Almost 6 years after "Live View" sparked this thread in 2007 on EVFs, I read with interest high rating in this evaluation from DPR's review of the new Olympus MFT.PEN- E-P5 - mirrorless but with an optional EVF
Our first impressions of the VF-4 (Optional VF-4 electronic viewfinder: 2.36M dot LCD, 0.74x magnification (equiv), eye sensor) are very positive - it gives an experience that comes remarkably close to shooting with a conventional optical finder, but with the advantage of a detailed overlay of shooting information, including such things as electronic levels and a live histogram. The display lag is minimal (Olympus claims a mere 32ms), and the live view image sharp and detailed into the corners of the frame... (The Oly unit is less than $300)
I would love it if Canon (since I have their glass already) could put a panel like this into one of their pentaprisms so you could use it when the mirror is up to get all the overlay info and zoom in for critical focus all while the camera is in the "usual" position And flip the mirror back down for other more "traditional" types of situation. Best of both worlds... Not likely to happen, though, I suspect - they are Canon, after all
Hi Andy
Wouldn't a high image quality EVF essentially be technically equivalent to a great Live View display? A sufficiently large, detailed, responsive, bright, glare free OLED with choices of overlay information: RGB histogram, level, exposure settings, variable, magnification, camera settings, etc. To this we add features such as a sophisticated focus peaking algorithm for MF and video, real time false color over-exposure and we have an external monitor: http://www.smallhd.com/
OK, obviously this is quite large and one would prefer something built-in, and if you can port this image/information to the camera LCD one could also port it to the EVF as the overhead of live view video processing has already been done. My point is that electronically we are already there, its simply as cost issue to miniaturize the display behind the viewfinder. This will certainly happen. However for a first generation feature set, we are already paying for a high quality LCD, so might as well use that?
While we are at it might as well have the choice to port it to a high resolution smart phone. Currently the camera WiFi connections don't have the bandwidth to do this at HD resolution with no lag. But the popularity of quality, high resolution screens on phones will push this electronically comparable display option.
Mike K
I wonder if the VF-4 design solved the problems with blocked up shadows the VF-2 suffered in bright light? Used to drive me nuts trying to take pictures on sunny days with my E-P3. However the Olympus LCD sure is nice compared to my 7D/5D2.
Gochugogi wrote:
I wonder if the VF-4 design solved the problems with blocked up shadows the VF-2 suffered in bright light? Used to drive me nuts trying to take pictures on sunny days with my E-P3. However the Olympus LCD sure is nice compared to my 7D/5D2.
That was one of the reasons I posted this given the complaints with earlier versions - you'd think they could have a few LUTs to address the gamma in the VF for different situations! I didn't see the earlier OlyEVFs, but the Panny GH2 is quite good, but far from generating the kind of comments in that DPR review. Guess I'll go check one out in a "store near me", as soon as they are available.
Mike K wrote:
Hi Andy
Wouldn't a high image quality EVF essentially be technically equivalent to a great Live View display? A sufficiently large, detailed, responsive, bright, glare free OLED with choices of overlay information: RGB histogram, level, exposure settings, variable, magnification, camera settings, etc. To this we add features such as a sophisticated focus peaking algorithm for MF and video, real time false color over-exposure and we have an external monitor: http://www.smallhd.com/
OK, obviously this is quite large and one would prefer something built-in, and if you can port this image/information to the camera LCD one could also port it to the EVF as the overhead of live view video processing has already been done. My point is that electronically we are already there, its simply as cost issue to miniaturize the display behind the viewfinder. This will certainly happen. However for a first generation feature set, we are already paying for a high quality LCD, so might as well use that?
While we are at it might as well have the choice to port it to a high resolution smart phone. Currently the camera WiFi connections don't have the bandwidth to do this at HD resolution with no lag. But the popularity of quality, high resolution screens on phones will push this electronically comparable display option.
Mike K...Show more →
Um yeah
The idea is to build all that in, and have optics so it looks like a big display, only inside. The displays are already pretty small, small enough to fit in there already, I suspect. It now seems, if their enthusiasm is justified, that the quality is approaching SLR user acceptability
Of course, if they did do it, all those features would be added incrementally over about 10 years as model upgrades...
I think an EVF will definitely come to our Canon camera and we will like it. It will be nice to get a smaller body without the pentaprism hump.
I used to hate EVFs, but after using a Olympus OMD EP-5 for a year I really like them. Olympus still has a bit of the blooming issue in high contrast areas ( really a dynamic range issue) but that will get solved.
AJSJones wrote:
You mean like an EOS-M with an optional EVF?
While serious shooters crave viewfinders and whine endlessly on forums for the lack of them in ILC models, the general public sees viewfinders as a negative, e.g., old skool 1990s tech, messes up makeup, etc. I've gotten so many negative comments about the VF-2 on my E-P3 from friends and relatives. They think it's crazy to use a viewfinder when you can more easily shoot one-handed at arm's length. These same people are buying Rebels and only use them in LV mode...
I posted the thread mainly because the "the quality is approaching SLR user acceptability", I was referring to what you term "serious whiners - oops, serious shooters", not the general public's assessment of arm's length vs EVF.
There are plenty of people on this forum that don't see a problem in not having an OVF or EVF on a camera like the EOS-M and think composing at arm's length in the bright sun is a positive.
My OM-D hasn't got the latest EVF tech, but it's still pretty darn good and it amazes how far behind the curve Canon is on EVF. The G series should have dumped the pathetically useless OVF 2-3 generations ago and fitted an EVF especially the G1X. On the EOS-M not to even have an optional EVF is unforgivable.
From what I have gathered, EVFs still don't hold up in the garbage low lighting that I love to take photos in. Once they can handle that, then I will consider one. Until then, pretty happy with my big bright full frame viewfinder that I can see through perfectly fine while taking photos at ISO25600 and f/1.2.
kezeka wrote:
From what I have gathered, EVFs still don't hold up in the garbage low lighting that I love to take photos in. Once they can handle that, then I will consider one. Until then, pretty happy with my big bright full frame viewfinder that I can see through perfectly fine while taking photos at ISO25600 and f/1.2.
The EVF on my Lumix GX1 is horrid in low light: gritty, jerky, strange colors and makes me feel like I'm on drugs. But that's late 2011 technology. The EVF on the OMD (same as VF-2) is a lot better but still gritty and a little drunk feeling in low light. However the VF-4 is the latest and greatest--and backwards compatible with PEN cameras and is bound to be better. Besides the 2.4MP rez, I'm sure there are other improvements. And maybe low light is one of them...
Oddly enough, although I own a VF-2, I greatly prefer using a clip-on bright-line optical finder on my E-P3 most of the time. It's so bright, clear and simple to use the EVF seems silly.
I could live with a hybrid VF if it did not dim down the optical VF too much.
EVF only would be a problem for wildlife, where one often sits for hours. Extended use of the EVF would be a battery draining hog.
The VF I envisioned was only lit up when in Live View (i.e., when the mirror is up and there's no optical image coming in) - you get to see the live view either on the rear LCD, in the VF (the OLED is on one face of the pentaprism) or connected to a smartphone or external monitor by HDMI wires or wirelessly - it would probably operate as fast as the LV refresh rate over 802.11something... One could also imagine the OLED superimposing better info onto the optical image than the current system (like live histogram), but not a LV image, of course
The EVF thing has its pluses and minuses, and the same is true of DSLR cameras. I have one EVF camera right now and I've had a few in the past. The current one is quite good - for some things.
What they currently do well:
1. Superimpose useful data on the image
2. Give very accurate framing
3. Reduce weight and bulk
What they do less well:
1. Respond quickly
2. Give you a sense that you are looking at the scene rather than a small tv
3. Focus fast
My current EVF camera is a Fujifilm X-E1, which I like a great deal. The very small body produces excellent image quality with the fine Fujinon lenses. For my typical style of shooting it often works very well. It allows me to work less obtrusively in certain situations when photographing around people.
The focus system is quite functional, though it can't keep up with a DSLR for shooting fast moving subjects.
While people still have understandable concerns that EVFs do not do everything optical ones do (and it may be a long time before they do), it seems that there is much more positive assessment than in the thread from 2007. At this point, there will be situations where an EVF (especially the Oly if the drooling DPR did signifies a real improvement) will be very preferred and others where the optical will do better. I am interested in seeing the state of "improvement" by seeking out one of the VF4s. The lag time is getting close to acceptable, and the DR should be addressable...
Its all about metering and looking at the scene as it will look in the photo. Just like a good Live View system. It is awesome beyond belief and it will come to all cameras in the future. Why on earth would you want to look at that little metering bar at the bottom of your VF instead of just seeing what the scene will actually develop like given the settings you have input. Using an EVF for a few months and then switching back to a traditional viewfinder leaves you feeling severly handicaped.
Shooting in manual mode is 2x faster. Yes, very very fast. Because you can spin aperture/shutter dials and actually brighten or darken the scene as you compose. You dont check a little bar at the botton of VF and you dont have to chimp a bunch of shots.
I currently shoot with a Sony NEX7 and I have a 6D. The 'liveview' electronic viewfinder on my NEX7 is old tech compared to the new ones coming out and I think its great. Cant wait until this tech gets into more DSLRs.
I have to admit to being dead set against EVF previously, then I bought an X100... Whilst I did still use the OVF primarily, I did actually like the EVF. I'm quite looking forward to seeing the technology mature.
I just got the Olympus VF-4 the other day, slid it on my E-P3 and thought I'd offer my 25¢:
My first impression was the 2.36-million dot resolution display was a knockout: remarkably clear and the 1.48x magnification propels this EVF deep into DSLR territory. Still, image display quality is a mixed bag but certainly a marked improvement over the prior model, the VF-2.
Under diffused soft light, the VF-4 produces an amazingly crisp and vivid view similar in quality to the optical finder of a high end APS-C DSLR, e.g., Canon 7D. In bright sunlight, performance is sharp and contrasty but with badly blocked up shadows. In other words, you can't see shadow detail at all when shooting sunlit landscapes. In dim light it yields a brighter view than reality but at the cost of considerable color noise and gritty texture artifacts. The biggest improvement is panning performance: the smearing and jumpiness of the older VF-2 EVF is almost completely gone! I assume this remarkable breakthrough is due to a faster refresh rate and is a game changer for those interested in panning track sports or zippy rug rats.
Despite my nitpicks, the reality is the VF-4 is a giant step in resolution, refresh rate and apparent image size over prior EVFs from Olympus and Panasonic. Is it better than the optical viewfinder in my EOS 5D MK2 or 7D? Nope. The DSLR finders still have better panning, shadow detail and sharpness. Plus, the VF-4 has a distinctive electronic undertone, never letting you forget it's an EVF. However the differences are diminishing with each redesign and the current takeaways are likely inconsequential to many users. I mainly use my E-P3 for fairly stationary subjects in decent light, so I can live with the few remaining EVF idiosyncrasies. I have a DSLR for the other stuff.
And flip the mirror back down for other more "traditional" types of situation. Best of both worlds... Not likely to happen, though, I suspect - they are Canon, after all 