Macworld Forums: Buying a camera: Optical versus electronic viewfinders - Macworld Forums

Post your comments for Buying a camera: Optical versus electronic viewfinders here

Another pro to EVF: They don't just give the exposure numbers; they can give a reasonable preview of the actual image with the exposure settings you've chosen. This can make a big difference when composing a scene, choosing where to point when locking the exposure, etc.

A pentamirror is used in SLR cameras, not point-and-shoots. A pentamirror is equivalent to a pentaprism, but uses mirrors instead of a single block of glass to achieve the same end, but be lighter and smaller. You still look through the same lens that makes the picture.

An OVF is practically must if you plan to shoot anything with a lot of motion. But then, you'll likely benefit by getting a DSLR as well. By the time you see the shot your looking for in an EVF it is too late to take the picture.

(Thank you beardy for picking up the pentamirror error before I got here - I'm glad I wasn't drinking anything when I read that or Macworld would owe me a new monitor right now.)

Another con for optical viewfinders: on compact cameras, the viewfinder doesn't "see" the same image as the sensor, which can often result in parallax errors when framing, particularly with closer subjects.

Another pro for EVFs, building on the point about ergonomics: like screens, they can be built to tilt and swivel, allowing for more creative camera usage.

beardy, on 22 November 2010 - 08:26 AM, said:

Also note that a pentamirror is noticeably dimmer and bit less distinct that a pentaprism, due to refraction and losses at each air/glass interface. Pentamirrors are used in low-end SLR's; not suited for pro or serious amateur use, IMHO.

THERE are fundamental advantages shared by all types of *viewfinder* cameras over the LCD display kind that are sometimes overlooked:

# 1 Anyone using these wretched displays in bright sunlight is likely to see an image more or less washed out. The image cannot be seen as clearly as in the hooded place of a viewfinder (like the old plate camera cape!)

# 2 Anyone holding out one of these displays at arms length will be able to *compose* less well, because the LCD display is a small angle of view at a forearm's length, let alone an arms length; the photo's viewpoint is from a place a couple of feet away from the photographer rather than at their eye's viewpoint. Also, poorer composition because the display cannot be held still; and because of the technical limitations of the screen.

# 3 Anyone standing and holding out one of these displays at arms length at *exposure* time will tend to hold the camera less still and produce more camera shake than someone bracing it. Such as, bracing it against their temple as with any (proper) viewfinder camera.

Is there anything to be said in favour of LCD screens on camera backs? It was clever and a novelty when it first came out. My view is that back of the camera LCD-screen will fade out over time, in the same way that clever but impractical digital displays on watches eventually gave way to analogue faces again ...

Macnificent, on 22 November 2010 - 11:03 AM, said:

Points two and three are irrelevant for comparison purposes because holding a OVF or EVF camera at arm's length is equally impractical for composition and exposure purposes.

Likewise your final conclusion overlooks two of the primary advantages of an LCD screen (which is hardly wretched on higher-end cameras these days): it enables you to preview your photos to see if you actually captured the image you were aiming for. I use the optical viewfinder on my DSLR because of its numerous strengths, and I use the LCD to review the photos I've taken. In addition, the LCD makes it easy to review and adjust your camera's settings. Given the growing flexibility of digital cameras of all sizes and configurations, the number of settings continues to grow; reviewing these on a smaller screen of some kind would hardly be viable; no LCD screen at all would make it impossible. So, no, the LCD screen is not merely a novelty; it has become a necessity, integral to the use of a digital camera.

I would find the loss of either the OVF or the LCD to be unacceptable. As for the EVF, it replicates the problems with low-end cameras in respect to lag time, so, as it stands now, it would be impractical on a high-end camera.

OK I accept that these LCD screens have do some uses but apart from possibly easier adjustment of a setting those uses are not for composing or taking a photo! Why would anyone who had the benefit of a proper viewfinder want to hold such a camera out at arms length to take a photo? The main advantage of a proper viewfinder is that is braced against one's brow.

(NB I am mainly thinking of consumer-level cameras, where so many offer no choice and have *only* a little screen at the back.)

Macnificent, on 23 November 2010 - 01:51 AM, said:

I don't think the LCD/EVF is the problem here. You clearly prefer an OVF, as do I. I agree with your previous comment that holding a camera away from your body is not as steady as holding a camera up to your eye. But to say that a person can't compose or take a picture as well with an EVF is just BS. A professional with a P&S with an EVF could still compose pictures better than I could with my DSLR and OVF. The camera is just a tool. All of them have different benefits and limitations. The only thing that matters is the final image. The rest is basically preference.

Macnificent, on 23 November 2010 - 01:51 AM, said:

Except that for point-and-shoot cameras that is exactly what the LCD is used for, especially the consumer level cameras with no OVF. You seem to miss the rather obvious point that millions of people compose and take pictures with these cameras every day, whether or not they hold the camera at arm's length. And millions more do much the same thing with their cell phone cameras, which is why smart phone developers are vying with each other to improve their cameras, now even offering video, as with the iPhone 4. Even some professional photographers use these "low-end" cameras because they are convenient. It has been said before that the best camera is the one you have with you when a photo op arises.

While LCD screens have their shortcomings, I don't understand your animosity toward them. It seems all out of proportion to the issues involved. And it has totally skewed your opinion of their value and utility.

Macnificent, on 23 November 2010 - 01:51 AM, said:

So then do you object to the idea of twin-lens reflex cameras and other waist-level and away-from-eye viewfinders, both very traditional and used by specialists? Videographers don't seem to have a problem with composing on screens instead of optical, and it's even more important to them because re-cropping in video is a bigger pain than cropping stills.

The "bracing" advantage is incidental. Most consumers don't hold the camera still anyway, and tend to jab at the shutter, negating the bracing. Also, now that more cameras have optical image stabilization, this helps make up for less bracing at arms length.

Most of your concerns are clearly related to current technical limitations. They resemble the original objections to digital photography, which all fell away as the technology progressed. As display technology improves, objections to EVFs will fall away, and more will compose on their screens like the photographers of old.

This being July 2012 I don't suppose anyone will read this but here goes: I used OVF's on film SLRs but after a very short time back in 2006 with a Sony DSC-R1 I could never go back to a DSLR-type OVF. The R1's EVF has ONLY 235K pixels and is deadly slow but being able to see the effect of adjusting shutter-speed/aperture, white balance, focus, histogram BEFORE I take the photo is priceless (WYSIWYG...). It saves all the trial and error done by the DSLR people in the camera club.
Somebody here complained that an EVF could never match the human eye as does an OVF, so what; when someone develops a camera system which can match the human eye we will all rejoice!
There seems to be a conspiracy against anything that might threaten the DSLR market. The Fujifilm X-S1 might possibly replace my R1 but can I find anything about what data is visible in the EVF in any review? (My R1 has 3 modes: a direct mode, an exposure/histogram mode and a see everything mode (the Amateur Photographer reviewer in 2005 complained that the EVF was cluttered; he had not discovered the little button for toggling the mode!)).
Maybe I will wait until the MicroOLED EVF display becomes available on affordable cameras. That will surely see the end of the DSLR model.

pjbw, on 16 July 2012 - 11:40 AM, said:

Why does it have to be an either/or proposition? That's more a function of blinkered enthusiasm than of fact or probability. Some people have predicted that the point-and-shoot will be the end of the DSLR. In fact, the point-and-shoot only provides an alternative to, not a replacement for the DSLR. The Live View now available on most high-end DSLRs was also supposed to replace the standard optical viewfinder, but as good as they've become they can't reproduce the quality of the optical system - which duplicates, in effect, the distraction free view provided by the shroud over the photographer's head used with the earliest cameras. Optical viewfinders have persisted through any number of technological camera innovations and evolutions, including the SLR itself, which removed the problem of parallax that was an unavoidable feature of traditional viewfinder cameras - though the SLR was still an optical system.

Occasionally a new technology will replace an old one, as digital has done with film, which sent Kodak into bankruptcy. But even here, the various forms of the camera have remained. Large format cameras now use digital instead of film backs that, in conjunction with an expensive motorized tripod and a connected computer can create spectacular continuous panoramas never possible with film. The DSLR has replaced the SLR, providing automation a film camera could never have achieved - including a little thing like white balance control that has replaced multiple cameras with multiple film types. But there are now with digital, as there were with film, smaller, less expensive cameras - the point-and-shoots of today. The reason is that digital technology has replaced film, but not the camera form factors that made the various camera formats desirable in the first place. Even the expensive medium format, twin lens reflex camera persists with digital.

The electronic viewfinder may be perfected eventually. But even when it is it will probably be, as it is now, only one camera option among many, with it's own strengths and weaknesses to complicate a photographer's buying decision.

@ pjbw, FYI: It's possible to, and some of us do, sign on for notifications when a thread is updated. Which is why some threads remain active indefinitely. A late post like yours will still be seen by many blog participants and can elicit responses.

This post has been edited by whitedog: 17 July 2012 - 02:33 AM