Optical Viewfinders will never Disappear

[Sejanus.Aelianus]

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.

That is the best possible reason for you to stick with it.

I use electronic viewfinders (Panasonic G2 and Sony R1), optical viewfinders (Bessa L with 15, 25 and 35) and ground glass (Nikon and Canon dSLRs plus Hasselblad V series). They each have different strengths and weaknesses.

I also have the little Panasonic TZ40 with its 3 inch rear screen. That sometimes seems to be the best viewfinder of all.

 

[noimmunity]

Prosthetic forms of viewing, technologically-assisted forms of viewing, are likely to become the norm.

Any choice outside of that "norm", which is largely a market device, is bound to cost extra. The OVF may not disappear, but it will exist as an option. And like all 'options', that means a price premium.

I like and value an OVF with telemetric focus mechanism--and wanted digital--so much that I ponied up for the unjustifiable expense of an M9.

 

[Jamie Pillers]

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

OVF - you see what you see; camera might do something else. 😱

EVF - you and camera agree. 🙂

 

[rivercityrocker]

Them damn EVF's hurt my eyes. With an OVF you're looking through to the subject, with an EVF your looking at a small very close scene. After using the XPro-1 all day I would come home and literally was half blind. My right eye got so used to focusing up close that it wasn't focusing far off very well. Of course my left eye was working normally so it was very annoying for a couple of hours while my eyes got back to normal but I developed a good headache from it.

The other downside is that I shoot in low-light a lot and using the EVF and taking my eye away leaves me pretty much blinded in one eye for awhile. No bueno.

I'm sure I can't be the only person that has these issues. If they got rid of OVF's then I'd never buy a new camera again. I'd just keep on repairing my old ones until I croaked!

 

[wolves3012]

EVFs, like many aspects of cameras, just keep on improving. My 10 year-old Minolta Z1 has what was, at the time, one of the better EVFs and could "see" rather well in low light. I've recently bought a second-hand Panasonic G2 and the EVF on it blows the Minolta's into the weeds - and it's not even state-of-the-art any more. It won't take much longer before an EVF will be indistinguishable from an OVF, except by its better low-light capability.

 

[semilog]

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.

Bingo.

I'm farsighted and the built-in diopter correction in my X-E1 is awesome.

Also: it's wonderful to have a WYSIWYG view of a scene, particularly when shooting black and white. Those who think this is some sort of cheating likely don't remember the green- or orange- tinted viewing filters once used by photographers to visualize tonal relationships.

 

[Stuart John]

I had one on my X-E1 and I hated it. Just not for me. I try not to use the EVF on my X100 if I can help it. I just don't like them. It's like shining a light bulb in one's eye not very comfortable at all. I just don't get the fascination with them, I doubt anyone would want to remove the windows from their house and replace them with LCD TVs.

 

[semilog]

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

There is a word for that.

What you are suggesting is no more true of an EVF when wielded by, say, David Alan Harvey, than it was for Paul Strand's view camera ground glass or the ground glass screens in Nachtwey's EOS's or the Exakta that Koudelka used to shoot Gypsies. It's just nonsense.

Good photographers see and make good photographs regardless of the viewing system: ground glass, SLR, TLR, RF, EVF, clip-on VF…

 

[semilog]

I had one on my X-E1 and I hated it. Just not for me. I try not to use the EVF on my X100 if I can help it. I just don't like them. It's like shining a light bulb in one's eye not very comfortable at all. I just don't get the fascination with them, I doubt anyone would want to remove the windows from their house and replace them with LCD TVs.

100% frame coverage. Useful DoF preview (vs. the junky DoF preview on old SLRs). Tonal relationship preview. Zero parallax.

Depends what you're shooting, of course, but these can in many situations be huge advantages.

Is an EVF aesthetically as nice as shooting with an M or (considerably better) a ZI? No, it isn't. Which is why I still have and use an M6 (I also enjoy aspects of the film workflow). Anyway, I do value the experience of shooting. But the truth is that the results -- the pictures -- are more important. And the pictures that I obtain with the X-E1 are every bit the equal of anything I've ever done with an SLR or a rangefinder. That, in my opinion, is where the rubber meets the road.

 

[Samouraï]

Them damn EVF's hurt my eyes. With an OVF you're looking through to the subject, with an EVF your looking at a small very close scene. After using the XPro-1 all day I would come home and literally was half blind. My right eye got so used to focusing up close that it wasn't focusing far off very well. Of course my left eye was working normally so it was very annoying for a couple of hours while my eyes got back to normal but I developed a good headache from it.

The other downside is that I shoot in low-light a lot and using the EVF and taking my eye away leaves me pretty much blinded in one eye for awhile. No bueno.

I'm sure I can't be the only person that has these issues. If they got rid of OVF's then I'd never buy a new camera again. I'd just keep on repairing my old ones until I croaked!

These are the kinds of issues that I think we'll see more and more of. Our eyes never evolved to close focus for extended periods of time. (But then, I take the same issue with touchscreens. This young generation will be full of blind arthritics).

 

[Samouraï]

Bingo.

I'm farsighted and the built-in diopter correction in my X-E1 is awesome.

Also: it's wonderful to have a WYSIWYG view of a scene, particularly when shooting black and white. Those who think this is some sort of cheating likely don't remember the green- or orange- tinted viewing filters once used by photographers to visualize tonal relationships.

Really? That can't be true of people who actually require reading glasses, wherein regular glasses don't work so well any longer (the over 40 crowd). Close-up vision at an advanced age is a bit more complicated than just adjusting a diopter (whereas that can be fine for nearsightedness).

The real issue is that nearsightedness is basically universally correctable. Whereas farsightedness is really a case-by-case deal.

I have no issues with using an EVF, I just think they accommodate fewer photographers than an OVF.

 

[semilog]

It's absolutely true. I am over 40, I do require reading glasses (which, after all, just provide positive diopter correction), and the X-E1 diopter compensation is fine.

Why would you think this is any different than with an SLR? In both cases you're using an optical system to look at a little illuminated screen.

 

[Stuart John]

100% frame coverage. Useful DoF preview (vs. the junky DoF preview on old SLRs). Tonal relationship preview. Zero parallax.

Depends what you're shooting, of course, but these can in many situations be huge advantages.

Is an EVF aesthetically as nice as shooting with an M or (considerably better) a ZI? No, it isn't. Which is why I still have and use an M6 (I also enjoy aspects of the film workflow). Anyway, I do value the experience of shooting. But the truth is that the results -- the pictures -- are more important. And the pictures that I obtain with the X-E1 are every bit the equal of anything I've ever done with an SLR or a rangefinder. That, in my opinion, is where the rubber meets the road.

I agree with you the advantages are many. When I bought the X-E1 it was a choice of that or the NEX6. I enjoyed my NEX C3 but wanted an EVF for eye level shooting and accurate manual focus that doesn't come easy with DSLRs. I chose the Fuji with 18-55 as I preferred the camera and lens generally over the NEX6 and just needed to buy a couple of new adapters so I was quite happy. In the end I just didn't like the EVF at all and that led me to not use the camera. I had no complaints about the final images they were great just could get on with the EVF.

 

[emmef2]

That is the best possible reason for you to stick with it.

I use electronic viewfinders (Panasonic G2 and Sony R1), optical viewfinders (Bessa L with 15, 25 and 35) and ground glass (Nikon and Canon dSLRs plus Hasselblad V series). They each have different strengths and weaknesses.

I also have the little Panasonic TZ40 with its 3 inch rear screen. That sometimes seems to be the best viewfinder of all.

I agree with you and now I can share more thoughts after having bought an X100s just at the beginning of december.
One of the reasons I bought it is because of the hybrid viewfinder that can give a great opportunity to get advantage of OVF and EVF.
I am using the camera since just a bit more than a month, both in daylight and low light and I am appreciating the uselfuness of the EVF when really precise framing and/or AF is needed.
I still keep using the OVF most of the time but the EVF is useful too, even if I see it visibly shortens the battery duration (and the battery indicator of the X100s really sucks, any suggestion on that?)

 

[cosmonaut]

I am far sided and love my EVF. Maybe you haven't tried a good one? Look at a Sony, big difference between Sony and the others.

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.

 

[cosmonaut]

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

Not always. The EVF doesn't give you the same image as the final file. The EVF corrects with lighting some what and not always reflects the final image. The EVF is a tool just like anything else you have to know when to trust in and not.
If you were to shoot landscapes in extreme low lighting you would find the EVF a nice aid. When I use my D800 I have to have a flashlight and shine it on the subject sometimes.

 

[sevo]

Not always. The EVF doesn't give you the same image as the final file.

Neither does a OVF give you the same image as the final print. There is not one "final image", but an almost infinite number of variations.

 

[Godfrey]

With a tunnel optical viewfinder (RF or clip-on type), you're looking through a lens at the scene.

With a reflex optical viewfinder (any SLR), you're looking through a set of lenses focusing on a back projection image formed on a focusing screen. It's like watching a movie in a tiny box.

With an EVF, you're looking through a set of lenses onto a tiny digital display. The latest ones are very high resolution, very fast response times: flickr and lag are barely discernible. State of the art is the Olympus E-M1 EVF ... If you haven't used one of them, you haven't seen the state of the art yet.

I am quite happy to use all three types of viewfinders. Each has its good and bad points. For each type there are excellent ones and there are crap.

No viewfinder ever shows you what a printed photograph will look like. But actually, an EVF has the best chance of showing what the final image will look like if you view photos on a computer display or tablet...

My newest camera is the E-M1. It is the first EVF that, to my eye, is virtually indistinguishable from a reflex optical viewfinder most of the time. The capabilities of this viewfinder go well beyond what the optical reflex or optical tunnel viewfinders can provide. But there are times when I pull out the Nikon F, Leica M4-2 or Leicaflex SL, or my Hasselblad 500CM with Acute Matte screen, and just enjoy their lovely optical viewfinders too. It's all good.

Use whatever camera equipment makes you happy.

G

 

[Sejanus.Aelianus]

Not always. The EVF doesn't give you the same image as the final file. The EVF corrects with lighting some what and not always reflects the final image.

I think that you'll find that depends on the camera and the settings you use. I have my Panasonic G2s set up to preview mode, so what I see is what I keep. On the Sony R1, the EVF is so primitive that I just have to guess in poor light. Or I can switch over to the main LCD, which I normally use as a waist level finder and, once again, see what the final image will look like.

This shot was made at dusk on the R1, using the main LCD as a waist level finder...

 

[ampguy]

EVF with diopter adjustment - you see the 2d image that the camera sees

OVF - you can use glasses or optical diopters, and may need to if your vision is outside the range of an EVF's compensation, or you have severe astigmatism, etc., but your view through the optical will be different in fov and correction at different distances. If you don't have bad eyes, and use an OVF over an EVF, you're just a hipster 😉