Electronic Viewfinders (EVF) what am I missing here?

bl0at3r

bl0at3r

Messages
3,998
Name
Alan
Edit My Images
Yes
Had a G1 when they 1st came out and also had an EVF attachment for my GF1 - didn't get on very well with either of them.

Fast forward to today when I received my MINT G3 from Wellyboot (thanks very much) to see if things have improved/give it a 2nd chance and I'm now seeing the same 'concerns' I had previously - namely gaining up and grainy in lower light and tearing/smearing when moving the camera around - I have even experienced it in the lounge this afternoon on an overcast afternoon - hardly the dead of night :shrug:

Rather than comit to an OMD and be disappointed with the EVF I took advantage of a 2nd hand option in the form of the G3 - the body and layout seem fine and very similar to my GX1. But I'm still unsure of this whole EVF thing.

Do you all make allowances for the EVF shortfalls or am I being too picky, not giving it enough chance or what?

Am going out to Cambridge tomorrow so will have some more time to try out my M43 bodies and lenses
 
The whole EVF / OVF discussion is one which will roll for quite a while yet I reckon. I certainly don't think the technology is good enough yet, although I guess it depends on your expectations and needs.

For some, the accurate representation of depth of field, exposure and white balance is the best thing since sliced bread. Others like me find them too low resolution for critical focusing, too difficult to use in bright light and for some reason they give me a headache (although I'm experimenting with an NX11 at the moment following my bad experience with a G1 and Sony Nex-5n).
 
bl0at3r said:
Do you all make allowances for the EVF shortfalls or am I being too picky, not giving it enough chance or what?
Click to expand...
Yes. I don't expect a 800x600 small LCD (which probably is only 6 bit depth) to give me the same tonal range or performance as a 4.5k x 3.5k sensor. I also don't expect a camera that wants to take a well exposed picture at 1/5 and ISO 1600 to be able to display anything other than slow, grainy images on a LVF.

I use the viewfinder to:
  • Get the framing right (this is easier to do with a 100% EVF than an optical viewfinder!)
  • Check the picture is level (EVFs on cameras with rotation sensors are great for this!)
  • Check shutter speed/aperture/ISO are correct
  • Check I have focus on a manual lens - easy peasy with live zoom
  • Check where the focus point is (it's brilliant to have a focus point that can be put anywhere on screen - this is especially easy with the G5 as you can use the screen whilst your eye is in the viewfinder....)
  • See what the captured image histogram is likely to look like to check exposure
  • Change all the settings whilst the camera is to my eye
  • Review the shot I've just taken without moving the camera away from my eye

I am willing to allow the EVF to have some foibles to enable me to do those things - most of which are difficult or impossible to do on OVFs....
 
I don't get any real gaining up issues but I mostly use wide aperture lenses and even f1.7 seems ok in lowish indoor lighting.

What aperture are you using?
 
manualfocus-g said:
The whole EVF / OVF discussion is one which will roll for quite a while yet I reckon. I certainly don't think the technology is good enough yet, although I guess it depends on your expectations and needs.

For some, the accurate representation of depth of field, exposure and white balance is the best thing since sliced bread. Others like me find them too low resolution for critical focusing, too difficult to use in bright light and for some reason they give me a headache (although I'm experimenting with an NX11 at the moment following my bad experience with a G1 and Sony Nex-5n).
Click to expand...

I'm sure one day the pro dslrs will feature EVFs :D

arad85 said:
I am willing to allow the EVF to have some foibles to enable me to do those things - most of which are difficult or impossible to do on OVFs....
Click to expand...

I guess I want to accept them too, hence I keep coming back to M43 - just need to understand those limitations fully and learn to accept them... or not :thumbs:


woof woof said:
I don't get any real gaining up issues but I mostly use wide aperture lenses and even f1.7 seems ok in lowish indoor lighting.

What aperture are you using?
Click to expand...

Was only meesing around - had the lens wide open at f4.

I will report back after having more time playing tomorrow when out and about.
 
I don't like EVFs personally but a benefit of them has to be that you are seeing closer to what you are actually going to get.
Looking through an OVF leaves you in a dream world that the camera will be able to capture what you see with your eyes.
 
bl0at3r said:
Had a G1 when they 1st came out and also had an EVF attachment for my GF1 - didn't get on very well with either of them.

Fast forward to today when I received my MINT G3 from Wellyboot (thanks very much) to see if things have improved/give it a 2nd chance and I'm now seeing the same 'concerns' I had previously - namely gaining up and grainy in lower light and tearing/smearing when moving the camera around - I have even experienced it in the lounge this afternoon on an overcast afternoon - hardly the dead of night :shrug:

Rather than comit to an OMD and be disappointed with the EVF I took advantage of a 2nd hand option in the form of the G3 - the body and layout seem fine and very similar to my GX1. But I'm still unsure of this whole EVF thing.

Do you all make allowances for the EVF shortfalls or am I being too picky, not giving it enough chance or what?

Am going out to Cambridge tomorrow so will have some more time to try out my M43 bodies and lenses
Click to expand...

They certainly do take a fair bit of getting used too. My dad has a G3, and I have noticed what you mentioned. BUt when you use it for a while I don't think you will notice it as much. One thing is for sure, they will only get better. Sony's evf on the a77 is superb. The one I have found better than the G3 is on the nikon v1, and was great to look through.
 
The only experience i've had is a friends a77 and i loved it. The pro's out way the neg's for me. Using a lower res and slower refreshing evf might get a bit tedious though.
 
My reason for moving to MFT completely was the availability of good (make that excellent) fast primes and zooms. The size and weight advantage of u4/3 is significant when you are looking at better and faster glass simply because the format is smaller (and the sensor aspect ratio is squarer). OK, image quality if you pixel peep isn't 100% what it would be on a full frame, but it is good enough for 99% of what I want to do. If I want good glass on an APSC DSLR, I have the choice of a few designed-for-APSC lenses at the standard/wide and ultra wide (which are still bulkier/heavier than u4/3) and then I'm into EF lenses, which are huge by comparison.

I view the u4/3 bodies as transitory whereas glass is for life. Most bodies are current for 9-12 months in u4/3 - just look at the price drops of G3, GX1. The same will happen with G5 - they are essentially priced to be "just about" disposable. I know that when I buy a G6/G7/G8/G9 it will make more of the expensive lenses that I have bought and it will still cost £500ish at launch. I can almost guarantee it will be £300 just before the next Gn+1 comes out - at £500ish. I can afford £500 every year or two on my favourite hobby - especially if I can get £200 for my last body second hand. I didn't upgrade to the 5D3 simply because it was too much of an outlay for something the same only a bit better (better focus, better sensor, that was it)....

Yes, current bodies have their foibles, but the ergonomics and day to day use of the G5 is WAY above ANY DSLR. 63 focus points - 33 of them cross type... woo... I can have pinpoint focus on any part of the sensor - and move it - simply by touching the screen! I have already taken more interesting photos with the G3 & G5 than I ever did with the 5D2 simply because it has an articulating touch screen. I can get the camera into places that are difficult for a fat middle aged bloke to get into. OK, it's not brilliant at tracking focus, and maybe the viewfinder isn't sublime, but give Panny/Oly a few years and they will be better.

IMHO, the question is not will most people who shoot DSLRs move to CSCs, but when. It has been the same with music. The bottom fell out of the CD player market a few years ago with mp3 players and network streamers. The few hang onto high end CD players, but most people buying now will use streaming or an iPod dock of some sort to play music. I'm convinced the same will happen to DSLRs. I think there will be high end DSLRs that enthusiasts and pros use and most everyone else will move to CSCs. I'm already chuckling to myself when I see enthusiasts out with big DSLRs now. That used to be me!

Personally, I'm accepting the current status of m4/3 bodies, jumping on the bus and buying some decent u4/3s glass and sitting back and enjoying the ride of ever improving bodies over the coming years.
 
arad85 said:
My reason for moving to MFT completely was the availability of good (make that excellent) fast primes and zooms. The size and weight advantage of u4/3 is significant when you are looking at better and faster glass simply because the format is smaller
Click to expand...

I'm pretty much sat doing nothing all day with a bad arm but I did have a play with my 5D+Siggy 50mm f1.4 yesterday and it felt massive and heavy next to my G1+Minolta 55mm f1.7.
 
arad85 said:
I use the viewfinder to:

[*]Get the framing right (this is easier to do with a 100% EVF than an optical viewfinder!)
[*]Check the picture is level (EVFs on cameras with rotation sensors are great for this!)
[*]Check shutter speed/aperture/ISO are correct
[*]Check I have focus on a manual lens - easy peasy with live zoom
[*]Check where the focus point is (it's brilliant to have a focus point that can be put anywhere on screen - this is especially easy with the G5 as you can use the screen whilst your eye is in the viewfinder....)
[*]See what the captured image histogram is likely to look like to check exposure
[*]Change all the settings whilst the camera is to my eye
[*]Review the shot I've just taken without moving the camera away from my eye


I am willing to allow the EVF to have some foibles to enable me to do those things - most of which are difficult or impossible to do on OVFs....
Click to expand...

I agree with the above. This is why I bought a G3.
 
I find the EVF in my OM-D to be extremely good and very useable.
 
woof woof said:
I'm pretty much sat doing nothing all day with a bad arm but I did have a play with my 5D+Siggy 50mm f1.4 yesterday and it felt massive and heavy next to my G1+Minolta 55mm f1.7.
Click to expand...
When was the last time you used the 5D properly?
 
arad85 said:
.................
.................

Personally, I'm accepting the current status of m4/3 bodies, jumping on the bus and buying some decent u4/3s glass and sitting back and enjoying the ride of ever improving bodies over the coming years.
Click to expand...

Blimey, you really do love your m4/3 don't you :)

I may try one when they get that optical viewfinder working, oh wait...
Agree though, only a matter of time until the technology provides an EVF that is a match for OVF.
 
I have a very good OVF in my Sony a850. One of the best, in fact. However, when working I'm finding I'm using my backup a57 (EVF) more and more. Why? Because full-time live view means I get it right quicker, easier and with far less "test" shots in tricky ambient lighting conditions.

I absolutely hated EVFs when I first saw them. Even when I reluctantly bought an a55 (for its video capabilities) I expected not to like the EVF. Now, a year later, I can't wait for a Sony FF cam with an EVF. It's just better in every way except aesthetically.
 
ernesto said:
Blimey, you really do love your m4/3 don't you :)
Click to expand...
Yup....

I've had more fun taking photos in the last 3 months (since I got the G3 and a couple of manual lenses) than I had in the previous 2 years. I've also taken more pictures, been more creative and probably had more keepers. Pixel peeping, the quality isn't quite as good, but displayed at a normal size....
 
woof woof said:
May / June when in Kazakhstan. Some pictures here...
Click to expand...
Sounds like you had a good time... :)

Looking back, did you NEED the 5D? Last time I used the 5D2 in anger was January (apart from product shots for Ms arad85 - and I can manage very nicely with the G5 for that) and I could have got near enough the same shots with a G5 (base ISO, daylight...).
 
My G1 probably couldn't have taken the nightime shots and got the same quality but the main reason I took it was for pictures of my GF who's there at present.
 
woof woof said:
My G1 probably couldn't have taken the nightime shots and got the same quality but the main reason I took it was for pictures of my GF who's there at present.
Click to expand...
I really don't think it'll be long before u4/3 will have as good a sensor as the 5D has (and maybe it already does with the OM-D sensor). Then all you're left with is sensor size to differentiate (which certainly makes a difference).
 
All useful stuff here, thanks.....

Don't get me wrong, I too love M43 for all of the reasons stated above, except the concerns I have over the current EVF technology - I appear to be being unrealistic :shrug:

Clearly, I was expecting more when I opened the box and powered up the G3 than was reasonable, but it has been 3ish years since I had the G1 and whilst the sensor megapixels and iso have advanced - it doesn't seem like the EVF has moved on much - if at all.

For me the GX1 style body is superb and with the pancakes makes a fantastic small package with fantastic IQ. Except for the brightest of sunny days, I dont miss the viewfinder at all.

It was only when recently deciding to ditch the Nikon did I find that for the larger lenses I'd probably need the DSLR style M43 body - I lust after the retro looks of the OMD but was concerned over the cost due to my EVF reservations - hence 'trying' out the G3 at £200 instead of an oly at £1k.

My OP was based on playing with the G3 for approx 15 mins and was perhaps a little premature.

My G5 discount code is burning a hole in my inbox too :bonk::bang:
 
EM5 EVF is very very good, much better than the Panasonic ones in my opinion, but I personally really like an EVF now as it basically shows me what shot I'm going to get before I take it.

Before I purchased my Sony A77 I actually ordered and returned a Nikon D7000 because I just hated the OVF so I guess I'm one of the converted!

A77 EVF is stunning I've never really given any thought to it not being an OVF it's that good.
 
Andy has captured my sentiments exactly on my love for m43, yes EVF's are not perfect yet and maybe it's the type of photography I do, but I've not noticed it impacting my enjoyment. My photography has really advanced since I ditched my Canon DSLR and above all else it's more enjoyable.

Alan you've purchased a £200 body, that is peanuts compared to any serious DSLR. It takes some amazing images (even though I hate the G3 handling). Most of my recent flickr images are with my G3 and in my opinion are the best I've ever taken. For that money you can't get better, get out and enjoy it ;)
 
Like it is always said, it is finding the camera that makes you happy and you will then use it more.
For me it has to be optical viewfinder at the moment and performance of DSLR along with size of small SLR for hand grip and just how it fits in the hands. I have tried all the other options and don't like them as much for reasons that may only apply to me and I am happiest and finding more and more reasons just to go out and take shots using the smallest/lightest DSLR and smallest/lightest prime lens.

I do see a good opportunity for a very large EVF but most probably just something I would buy! I can live without a rear screen all together (mine is always turned off) and only have it on for 4 seconds after each shot to review then off it goes automatically. With no rear screen taking up space the EVF could be 5cm's across giving a very good view at better quality.
 
Last edited:
ernesto said:
With no rear screen taking up space the EVF could be 5cm's across giving a very good view at better quality.
Click to expand...

But that 5cm EVF would be almost as big as a rear LCD screen :shrug::lol:



Had few oppurtunities to play today - was in Cambridge for 8.30 and back to the office in Essex mid afternoon - it was raining almost the whole time :(
 
bl0at3r said:
Had few oppurtunities to play today - was in Cambridge for 8.30 and back to the office in Essex mid afternoon - it was raining almost the whole time :(
Click to expand...
My desk has had a lot of photos taken recently...
 
I've just bought an OMD, and I did it without ever looking through the EVF first :eek:

I realise this is a bit of a risk, but there have just been too many good reviews from photographers that I've come to respect (and the review sites) that if it was a real deal breaker then it would be been mentioned multiple times in all these reviews, and it wasn't. So have some confidence it's good enough for now, and will get better over time.

My philosophy is this - the OMD is the first real MFT camera that has achieved (near enough) crop DSLR calibre, but being the first gen is not perfect in every way, however the size and weight gains make it worth it for me. I'm investing in the top-class glass with the expectation I'll upgrade the body as and when the advances come (FYI a pro grade OMD is already rumoured for release this side of xmas), but without paying the early adopters premium (I'll give it several months to check if the advances are worth while and let the price settle a bit).
 
Xenon54 said:
My philosophy is this - the OMD is the first real MFT camera that has achieved (near enough) crop DSLR calibre, but being the first gen is not perfect in every way, however the size and weight gains make it worth it for me. I'm investing in the top-class glass with the expectation I'll upgrade the body as and when the advances come (FYI a pro grade OMD is already rumoured for release this side of xmas), but without paying the early adopters premium (I'll give it several months to check if the advances are worth while and let the price settle a bit).
Click to expand...
You are doing exactly what I have done. Top spec glass, decent body, sit and wait as what is available now is "good enough". What will become available will be better....

I'd question your statement about quality and OM-D being the only one though... Whilst I agree it is better than all the others - especially at the higher ISOs, anyone who has tested them back-to-back with Pannys latest offerings (and I mean people who own both cameras) in the same lighting conditions normally concludes there is very little in it in real-world usage.
 
It all boils down to what is "good enough" and that differs from person to person.

To me an EVF is not good enough (could use one but I don't like them)
Whereas, for example, I would happily buy a camera that does no more than 1 frame per second as I have never used burst mode in any of my cameras but that would be a deal breaker for a lot of people.
 
To me the OVF / EVF debate isn't really about what is better at the moment as I see them as being different with each being "better" in some specific situations but neither winning overall, but I do expect EVF's to win overall at some point in the near future. Apples and oranges maybe but with a clear victory for EVF's at some time. As I have a technical background and seem to be good at visualisation I see the advantages of EVF's. Others less technical may be put off by EVF's but perhaps some not good at visualisation and recognition could actually benefit from an EVF.

Ref using good glass making the difference with MFT. I think I go against the grain here in that most lenses seem good enough to me. Didn't a wise man say long ago that lens sharpness wasn't an issue? I think that the worst lens I've ever had was a Siggy 28-300mm but even that humble lens was capable of sharp results when used to its strengths. Of course, there's more to lenses than sharpness. Personally I look at spec first as if I want f0.95 and 25mm, for example, f1.4 and 50mm just doesn't make the cut. The next thing I look at is probably the look and bokeh, then distortion and aberration and possibly sharpness coming in somewhere near the end of my list of wants, unless there's something seriously wrong and I've honestly never had a lens that bad.
 
arad85 said:
I'd question your statement about quality and OM-D being the only one though...
Click to expand...

True, and no doubt Photokina will present us with the next wave of offerings to further confuse the buying decisions, but the OMD is my pick of the bunch. I guess my point is that we've finally got the first generation of MFT cameras that cut the mustard.

ernesto said:
It all boils down to what is "good enough" and that differs from person to person.

To me an EVF is not good enough (could use one but I don't like them)
Whereas, for example, I would happily buy a camera that does no more than 1 frame per second as I have never used burst mode in any of my cameras but that would be a deal breaker for a lot of people.
Click to expand...

Yes, liking or disliking an EVF is clearly a personal thing that divides opinion. For me though, I'd rather have a camera with an EVF with me, rather than a camera with an OVF at home (regardless of if I actually like the EVF or not). My 5Dii and 70-200 f4 would often get left behind when I take my kid to the park, and I've missed some great shots.
 
Xenon54 said:
Yes, liking or disliking an EVF is clearly a personal thing that divides opinion. For me though, I'd rather have a camera with an EVF with me, rather than a camera with an OVF at home (regardless of if I actually like the EVF or not). My 5Dii and 70-200 f4 would often get left behind when I take my kid to the park, and I've missed some great shots.
Click to expand...

Get what you are saying but that is a slightly different discussion and more about the fact that your DSLR and lens is on the large and full frame side of things than EVF versus OVF.

Agree with Alan that in time EVFs will be better and better until they get to the stage where looking through an EVF will be pretty much indistinguishable from looking through an OVF but with all the added benefits of EVF (more info, less restrictive body design etc,.)
However, they are not there now and I don't like them - so there :)
 
woof woof said:
Ref using good glass making the difference with MFT. I think I go against the grain here in that most lenses seem good enough to me. Didn't a wise man say long ago that lens sharpness wasn't an issue? I think that the worst lens I've ever had was a Siggy 28-300mm but even that humble lens was capable of sharp results when used to its strengths. Of course, there's more to lenses than sharpness. Personally I look at spec first as if I want f0.95 and 25mm, for example, f1.4 and 50mm just doesn't make the cut. The next thing I look at is probably the look and bokeh, then distortion and aberration and possibly sharpness coming in somewhere near the end of my list of wants, unless there's something seriously wrong and I've honestly never had a lens that bad.
Click to expand...

Except in the corners in landscapes, as low-end lenses can suffer badly here in the sharpness department. But in general I agree with you, top-notch lenses are mainly about much better micro-contrast, colour rendition, bokeh, flare and distortion control etc, all of which distinguish your photos from joe public with an iphone (because even that can be sharp). That's the main reason I went for the OMD, a wider selection of good glass, which will make a bigger difference to my images than a marginally better camera from another manufacturer (eg Sony).
 
I am all for OVFs, have yet to find a decent replacement for a good OVF. Maybe I am spoilt as the one in the K-5 is pretty darn great.

From very small time with the cameras the built in panasonic EVFs are not that good, (not sure about the G5) but the G3 EVF that I had a play with and the attachment on the GX1 was really not that good. The EM-5 EVF is really really good but still not quite there for me.

Maybe I should just go have a play with a Sony to see what the fuss is all about...?
 
The EVF s aren't ready yet. The resolution, response rate and dynamic range simply can't compete with large and bright OVF. I am sure one can do some simple maths to calculate the required resolution but I can't be asked. One thing for sure it will be more than 2-3k.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top