1. Reminder: Please use our affiliate links to get to your favorite stores for holiday shopping!

Tech sites and photography advice

Discussion in 'Open Discussion' started by OzRay, Jun 3, 2014.

  1. OzRay

    OzRay Mu-43 Legend

    Jan 29, 2010
    South Gippsland, Australia
    Ray, not Oz
    Tech sites are often filled with camera and photography advice, but sometimes what they provide makes me cringe. What's given in the following example provides some correct information; however, other aspects make me shake my head:

    http://www.tested.com/tech/photography/461604-living-photography-eyes-here/

    They still keep touting that the OVF is better than an EVF, despite the many benefits of the EVF, such as full information, as well as things like magnification etc. I also love how he compensates for focus shift when focussing and recomposing, by manual focus adjustment and multiple shots (just to be sure). All I do in situations like this is to move the focus point on the screen to where I want the point of focus, or with people, have the face detect enabled. What could be easier or more efficient?
     
    • Like Like x 1
  2. m4/3boy

    m4/3boy Mu-43 Veteran

    306
    Jul 21, 2013
    I agree that an OVF is superior to an EVF.
     
  3. OzRay

    OzRay Mu-43 Legend

    Jan 29, 2010
    South Gippsland, Australia
    Ray, not Oz
    I'm afraid I don't believe that anymore. EVFs are now good enough to compete with OVFs in all situations and the ability to provide more information and other features, in my view, make EVFs far superior to OVFs. And when I look through the OVFs on the likes of my Pentax and Minolta film cameras, it really highlights how dim and lacking in detail they are compared to the EVF in the E-M1. I simply wouldn't want o go back to an OVF camera.
     
  4. agentlossing

    agentlossing Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Jun 26, 2013
    Andrew Lossing
    Yeah, I'm a recent convert as well. Comparing the LVF2 to that miserably small OVF experience on my older Nikon DSLR has me in favor of the EVF, in spite of my usual preference for optical/analog as opposed to digital readout.
     
  5. Lodos

    Lodos Mu-43 Regular

    well, for some OVF works better for some EVF.

    No doubt OVF is more clear and real time than EVF (in terms of viewing the area of image), however EVF works better for me as at the end I am not interested watching the world from EVF but capturing a scene and how camera sees and interprets that image at the moment is more relevant to me. I like what I am getting/seeing. That is one major reason I recently sold my beloved K-x.. EVF usage really spoiled me.. and I realized how hard it is to focus and control focus with OVF.

    are there improvement areas? sure, a lot (refresh rate, pixel count, black outs, low light boost) but even with what available right now (used Vf-2 and nex-6) I am pro EVF from heart.

    while respecting OVF lovers, article in the link deserves some critique..
    that was funny as he was describing focusing and re-framing. You can do that in any camera?? and if you are focusing ad re-framing why does one want a blazingly fast AF (ie need a DSLR?) ? There maybe application areas but I am not an expert plus article does not mention about that either, I do not see the benefit.. I really tried hard to keep my k-x, even looked for stupid excuses.... yes I had some attachments...
     
  6. dwig

    dwig Mu-43 Top Veteran

    621
    Jun 26, 2010
    Key West FL
    ... and they are wrong, as are those that simply say "EVF is better than OVF".

    There are many, many types of OVFs (Optical View Finders) as there are many types of EVFs (Electronic View Finders). There are also non-optical direct view viewfinders of various types. Anyone who attempts a comparison without clearly stating the variant(s) considered are wrong by guilt of omission. The camera's focusing type, and the user's choice when the camera presents options (e.g. auto focus and manual focus), often influence the VF since the VF is often integrated into the focusing mechanism (e.g SLR OVFs, non-reflex OVFs with superimposed RF focusing patches, ...)

    Over the decades (52+ years of serious photography and roughly 60 years total so far) I've used just about every type of VF and with most types I've used a wide range of the variants. For a wide range of uses most VF types and variants can be useful and there are special case situations where any one type & variant will prove to be the most useful and effective.

    For my personal work (varied, but no video, sports, or fast action work) I find EEVFs (Eye level Electronic ViewFinder) to be, on balance, the most useful. I detest rear panel EVFs except as an alternate special case finder and then only when they are fully articulated (e.g. Pany G and GH series).
     
  7. demiro

    demiro Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Nov 7, 2010
    Well said dwig. Absolute statements about either O or E VFs always being better are misguided imo.

    I prefer a good EVF for many things. But shooting fast action I'll take an OVF every time. Especially if it is sunny and I am wearing my prescription sunglasses. OVF is way, way better for me in that situation.
     
  8. GBarrington

    GBarrington Mu-43 Veteran

    Until March 2014, I was a DSLR holdout. I simply didn't believe an EVF COULD be as good as an OVF. It didn't help that the mirrorless manufacturers didn't seem to want to offer an integrated EVF in the body of the mirrorless cameras. The whole EVF thing seemed as much like a scam to separate me from even more of my money than it was any sort of technological advance. I simply would not consider an EVF if I had to buy it separately.

    My position was rigid and inflexible, but frankly, so was the position of the mirrorless manufacturers. It was clear to me, at least, that the mirrorless manufacturers simply weren't interested in meeting my needs. It's really only in the last 2 years or so that that they even began to notice I even existed. I didn't have to buy a camera, I still liked my E30; and while it is a tad bit noisier than current Oly offerings, I still feel it is reasonably competitive from an IQ perspective. But the manufacturers HAVE to sell their cameras, with the OMD series, I believe that Olympus is finally on the right track in terms of making cameras that people outside the current mirrorless niche are interested in buying.

    How does all this relate to the EVF issue? A lot of the resistance isn't really about EVF qualities or lack of them, but about what is perceived by the consumer as to the manufacturers motives. Is it irrational? Yes. Is it going to change without the manufacturers actually trying to reach out to the unconvinced? No.
     
  9. OzRay

    OzRay Mu-43 Legend

    Jan 29, 2010
    South Gippsland, Australia
    Ray, not Oz
    If you will note, I said that 'EVFs are good enough to compete with OVFs'. I didn't say they were absolutely better, but I do believe that they offer advantages that you can't get with OVFs, whether that is important to you is another matter. I too have used pretty much all forms of OVF, from 4"x5" and 8"x10" field cameras, TLR viewfinders, medium format viewfinders, SLR viewfinders and even range finder viewfinders. Every one of them varies to significant degrees as far as brightness and clarity is concerned. All that I'm saying is that for me, EVFs are refreshing and a pleasure to use when compared to OVFs. They will only get better as technology advances and the point where the game will be over for OVFs.

    One thing I forgot to mention, consider videographers, broadcast camera operators etc. Every single one of them uses an EVF and one can't say that their work is not critical. DSLRs with OVFs are simply lagging behind at the moment. :)
     
  10. Fri13

    Fri13 Mu-43 Veteran

    353
    Jan 30, 2014
    That's why I have own MySet in EM-1 for people. Face detection enabled, closest eye focusing, 9-point focus area etc.
    When photographing people I know I need to turn mode dial three clicks from M setting (common one) to get it. One click to movie mode, two clicks to get action shooting (high frame rate for EVF, 6fps C-AF+TR, small focus point at middle etc) and four clicks to B/W photography.

    Programming camera to work different ways, with different guides and settings makes so easy to move from situation to another.

    And I have always had problems seeing is something really focus or not when handling SLR like OM-2 what had HUUUUGE OVF (so large that it is hard to see from corner to corner without moving eye little bit.) And when situation is very bright or little dim it is just even harder.

    with EVF I have had a single serious problem focusing or seeing what is in focus, thanks to magnifying and actually capability to see the difference where sharpness go. And this even with 60mm f/2.8 macro where focusing to eye of the ant by moving camera back and forth.

    I believe I could not have done that with EM-5 EVF but defiantly not with OVF as I hated it when I was sure subject part was in focus and it wasn't. Causing hours testing and calibrating focusing with DSLR.

    The real problem then is with macro as subject speeds related to sensor size can be faster than in fast sport photography and even small movement cause large changes. Ending to situation that few milliseconds hesitation between thinking releasing shutter, pressing a button and shutter opening/closing can be enough to change focus point or allow subject move off.

    I would never go back to OVF. I don't find it anymore have a single benefits other than not consuming battery.

    I believe we should change EVF to be SIB (=Seeing Is Believing).

    What I see, is what I get and I can even see the error what I do and that is something I like. I can blame myself in peace!
     
  11. dwig

    dwig Mu-43 Top Veteran

    621
    Jun 26, 2010
    Key West FL
    Yes, I understand that. My essay was meant to target your stated subject, that "Tech sites and photography advice" often make you "cringe", which is often my reaction as well.
     
  12. OzRay

    OzRay Mu-43 Legend

    Jan 29, 2010
    South Gippsland, Australia
    Ray, not Oz
    OK, I misunderstood.