gdanmitchell
Online
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
|
gyoung143 wrote:
On the contrary, I like a 'good' viewfinder. It has the same effect as using any good tool (rather than a poor one) has on the work produced. Not impossible to use the poor item to produce good work, but harder, more distracting.
I lied my M3, best of all the Leica OVFs. I was really impressed with the viewfinder of my FM2, clear, large and easy to focus. Not very impressed with the EVF on my first serious such camera, Sony A7, not good at displaying any scene with backlight, contrast etc, far from promised WYSIWYGL I'm sure that Sony has improved since then, but the Xt3 and Xt5 viewfinders are much better, better too than the Xpro2 EVF. Very reminiscent of the FM2 and indeed did influence my choice of camera, XT rather than the more compact Fujis. I haven't looked at Xh2 etc yet, but if they are better still I will be impressed. It's the big UKphoto exhibition in two weeks time and there will be an opportunity to play with the kit.
Gerry...Show more →
In the end, we’ll probably have to chalk this up to being a subjective matter when it comes to how strongly EVF quality affects the experience. That’s not meant to diminish your perspective, just to acknowledge that there are multiple views on this.
My perspective is as follows;
1. No camera image view (DSLR, ground glass, EVF, rear screen) is ever the same as the real world view of the subject. Each of them is deficient in some way. (We can also argue that some augment the real world view in photographically useful ways.) So, from my point of view, after all these years of “doing photography” I don’t pay a whole lot of attention to small differences among in-camera views.
2. My main uses of the viewfinder (or alternative) are to work out a composition and/or to observe my subject so that i can time the exposure correctly. To some extent, once I’m familiar with the response of an electronic display, I can use it to get some information about things like potentially blown highlights, etc, even without resorting to the histogram.
3. The viewfinder has to display with enough accuracy that I can check focus, though when using a display for critical focus I’m going to use a magnified view and/or some EVF focus aid.
4. I’m virtually never going to use any display, optical or electronic, to evaluate the colors of the scene. Those will never match the actual colors captured in the file. This was obviously even more the case with film, but it is still true with digital.
5. EVF refresh rate is an issue, especially when photographing moving subjects, but the big issues with that were mostly a decade or so ago. (If you photograph a lot of fast-moving subjects – birds, sports, etc. — there’s definitely an argument for an EVF with high frame rates, low latency, and perhaps no viewfinder blackout.
So, for me, the bottom line is that when using my XT5 I literally never even think about the IQ of the EVF. It is what it is, and it does the job of showing me the subject as I need to see it to make photographs. If a different camera has a better EVF, that’s fine, but it isn’t a critical factor for me.
I’m not saying my perspective is right for everyone, and YMMV. :-)
|
