remphoto
Established
I had real apprehension about going to an EVF when I bought my G!. I have been using Leica Rangefinders and pro-level SLR's for many years. But I have to tell you that once i got over the idea that I was seeing an electronic image rather than an optical image, I find it has many advantages for a digital camera. These include a bright viewfinder, even in low light, the enlargement feature for accurate manual focusing, being able to see and easily compensate exposure (rather than having to chimp and reshoot) and also the quick review feature immediately after taking the shot. Also, menu changes can be made quickly with the eye still on the viewfinder. I have yet to open up the big LCD on the back of the camera -- it is not necessary in most situations. Sure, there can be a little lag in low light and I haven't tried it with action shots, but have been pleasantly surprised overall.
jagarch
Member
An EVF behaves like a virtual SLR viewfinder, right? What you see is approximately through the lens?
Could an EVF be setup to behave like a virtual rangefinder, with an electronically generated split image in the center? For faster focusing?
Could an EVF be setup to behave like a virtual rangefinder, with an electronically generated split image in the center? For faster focusing?
Benjamin
Registered Snoozer
user237428934
User deletion pending
Not approximately. Exactly.
Of course it would be technically possible. You needed a rangefinder-mechanism with a 2nd sensor that is coupled to the distance-scale of the lens. Then you could overlap the pictures of the 2nd sensor and the main sensor via software. I think the coupling mechanism would make it very expensive.
Andy Kibber
Well-known
remphoto
Established
With the power of digital imaging, I am sure split screen focusing could be simulated, much as choices of grid patterns are available without having to change focusing screens like on a SLR. Would not be surprised to see this occur on a future model.
paragon
Established
Would we want to get any smaller??? - My G1 is small enough for me - in fact the buttons are too small and IMHO need a redesign - the layout on my D300 is far much better.
EVRs are improving but if you are used to a normal DSLR viewfinder they are still second rate.
M4/3 is popular for lots of reasons with the use of MF lenses being one, but their use, (MF lenses), with the current M4/3s becomes tiring after the novelty wears off.
M4/3 is still in it's infancy and a lot may, (will), happen in the next couple of years............but smallness can only go so far and I think that the current size of the EP-1 will be as small as it should get. I bought the G1, (versus Oly stuff), because of the swiveling LCD.....if M4/3 was my only system it would not be right for me unless it had such.
I would never buy a "serious" camera the size of a Pentax110 - if I wanted such there are some great P&Ss out there, (the Canon S90, for example), which probably produces an image quality similar to a 110 sized M4/3 if it could be made.....but I still need a viewfinder please.
Just my views
EVRs are improving but if you are used to a normal DSLR viewfinder they are still second rate.
M4/3 is popular for lots of reasons with the use of MF lenses being one, but their use, (MF lenses), with the current M4/3s becomes tiring after the novelty wears off.
M4/3 is still in it's infancy and a lot may, (will), happen in the next couple of years............but smallness can only go so far and I think that the current size of the EP-1 will be as small as it should get. I bought the G1, (versus Oly stuff), because of the swiveling LCD.....if M4/3 was my only system it would not be right for me unless it had such.
I would never buy a "serious" camera the size of a Pentax110 - if I wanted such there are some great P&Ss out there, (the Canon S90, for example), which probably produces an image quality similar to a 110 sized M4/3 if it could be made.....but I still need a viewfinder please.
Just my views
Last edited:
semilog
curmudgeonly optimist
At this juncture, it might be useful to post a reminder of relative sensor sizes. The S90 uses a 1/1.7" sensor. The jump in size from that to m4/3 is roughly the same as the jump from m4/3 to full frame. Note also that for practical purpuses, m4/3 is essentially the same as APS-C if you prefer 4:3 or 5:4 aspect ratios.
Edited to add: the image is posted from Wikipedia under a Creative Commons license.
NDAv
Member
EVFs and LCDs are already brighter, larger, more accurate and more detailed than optical viewfinders. The main problem though is battery consumption.
I'm still waiting for Panasonic or Olympus to add distance and DOF scales onto the LCD/EVF, which is the sort of information you will probably never find in an optical viewfinder, for obvious reasons...
I'm still waiting for Panasonic or Olympus to add distance and DOF scales onto the LCD/EVF, which is the sort of information you will probably never find in an optical viewfinder, for obvious reasons...
acheyj
Well-known
Will somebody please answer me the following, is "mirror blackout" a probem with the EVF in the G1 ?.
As I see it this is the main disadvantage with the EVF, I am old enough to remember the breakthru when the instant return mirror slr finally killed the RF.
The EVF as on the G1 is just so much larger than the half frame DSLR and 4/3 that there is just no contest. I have in my camera cupboard a Nikon 5700, in its day with a nice sensor twice as large as a PS that had an early EVF that was great in outdoors bright sunlight BUT the non return blackout to me was a killer ( I know there were many other shortcomings but the blackout was #1 for me).
So is it only me ? or if not how is it possible to emulate the "instant return mirror". I will be going to my main city next week and intend to give the G1 a good workout in a camera store, maybe I worry too much, we will see.
Love to cut the weight down from my 2 Canon DSLR's and battery pack etc, to say nothing of using my RB67 with 180mm and prism VF hand held !!!
ron
As I see it this is the main disadvantage with the EVF, I am old enough to remember the breakthru when the instant return mirror slr finally killed the RF.
The EVF as on the G1 is just so much larger than the half frame DSLR and 4/3 that there is just no contest. I have in my camera cupboard a Nikon 5700, in its day with a nice sensor twice as large as a PS that had an early EVF that was great in outdoors bright sunlight BUT the non return blackout to me was a killer ( I know there were many other shortcomings but the blackout was #1 for me).
So is it only me ? or if not how is it possible to emulate the "instant return mirror". I will be going to my main city next week and intend to give the G1 a good workout in a camera store, maybe I worry too much, we will see.
Love to cut the weight down from my 2 Canon DSLR's and battery pack etc, to say nothing of using my RB67 with 180mm and prism VF hand held !!!
ron
remphoto
Established
I had not noticed or thought about this until you mentioned it. But I usually shoot with the preview hold feature enabled, which holds the shot in the EVF to chimp. A second tap on the shutter button clears it. When set to the multiple exposure mode, you can crank off an amazing number of shots and the EVF seems to be able to follow the action ok. But if you think this might be an issue, by all means, try one out in a camera store (if you can find one that has them -- none in our part of the world). My Canon DSLR has been gathering dust since I got the G! -- what a joy it is to carry and use.
R
ruben
Guest
Hi Harry,
It is true that the clear cut image you get from a mirror camera dslr (or for this case slr too) is far superior that of the EVF built in within the Panasonic G1.
But with a mirror dslr you cannot enlarge the image x10, both for improving accuracy of AF lenses, and to meter distance with a MF lens.
Therefore, in terms of viewfinder only, given the choice of this EVF or a simple mirror viewfinder, I will ever choose the former since it is more versatil.
However had I a dslr and no intention to mount a manual focus lens, I would choose the mirror viewfinder type of camera.
Cheers,
Ruben
acheyj
Well-known
Hi Ruben.
Good to see u again since our forays into the Kiev 4 shutter delights !. I too am interested in a light walkabout street shooter and very interested in the G1, I have a canon G11 but like the idea of a larger sensor (nearer to my DSLR's ). No one has yet really answered my concern re the equivalent of the instant return mirror and I dont really know if the Panasonic G1 emulates this, I assume it doesnt, more like the original EVF in the Nikon 5700. Interested in your take on this as you seem to have embraced the G1.
Anyway I have to fly to my city (Adelaide) tomorrow for a checkup on my hip replacment so hope give a G1 a really good workout in a camera store and see for myself, in all other respects the G1 really appeals to me based in part on your findings.
cheers
ron
Good to see u again since our forays into the Kiev 4 shutter delights !. I too am interested in a light walkabout street shooter and very interested in the G1, I have a canon G11 but like the idea of a larger sensor (nearer to my DSLR's ). No one has yet really answered my concern re the equivalent of the instant return mirror and I dont really know if the Panasonic G1 emulates this, I assume it doesnt, more like the original EVF in the Nikon 5700. Interested in your take on this as you seem to have embraced the G1.
Anyway I have to fly to my city (Adelaide) tomorrow for a checkup on my hip replacment so hope give a G1 a really good workout in a camera store and see for myself, in all other respects the G1 really appeals to me based in part on your findings.
cheers
ron
kuzano
Veteran
First, the 12.1 sensor now used is almost exactly half frame, which is almost exactly the old 110 frame size. So, standard 4/3 has you covered right there.
Second, while the e420 is the smallest DSLR, the e620 is almost the same size and a somewhat more capable camera, and has the mirror box you desire.
Third, in order to downsize the body any further, both Panasonic, and Olympus proved that the mirror box and assembly had to be removed. That is consistent with the G1, GH1, the GF1, and the new G2/G10 from Panasonic, and with the Pen series E-P1, E-P2, E-PL1 and the coming professional level Pen.
Since both standard and Micro 4/3 use the same sensor, which is your "half frame or 110" frame size, that half of the equation exists and remains unchanged.
Olympus and Panasonic surely both knew how much whining, wailing and wrenching of hands would take place going away from the mirror box. That being the case, they surely would have developed an SLR for the micro mount. Clearly the goal to reduce size and distance from the lens to sensor precluded that possibility.
But, we all should be reminded that development continues and many things will be possible tomorrow that are not available today.
Like many, I also lie awake in my bed at night whining, and even sobbing at times, about things that do not yet exist. My efforts to go out and shoot with all the cameras I have acquired over the last 40 years are often put aside for my obsession and desire for the tools of the future. I just know they are out there and someone is working on them for my sake.
remphoto
Established
Sorry, i wasn't clear in trying to answer this question. To me, the way the G1 operates seems to be pretty much identical to an SLR. There is a brief mirror-type black out. The black out may be a little longer, not sure, but it just seems like an SLR. Also, the shutter sound on the G1 is really cool to my ear. Sounds like a SLR firing. It is louder than a Leica of course but still not intrusive. But, as you note, try one out and see what you think.
Rob
Dwig
Well-known
Not Correct
110 and "half frame" (aka "35mm Single Frame" or "35mm 1/2 Frame") are very different sizes. 4/3 format is very close to the 110 format. The largest of the "APS-C" digital format, the Nikon/Sony variant, is still smaller than 35mm 1/2 Frame.
110: 13x17, 21.4mm diagonal
4/3: 13x17.3, 21.6mm diagonal
Nikon DX: 15.8x23.6, 28.4mm diagonal
35mm 1/2 Frame: 18x24, 30mm diagonal
35mm Full Frame: 24x36, 43.3mm diagonal
For realworld comparisons, you must also taken into account two other factors when comparing different formats. One is that the aspect ratios vary. The common comparisons are by diagonal measure; this is what is used for the common "crop factor" comparisons. The size relationships change, though, when your comparisons are done with all formats cropped to some common aspect ratio, and the particular aspect ratio chosen changes the relationship.
The second realworld issue is that while digital images can be printed with almost no cropping of the image, film images are almost always cropped to some degree when printing. Even when the print's aspect ratio matches the film's, printing 35mm FF negatives rarely uses an area with a diagonal larger than 39-40mm. When printing from slides, the usable area is even less, approaching a area with a diagonal measure of 36-37mm.
In practice, 4/3rd is roughly the same size as 110 film images but some 10% larger than 110's common printable area. The largest so-called APS-c digital format is about the same size as the printable area of 35mm 1/2 frame.
acheyj
Well-known
Many thanks Rob,
Yes thats the info I was after. Not real sure if I can source a G1 to try maybe a GH1. We shall see in the morning and I will report back.
ron
JoeV
Thin Air, Bright Sun
The u4/3 cameras' viewfinders are TTL (electronically, rather than optically). Their shutters have to stay open while viewfinding; then when the shutter is released it actually has to fully close first, then fires the exposure, then reopens. This results in a short bit of image blackout. But my impression is that it's less intrusive than what I remember a flapping mirror in an SLR to be.
I have my G1 set to the 1 second preview mode, which seems to compensate for the momentary image blackout by offering the captured image for my brief review, immediately thereafter.
I suppose the only way to simulate a non-TTL camera like a rangefinder is with an optical viewfinder; but then you lose in tradeoff the exact focus and compositional accuracy of a TTL viewfinder. It seems both types have their limitations. Especially with AF lenses, it's nice to know where the focus patch is set to prior to shutter release; with an optical VF you're shooting blind, focus-wise. I like to use a medium-sized focus patch in the middle of the screen; I half-press the shutter to achieve focus on the main subject, then recompose and take the shot. You simply can't do this accurately on an AF camera without seeing a TTL image.
The problem with using one of these new cameras as a neo-rangefinder is that the new lenses don't have distance and DOF markings on their focus ring. So you can't shoot optically and zone focus, like in the film rangefinder days. So it's working cross-purposes to the camera's design to try and emulate a film rangefinder shooting mode, when its native TTL view with AF lenses, in actual practice, works fine for capturing elusive street-type images.
You could, however, adapt a legacy, MF lens to u4/3, add an accessory optical VF, and be able to zone focus, with the caveat that your angle of view is more telephoto, and the DOF markings have to be compensated for the difference in enlargement factor between u4/3 and FF film.
~Joe
I have my G1 set to the 1 second preview mode, which seems to compensate for the momentary image blackout by offering the captured image for my brief review, immediately thereafter.
I suppose the only way to simulate a non-TTL camera like a rangefinder is with an optical viewfinder; but then you lose in tradeoff the exact focus and compositional accuracy of a TTL viewfinder. It seems both types have their limitations. Especially with AF lenses, it's nice to know where the focus patch is set to prior to shutter release; with an optical VF you're shooting blind, focus-wise. I like to use a medium-sized focus patch in the middle of the screen; I half-press the shutter to achieve focus on the main subject, then recompose and take the shot. You simply can't do this accurately on an AF camera without seeing a TTL image.
The problem with using one of these new cameras as a neo-rangefinder is that the new lenses don't have distance and DOF markings on their focus ring. So you can't shoot optically and zone focus, like in the film rangefinder days. So it's working cross-purposes to the camera's design to try and emulate a film rangefinder shooting mode, when its native TTL view with AF lenses, in actual practice, works fine for capturing elusive street-type images.
You could, however, adapt a legacy, MF lens to u4/3, add an accessory optical VF, and be able to zone focus, with the caveat that your angle of view is more telephoto, and the DOF markings have to be compensated for the difference in enlargement factor between u4/3 and FF film.
~Joe