EVF - is 115,000 enough? Or is 205,000-230,000 really what is needed?

I'm curious about EVF's for superzoom cameras. One I'm looking
at has 115,000 pixels for the EVF, and I'm curious how well that
is working for most folks. Is it sufficient for clear focus at
specific points, or does that EVF resolution make it difficult to
achieve the precise focus that one may want?

Is a higher resolution on the EVF obviously preferred? Or is
115,000 sufficient for most folks?

Thanks

(Paul D. Sullivan) wrote:

I'm curious about EVF's for superzoom cameras.

When I first got my Canon S1 I was *immediately* disappointed by the 115k
EVF. If I hadn't bought it mail order I might have handed it back. I did
love the EVF live preview as a creative tool, but hated the resolution
and the lack of easy focus confirmation.

The 200k-ish EVF on my Olympus SP-550 is much better, and confirms my
decision not to buy the Canon S2/3 (and now 5) purely because of the EVF
resolution. Sadly the rest of the 550 has failed to live up to my
initial expectations (ok, apart from the 28mm wide end... I love that).
But that's cameras for you. :-)

Andrew McP

On Tue, 22 May 2007 11:27:04 +0000, Paul D. Sullivan wrote:

I'm curious about EVF's for superzoom cameras. One I'm looking
at has 115,000 pixels for the EVF, and I'm curious how well that
is working for most folks. Is it sufficient for clear focus at
specific points, or does that EVF resolution make it difficult to
achieve the precise focus that one may want?

Is a higher resolution on the EVF obviously preferred? Or is
115,000 sufficient for most folks?

Thanks

I found that in looking through one (canon s31s and a couple of other
brands as well) and then comparing with a higher res model from Kodak that
the difference was striking - I strongly suggest you do a 'side by side'
at a camera store, best buy, whatever. For me the difference was enough
just looking through the viewfinder that I was not willing to find out if
I could live with the lower res versions. I bought a Kodak P850 (refurb)
from Kodak's online store for $250 and I'm quite pleased with the
purchase. If you decide to go Kodak, I'd suggest the P series as it has
quite a few more features than the Z series - saves raw, tiff, jpeg - has
full manual mode . . .

Paul D. Sullivan wrote:
I'm curious about EVF's for superzoom cameras. One I'm looking
at has 115,000 pixels for the EVF, and I'm curious how well that
is working for most folks. Is it sufficient for clear focus at
specific points, or does that EVF resolution make it difficult to
achieve the precise focus that one may want?

Is a higher resolution on the EVF obviously preferred? Or is
115,000 sufficient for most folks?

Thanks

Paul,

You can manage with "115K", but the VGA resolution EVF in the Minolta A2
(advertised as "900,000 pixels") was much nearer to something which
provided a comfortable view. I find that with auto-focus, and the much
larger depth-of-field of the small-sensor cameras, I don't tend to use the
EVF for precision focussing (and remember that DSLRs have long abandoned
the focussing aids like split-image and micro-prism used in earlier film
SLRs).

I am unsure why other manufacturers (or even Minolta themselves) did not
follow-up on the VGA resolution EVF. Cost and sensor readout bandwidth
may come into it.

Cheers,
David

wrote in message
...
On Tue, 22 May 2007 11:41:49 -0400, M-M wrote:

In article ,
wrote:

A low-resolution EVF and smaller sensor sizes are the ONLY things
preventing
single-lens, long-zoom cameras from vastly surpassing dSLRs in
performance
and
functionality. They already surpass dSLRs in every other way, such as
real-time
preview showing the exact image you are going to get, movies, longer
shutter/performance life-span, faster flash-sync speeds, etc.


You forgot about shutter lag, which puts DSLR's way ahead. Sensor size
and noiseless long exposure ability also. And start-up time, bokeh,
faster AF. I could go on.

Yes, you could go on, but you'd be wrong on all counts. There are ways
around
the shallow DOF caused by small sensor sizes and being able to create nice
bokeh
effects. (I won't bother sharing, you'd only want an argument on how its
done.)
Shutter lag? What shutter lag? My new P&S is every bit as fast if not
faster
than any dSLR that has to wait for last century's mirror to quit flapping
around
making all that noise.

Ah! I was just starting my search for a P&S with short shutter lag, to
replace an old Canon PS. What P&S do you have? Is it EVF only, or optical
too?
Ta.

wrote:
On Tue, 22 May 2007 11:41:49 -0400, M-M wrote:

In article ,
wrote:

A low-resolution EVF and smaller sensor sizes are the ONLY things preventing
single-lens, long-zoom cameras from vastly surpassing dSLRs in performance
and
functionality. They already surpass dSLRs in every other way, such as
real-time
preview showing the exact image you are going to get, movies, longer
shutter/performance life-span, faster flash-sync speeds, etc.


You forgot about shutter lag, which puts DSLR's way ahead. Sensor size
and noiseless long exposure ability also. And start-up time, bokeh,
faster AF. I could go on.

Yes, you could go on, but you'd be wrong on all counts.

Nonsense.

There are ways around
the shallow DOF caused by small sensor sizes and being able to create nice bokeh
effects.

Yeah, use an SLR.

Shutter lag? What shutter lag? My new P&S is every bit as fast if not faster
than any dSLR that has to wait for last century's mirror to quit flapping around
making all that noise.

Which one is that? I know of SLRs that take 10 pictures per second.

Long exposures? Who needs them with a camera that can
shoot in the pitch dark at fast shutter speeds using IR light only.

What a stupid statement.

You dSLR folk sure are insecure about needing to hold onto why you wasted that
much money, aren't you. Your problem, not mine.

Look in the mirror.

--
Ray Fischer

wrote:
On Tue, 22 May 2007 11:41:49 -0400, M-M wrote:

In article ,
wrote:

A low-resolution EVF and smaller sensor sizes are the ONLY things preventing
single-lens, long-zoom cameras from vastly surpassing dSLRs in performance
and
functionality. They already surpass dSLRs in every other way, such as
real-time
preview showing the exact image you are going to get, movies, longer
shutter/performance life-span, faster flash-sync speeds, etc.

You forgot about shutter lag, which puts DSLR's way ahead. Sensor size
and noiseless long exposure ability also. And start-up time, bokeh,
faster AF. I could go on.

Yes, you could go on, but you'd be wrong on all counts. There are ways around
the shallow DOF caused by small sensor sizes and being able to create nice bokeh
effects. (I won't bother sharing, you'd only want an argument on how its done.)
Shutter lag? What shutter lag? My new P&S is every bit as fast if not faster
than any dSLR that has to wait for last century's mirror to quit flapping around
making all that noise. Long exposures? Who needs them with a camera that can
shoot in the pitch dark at fast shutter speeds using IR light only.

Seriously? This is just dumb. And I don't say that too often. This isn't
even a worthy troll.

Ray Fischer wrote:
wrote:

Long exposures? Who needs them with a camera that can
shoot in the pitch dark at fast shutter speeds using IR light only.

What a stupid statement.

I wouldn't say that. I would say that this was actually one of the more
hilariously stupid things I've ever seen.

Grumps wrote:
wrote in message
...
On Tue, 22 May 2007 11:41:49 -0400, M-M wrote:

In article ,
wrote:

A low-resolution EVF and smaller sensor sizes are the ONLY things
preventing
single-lens, long-zoom cameras from vastly surpassing dSLRs in
performance
and
functionality. They already surpass dSLRs in every other way, such as
real-time
preview showing the exact image you are going to get, movies, longer
shutter/performance life-span, faster flash-sync speeds, etc.

You forgot about shutter lag, which puts DSLR's way ahead. Sensor size
and noiseless long exposure ability also. And start-up time, bokeh,
faster AF. I could go on.
Yes, you could go on, but you'd be wrong on all counts. There are ways
around
the shallow DOF caused by small sensor sizes and being able to create nice
bokeh
effects. (I won't bother sharing, you'd only want an argument on how its
done.)
Shutter lag? What shutter lag? My new P&S is every bit as fast if not
faster
than any dSLR that has to wait for last century's mirror to quit flapping
around
making all that noise.

Ah! I was just starting my search for a P&S with short shutter lag, to
replace an old Canon PS. What P&S do you have? Is it EVF only, or optical
too?

Most P&S *these days* have very short delays from half-press to
full-press. The problem is, they still focus slowly (contrast-detection
autofocus driven off the sensor is much slower than phase-detection
autofocus with a dedicated specialized sensor). If something holds
still, you can half-press and then wait for the right moment. But this
isn't very effective, I find, for children, cats, dogs, or sports.

dpreview measures the various delays, check their reviews. My Fuji F11
has a *very* short half-press to full-ress delay, but I find the slow
focus annoying (and there's no manual focus as an alternative).

David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
Grumps wrote:
wrote in message
...
On Tue, 22 May 2007 11:41:49 -0400, M-M wrote:

In article ,
wrote:

A low-resolution EVF and smaller sensor sizes are the ONLY things
preventing
single-lens, long-zoom cameras from vastly surpassing dSLRs in
performance
and
functionality. They already surpass dSLRs in every other way, such as
real-time
preview showing the exact image you are going to get, movies, longer
shutter/performance life-span, faster flash-sync speeds, etc.

You forgot about shutter lag, which puts DSLR's way ahead. Sensor size
and noiseless long exposure ability also. And start-up time, bokeh,
faster AF. I could go on.
Yes, you could go on, but you'd be wrong on all counts. There are
ways around
the shallow DOF caused by small sensor sizes and being able to create
nice bokeh
effects. (I won't bother sharing, you'd only want an argument on how
its done.)
Shutter lag? What shutter lag? My new P&S is every bit as fast if not
faster
than any dSLR that has to wait for last century's mirror to quit
flapping around
making all that noise.

Ah! I was just starting my search for a P&S with short shutter lag, to
replace an old Canon PS. What P&S do you have? Is it EVF only, or
optical too?

Most P&S *these days* have very short delays from half-press to
full-press. The problem is, they still focus slowly (contrast-detection
autofocus driven off the sensor is much slower than phase-detection
autofocus with a dedicated specialized sensor). If something holds
still, you can half-press and then wait for the right moment. But this
isn't very effective, I find, for children, cats, dogs, or sports.

dpreview measures the various delays, check their reviews. My Fuji F11
has a *very* short half-press to full-ress delay, but I find the slow
focus annoying (and there's no manual focus as an alternative).

There's a good chart he
http://www.cameras.co.uk/html/shutte...ort=ShutterLag

How long does it take your F11 to take five photos? I see it's got a
shutter lag of 0.01 second according to dpreview.