One more nail in the optical viewfinder coffin

In article , Mike GW8IJT
wrote:

I find it amazing that digital SLRs can still use a lifting mirror and a
pentamirror for a viewfinder. The compartment that holds the lifting mirror
adds hugely to the size of the camera. The optical viewfinder is a relic of
film days and should be abandoned asap.

You photography noobs need to get a clue. There is benefit to having a
camera that's larger than a credit card. And EVFs are for losers.

Say an interesting article recently that observed that people
with cameras with optical viewfinders and that used them had a
significantly less picture failure rate.

Why?

Because it is not natural to hold something out in front of you
when taking a picture and such a stance is inherently unstable.
Hold the camera up to your eye and it and you are both more
stable, there is less chance of the camera moving when you press
the shutter release, and as you will likely hold the camera there
until after the picture has been taken there is less likelihood
of moving the camera during shutter lag. Ergo, less failed
pictures.

My wife used a Konica Minolta S2 (IMSMC) which had a screen and
an EVF. Her picture failure rate with the screen (the poor
resolution of the EVF proved to be annoying) was awful: now she
has a Nikon D50 and has yet to have a pic fail.



--
Woody

harrogate three at ntlworld dot com

Woody wrote:
Say an interesting article recently that observed that people
with cameras with optical viewfinders and that used them had a
significantly less picture failure rate.

Why?

Because it is not natural to hold something out in front of you
when taking a picture and such a stance is inherently unstable.
Hold the camera up to your eye and it and you are both more
stable, there is less chance of the camera moving when you press
the shutter release, and as you will likely hold the camera there
until after the picture has been taken there is less likelihood
of moving the camera during shutter lag. Ergo, less failed
pictures.

My wife used a Konica Minolta S2 (IMSMC) which had a screen and
an EVF. Her picture failure rate with the screen (the poor
resolution of the EVF proved to be annoying) was awful: now she
has a Nikon D50 and has yet to have a pic fail.

I much prefer the DSLR viewfinder to an EVF I have on my fuji or the
live view on my compact, but eventually the speed and quality of the EVF
will spell doom for the viewfinder.

Ridding the camera of moving parts is not a bad thing.

Mike

Woody wrote:
Say an interesting article recently that observed that people
with cameras with optical viewfinders and that used them had a
significantly less picture failure rate.

Why?

Because it is not natural to hold something out in front of you
when taking a picture and such a stance is inherently unstable.
Hold the camera up to your eye and it and you are both more
stable, there is less chance of the camera moving when you press
the shutter release, and as you will likely hold the camera there
until after the picture has been taken there is less likelihood
of moving the camera during shutter lag. Ergo, less failed
pictures.

My wife used a Konica Minolta S2 (IMSMC) which had a screen and
an EVF. Her picture failure rate with the screen (the poor
resolution of the EVF proved to be annoying) was awful: now she
has a Nikon D50 and has yet to have a pic fail.

I think you meant A2. And the resolution of the Evf was very high, But the tilting EVF used on the previous models was of more use. The floating auto focus was More the cause of Failures

Alfred Molon wrote:
In article , Woody says...
Say an interesting article recently that observed that people
with cameras with optical viewfinders and that used them had a
significantly less picture failure rate.

Why?

Because it is not natural to hold something out in front of you
when taking a picture and such a stance is inherently unstable.
Hold the camera up to your eye and it and you are both more
stable, there is less chance of the camera moving when you press
the shutter release, and as you will likely hold the camera there
until after the picture has been taken there is less likelihood
of moving the camera during shutter lag. Ergo, less failed
pictures.

I used to hold pre-DSLR era cameras (Oly 2000, 4040, 5050) at arms
length and could get sharp handheld shots at exposure times up to 1/13s
without IS. With a DLSR I have to be very careful at exposure times
longer than 1/25s if I switch off the IS.

After film, I used an Oly C3030 and had no complaints (well the slow
startup was awful g). When I switched to a DSLR, I really missed the
live view but I got used to it and my latest DSLR, about a year ago has
live view which I rarely use, though it is nice to have and I am eager
to get a model with video too.

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. Optical
viewfinders are too much like reality and photographs are a lot
different from reality. Live view helps break the intuitive connection
between what you see with your bare eyes and what the camera actually
captures and what it looks like when you get home and show it to someone
detached from the actual scene. I have a problem with seeing things too
imaginatively, so often I'll think I see a spectacular scene but most of
the spectacle is my brain's post-processing. Experience can overcome a
lot of this but it's a constant struggle.

My vision of an ideal future camera is a hybrid. Look through the
optical finder and just tap a button to flip over to high res EVF. The
current implementation of live view in DSLRs is pretty lame. For now
it's usually more practical to use the optical viewfinder & chimp the
LCD to verify and take that step back to evaluate.

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

all google groups messages filtered due to spam

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

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.

Bob Larter wrote:
Bruce wrote:
On Thu, 15 Oct 2009 16:04:31 -0700 (PDT), RichA
wrote:
Just like:
-Live view
-Dust control
-In-body I.S.
-Video

All of it is for "losers" until Nikon releases it. We saw this same
kind of reaction from all sorts of people prior to Nikon's
introduction of those (except in-body I.S.) features. I call
hypocrite, and I will again.


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.

Where "live view" can be useful is if the camera also has a tilt/swivel LCD.

The idea of an EVF is good, but they have a long way to go before they
can solve the technical issues of resolution, low light, and increased
lag. The EVF is basically a cost saving measure by manufacturers that
they foist upon naive consumers with the idea of "electronic is better."

SMS wrote:
Bob Larter wrote:
Bruce wrote:
On Thu, 15 Oct 2009 16:04:31 -0700 (PDT), RichA
wrote:
Just like:
-Live view
-Dust control
-In-body I.S.
-Video

All of it is for "losers" until Nikon releases it. We saw this same
kind of reaction from all sorts of people prior to Nikon's
introduction of those (except in-body I.S.) features. I call
hypocrite, and I will again.


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.

Where "live view" can be useful is if the camera also has a tilt/swivel
LCD.

Have you ever used one of the old Minolta Dimage 7Hi or A2?
They had a swivel EVF, not quite as versatile as an articulated LCD, but
OK for low-down shooting and very good for "I'm appearing to be just
fiddling with my camera, but really shooting" type candids.

The idea of an EVF is good, but they have a long way to go before they
can solve the technical issues of resolution, low light, and increased
lag.

The EVF in the Panasonic G1 gets close, but still has that slightly
lo-res look of looking at a good video monitor and does lag a bit as the
light-level goes down.

The EVF is basically a cost saving measure by manufacturers that
they foist upon naive consumers with the idea of "electronic is better."

The "cost saving" with the Mu4/3 cameras seems to be in the negative, as
the Panasonic G1 & GH1 and the Olympus EP-1 are all at least as (or
more) expensive as entry-level DSLR cameras.
"Space saving" also seems also a touch questionable, as the G1 and GH1
are barely (by a few scant millimetres) smaller than the Canon EOS 500D
and the Pentax K-x.