Jacob D wrote:
On a separate note, do we know how this EVF will do in the dark, or very low light? I'm mostly asking about noise.
Pretty well based on my fairly limited testing. Shadow blocking is greatly reduced compared to the1st gen 2.4MP OLED finders which solves the primary issue with them. I didn't see much slowdown in the light I was shooting in, which was pretty limited (1/4 second, ISO 50, T4.5, with the 135STF)
mawz wrote:
Pretty well based on my fairly limited testing. Shadow blocking is greatly reduced compared to the1st gen 2.4MP OLED finders which solves the primary issue with them. I didn't see much slowdown in the light I was shooting in, which was pretty limited (1/4 second, ISO 50, T4.5, with the 135STF)
man, to me that is practically daylight shooting. like half of my shots are taken around 1/4s, iso 200, T1.4 (f/1.2 lens wide open).
sebboh wrote:
man, to me that is practically daylight shooting. like half of my shots are taken around 1/4s, iso 200, T1.4 (f/1.2 lens wide open).
It was a poorly lit store, best I could do at the time. Then again for me thee days that's dim light, I'm mostly shooting real daylight work (a nice change after 4 years of mostly shooting in dim bars).
sebboh wrote:
man, to me that is practically daylight shooting. like half of my shots are taken around 1/4s, iso 200, T1.4 (f/1.2 lens wide open).
EVF aside, are you really shooting the NEX-7 at 1/4s handheld that often? You must have way steadier hands than me. I'd much rather bump the iso a bit. I could shoot that slow with my a55 with IBIS, but on NEX, I usually stay around 1/60 (for normalish focal lengths).
I shot with an a99 in the same environment as I took this m9 shot. Very dim, and I noticed little to no lag in the evf and honestly thought to myself "this is better than an optical finder". I recommend you all reserve judgement until you look through it. http://www.aeos-photo.com.au/blog/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/Sydney-Harbour-Pano.jpg
I haven't really been interested in the A99 until I realised that it might replace the cameras I use for video and travel (GH1, soon to be upgraded to GH3) and general photography (assorted Nikons, soon to be upgraded to D600). The A99 seems to be covering all bases, provided the video quality is more or less on par with the Panasonic. The EVF won't be very useful for sports, but I could always find a cheap A700 for that.
The biggest limitation I see is the lack of used lenses in many markets, which means buying new expensive ones. Still, I'm tempted and I'll at least try it before I turn it down.
I did try the A77 the other day. Fine camera too, but the build quality didn't feel 100%. Not compared to my Nikon D2Xs and F6 anyway.
alwang wrote:
EVF aside, are you really shooting the NEX-7 at 1/4s handheld that often? You must have way steadier hands than me. I'd much rather bump the iso a bit. I could shoot that slow with my a55 with IBIS, but on NEX, I usually stay around 1/60 (for normalish focal lengths).
no i bump up shutterspeed and iso in actual shooting. i was just trying to make more of the numbers match up to make comparison of light levels easier.
FlyPenFly wrote:
Just sounds like curmudgeons. EVFs will only continue to get better.
Yeah, I read the article last night, and was a bit disappointing that he used something like half the space to drive home the point that he prefers the optical finder on full frame cameras.
I get it, I liked the optical viewfinder on the A850 a lot, but I would think there would be a lot more to say about the camera? Or at least use the space to post some decent photos?
Was Johnnie B.s review saying that focus mag. wasn't available just for video?? Or is that true of stills also?
+1 to Joseph's comments.
I also wasn't big on LL's review, not enough cheese and too much whine. Yeah, it's an EVF. I'd like to hear the strengths and weaknesses of the EVF implementation rather than whining about it not being an OVF.
mco_970 wrote:
Was Johnnie B.s review saying that focus mag. wasn't available just for video?? Or is that true of stills also?
Just video. I don't understand the complaint. I can't imagine trying to utilize the magnification mid-shot. That would be awkward. Can you do that on Canon or Nikon?
I would have used that feature on 5N this weekend if I could have. I had the camera on a tripod, people were on stage and not moving, and I was pulling focus with 50/1.2. I did try to magnify to check focus before figuring out I couldn't do that. It was very contrasty (people wearing black and white and partially in the sun), and peaking wasn't showing up well.
So yeah, I personally can see a good use for the feature.
ken.vs.ryu wrote:
I guess both reviewers don't use manual focus lenses to take advantage of the evf, live view, and peaking.
Joseph Marney wrote:
Yeah, I read the article last night, and was a bit disappointing that he used something like half the space to drive home the point that he prefers the optical finder on full frame cameras.
I get it, I liked the optical viewfinder on the A850 a lot, but I would think there would be a lot more to say about the camera? Or at least use the space to post some decent photos?
Well I'd argue that the EVF is what I am most doubtful about regarding this camera - and what I am hoping (/hoped) to see positive reviews on. I only do MF, today with a fast matte/OVF.
LV, peaking, magnification and all that is fine if you shoot landscape and tripoding stuff. But that's not for all and is the reason my NEX 5N stays home and I still bring the 5D2-giant around. It's so much quicker for what I do.
When I occasionally do landscaping or similar I can use LV, nowadays pimped by Magic Lantern even. And that's enough. But I want that Sony sensor for sure, but apparently not the EVF in it's current shape as it looks. Unfortunatly.
Surprisngly little is said about the image quality of the sensor from my reading thus far, and the Johnny B Goode dude just added to the confusion, along with MR. Cameras are so good nowadays that we see lists of petty, small-time moans rather than how well the things actually work. And you get cabals of these types, such as the Devlin guy with LL. And the cheesy tiny images, which tell you only that it can take a photograph.
I still feel the a99 is too much $$ for a primarily MF stills shooter with an 850/900, they are trying to leverage off the video capability and bells and whistles, and it doesn't work that way. Unless the sensor is absolutely superb - uh, but did I miss that assessment?
'Superb image quality' - yes, I saw that amongst the EVF, assorted fluff and corporate rundown, but why not shoot the same shot with an a900 and show them side by side? Show don't tell...so it's great but needs significant sharpening and should lose the AA, 'the A99 produced a decent image although moiré and aliasing is clearly there!' compared with what exactly? So no filter or a stronger filter...lol.
EVF - OK, pros and cons we all know, it just needs to be good enough to compose and show adjustments in the histo plus peak/LV, good enough for me, I can ignore grain up etc. once I see how the final images look on screen.
