoot a lot of film and this helped me understand exposure.

 

[ac12]

When I had my Xpro 2, I used the optical 90% of the time. I prefer it over the WYSIWYG. You can really screw up a shot using the EVF, especially in spot metering mode. When it comes to proper exposure, you really got to understand what your looking at, it may look cool in the EVF but wait till you get home and try to recover zero data in the shadows. Once you understand what your looking at, it's not a big deal. I shoot a lot of film and this helped me understand exposure.

Both the shadows and the hightlights.
The EVF is so small that you can have blown highlights, but the image is too small to display on the EVF. I ran into this with a LARGE group shot. EVF looked fine, but on the computer, some of the faces were blown out. Which is why I bracket even with an EVF.

Like any tool, you have to work within its limits.

 

[AlanKlein]

In the film days, photographers would shoot 1/3 stop darker than the meter said when shooting chromes. That would saturate the colors more. It also would prevent blowing the highlights as often. Maybe that would work for you with digital.

 

[Solarflare]

What WYSIWYG means is "what you see is what you get". Its a feature of old when computers have been very weak and the first office packets indeed displayed only the text, not the formatation. Then they introduced WYSIWYG which made the programs run much slower (you needed a graphics mode instead of a text mode to run them), but immediately showed the final result.

The term makes absolutely no sense whatsoever for viewfinders because both OVF and EVF are WYSIWYG.

Some people claim that you can "preview" the white balance but the EVF isnt color corrected, so thats not true, plus you absolutely should shoot RAW which nulifies this advantage. Some people claim you can "see" the exposure but thats (a) an extremely slow method compared to automatic metering modes and (b) not an universal property, it doesnt work with long exposures, flash useage etc.

On the other hand EVFs have a LOT of properties which give less WYSIWYG than OVFs, like lag, flicker under artificial lighting, limited resolution, limited dynamic range, etc.

The advantage of EVFs is that you can display additional information, namely focus peaking and magnification to help with manual focus. But thats exactly NOT what WYSIWYG means.