EVF versus OVF: The reality

On Sun, 19 Mar 2017 19:01:22 -0700 (PDT), Rich A
wrote:

What's best? This is what I've seen.

Daylight static shots: OVF still looks best. Even over Leica's new EVF.
Moderate light static shots and indoors: EVF's. They look better.
Low light, night shots: EVF's. At some point, OVF's show nothing or next to nothing. EVF's will show a grainy but discernible image. Enough to compose and the sensitivity of new cameras is so low, they can focus in almost no light. Couple that with low-light ISO and being able to compose matters.
Sports: OVF. No "single frame only" on high-FPS shooting.
Critical manual focus: EVF, magnification can't be beat.



Saw an odd thing with an EVF, color shift. Trying to take a picture
of a bright purple flower, in the EVF it looked pale blue.

On 2017-03-21 03:49:37 +0000, charles said:

On Sun, 19 Mar 2017 19:01:22 -0700 (PDT), Rich A
wrote:

What's best? This is what I've seen.

Daylight static shots: OVF still looks best. Even over Leica's new EVF.
Moderate light static shots and indoors: EVF's. They look better.
Low light, night shots: EVF's. At some point, OVF's show nothing or
next to nothing. EVF's will show a grainy but discernible image.
Enough to compose and the sensitivity of new cameras is so low, they
can focus in almost no light. Couple that with low-light ISO and being
able to compose matters.
Sports: OVF. No "single frame only" on high-FPS shooting.
Critical manual focus: EVF, magnification can't be beat.



Saw an odd thing with an EVF, color shift. Trying to take a picture
of a bright purple flower, in the EVF it looked pale blue.

Name the camera.

--
Regards,

Savageduck

In article ,
charles wrote:

On Sun, 19 Mar 2017 19:01:22 -0700 (PDT), Rich A
wrote:

What's best? This is what I've seen.

Daylight static shots: OVF still looks best. Even over Leica's new EVF.
Moderate light static shots and indoors: EVF's. They look better.
Low light, night shots: EVF's. At some point, OVF's show nothing or next
to nothing. EVF's will show a grainy but discernible image. Enough to
compose and the sensitivity of new cameras is so low, they can focus in
almost no light. Couple that with low-light ISO and being able to compose
matters.
Sports: OVF. No "single frame only" on high-FPS shooting.
Critical manual focus: EVF, magnification can't be beat.



Saw an odd thing with an EVF, color shift. Trying to take a picture
of a bright purple flower, in the EVF it looked pale blue.

Not odd at all. The EVF is a monitor, just like the one on your desk and
have all the problems that a monitor have with color rendering and such.
--
teleportation kills

On Mon, 20 Mar 2017 20:52:58 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:

On 2017-03-21 03:49:37 +0000, charles said:

On Sun, 19 Mar 2017 19:01:22 -0700 (PDT), Rich A
wrote:

What's best? This is what I've seen.

Daylight static shots: OVF still looks best. Even over Leica's new EVF.
Moderate light static shots and indoors: EVF's. They look better.
Low light, night shots: EVF's. At some point, OVF's show nothing or
next to nothing. EVF's will show a grainy but discernible image.
Enough to compose and the sensitivity of new cameras is so low, they
can focus in almost no light. Couple that with low-light ISO and being
able to compose matters.
Sports: OVF. No "single frame only" on high-FPS shooting.
Critical manual focus: EVF, magnification can't be beat.



Saw an odd thing with an EVF, color shift. Trying to take a picture
of a bright purple flower, in the EVF it looked pale blue.

Name the camera.

Canon SX50 HS

On 2017-03-21 16:28:35 +0000, charles said:

On Mon, 20 Mar 2017 20:52:58 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:

On 2017-03-21 03:49:37 +0000, charles said:

On Sun, 19 Mar 2017 19:01:22 -0700 (PDT), Rich A
wrote:

What's best? This is what I've seen.

Daylight static shots: OVF still looks best. Even over Leica's new EVF.
Moderate light static shots and indoors: EVF's. They look better.
Low light, night shots: EVF's. At some point, OVF's show nothing or
next to nothing. EVF's will show a grainy but discernible image.
Enough to compose and the sensitivity of new cameras is so low, they
can focus in almost no light. Couple that with low-light ISO and being
able to compose matters.
Sports: OVF. No "single frame only" on high-FPS shooting.
Critical manual focus: EVF, magnification can't be beat.



Saw an odd thing with an EVF, color shift. Trying to take a picture
of a bright purple flower, in the EVF it looked pale blue.

Name the camera.

Canon SX50 HS

OK! That is a camera which is step up from the least expensive compact
P&S cameras. It is a "super-zoom" bridge camera which starts out with a
marginal performing lens. Those are the compromises one makes with a
budget lens with 24-1200mm zoom range, @ f/3.4-6.5, all for $450.

Also to be considered, this camera was new in 2013 and $450 was not
going to buy you a state-of-the-art EVF, finding a color shift in that
EVF is not surprising. It is good enough as "do it all" travel camera,
but it is not in the class of even budget DSLR's or the latest
Mirrorless cameras. It is those new MILC's where you are going to find
high performance EVF's.

All you should be concerned with when using the SX50 HS, is the quality
of the images you are able to produce for your own enjoyment, not the
mediocrity of its EVF.
--
Regards,

Savageduck

On Tue, 21 Mar 2017 10:18:49 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:

On 2017-03-21 16:28:35 +0000, charles said:

On Mon, 20 Mar 2017 20:52:58 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:

On 2017-03-21 03:49:37 +0000, charles said:

On Sun, 19 Mar 2017 19:01:22 -0700 (PDT), Rich A
wrote:

What's best? This is what I've seen.

Daylight static shots: OVF still looks best. Even over Leica's new EVF.
Moderate light static shots and indoors: EVF's. They look better.
Low light, night shots: EVF's. At some point, OVF's show nothing or
next to nothing. EVF's will show a grainy but discernible image.
Enough to compose and the sensitivity of new cameras is so low, they
can focus in almost no light. Couple that with low-light ISO and being
able to compose matters.
Sports: OVF. No "single frame only" on high-FPS shooting.
Critical manual focus: EVF, magnification can't be beat.



Saw an odd thing with an EVF, color shift. Trying to take a picture
of a bright purple flower, in the EVF it looked pale blue.

Name the camera.

Canon SX50 HS

OK! That is a camera which is step up from the least expensive compact
P&S cameras. It is a "super-zoom" bridge camera which starts out with a
marginal performing lens. Those are the compromises one makes with a
budget lens with 24-1200mm zoom range, @ f/3.4-6.5, all for $450.

Also to be considered, this camera was new in 2013 and $450 was not
going to buy you a state-of-the-art EVF, finding a color shift in that
EVF is not surprising. It is good enough as "do it all" travel camera,
but it is not in the class of even budget DSLR's or the latest
Mirrorless cameras. It is those new MILC's where you are going to find
high performance EVF's.

All you should be concerned with when using the SX50 HS, is the quality
of the images you are able to produce for your own enjoyment, not the
mediocrity of its EVF.


That's pretty much what I got it for, just something to leave in the
car to have when something came up. I have a T5I (also not the best)
and an assortment of real lenses for when I am more serious. It's
just that the color shift on that particular flower was so great, I
haven't noticed it on other shots. I need to go back and examint the
flower some more. The picture, when displayed on the computer, is
about as I remembered, but I've been fooled by that before as well.

On 3/21/2017 1:30 PM, charles wrote:
On Tue, 21 Mar 2017 10:18:49 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:

On 2017-03-21 16:28:35 +0000, charles said:

On Mon, 20 Mar 2017 20:52:58 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:

On 2017-03-21 03:49:37 +0000, charles said:

On Sun, 19 Mar 2017 19:01:22 -0700 (PDT), Rich A
wrote:

What's best? This is what I've seen.

Daylight static shots: OVF still looks best. Even over Leica's new EVF.
Moderate light static shots and indoors: EVF's. They look better.
Low light, night shots: EVF's. At some point, OVF's show nothing or
next to nothing. EVF's will show a grainy but discernible image.
Enough to compose and the sensitivity of new cameras is so low, they
can focus in almost no light. Couple that with low-light ISO and being
able to compose matters.
Sports: OVF. No "single frame only" on high-FPS shooting.
Critical manual focus: EVF, magnification can't be beat.


Saw an odd thing with an EVF, color shift. Trying to take a picture
of a bright purple flower, in the EVF it looked pale blue.
Name the camera.
Canon SX50 HS
OK! That is a camera which is step up from the least expensive compact
P&S cameras. It is a "super-zoom" bridge camera which starts out with a
marginal performing lens. Those are the compromises one makes with a
budget lens with 24-1200mm zoom range, @ f/3.4-6.5, all for $450.

Also to be considered, this camera was new in 2013 and $450 was not
going to buy you a state-of-the-art EVF, finding a color shift in that
EVF is not surprising. It is good enough as "do it all" travel camera,
but it is not in the class of even budget DSLR's or the latest
Mirrorless cameras. It is those new MILC's where you are going to find
high performance EVF's.

All you should be concerned with when using the SX50 HS, is the quality
of the images you are able to produce for your own enjoyment, not the
mediocrity of its EVF.

That's pretty much what I got it for, just something to leave in the
car to have when something came up. I have a T5I (also not the best)
and an assortment of real lenses for when I am more serious. It's
just that the color shift on that particular flower was so great, I
haven't noticed it on other shots. I need to go back and examint the
flower some more. The picture, when displayed on the computer, is
about as I remembered, but I've been fooled by that before as well.

As Duck said, the EVF is mediocre on that camera. The EVF resolution is
low and perhaps the combination of low-res EVF and the lighting resulted
in what you saw.

On Tue, 21 Mar 2017 15:39:57 -0400, PAS wrote:

On 3/21/2017 1:30 PM, charles wrote:
On Tue, 21 Mar 2017 10:18:49 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:

On 2017-03-21 16:28:35 +0000, charles said:

On Mon, 20 Mar 2017 20:52:58 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:

On 2017-03-21 03:49:37 +0000, charles said:

On Sun, 19 Mar 2017 19:01:22 -0700 (PDT), Rich A
wrote:

What's best? This is what I've seen.

Daylight static shots: OVF still looks best. Even over Leica's new EVF.
Moderate light static shots and indoors: EVF's. They look better.
Low light, night shots: EVF's. At some point, OVF's show nothing or
next to nothing. EVF's will show a grainy but discernible image.
Enough to compose and the sensitivity of new cameras is so low, they
can focus in almost no light. Couple that with low-light ISO and being
able to compose matters.
Sports: OVF. No "single frame only" on high-FPS shooting.
Critical manual focus: EVF, magnification can't be beat.


Saw an odd thing with an EVF, color shift. Trying to take a picture
of a bright purple flower, in the EVF it looked pale blue.
Name the camera.
Canon SX50 HS
OK! That is a camera which is step up from the least expensive compact
P&S cameras. It is a "super-zoom" bridge camera which starts out with a
marginal performing lens. Those are the compromises one makes with a
budget lens with 24-1200mm zoom range, @ f/3.4-6.5, all for $450.

Also to be considered, this camera was new in 2013 and $450 was not
going to buy you a state-of-the-art EVF, finding a color shift in that
EVF is not surprising. It is good enough as "do it all" travel camera,
but it is not in the class of even budget DSLR's or the latest
Mirrorless cameras. It is those new MILC's where you are going to find
high performance EVF's.

All you should be concerned with when using the SX50 HS, is the quality
of the images you are able to produce for your own enjoyment, not the
mediocrity of its EVF.

That's pretty much what I got it for, just something to leave in the
car to have when something came up. I have a T5I (also not the best)
and an assortment of real lenses for when I am more serious. It's
just that the color shift on that particular flower was so great, I
haven't noticed it on other shots. I need to go back and examint the
flower some more. The picture, when displayed on the computer, is
about as I remembered, but I've been fooled by that before as well.

As Duck said, the EVF is mediocre on that camera. The EVF resolution is
low and perhaps the combination of low-res EVF and the lighting resulted
in what you saw.


Probablt correct. It's something that caught my interest, I want to
dig into it a bit further.