Electronic Viewfinders (EVF) what am I missing here?

[arad85]

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?

By good glass, what I mean is glass that performs well under all operating conditions - including wide open - and has enough speed so I don't have to wind ISO up too much as I'm used to a body that has a better sensor in it.

From the controlled tests on DxO, the 5D2 has a sensor that is 1-2 stops more capable than that in the G5. My lenses for the 5D2 were f4. The ones for the G5 are f/2.8 at their slowest. I've (nearly) levelled the playing field (both in light gathering and ability to throw the background out of focus)

By quality I also mean a zoom lens that is easy to zoom smoothly and doesn't feel like a cheap bit of plastic in my hand. Oh... and that doesn't have a pinhole for aperture when zoomed in

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.

This.

 

[arad85]

The resolution, response rate and dynamic range simply can't compete with large and bright OVF.

No, but then you can't overlay a shedload of useful graphics that help you understand the shot you are about to take (and I don't mean the basic 3 settings either) with an OVF.

And generally a camera with OVF is designed to be used whilst looking through the OVF. That is incredibly restrictive for creative photography (as I've found out recently as many shots I have I wouldn't have even bothered with the 5D2 as they'd be too difficult to get into a position where I could have taken the shot...)

 

[LongLensPhotography]

No, but then you can't overlay a shedload of useful graphics that help you understand the shot you are about to take (and I don't mean the basic 3 settings either) with an OVF.

And generally a camera with OVF is designed to be used whilst looking through the OVF. That is incredibly restrictive for creative photography (as I've found out recently as many shots I have I wouldn't have even bothered with the 5D2 as they'd be too difficult to get into a position where I could have taken the shot...)

You will find that one can place a transparent LCD on OVF. I think 5D3 can do some tricks, not that I'd find them much useful. Not seeing the scene properly in the first place is a very big no no.

OVF is just like EVF - you have to look through that. Maybe you are referring to flip out LCD screens? Some dSLRs now have them like 60D and there will be more.

 

[Phil V]

No, but then you can't overlay a shedload of useful graphics that help you understand the shot you are about to take (and I don't mean the basic 3 settings either) with an OVF.

And generally a camera with OVF is designed to be used whilst looking through the OVF. That is incredibly restrictive for creative photography (as I've found out recently as many shots I have I wouldn't have even bothered with the 5D2 as they'd be too difficult to get into a position where I could have taken the shot...)

There's 2 sides to that statement, as good posture and looking through an OVF is about the steadiest you can hold a camera. And surely if you're looking through the viewfinder, you're in exactly the same position whether the VF is O or E?

I can't wait for an EVF to be as good optically as an OVF, because I believe it will happen. All of the advantages will make it brilliant. But for now they're nowhere near good enough for me. But then I consider my OVFs on crop cameras to be generally just good enough. I suppose a loupe and live view would get me close to what I had with Medium Format film though

 

[arad85]

Not seeing the scene properly in the first place is a very big no no.

Or seeing 100% view - which most OVFs don't.

OVF is just like EVF - you have to look through that. Maybe you are referring to flip out LCD screens? Some dSLRs now have them like 60D and there will be more.

There's 2 sides to that statement, as good posture and looking through an OVF is about the steadiest you can hold a camera. And surely if you're looking through the viewfinder, you're in exactly the same position whether the VF is O or E?

Yes, true. I mean flip out LCD. I'm equating EVF with flip out LCDs for the moment. The problem is that whilst some DSLRs have them, the better ones don't (think xD series from Canon). If I were still shooting DSLRs, that's what I'd be shooting. Even saying that, the EVF based camera manufacturers have a good few years experience ergonomically over Canikon.

BTW, I'm referring to this sort of picture (which I just wouldn't have even attempted with the 5D2)...

 

[woof woof]

BTW, I'm referring to this sort of picture (which I just wouldn't have even attempted with the 5D2)...

I agree. It'd be unseemly for a gentleman to be in such a position.

 

[ernesto]

Yes, true. I mean flip out LCD. I'm equating EVF with flip out LCDs for the moment. The problem is that whilst some DSLRs have them, the better ones don't (think xD series from Canon). If I were still shooting DSLRs, that's what I'd be shooting.

Interesting, you admit that IQ is not as good on m4/3 but it is good enough to you (which I would agree with) but if you had a DSLR you would have a huge brick of an xD when you could get a much smaller DSLR that performs as well as your m4/3 and has flip out touch screen, i.e. 650D ?

 

[arad85]

I agree. It'd be unseemly for a gentleman to be in such a position.

What I failed to point out was that those were 12 foot high wheat plants....

 

[arad85]

Interesting, you admit that IQ is not as good on m4/3 but it is good enough to you (which I would agree with) but if you had a DSLR you would have a huge brick of an xD when you could get a much smaller DSLR that performs as well as your m4/3 and has flip out touch screen, i.e. 650D ?

I keep saying it, the problem with APS-C sized sensors is the lens size, not the body size.

I took that photo with a Samyang 7.5mm fisheye. The APS-C 8mm fisheye (which admittedly gives a wider field of view) is shown next to the 7.5mm here:

and you can see the lens "bulk" here where it has been fitted to a Sony alpha with an adaptor (to allow it to be placed at the right distance from the sensor)

The 12-35 I have in transit now is 305g compared to the 640+g for the 17-55 which is the Canon APS-C equivalent. It's also far more bulky. This gets worse the longer you go as for APS-C if you want a 2.8 zoom beyond 55mm you're into 1.5kg of 70-200f2.8....

I moved to MFT not because the body is smaller, but because the quality lenses are smaller.

 

[arad85]

and has flip out touch screen, i.e. 650D ?

There is a PS to this which is that the 650D has awful (by comparison) contrast detect autofocus speed and if you're on the phase detect, you're limited to the nine points. For what I take photos of (static/slow moving objects mainly) the Panny is a simply far superior camera body in every way, apart from sensor size, to a DSLR because it has started out doing focusing based on the data coming off the sensor.

Add in the discussion of the weight and bulk of decent lenses for the DSLRs and the only hard argument for DSLRs is sensor size (if you don't like EVFs, you are making compromises elsewhere to prefer DSLRs).

 

[ShrubMonkey]

I can see this is just going to turn into 'my dad is better than your dad'........I think folks should just get out there take some shots, after all that's all that matters

 

[arad85]

I can see this is just going to turn into 'my dad is better than your dad'

But my dad is bigger - I'm 6' 8" tall....

 

[Phil V]

There is a PS to this which is that the 650D has awful (by comparison) contrast detect autofocus speed and if you're on the phase detect, you're limited to the nine points. For what I take photos of (static/slow moving objects mainly) the Panny is a simply far superior camera body in every way, apart from sensor size, to a DSLR because it has started out doing focusing based on the data coming off the sensor.

Add in the discussion of the weight and bulk of decent lenses for the DSLRs and the only hard argument for DSLRs is sensor size (if you don't like EVFs, you are making compromises elsewhere to prefer DSLRs).

Well, you're certainly entitled to your opinion, but you do like to twist things about a bit to support your viewpoint.

Fortunately for you, many photographers have no idea about how light works and so they can be bamboozled into believing anything. But enough of us realise that size matters to be able to see through this kind of tosh.

So the point which to you is an afterthought (sensor size) is the single most important part of the process- and all things being equal, will always be, and you know that, even if it doesn't support your feelings about your gear.

Miniaturisation is obviously important to you, but honestly, unless the gear becomes genuinely pocketable- its rather irrelevant. The simple fact is that if you want to be serious about your photography, you'll need to carry some decent sized kit.

But to say that your AF is superior to that of a 650d is a stretch, of course it is in live view (which is what you meant), but how many photographers would use live view if AF speed was an issue

CSCs may well be the future, but they need decent sized sensors (so bigger lenses) and better quality EVFs for that to happen.

And I still don't see how a smaller body is that much of an advantage for proper photography, I like proper analogue style controls, they enable fast changing of settings, so easier photography. Having things accessible by several button presses won't do it for me.

 

[vrapan]

I keep saying it, the problem with APS-C sized sensors is the lens size, not the body size.

I took that photo with a Samyang 7.5mm fisheye. The APS-C 8mm fisheye (which admittedly gives a wider field of view) is shown next to the 7.5mm here:

and you can see the lens "bulk" here where it has been fitted to a Sony alpha with an adaptor (to allow it to be placed at the right distance from the sensor)

The 12-35 I have in transit now is 305g compared to the 640+g for the 17-55 which is the Canon APS-C equivalent. It's also far more bulky. This gets worse the longer you go as for APS-C if you want a 2.8 zoom beyond 55mm you're into 1.5kg of 70-200f2.8....

I moved to MFT not because the body is smaller, but because the quality lenses are smaller.

Sorry but my 50-135 2.8 Pentax is about 600 grams

Also for DoF purposes we should be comparing m43 lenses that are at least a stop faster (something like a 12-35 F2) in which case I doubt the difference in size would be as favourable let alone the price... (the 12-35 is already much more expensive than what I have paid for either of my 16-50 2.8 Pentax)

 

[ShrubMonkey]

The simple fact is that if you want to be serious about your photography, you'll need to carry some decent sized kit.

What utter rubbish !

It's threads like this that I normally choose to ignore, but that statement....... Come on

 

[Phil V]

What utter rubbish !

It's threads like this that I normally choose to ignore, but that statement....... Come on

:shrug:
Not feeling the need for any justification of that statement?

 

[arad85]

So the point which to you is an afterthought (sensor size) is the single most important part of the process- and all things being equal, will always be, and you know that, even if it doesn't support your feelings about your gear.

No, I totally understand the physics behind larger sensor = better rendition. My background is physics and maths and you should have seen enough posts from me that say bigger sensor = better pictures.

It is perfectly visible in this 100% crop I posted a couple of weeks ago:

even those are of the out of focus areas, the bigger sensor renders more contrast and consequently better perceived sharpness. I'm perfectly happy saying that a full frame camera provides a better, more contrasty, picture.

What I am saying is that a smaller camera makes it easier to take the picture in the first place as you don't need to have 3 days of logistics checks before you leave the house. Or a Sherpa and a couple of donkeys to carry it all around for you.

The simple fact is that if you want to be serious about your photography, you'll need to carry some decent sized kit.

Ahahaha... Julian was right. It's a my dad is bigger than your dad contest. We all know proper photographers use MF cameras and film. All this digital malarkey is just taking snapshots by comparison....

But to say that your AF is superior to that of a 650d is a stretch, of course it is in live view (which is what you meant), but how many photographers would use live view if AF speed was an issue

Probably the same number that would use phase detect if critical focus were the issue

CSCs may well be the future, but they need decent sized sensors (so bigger lenses)

Nope. There are enough examples out there that unless you're printing huge sizes, u4/3 sized sensors will do very nicely for most people for most situations.

BTW: u4/3 is almost the same size vertically as APS-C despite the crop factor difference (which is measured across the sensor). If you're happy with APS-C pics just at a different aspect ratio, they are pretty much equivalent. u4/3 is squarer so uses the image circle more efficiently.

and better quality EVFs for that to happen.

I'd be more inclined to agree with that, but they are good enough for most circumstances. There's a difference between whether it is good enough or whether you don't like it.

And I still don't see how a smaller body is that much of an advantage for proper photography, I like proper analogue style controls, they enable fast changing of settings, so easier photography. Having things accessible by several button presses won't do it for me.

The key things I change on a camera (ISO, aperture, exposure compensation) are as accessible as they were on the 5D2 on the G5. The things I change less frequently are more accessible as I don't have to take the camera from my eye and look at which button does what - they're all in a quick menu which I've customised to get at things easily.

BTW: the reason I have a Panasonic camera and not an OM-D (which has a technically better sensor) is because I don't like the ergonomics, not through any brand loyalty or being tied into a single manufacturers camera due to lens mount incompatibilities.

Gosh.. this is just like when I was young and having a discussion with my dad about "proper" music...........

 

[ernesto]

Well, you're certainly entitled to your opinion, but you do like to twist things about a bit to support your viewpoint.

tend to agree. I don't care what anybody uses or why they use it but you need to accept both sides.
I don't like EVFs, I use a DSLR and lens combo which is marginally bigger than an m4/3 camera and lens and I prefer it. Someone else will prefer the opposite, nobody is right or wrong...

It's like you are in the church of m4/3

 

[arad85]

Also for DoF purposes we should be comparing m43 lenses that are at least a stop faster (something like a 12-35 F2) in which case I doubt the difference in size would be as favourable let alone the price... (the 12-35 is already much more expensive than what I have paid for either of my 16-50 2.8 Pentax)

I've swapped a

• 17-40L & 12-24 both @ f4 for 7-14/f4. DoF is not an issue - they are for landscape.
• 24-105/f4 for 12-35/f2.8
• 70-200/f4 for (upcoming) 35-100/f2.8
• 100mm f2.8 for 45/1.8
• 50mm/1.8 for 25/1.4

Discounting the 70-200, I've swapped 2.3kg of lenses for 0.9kg. In terms of bulk, they will be significantly smaller (ICBA to do the volumetric calculations). Add to that a 5D2/grip at a kilo or so vs 330g for the G5.

Suffice it to say my walkabout bag has gone from a LowePro flipside 400AW to a Crumpler Cupcake 1500 (I only take 2 or 3 lenses on a day out now).....

Cost: Well, I have spent just over half what I got second hand for the 5D2 and kit for the G5, 7-14. 12-35, 25 and 45 kit. :shrug:

EDIT: If I want DoF I go to the primes. I have gone to fast glass to compensate a stop of extra light because the sensors aren't as good as the full frame ones.

 

[arad85]

It's like you are in the church of m4/3

Too damn right. You'll all be here soon enough...

Praise the Lord..........

 

[vrapan]

Andy it was meant as a light hearted comment I am not really suggesting for a minute that m43 is not lighter than APS-C kit let alone for FF kit.

We are comparing apples to oranges here especially since you are talking about m43 and FF and I am talking about APS-C

Having said I can't resist a couple of comments... F4 on FF gives you a more shallow DoF than F2.8 will give you on m43 let alone that 105 is much longer... So not a fair comparison no matter how you see it It had to be really a 12-50 F2 for any comparison to make any sense whatsoever.

Also the 7-14 is an expensive lens no matter how you see it (yeap FF wide angles are expensive too but APS-Cs arent!)

 

[ernesto]

Too damn right. You'll all be here soon enough...

Praise the Lord..........

Unfortunately I praise a different lord and looking at how that has worked out across the world I don't hold out much hope for us

 

[arad85]

Having said I can't resist a couple of comments... F4 on FF gives you a more shallow DoF than F2.8 will give you on m43 let alone that 105 is much longer... So not a fair comparison no matter how you see it It had to be really a 12-50 F2 for any comparison to make any sense whatsoever.

The 12-35 is also sharper than the 24-105 wide open. I tended to close it down a bit anyway.

But you are assuming I want DoF... As I said, I was happy with f2.8 as it allows a stop more light in compensating for the sensor - that was the main reason I wanted it - it lets in more light than anything else.

Also the 7-14 is an expensive lens no matter how you see it (yeap FF wide angles are expensive too but APS-Cs arent!)

It is, but it's also wider than either the 10-22 or 16/17 FF lenses. A cheaper alternative would have been the Oly 9-18.

It's only been recently that we can have had these conversations as it's only in the last 12 months or so that enough decent lenses have been announced (25/1.4, 12-35, 75, with 35-100 coming). We wouldn't be having this conversation for NEX or NX based systems.... the lenses don't exist.

 

[rjbell]

I've only been a member for a week or so and i'm already bored of this argument!

This argument is on lots of threads and will run on until the end of the world Dec 2012!

 

[vrapan]

The 12-35 is also sharper than the 24-105 wide open. I tended to close it down a bit anyway.

But you are assuming I want DoF... As I said, I was happy with f2.8 as it allows a stop more light in compensating for the sensor - that was the main reason I wanted it - it lets in more light than anything else.

It is, but it's also wider than either the 10-22 or 16/17 FF lenses. A cheaper alternative would have been the Oly 9-18.

It's only been recently that we can have had these conversations as it's only in the last 12 months or so that enough decent lenses have been announced (25/1.4, 12-35, 75, with 35-100 coming). We wouldn't be having this conversation for NEX or NX based systems.... the lenses don't exist.

Am not assuming anything Andy, I am just comparing the capabilities of the kits and I think there are quite significant differences. That is all - I don't have FF because of size and I am considering seriously m43 because of size so I get your point. I just don't think m43 is at the point where I can give up my 2.8s and my K-5 that is all.

 

[arad85]

I just don't think m43 is at the point where I can give up my 2.8s and my K-5 that is all.

Not if you use them at 2.8 and wish you had faster, or are at 2.8 and pushing ISO probably no. The one thing I'll say about m4/3 though is the good lenses are good wide open. Take a look at reviews of the Oly 75mm 1.8 as an (exceptional) example.

 

[vrapan]

Try a Pentax 50-135 at 2.8 probably one of the best lenses I have used if not the best. Same goes for my 70mm pancake at 2.4

 

[woof woof]

Not that I want to add to the "argument" too much

My personal view is that "all things being equal" usually doesn't apply because things usually arent equal but if they were equal the performance of a small sensor would be equal to an identical technology / spec but larger sensor, the only difference being that one chip would be physically bigger and capable of giving better big pictures.

The thing is that until recently the "best" chip makers making the "best" chips have put their best technology into larger sensors for larger cameras and the people making smaller sensors for smaller cameras have been behind the SOTA. That's arguably no longer true and I suspect will possibly be less true in the future.

My own little experiments with 20D, 5D, GF1 and G1 have convinced me that if I can avoid pixel peeping there's no significant difference between any format at low to mid ISO's up to and including A3 prints. Actually what difference I can see is in part down to the lens. IMVHO it's only at the higher ISO's that APS-C and FF pull ahead but even APS-C is arguably "caught" now or will be very soon as the same better technology goes into APS-C and MFT.

If I can avoid pixel peeping and looking at the file name or exif I honestly have trouble telling a low to mid ISO MFT shot from a 5D shot and considering that most of my images are for screen viewing or printing at A4 or less, rarely larger to A3, MFT, well exposed, well processed and at low to mid ISO's is perfectly good enough and can easily get lost in a slide show or stack of prints along with 5D shots.

 

[arad85]

If I can avoid pixel peeping and looking at the file name or exif I honestly have trouble telling a low to mid ISO MFT shot from a 5D shot and considering that most of my images are for screen viewing or printing at A4 or less, rarely larger to A3, MFT, well exposed, well processed and at low to mid ISO's is perfectly good enough and can easily get lost in a slide show or stack of prints along with 5D shots.

This.

Even pixel peeping on Ms arad85's product shots I have trouble saying which is which (in fact more DoF is an advantage as I was shooting at F11/F14/F16 to get enough DoF on the 5D2...).

 

[arad85]

Try a Pentax 50-135 at 2.8

686g... six hundred and eighty six grammes That's the weight of my complete walkabout system just in a lens

 

[rjbell]

Not that I want to add to the "argument" too much

My personal view is that "all things being equal" usually doesn't apply because things usually arent equal but if they were equal the performance of a small sensor would be equal to an identical technology / spec but larger sensor, the only difference being that one chip would be physically bigger and capable of giving better big pictures.

The thing is that until recently the "best" chip makers making the "best" chips have put their best technology into larger sensors for larger cameras and the people making smaller sensors for smaller cameras have been behind the SOTA. That's arguably no longer true and I suspect will possibly be less true in the future.

My own little experiments with 20D, 5D, GF1 and G1 have convinced me that if I can avoid pixel peeping there's no significant difference between any format at low to mid ISO's up to and including A3 prints. Actually what difference I can see is in part down to the lens. IMVHO it's only at the higher ISO's that APS-C and FF pull ahead but even APS-C is arguably "caught" now or will be very soon as the same better technology goes into APS-C and MFT.

If I can avoid pixel peeping and looking at the file name or exif I honestly have trouble telling a low to mid ISO MFT shot from a 5D shot and considering that most of my images are for screen viewing or printing at A4 or less, rarely larger to A3, MFT, well exposed, well processed and at low to mid ISO's is perfectly good enough and can easily get lost in a slide show or stack of prints along with 5D shots.

I wouldn't say they caught up, they have all improved equally. Sensor improvement improve all sensors what ever the size. Any benefits in aps-c or m4/3 will benefit FF too. It just comes down to how good do you need the iso to be? I'm more than happy with the d5100 performance and feel no need to improve upon it performance. So maybe when m4/3 matches it i will join arad85's church!

I look forward to the new Panasonic and see its EVF. Geing one of the biggest lcd tv producers in the world surely they can come up with the goods.

 

[arad85]

I'm more than happy with the d5100 performance and feel no need to improve upon it performance. So maybe when m4/3 matches it i will join arad85's church!

What lenses do you tend to use on it?

 

[rjbell]

What lenses do you tend to use on it?

I meant in regards to iso performance, but i usually have a tamron 17-50 on it.

 

[bl0at3r]

Jeez I didn't intend to start a bun fight!

Had some more time to play with the G3 today and yes the EVF is bigger and brighter than my D5100 and as discussed, gives useful info like a live histogram in the viewfinder. The 14-42 on the G3 focuses faster than the 18-55 kit lens on the D5100 too.

I guess the positives almost outweigh the negatives - but despite all the micro four thirds love in the room (Andy you sure you not sleeping with your M43 kit?), and the fact that I have just sold my D5100, I am still sure that I am going to struggle with the EVF in lower light and fast action - I personally tend to do lower light more frequently than fast action.

But as mentioned, there are compromises with every camera and camera system and I do love the M43 system. Especially now I have collected 2 bodies, 5 lenses, 4 batteries and all this fits in a small, lightweight bag which I will be more inclined to take with me wherever I go - and all for around the same price as a new 5D2 body

 

[arad85]

I meant in regards to iso performance, but i usually have a tamron 17-50 on it.

I asked because if you used kit lenses, ALL the advantages of a better sensor would be wiped out as you'd need to shoot at a higher aperture, thus upping the ISO and wiping out any sensor advantage.

In fact, if you shoot at f4 to gain a stop of sharpness (I've not used the Tamron, but I've seen conflicting reports as to whether it is sharp at 2.8) then you are effectively wiping out the sensor advantage there as the 12-35 is sharp wide open.

I think that's the point - they are so close that it is all swings and roundabouts and for the style of shooting I do (static objects or those that move a little) there isn't much in the picture quality. There is lots in it in terms of traditional SLR ergonomics and versatility vs the CSCs and I think Panny are winning hands down with that.

 

[arad85]

I am still sure that I am going to struggle with the EVF in lower light and fast action - I personally tend to do lower light more frequently than fast action.

Yup - ESPECIALLY if you do both together!

But as mentioned, there are compromises with every camera and camera system and I do love the M43 system. Especially now I have collected 2 bodies, 5 lenses, 4 batteries and all this fits in a small, lightweight bag which I will be more inclined to take with me wherever I go - and all for around the same price as a new 5D2 body

Exactly. I have money in the bank AND I take the camera with me these days.

 

[woof woof]

I wouldn't say they caught up, they have all improved equally....

Panasonic aren't in the front runners when it comes to sensor design, well have to wait and see what the GH3 brings but to date I don't think there's any denying that Panny and therefore Oly too have been waaaay behind the best when it comes to sensors. The game changed withe the Sony sensor in the latest Oly. I don't think there's any denying that the Sony sensor is the best sensor yet to be fitted to a MFT camera.

That's the sort of catch up technology that can be a game changer. They haven't just introduced a ho-hum sensor from a ho-hum manufacturer, they've introduced a sensor from the current mass market leader.

 

[woof woof]

This.

Even pixel peeping on Ms arad85's product shots I have trouble saying which is which (in fact more DoF is an advantage as I was shooting at F11/F14/F16 to get enough DoF on the 5D2...).

Yes. This is an advantage for MFT. With MFT I can shoot at lower ISO's/faster shutter speeds than I'd be using with either FF or APS-C. This is obvious when shooting with MFT and FF back to back and something that some don't realise.

 

[rjbell]

Panasonic aren't in the front runners when it comes to sensor design, well have to wait and see what the GH3 brings but to date I don't think there's any denying that Panny and therefore Oly too have been waaaay behind the best when it comes to sensors. The game changed withe the Sony sensor in the latest Oly. I don't think there's any denying that the Sony sensor is the best sensor yet to be fitted to a MFT camera.

That's the sort of catch up technology that can be a game changer. They haven't just introduced a ho-hum sensor from a ho-hum manufacturer, they've introduced a sensor from the current mass market leader.

Would Panasonic ever use a sony sensor though? we will see i guess.