One more nail in the optical viewfinder coffin

"John Navas" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 16 Oct 2009 17:55:40 -0400, "Bowser" wrote in
.com:

I'm looking forward to EVF cameras, but I've never seen a compact with an
EVF that could match an optical viewfinder. Best I've seen is the GH1, but
even that's not as good as optical.

It all depends on what you're looking for, and we're probably looking
for different things. When I'm focusing manually, for example, I'm
looking for fast accurate focus, not screen resolution, and the
automatic focus assist (magnifying window) in the EVF of my compact
digital camera is much faster and more accurate, for me at least, than
any OVF. In fact I can't offhand think of any case where an OVF would
work better for me than my EVF.

I've used those types of systems, and while the magnified view works, it's
so slow it's useless for me. Most of the time, like last night's football
game, MF isn't an option anyway.

Paul Furman wrote:

There are are advantages to both. What I liked about live view is it's
more like a polaroid; it shows the actual image you will capture which
removes a level of abstraction, or adds, depending how you think of it.
I liked seeing the final contrast and composition effects.

Well, maybe. The "review" screen on my dSLR most certainly does NOT show me
what I finally print out ... the best it can do is show me a mindless
JPEG with simple contrast and brightness corrections (and white balance).

It can't, for example so the extremely important shadow/highlight that
Photoshop has. It can't make any of the other myriads of corrections
that Photoshop can do.

The clueless are clueless, the rest of us long ago read "The Negative"
and "The Print" by Ansel Adams and actually learned what he intended.
We still see the Zone System when we compose our RAW files.

Doug McDonald

In article , Bruce
wrote:

On Fri, 16 Oct 2009 15:04:50 -0700, John Navas
wrote:

It all depends on what you're looking for, and we're probably looking
for different things. When I'm focusing manually, for example, I'm
looking for fast accurate focus, not screen resolution, and the
automatic focus assist (magnifying window) in the EVF of my compact
digital camera is much faster and more accurate, for me at least, than
any OVF. In fact I can't offhand think of any case where an OVF would
work better for me than my EVF.

That's probably because you can't see beyond your own personal point
of view, and/or can't think.

It doesn't matter that a huge majority of people strongly disagree
with you, for reasons that they have articulated in detail. You still
won't accept it because you refuse to see anyone else's point of view.

an excellent observation.

Bowser wrote:

Ray Fischer) wrote:

Good, fast, or cheap - pick two.

I'm looking forward to EVF cameras, but I've never seen a compact with
an EVF that could match an optical viewfinder. Best I've seen is the
GH1, but even that's not as good as optical.

How about the Oly EP-1 micro 4/3 with 17mm f/2.8 pancake and an optical
viewfinder on the hotshoe? It seems not to have anything to do with
focus but allows approximate framing and proper posture. AF is probably
fine for most needs given the DOF on a half size sensor with 34mm
equivalent view. Apparently there is no viewfinder for the 28-84eq kit
zoom, just the 17mm prime, which is fine, keep it simple & small, just
one lens. You could mount any 35mm lens with adapter if you want but
then I'd just bring the DSLR so there isn't much point. It's not quite
shirt-pocket small but easily coat pocket small. It ought to be much
better in low light than any P&S. The real problem is the $1,000 price
tag :-|




--
Paul Furman
www.edgehill.net
www.baynatives.com

all google groups messages filtered due to spam

John Navas wrote:
Alfred Molon
Ray Fischer

I can get 1000 shots from a dSLR and a single battery charge.
Can you get even 100 with an EVF?

With the Sony R1 I used to get hundreds of shots with a battery charge.

Likewise my Panasonic DMC-FZ28.

And it's still a fact that an EVF uses a lot more power for a lower
resolution.

The overwhelming majority of people does not shoot hundreds of photos
per day, and it's no problem recharging the battery at night.

By the way, one can always carry an extra battery with himself.

Indeed.

Which is irrelevant to the point.

Indeed. But then these are just desperate accusations of those saddled
with OVF.

What was it you were saying about ad hominems attacks? Something
about being the desperate tactic of those without a standing?

--
Ray Fischer

In article , John Navas
wrote:

I find that my 1Dmk2 can autofocus correctly in light so dim that I can
barely see through the viewfinder.

Bully for your camera. Mine does well in low light too.
But there are still times when I find manual focusing useful.

It's telling how those stuck with OVF try to move the goalposts
when it's pointed out how much better an EVF is for manual focusing.

one is not 'stuck with ovf'.

"It's not a bug, it's a feature!"

yes, it is.

In article , John Navas
wrote:

In your opinion, not in mine.

Of course your opinion will be consistent with, uh, your opinion; just
not the opinion of most others in the x-posted NGs.

In your opinion, not in mine.
You can only speak for yourself.

that goes for you too, so why do you insist on arguing?

Bob Larter writes:
And you would be right. I recall a discussion on here about Live
View. When Olympus introduced it, it was derided and sneered at on
here by the very same people who now talk about it as an integral
feature of their photography. As soon as Canon, Nikon and Sony
introduced the feature, it became essential. ;-)

Not to me. I can't imagine a more useless feature to have on a camera.

Bruce's point is still true though: there's more than a little
mindless brand worship in photography...

-Miles

--
Corporation, n. An ingenious device for obtaining individual profit without
individual responsibility.

In article , Ray Fischer
wrote:

Indeed. But then these are just desperate accusations of those saddled
with OVF.

What was it you were saying about ad hominems attacks? Something
about being the desperate tactic of those without a standing?

it's ok for him to do it, not for anyone else.

In article , John Navas
wrote:

In your opinion, not in mine.

Of course your opinion will be consistent with, uh, your opinion; just
not the opinion of most others in the x-posted NGs.

In your opinion, not in mine.
You can only speak for yourself.

that goes for you too, so why do you insist on arguing?

Actually just setting the record straight.

it's still just an *opinion*.