Optical Viewfinders will never Disappear

[Samouraï]

The way it seems, Digital Viewfinders are going to begin supplanting Optical viewfinders in both still cameras and video cameras. They are cheaper and require less space to implement. The reason I don't think they can ever truly supplant the optical viewfinder (besides my preferences) is because some people are farsighted. I know people who simply cannot use a digital viewfinder, even with glasses, because of their farsightedness. It's simply not easy to correct. Nearsightedness is very easy to correct, on the other hand.

Is this a completely off-base view of the future of photography? Are there any farsighted photographers who can comment on the subject? How is focusing on a rangefinder? How is shooting with an EVF?

The reason I thought to ask is that I am looking for a small, but high quality camera for my mother (for Christmas) and I am having to turn down a lot of great options. I'm thinking of getting her the X100s. Any thoughts? I think DSLRs are off the table, because they are simply too large and heavy for her.

 

[ronnies]

I don't like EVFs because they currrently make me feel slightly sea sick. Must be enough of a delay after I move the camera before the image moves to upset my vision. I feel the ones I've looked at seem to be like bad TVs. That maybe because I've only tried them in shops and not outdoors.

I still prefer an optical system.

Better if your Mum can handle the cameras herself and see what she likes.

Ronnie

 

[Platinum RF]

Never say never

 

[nemo2]

Strange, as both far- and nearsightedness are corrected the same way (adding the lens with either negative (near) or positive (FS) focal length. Most viewfinders enable to set dioptric correction for both types of problem.

 

[hepcat]

I am not a fan of EVFs for a variety of reasons.

 

[ruby.monkey]

I'll take an optical finder for a rangefinder, but for TTL viewing a good EVF is hard to beat. Having a constant, accurate exposure preview is brilliant.

Surely eyesight correction is the same for both optical and electronic finders?

 

[kuvvy]

I don't like EVFs, at least the ones I've used. I have both the Xpro and the X100 and enjoy having the optical finders. Using EVFs just feel like sitting too close to the TV and do nothing but give me eyes strain. If Fuji ever decide to drop OVFs then the Xpro will be the last camera for me.

Paul

 

[cosmonaut]

Well I am farsighted and much prefer an EVF. With that I think optical finders will still be around for awhile.

 

[Ko.Fe.]

OVF - camera takes what you see.
EVF - you takes what camera see.

 

[shadowfox]

Long live OVF!!

 

[Robin P]

EVFs have really improved recently but it does seem to be something that affects different individuals in many different ways - best to try before you buy.
2 years ago when I bought my last DSLR (a Sony SLT-A35 now sold in the move to mirrorless) the specs looked fine but it wasn't until I'd driven a long way to a shop with one in stock to try that I could commit myself to the EVF. If they were good enough two years ago they must be fantastic by now.

 

[sevo]

The reason I don't think they can ever truly supplant the optical viewfinder (besides my preferences) is because some people are farsighted. I know people who simply cannot use a digital viewfinder, even with glasses, because of their farsightedness. It's simply not easy to correct. Nearsightedness is very easy to correct, on the other hand.

That may reflect current market reality, but technically it is far from inevitable. Camera makers make more efforts to correct nearsightedness as that affects all ages and hence has a bigger market share. Besides, even if your customer base is mostly above forty, marketing wisdom dictates that you'd better tell them that all your customers are young, beautiful and fabulously fit, so farsightedness support is rarely mentioned in camera advertising or specification sheets, making it a feature often forgotten or actively eliminated.

But there is no technical limitation one way or the other, other than that cameras with insufficient eye relief at normal vision will be even worse with (enlarging) positive dioptres.

Arguably, farsightedness does not go all that well with our preferred cameras that have lots of knobs and switches (and more or less deficient in-finder data displays) - you'd need varifocals or near vision glasses to deal with the settings on the camera body, and at that point you can do with a normal vision or even nearsighted-adjusted finder if you leave on the glasses. In which case a high enough eyepoint is all you need. But that is very much a pre-digital issue. As far as EVF (with every information superimposed on them) are concerned, there are no differences regarding sightedness, other than bad design decisions by many makers.

 

[ruby.monkey]

OVF - camera takes what you see.
EVF - you takes what camera see.

OVF - you guess what camera takes.
EVF - you see what you'll get.

 

[Pfreddee]

"Always in motion the future is". Yoda

With best regards,

Pfreddee(Stephen)

 

[Tijmendal]

I beg to differ. I'm pretty sure they will replace OVF's at some point. Technology is only advancing, pretty soon we'll be at the point where we won't be able to discern the difference between an optical and electronical viewfinder. As to the matter of farsightedness, that too will probably get solved somehow by technology.

 

[ruby.monkey]

You see that you'll get..... Not really true. My experience with the EVF of the X-E1 is everything but good.

There is definitely one big plus for the EVF: you get a realtime view on exposure and see the influence of a compensation. I never had so many photos with perfect exposure right in the first shot. With other cameras when the light is tricky I take a test shot, look at the image + historgram, compensate and take the final shot.

But there are many situations where the EVF just does not work.

When it's very bright outside I can't really see in detail what is in front of me. When it's so bright that you have problems to see the back-monitor and too-bright for the EVF, how can you take a photo at all?

The next one is a big problem. I take quite a lot of portraits of family and friends. With the EVF I have severe problems to see the facial expression in detail. The display is just not detailed enough. In the end I used the back-monitor for focussing and initial framing then I look over the camera to the person and wait for the right moment. The image quality is good but it will not be my portrait camera.

I use an Olympus E-PM1 with VF-2 finder, and I've never had problems with loss of detail in bright conditions, or too-low resolution making it hard to pick out important details, even without upping the magnification. I'm surprised that the XE-1's finder isn't at least as good in this respect.

EVFs aren't perfect by any means, and I'm never going to tell someone that he's wrong to choose the optical alternative; but they have some huge advantages over a purely-optical approach, and they're only going to get better.

 

[thebelbo]

It's optical for me as well: I feel much closer to my subject that way (EVF does feel a bit like adding another artificial "layer".

 

[noimmunity]

I guess the question may be, how much of a premium are people willing to pay for an OVF (not to mention an OVF that comes with RF mechanism)? I know that I was willing to pay that premium for the M-E (along with its other (dis)advantages).

As the light sensitivity of sensors inevitably increases, EVFs might be the only way to shoot at ISO 50 gazillion.

To the OP, if possible, take your mother to a camera store and let her try several different models for herself.

 

[emmef2]

I only used a camera with EVF once, a Fuji X100s for a wedding and I shot about 600 images with it.
I admit I am a fan of a direct, bright optical viewfinder, better than a SLR viewfinder, it just better connects with my shooting style.
I think viewfinders are mostly a matter of personal preference, with that said, I must say I was surprised at how the X100s EVF shortcomings were distracting during taking pics, so much that I quickly switched to OVF.
Maybe it's just a matter of getting accustomed to an EVF, the 100% framing and AF accuracy can be helpful, but I found that the X100s EVF low dynamic range, lack of "natural" sharpness and the small but perceptible delay were really distracting and got in the way while using the camera.
This was surprising, considering the X100s EVF should be one of the most advanced EVF currently available.
Anyway, with its Hybrid viewfinder, the X100s is a great camera for evaluating if an EVF fits in your style or not.

 

[jsrockit]

OVF - camera takes what you see.
EVF - you takes what camera see.

OVF - takes what you see through a camera's VF and spits back what the camera saw.
EVF - takes what you see through the camera's lens (via TV screen) and then spits back what the camera saw.

No matter what option you decide on, your results are distorted by the camera's lens and a camera's viewing aparatus.

"A photograph is the illusion of a literal description of how the camera ‘saw’ a piece of time and space."
— Garry Winogrand