Do you like the EVFs on the new 44/3 cameras?

froyd

froyd

Veteran
Local time
7:33 PM
Joined
Aug 14, 2006
Messages
2,319
Especially for RF enthusiasts a crisp viewfinder image has always been appreciated, and until a few years ago analog viewfinders were the norm even in digital cameras.

To all of you who come from an analog VF experience and have now purchased one of the newer 4/3 cameras with built-in EVF (Nex7, x-Pro, OM-D, etc) how hard was it to photograph by framing images on a display? My understanding is that EVFs can make the view brighter at night, facilitating composition, but is it distracting?
 
I'm currently contemplating moving across to one of these systems so your question comes at exactly the right time. I'd also like to know how they are with regards to focusing manually.
 
I have to admit that I still don't like them. I live with the Fuji ones because I'm in OVF mode for the most part...except for close-up and highly critical focus. Just haven't brought myself to buy an EVF only camera. Not even the NEX or E-M5 do it for me.
 
I'm adapting amazingly well. Two benefits I've really learned to like are how most can be set to reflect the actual exposure and with the EVF in B&W mode for previsualization.

Bad EVFs are really awful, but a very few of the newest are actually quite nice.
 
I'm not quite yet willing to give up on OVFs. The new OM EVF (only had it in my hands briefly) is the best of the lot thus far but still not ready for prime time. I can see how the EVF is very quickly evolving into a viable tool. It shouldn't be long before they are a match for the OVF. For the next few years I'm sticking with the XP1.

--Rich
 
harlequin said:
I'm currently contemplating moving across to one of these systems so your question comes at exactly the right time. I'd also like to know how they are with regards to focusing manually.
Click to expand...

I'm in a similar position, curious to know how RF photographers find it to be.
Thanks in advance for answers.
robert
 
Not a big fan. I had a G3 and felt the resolution was too low and color was terrible. The information I gather through the VF while shooting is important. I don't like lowering the camera to judge my scene if I'm working under certain conditions such as journalistic or documentary work with people.
 
I use a Sony R1, an Olympus SP570Uz and a Panasonic G2, acquired in that order. The Sony EVF is good enough but very grainy; this is not generally a problem, as I prefer to use the superb top mounted LED. The Olympus is better, with more natural colour and more pixels. The EVF on the G2 is nearly as good as the glass prisms on my Canons and in some ways better, because you really are seeing exactly what will appear on the final image.

This suggests that EVFs are evolving quickly, now that manufacturers see a clear demand for them. I think that it's not unreasonable to expect that the next generation will outperform prism finders and come close to the best RF finders. This is why I refuse to look at the OM-D; I doubt my bank account would survive the encounter! :D
 
I've used a e-pl2 with a vf-2 for a summer vacation, it was "okay" with the 20mm on AF. However, very slow to accurately focus a 25mm f0.95, you always have to magnify to double check! so when I came back... It was sold!
That why I am still "sitting on the fence" waiting for next "perfect" camera..... At least, I currently have my RD1s !
 
When the EVF helps me get the photo I need... I like it.

Otherwise I prefer the OVF.

EVFs will get incrementally better every year. If you think about all the people who make photographs in 2012, how many ever looked through an OVF?
 
I like the Olympus VF-2 a lot. It's good enough for everyday use, and the ability to use an eye-level finder with live view, histogram, and on-demand magnification, is wonderful.
 
Y'all must be shooting differently than I do.
OVF never bothered me.

It's way better than composing at arm's length or fighting the glare using the LCD.

Plus I always bring a film camera with me. I switch between EVF and OVF without any problems.

I'm talking about Pen E-P2 EVF, not even the E-M5.
 
They are a bit distracting. But they're better than using the back LCD at arm's length as shadowfox says.

I bought a G1 early on and the EVF was something new and different for me--kinda neat but not always as good as it should be. So when I bought my first E-Pen with the 17mm lens, I started using the OVF in the accessory shoe to have the familiar bright lines I remembered from my Leicas. I've continued this practice with an adapted Olympus 25/2.8 lens and an old Leitz 5cm finder. But with a zoom lens on the E-Pen bodies, it's either an EVF or the back LCD--no other practical choice. I now use the Olympus EVF on an E-P2 when I'm using any of the zooms.

Under low light, the view is grainy. Under real low light, it's mushy. Under high contrast bright light, it's washed out and contrasty. Under average (whatever that is) light, it's fine. In every condition, it's usable. But overall, I still prefer an OVF or SLR viewing.
 
I am convinced that many who criticize good EVFs have never used them, or perhaps glanced through one for 30 seconds at a camera shop and dismissed them.

Myself, I've been using my Lumix G1 since December of 2008 and am more than happy with its EVF, which I use exclusively over the LCD except for the occasional chimping.

Being able to frame exactly in the EVF what the image will look like is worth more to me than what noise might be present under extreme low light situations, that I appreciate in contrast every time I use a film camera, regardless of RF, SLR or point and shoot, where there's always some uncertainty about exact framing, even with an SLR.

Being able to view the scene live in dynamic black and white is a boon to the photographer who shoots in monochrome, a real game changer IMO.

Being able to view DOF effects live in the EVF prior to exposure is something you have to experience to appreciate its benefit.

None of these attributes can be understood until you start using a camera with an EVF like the G1's, which is good enough, yet not as good as some of the newer u4/3 models. They simply give the photographer finer control over framing and focus, eliminating the need to crop the image in post processing, which goes a long way toward overcoming the smaller sensor's limitations. I know of photogs who shoot large sensor DSLRs and don't worry about precise framing in their optical VFs, claiming they can just "fix it in post," but not realizing that they are throwing away a lot of the advantage of the larger sensor by needing to crop.

-Joe
 
The only experience I have is with the VF2 on the Pen E-P2 and I think it's fantastic.

To me, it's only second to an RF patch. It's easier to focus in low light than a standard SLR viewfinder for me and it gives me essentially 100% accuracy when framing.

I don't have any experience with the newer EVFs like the NEX-7 or the OMD M5, but the OVF on the EP-2 is pretty damn phenomenal.
 
The new generation of EVF's is a whole new ballgame. The EVF on my older GF1 was merely a mediocre substitute for an eye level finder. The EVF (OLED technology) on my new Sony NEX5n is quite extraordinary. I am not even conscience that I am using an EVF except for some very minor pixel movement if I shift viewing angles rapidly. The advantage for the OLEV is the near instantaneous refresh rate of the image. Additionally, the focus peaking feature is at least as fast and accurate as the split image RF on my Leica's. Dim light focusing with my M mount lenses is very bright wide open which is great for critical focusing.
 
froyd said:
To all of you who come from an analog VF experience and have now purchased one of the newer 4/3 cameras with built-in EVF (Nex7, x-Pro, OM-D, etc) how hard was it to photograph by framing images on a display? My understanding is that EVFs can make the view brighter at night, facilitating composition, but is it distracting?
Click to expand...

I have used an OM-D for almost a year. The 120Hz refresh rate of it's EVF provides for a very satisfactory user experience. There is no "tearing" when the camera is quickly "panned" and capturing "peak action" is trivial. It is also possible to "pre-chimp" exposure.

FWIW, I also use a Leica rangefinder and have no issues moving between the optical viewfinder on my M4 and the EVF on the Olympus.

So, in response to your question: No, the EVF on the OM-D (at least) is NOT distracting and is eminently useful.
 
I had the G2, the GH2, the Oly EP3 w/EV2 and currently have GX1 and OMD.

They have gotten progressively better- excellent in low light and manual focus.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom