Godfrey
somewhat colored
This one, right?
It's a good viewfinder, a bit more compact than the Voigtländer 28mm Brightline.
G
Rant: optical viewfinders & EVFs
- Thread starter rjschell
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 61
- Views 5K
This one, right?
It's a good viewfinder, a bit more compact than the Voigtländer 28mm Brightline.
G
charjohncarter
Veteran
Problem solved for me.
sepiareverb
genius and moron
This one, right?
This is the exact one. After four years of being jammed in the bag or my pocket attached to the camera, and riding around in my pocket or in the bottom of the bag off of the camera it is going strong.
sepiareverb
genius and moron
Problem solved for me.
And very elegantly I might add.
Paul Jenkin
Well-known
Being a bit of a traditionalist - but willing to give it a go, I bought a Panasonic Lumix LX7 (sans viewfinder). Ilike the photos it produces very much. However, the lack of a viewfinder bugged me as my eyesight isn't great and I find looking at a shiny screen distracting - especially in bright light conditions. So I bought the electronic viewfinder. Bargain (comparatively) as it was an ex-display model.
What a transformation. I can compose and shoot "normally" for me. I was a bit cheesed off at paying the extra butm, then again, even at full price my LX7 and EVF is cheaper than the Leica D-Lux versuion without the viewfinder. Happy days.....
What a transformation. I can compose and shoot "normally" for me. I was a bit cheesed off at paying the extra butm, then again, even at full price my LX7 and EVF is cheaper than the Leica D-Lux versuion without the viewfinder. Happy days.....
giellaleafapmu
Well-known
I wouldn't mind having cheap basic cameras with few basic functions and the possibility to expand that basic camera with what I need. "Modularity" was something already designed by Maitani in the OM system. What I don't like is that companies ask us to have choices in the form of "this OR this", for example if you buy the new Olympus Pen EP-5 you will have to choose between an EVF OR a hot shoe for your flash, if you like using the flash outdoor for fill-in you are better buying a different camera.
GLF
GLF
Godfrey
somewhat colored
Fred R.
Established
>>LCD's reduce the real world to a reality show on a monitor / tv screen.<<
Bingo!
Bingo!
Spicy
Well-known
More simply, most people are dumb
Rogier
Rogier Willems
Because the market wants small camera's.
Looking at how manny people use their iPad as a camera I don't think there is much market for Leica like optical viewfinders...
KoNickon
Nick Merritt
Sorry, but having to stick an optical (or electronic) viewfinder onto a supposedly sophisticated digital camera is far from optimal. Wasn't this the exact problem that cameras like the Leica Ms addressed? No need for easily lost accessory viewfinders when the in-camera finder provides the framing. We've regressed almost 60 years.
And there's a bait and switch element here too, at least for me. "Oh, you want something other than an LCD screen? That will cost you extra."
And there's a bait and switch element here too, at least for me. "Oh, you want something other than an LCD screen? That will cost you extra."
Godfrey
somewhat colored
You discount the fact that those cameras of 60 years ago had no viewfinder at all, and the LCD of today's modern cameras serves as a perfectly functional viewfinder for a huge number of photographers.
Be real. You don't like it, we get that, but the situation is certainly not as you describe.
G
KoNickon
Nick Merritt
I'm sure a ton of photographers are fine with it -- obviously that's the case. Many more people are fine with a cellphone as their camera. But we're not talking about them.
As for your last paragraph -- I am being real, and it is as I describe. Just look at what's available new in the market.
And "those cameras of 60 years ago" did have optical viewfinders -- only the low end folders seemed to have the metal frames.
We disagree.
As for your last paragraph -- I am being real, and it is as I describe. Just look at what's available new in the market.
And "those cameras of 60 years ago" did have optical viewfinders -- only the low end folders seemed to have the metal frames.
We disagree.
Godfrey
somewhat colored
Sure, we disagree. But the situation is NOT as you suggest.
All of the high-end cameras with LCD display and optional OVF/EVF allow focusing on a TTL, full coverage display with magnification and other aids. All of them allow you to adjust AND SEE the result of exposure changes, with WYSIWYG rendering and/or live histograms. ALL of the digital cameras today allow you to inspect your recent exposure, check it for focus, sharpness, and proper exposure settings, without waiting, allowing you to re-shoot while the moment is still there.
NONE of the cameras of sixty years ago allowed all that.
So yeah, we disagree.
You want what you want, and few make it. How's that working for you?
G
Stuart John
Well-known
My first compact digital Olympus C220 had an optical find as did my later Canon Ixus 70. They weren't great but they could be used quite easily. Trouble was many people did not use the finders and not enough people objected when they were removed them on later models. Now were are stuck with compacts with no optical finders and it has filtered down to more expensive models as well. My compact Ixus 70 is about as small a camera as I would like to use but had enough room for a zooming optical viewfinder. It was also quite cheap in price so it's not like adding a simple optical finder to that expensive Sony full frame compact would have broke the bank.
sepiareverb
genius and moron
I suspect that your real complaint has more to do with progress and what it has brought. If the internet had been around when the move was made to optical viewfinders from nice big ground glass the threads would be full of people complaining about 'the squinty, mouse hole view'.
The LCD screen has been embraced as the best means of providing what the camera using public demands today, just like the minuscule eye of the cyclops replaced the 5x7 ground glass. Seems like we've come full circle in some ways, but now we have the big ground glass style view and every manner of information we might desire at the same time.
Likewise, the unwashed masses who don't want or need a teeny viewfinder instead of the big screen that's on the camera to start with would gripe about having to pay for a built-in VF, and it is after all, about money first and foremost.
I'd suggest that the LCD screen is better in many instances, when making portraits the photographer can interact with the subject much more naturally without the camera jammed up in his/her face. I like my Leica M viewfinder don;t get me wrong, but there are more than a few options for cameras with a built-in viewfinder if that is a necessity for you. Just not teeny enough options it would seem. I wonder if that has to do with how much room an adequate optical VF takes up?
This really is a silly thread.
MaxElmar
Well-known
An eye-level finder of some kind is essential for me. Cheap junk (EVF or OVF) won't get my $ either. This is complicated by the fact I wear glasses. OTOH - an excellent miniature display is great in medium or lowlight environment.
There are a lot of good reasons why EVFs will probably takeover - in the long run. The biggest one is that only a feed from the sensor can show you exactly what the sensor sees. Perfectly accurate framing, true DOF display, exact focus point (regardless of aperture), freedom from any mechanical tolerances, all this with ANY lens - it's only possible with an EVF of some kind. Even Leica has admitted this - Hence the Typ 240 M Camera....
The problem is the low-resolution, slow refresh, junk EVFs that we are generally stuck with. Just like the problem used to be the low-resolution, distorted, inaccuratly-framing OVFs we were stuck with.
To replace the OVFs on my pro-level cameras I would want to see an EVF with 4k resolution and 240hz refresh rate, minimum. Color calibrated, huge dynamic range, and fully adjustable brightness curves (programable and multiple presets from WYSIWYG to night vision). I also want a full set of data about the effects of using said display on ones eyes up close for long periods of time.
I may be waiting a while.
There are a lot of good reasons why EVFs will probably takeover - in the long run. The biggest one is that only a feed from the sensor can show you exactly what the sensor sees. Perfectly accurate framing, true DOF display, exact focus point (regardless of aperture), freedom from any mechanical tolerances, all this with ANY lens - it's only possible with an EVF of some kind. Even Leica has admitted this - Hence the Typ 240 M Camera....
The problem is the low-resolution, slow refresh, junk EVFs that we are generally stuck with. Just like the problem used to be the low-resolution, distorted, inaccuratly-framing OVFs we were stuck with.
To replace the OVFs on my pro-level cameras I would want to see an EVF with 4k resolution and 240hz refresh rate, minimum. Color calibrated, huge dynamic range, and fully adjustable brightness curves (programable and multiple presets from WYSIWYG to night vision). I also want a full set of data about the effects of using said display on ones eyes up close for long periods of time.
I may be waiting a while.
jim sparx
crank
I currently have a Voightlander 21/25mm viewfinder up for sale on Ebay. If interested PM me. New, but did not work with my eyeglasses.
KoNickon
Nick Merritt
I think you've captured the issue well.
KoNickon
Nick Merritt
I've read both your replies to me. You're a moderator?
Similar threads
- Article
- Article
