Optical vs electronic viewfinder...

[Godfrey]

The problem that I had with EVFs is when I’m wearing polarized (prescription) sunglasses - I can’t see a thing! I had this issue when I was road-testing a Leica SL - in ‘landscape’ orientation I couldn’t see a thing, however when I took a picture in ‘portrait’ orientation I could see. I guess it all depended on the orientation of the polarization in the sunglasses, but it made it pretty much impossible for me to use in bright sunlight (and at the time I was testing the SL, I was in New Mexico). I suppose I could have gotten an entirely different pair of non-polarized, prescription sunglasses, but I really didn’t see the point. I still have the same issue with my EVF that I use with the Monochrom 246. I’m not sure if that issue applies to all EVFs out there, or if that’s just the way it is.

I had had several EVF/LCD only cameras from 2002 onwards. All were compromised until the introduction of the Panasonic Lumix G body in 2009. That was the first modern EVF camera that began to feel like it could replace my SLRs entirely.

Roll forward to 2015 and the announcement of the Leica SL in October ... the local Leica rep brought one to the (then extant) local Leica camera shop, I made it a point to get there and try it. Ordered one pretty much on the spot.

The polarization problem happens with any LCD, to different degrees because LCDs are naturally polarizing displays. It even happens to me with my motorcycle: the multi-function information panel that displays the odometer, trip odometer, and clock goes black when I fit my prescription, polarized sunglasses.

Because of this, my regular 'sunglasses' are my normal progressive lenses that include modern Transitions feature and self-darken in the present of sunlight, without polarization. They work fine with LCD/EVFs in most situations. However, when the sun has darkened them to the limit, most LCD/EVF displays are too dim to see as clearly as I'd like—a problem opposite to the SLR viewfinder problem where it's too dim to see properly in dim light. However, this is easily worked around by keeping a wide brim hat available for sunlight shooting: just keep the glasses slightly shaded and I have no problem with the SL viewfinder. It has enough adaptation to give me a good view regardless then.

I always have a set of deep dark polarized sunglasses available, however, because modern automobile glass is a UV blocker and Transitions coated lenses are mostly non-functional when driving as a result. Also, the polarization helps keep glare down and solve sun-blindness problems when driving in situations of low-angle sunlight (like ... all winter long!).

BUT, there's a trick that I've known about for years but never thought about in the context of polarized sunglasses: circular polarization. The problem when looking at the LCD on the motorcycle dashboard is that the emitted light is polarized and happens to be oriented orthogonally to the polarization in the sunglasses. It turns out that my visor act as a quarter-wave plate when interposed between the LCD and my sunglasses, so the LCD's natural polarization is re-randomized and only polarized as it passes through the sunglasses. I laughed when I saw this.

It's probably only a matter of time before quarter-wave plate technology is applied to LCD/EVF clear covers. You can make one yourself by finding a suitable piece of thin, clear acrylic and taping it over the LCD/EVF. 😀 Funny stuff.

The Leica SL has replaced all my SLR and DSLR cameras in actual use, although I keep my Hasselblad 500CM, Leicaflex SL, and Nikon F for sentimental reasons. It does not replace my Leica M-D or M4-2, or Hasselblad SWC ... different types of cameras, different ways of seeing, etc.

BTW: I've never been able to "see outside the frame lines" unless I was shooting with a longish lens (90-135mm) on the Leica M; that argument holds no substance for me. If I need to see the whole field as well as what the viewfinder frame is targeting, with any camera, I just open my left eye since I'm a right-eyed shooter.

G

 

[mich rassena]

I used to think that OVFs were the only way to go, but as my vision has gotten poorer, I find that manually focusing lenses isn't as easy as it used to be. I wish Nikon had put a proper focusing screen in their digital SLRs, so I rely on the green focus dot mostly. On my micro 4/3 I really love the ability to zoom into the image to obtain critical focus.

 

[RichC]

The polarization problem ... It turns out that my visor act as a quarter-wave plate ... so the LCD's natural polarization is re-randomized and only polarized as it passes through the sunglasses. I laughed when I saw this.

“Where are going?”
“Out. Taking photographs...”
“Don’t forget to wear your crash helmet!”
🙂

 

[jsrockit]

I'm not sure if the EVFs that cause the problem contain their own polarizer? I wonder what the difference is.

From what I understand, OLED evfs work with polarized glasses.

 

[Huss]

Until an EVF is put on a film camera, the point is moot.

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xewlks

 

[daveleo]

I have some Fuji XF lenses, but I mostly use vintage MF adapted lenses. When using the XPro1, I use the EVF virtually always with the vintage lenses. When I'm on auto-focus with the XF lenses, I use the OVF.
I personally could do without the OVF, and don't think I'd miss it much.
In terms of cash value, the OVF itself is not worth paying for. The cash value to me of the XPro1 is really it's structure and feel. When it dies, I'll buy an XPro? for that reason.
As ever .... to each his own.

 

[ptpdprinter]

I ended up with an XE2 instead of an XP1 because the limited number of the lens which you can use with the OVF without obstruction. I do think the OVF on the X100 series is brilliant.

 

[Axel]

I use electronic viewfinders since the beginning of digital photography.
For stills it was no problem for me if they were slow.
In these days I find EVFs to be far more capable than optical ones.

Today every "good and bright" SLR-view appears dim and unappealing to me. But I never wear sunglasses.

The screen of my X-M1 ist tiltable 90 degrees up so I use this camera like TLRs before at waist level.
That works fine and I needn´t to care for my glasses which I have to use both in between - composing and camera-/lens setup.

 

[Dogman]

With the X-Pro1, I cannot use the EVF very well. I wear progressive lenses and I cannot focus through the EVF without changing to reading glasses while I can see fine through the OVF as long as I'm working in the "sweet spot" of my eyeglasses. The "sweet spot" for the EVF is so small and so close to the bottom edge it's useless, thus the need for the reading glasses.

Damn you, Fuji! Why did you ever build a camera without adjustable diopters? Like the X100. It's the only reason I would really consider the X-Pro2 over the X-Pro1. But I love the X-Pro1's OVF. I have the X-T1 for using an EVF.

 

[kuuan]

Because I am using adapted manual lenses I really dig an EVF which is very helpful for focusing. And I also enjoy things like overlay of info and "that I see what I get" mentioned on the OP. For me the biggest initial attraction for a mirrorless camera, that won't have an OVF but an EVF, had been that the cam and its lenses can be and usually are much smaller than a SLR.

There is another big advantage of an EVF that has not been covered here but which I find essential: An EVF does not have the limitation of an OVF of having to be fixed, it can be moveable!
I have enjoyed that advantage for the first time using Konica Minolta A2, even though its EVF doesn't compare with more modern ones, but it was by far the best in its time. This experience had taken away all possible concerns when I jumped to my first mirrorless, Sony NEX5n. Its smalll size and little weight are perfect for my "travels". I am still using it, e.g. the photos of my last thread here, "Pelebon, royal cremation", had been taken with the NEX5n


EVF: Minolta A2 to Sony NEX5N by andreas, on Flickr

Usually I use my cams with the EVF tilted to about the angle seen. It keeps my neck very relaxed and lowers the cam. This allows me to lock my upper arms against the sides of my trunk which is a much more stable position than when having to raise the camera to eye level when using a fixed VF. (also convenient for me around Asia, I am quite tall and prefer to look up to people, not down). Then there of course are all these angles one can take so much more easily!

Most companies had started out offering moveable EVFs with or on their mirrorless cams. Soon most of these EVFs had been heavily criticised for looking bad, allegedly breaking easily. Camera makers, as exemplified by the Sony A7 series, started to hide their EVFs behind a mock prism housing or put them to the far left side imitating a rangefinder that needs that, and alas, made them fixed! Customers were all happy because the cam now looked like "a real camera", as they said.
Concerning functionality giving up the advantage of the VF being moveable simply is a design flaw! I believe that camera makers know that but succumbed to popular demand for better sales.