snubbr.com

liveview vs viewfinder in DSLRs
SLR used to have the great advantage over P/S cameras that the mirror/prism system gave the photographer the same view of the motif as captured on film..

Now that all cameras are digital what is the advantage of this system? Wouldn't it be better to get rid of the whole viewfinder/mechanical flapping mirror thing and use the LCD instead? The LCD should give a better represenation of what gets captured digitally anyway, and can be used together with tools like histograms, autofocus/metering spots, 1:1 pixel preview, blinking highlights and so on..

Also considering that liveview in DSLRs is something that is wished for by more and more users (???)..

I'd appreciate to hear your thought about this ..

Comments (30)

I find it a LOT easier to manually focus if I'm using a ground glass focusing screen (like SLRs/DSLRs have) instead of a LCD. But the option to compose using a big LCD on the back of the camera could be handy in certain situations, like shooting over a crowd or taking pictures of bugs, flowers, etc. on or near the ground...

Comment #1

Yes, it is with manual focusing (especially getting people's eyes right) that a good optical viewfinder on a DSLR still beats the EVF..

Even the best EVF - which arguably was the 1 megapixel unit on the old Konica Minolta A2 - left plenty to be desired. They can be laggy as well and that needs to be got rid of for people photography where the right kind of smile matters..

I enjoy using an EVF on cameras like the Fuji 9100 for outdoor work though as it gives almost instant feedback to exposure setting changes. Provided that you can trust the camera with focus and white balance there is little need then to check the shot on the big LCD at the back of the camera..

Many modern DSLRs are now offering a kind of either/or live preview, and when combined with a flip out LCD this is quite a useful feature for composition.John.Please visit me at:http://www.pbase.com/johnfr/backtothebridgehttp://www.pbase.com/johnfr/digital_dartmoor..

Comment #2

Personally, live view is an option I have never used on my D-SLR's and will never use..

In first place, I've so far never encountered an EVF that offers the same sharp, lag- an flickerfree image as a pentaprism/mirror combination. To me, using the viewfinder provides the best, most natural an stable handling of the camera. Holding the camera at arm's length and staring at the rear LCD just doesn't work for me..

On my non SLR Fuji S6500fd, I use the smaller EVF in stead of the big LCD, because I find the handling and the feel of the camera much better. In short: keep the good old viewfinder, forget the live view nonsens...LOL..

There's no problem so big that you can't run away from it!..

Comment #3

You aren't going to take very sharp pictures looking at an LCD because your arms will be outstretched inducing camera shake from your arms muscles counteracting each other. Also in bright sun it is hard to see an LCD because it is limited in how much light it can produce. Finally there is a fraction of a second of lag with an LCD making it not really "live". Not that good for action..

Image control:Zoom outZoom 100%Zoom inExpand AllOpen in new window..

Comment #4

Ringwraith69 wrote:.

Personally, live view is an option I have never used on my D-SLR'sand will never use..

In first place, I've so far never encountered an EVF that offers thesame sharp, lag- an flickerfree image as a pentaprism/mirrorcombination. To me, using the viewfinder provides the best, mostnatural an stable handling of the camera. Holding the camera at arm'slength and staring at the rear LCD just doesn't work for me..

Why this canard is still being tossed about is a mystery to me. The live-view LCD is not used in that way at all. It is always used with the camera either on a tripod or in situations where it is nearly impossible to look thru the viewfinder..

On my non SLR Fuji S6500fd, I use the smaller EVF in stead of the bigLCD, because I find the handling and the feel of the camera muchbetter. In short: keep the good old viewfinder, forget the live viewnonsens...LOL..

Since nearly all the manufacturers are starting to include LV in their DSLRs, your viewpoint shows you to be either 2yrs out of date or a Luddite.....LOL..

There's no problem so big that you can't run away from it!.

A member of the rabble in good standing..

Comment #5

Live view modes use contrast based AF instead of phase based AF ( which is what makes DSLR AF systems faster that P&S AF systems ). It's throwing away one of the main advantages of a DSLR..

Until the boffins figure out how to give use an EVF with high resolution and high refresh rates to allow good manual focusing and still use phase-based AF ( or something as good ) then the viewfinder wins..

And for the record I like my S9600's EVF, but I'd trade it for the better AF system..

StephenG.

Pentax K100DFuji S5200Fuji E900PCLinuxOS..

Comment #6

A good optical viewfinder in an SLR gives you so much resolution that the very idea of a digital screen replacing it is ludicrous. Liveview is handy if you're using the camera at strange angles where you can't see the viewfinder but otherwise it's just a gimmick, the prism+mirror system is so good, especially for manual focus which is hellish with an LCD, why would we want to see it removed?.

Being able to see through the lens in real time is invaluable, the idea that an EVF is superior because it shows you what the sensor sees isn't one I agree with, you wont be able to get a perfect preview in an EVF anyway so you're better off learning what to expect and how to produce predictable results...

Comment #7

Why this canard is still being tossed about is a mystery to me. The live-view LCD is not used in that way at all. It is always used with the camera either on a tripod or in situations where it is nearly impossible to look thru the viewfinder.>>.

Exactly. As here where the camera was actually held upside down and out over a fence:.

Image control:Zoom outZoom 100%Zoom inExpand AllOpen in new window.

And I'd hazard a guess that some people have never experienced correcting the exposure by dialing in +/- EV and watching what happens in the EVF. I've never had a camera that gets it all right on it's own in challenging conditions so I think it's a really helpful aid..

It needs to be a flip out LCD to be of use though..

John.Please visit me at:http://www.pbase.com/johnfr/backtothebridgehttp://www.pbase.com/johnfr/digital_dartmoor..

Comment #8

There's no comparison: Instantaneous and resolution limited only by your eye. The LCD has it's place, but handheld picture taking is not one of them for reasons stated elsewhere in this thread..

Some cool cats that can use your helphttp://www.wildlife-sanctuary.org.

Even if you can't donate, please help spread the word...

Comment #9

Fu8 wrote:.

Wouldn't it be better to get rid of the wholeviewfinder/mechanical flapping mirror thing and use the LCD instead?.

No. Compared to good optical viewfinders, today's EVFs and LCDs.

1. Have poor resolution..

2. Have issues with lag..

3. Tend to wash out in bright sunlight...

Comment #10

All the info posted by those above is great. However, I will try to make it simple..

I have no problem at all holding my camera in the correct manner, (e.g. looking through the viewfinder) with a 300mm lens and taking a shot at 1/100 or 1/125 and getting good quality shots (yest I have in camera IS). I could never do this holding the camera out and using live view, and I mean never. Also I can't even think about how my arms would feel after attempting to take many shots in this manner. Plus I would have to carry about 3 extra batteries around and a shade for every time the sun is at my back..

Live view serves a specific purpose on a DSLR. When used properly it is a great feature..

MaddogOlympus E-510 and a bunch of stuff to hang on it...

Comment #11

Off course you can think of ways where using LiveView could make some kind of sense, if you really wanted to..

Two points:.

1) For about 70 years photographers have been using only pentaprism viewfinders without ever feeling the need for a different solution. What has changed? Simple: today the D-SLR-market is flooded by people that are used to digi-compacts where using the LCD to compose the picture is actually the only way...given the fact that many compacts don't have a decent viewfinder, if any at all. These newbies to the SLR cannot get used to a camera where you can't use the LCD and want LiveView because that's all they know;.

2) To me the whole concept of LiveView seems to be the briljant solution to a problem that many of us never knew existed and still don't really see. LiveView can perhaps be useful in 2.5% of all photographic situations. It's useless with large telelenses, it's no good for moving objects and on most cameras it's really only a very limited option. So why bother...?.

If you're happy using LiveView, then by all means do so. I have 2 bodies offering the option, I have never used it and I will never use it.There's no problem so big that you can't run away from it!..

Comment #12

A decent camera with live view will allow you to zoom to pixel level where you want to focus, allowing perfect focus, something that can't be said of most slrs and their small dark viewfinders....

Telyx wrote:.

I find it a LOT easier to manually focus if I'm using a ground glassfocusing screen (like SLRs/DSLRs have) instead of a LCD. But theoption to compose using a big LCD on the back of the camera could behandy in certain situations, like shooting over a crowd or takingpictures of bugs, flowers, etc. on or near the ground...

Comment #13

Sjgcit wrote:.

Live view modes use contrast based AF instead of phase based AF (which is what makes DSLR AF systems faster that P&S AF systems ).It's throwing away one of the main advantages of a DSLR..

It also allows pixel perfect focus anywhere on the image and not only where the focus sensors are placed..

Until the boffins figure out how to give use an EVF with highresolution and high refresh rates to allow good manual focusing.

Already said, you can zoom to pixel level ang get perfect focus, much better than manual focus on common dslrs. Especially in low light or with a slower lens..

Andstill use phase-based AF ( or something as good ) then the viewfinderwins..

I think some Olympus does that..

And for the record I like my S9600's EVF, but I'd trade it for thebetter AF system..

StephenG.

Pentax K100DFuji S5200Fuji E900PCLinuxOS..

Comment #14

Pentaxiantrooper wrote:.

Being able to see through the lens in real time is invaluable,.

Uuuh, Live view is through the lens too, It's even better, you get 100% frame coverage..

Theidea that an EVF is superior because it shows you what the sensorsees isn't one I agree with, you wont be able to get a perfectpreview in an EVF anyway.

It will still be better than an OVF, for for example depth of field and exposure, and maybe DR...

Comment #15

Funny this is the reason I just bought a D40X. I have a Canon Powershot S2 and although it has a viewfinder, it's small and useless. Using the LCD screen I found it sometimes( a lot of times) hard to actually compose a shot, especially during sunny days where the screen was washed out..

I find having a good viewfinder such as in the D40X much easier to compose shots..

Paul..

Comment #16

Ringwraith69 wrote:.

Off course you can think of ways where using LiveView could make somekind of sense, if you really wanted to..

2) To me the whole concept of LiveView seems to be the briljantsolution to a problem that many of us never knew existed and stilldon't really see. LiveView can perhaps be useful in 2.5% of allphotographic situations. It's useless with large telelenses, it's nogood for moving objects and on most cameras it's really only a verylimited option. So why bother...?.

I have found it to be useful on large telephoto lenseson a tripod. I have found Live View to be very helpful several times. The first was shooting fireworks as amazing as this may seem. I was at Disney and used the live view to focus on the castle before the show started. I could only do this because I could magnify the castle in Live View to see what I was doing. This proved to be very effective and saved me a bunch of wasted shots..

Second I have used it when doing macro. It is very helpful there as well as doing manual focus in general but NOT hand held..

Other then these I have not found it to be particularly useful. I can think of one location where it would be indispensable, although I have not had the chance to try itunderwater..

MaddogOlympus E-510 and a bunch of stuff to hang on it...

Comment #17

Don't you have a need to check for highlight clipping either via the histogram which is not availible in the optical viewfinder or your 'live-view' display where it is immediately visible?.

I have an S6500 as well and I find live-view essential in high contrast shots to avoid clipped highlights. I rely on the autofocus system to give me the correct focus which it does most of the time. The S6500 does not have a proper mechanical focus ring so I must rely on AF and I agree with you that an optical viewfinder at the moment is the only way to get an accurate manual focus..

Cheers..

Comment #18

This has been hashed over many many times before. Just search (assuming it's working) and see how many times..

Basically, if you like live view, use it. If you don't, then don't use it.Up to you..

The greatest of mankind's criminals are those who delude themselves into thinking they have done 'the right thing.'- Rayna Butler..

Comment #19

I agree!.

Also, in EVERY LV vs non-LV I have seen, there is a LOT of misinformation spewed out..

1. There is a difference in an EVF and an LCD. While and LCD may "wash out" in bright light, the EVF is shielded from ambient light and does not suffer this effect..

2. An OVF does NOT have unlimited resolution. All screens are frosted. This imparts a "grain" to the image. If the screen didn't have the 'grain" you would be seeing an "aerial" image and you could not focus. If you don't understand this, it's understandable.



3. There is no objective evidence that holding a camera tightly, keeping your arms in to your sides, and smashing it against your face produces a more stable camera and thus less blurry images. Everyone "knows" this is true. But it has never been proven. In fact the few objective tests I have seen are inconclusive..

In general, I think people that don't know the difference between an EVF and an LCD, believe that an OVF has unlimited resolution, and that holding a camera tightly solves human induced camera shake are not credible when passing judgement on Live View. .

Charlie DavisNikon 5700, Sony R1, Nikon D300HomePage: http://www.1derful.infoBridge Blog: http://www.here-ugo.com/BridgeBlog/..

Comment #20

Sigezar wrote:.

Pentaxiantrooper wrote:.

Being able to see through the lens in real time is invaluable,.

Uuuh, Live view is through the lens too, It's even better, you get100% frame coverage..

But it's not a pure view through the lens, nor is it real time, both of these are problems for most experienced SLR users. Let's not get started on focusing on ground glass/split image Vs. EVF.

Theidea that an EVF is superior because it shows you what the sensorsees isn't one I agree with, you wont be able to get a perfectpreview in an EVF anyway.

It will still be better than an OVF, for for example depth of fieldand exposure, and maybe DR..

How do you preview exposure in live view, that's something you could only get from taking a still at a given shutter speed, surely. DOF cant be previewed on demand through most SLR viewfinders, would you want to use the EVF permanently stopped down? It isn't better than OVF until the resolution is comparable and that's not going to happen any time soon...

Comment #21

Pentaxiantrooper wrote:.

It will still be better than an OVF, for for example depth of fieldand exposure, and maybe DR..

How do you preview exposure in live view, that's something you couldonly get from taking a still at a given shutter speed, surely..

Uh, no ? The visible image is a good indicator of the actual exposure, think of it as the same as that little exposure meter in an OVF , only for each single part of the image instead of some mean over a few points..

DOFcant be previewed on demand through most SLR viewfinders, would youwant to use the EVF permanently stopped down?.

Why not ? It knows the exposure time, you'd still get a BRIGHT image, unlike with an OVF. Invaluable in macro..

It isn't better thanOVF until the resolution is comparable and that's not going to happenany time soon..

Apples, Oranges. Let's see your OVF zoom to pixel level. What exactly do you need resolution for by the way ? As already stated, manual focus can be achieved by magnification with a much greater accuracy...

Comment #22

Sigezar wrote:.

Pentaxiantrooper wrote:.

It will still be better than an OVF, for for example depth of fieldand exposure, and maybe DR..

How do you preview exposure in live view, that's something you couldonly get from taking a still at a given shutter speed, surely..

Uh, no ? The visible image is a good indicator of the actualexposure, think of it as the same as that little exposure meter in anOVF , only for each single part of the image instead of some meanover a few points..

I don't follow, to preview exposure it would be necessary to take an exposure, something you'd have to do in quick succession or one preview at a time, or are you just suggesting that a view through an EVF will give you an idea of how well lit areas of the frame are? If I want to preview an exposure of 1/8th of a second how's that going to work, do I get a preview once every 8th of a second, or are you getting your terminology confused..

DOFcant be previewed on demand through most SLR viewfinders, would youwant to use the EVF permanently stopped down?.

Why not ? It knows the exposure time, you'd still get a BRIGHT image,unlike with an OVF. Invaluable in macro..

You'd get a gain upped laggy viewfinder image with limited dynamic range and resolution, that just doesn't appeal, sorry. Just out of interest, which camera is it that you're basing all of your claims on, does it exist?.

It isn't better thanOVF until the resolution is comparable and that's not going to happenany time soon..

Apples, Oranges. Let's see your OVF zoom to pixel level. What exactlydo you need resolution for by the way ? As already stated, manualfocus can be achieved by magnification with a much greater accuracy..

If it's apples and oranges then why have this discussion, they're both view finders, the original poster advocated replacing conventional prism/mirror finders completely with EVF, it's worth comparing the two techs directly..

Let's put a viewfinder magnifier on your EVF and see the pixels get bigger, try that on an optical prism/mirror viewfinder with almost unlimited resolution and you can magnify as much as you like with no degradation. Focusing a 50mm or 85mm f1.2 or 1.4 lens wide open in can be tricky enough with a good optical viewfinder, I can't imagine a limited resolution EVF is going to be any use at all, unless you just want to spot focus a tiny central point but somehow that doesn't seem too likely.....

Comment #23

Hi,.

You're right it has been discussed before. I am sorry I did not find it before, I think I did not know the right terms to use in my query. I have now learned that one key term is EVIL .

Anyway, as usual there are lots of insightful comments here, thanks to all..

My impression is that OVF vs EVF is a bit like film vs digital. Today, the quality and features are not quite there so that the OVF can be replaced, but we're closing in..! But sooner or later, technology *will* render OVF obsolete. Still, like film, some folks (in niche areas) will, for various reasons, require it for a long / indefinite time...

Comment #24

Pentaxiantrooper wrote:.

If it's apples and oranges then why have this discussion, they'reboth view finders, the original poster advocated replacingconventional prism/mirror finders completely with EVF, it's worthcomparing the two techs directly..

The OP asked a question about the OVF vs an LCD (on the back of the camera):.

"Wouldn't it be better to get rid of the whole viewfinder/mechanical flapping mirror thing and use the LCD instead?".

You are the one on the soapbox, advocating your anti-EVF POV. You are the one that brought EVF into the discussion. You are possibly the one who doesn't have a clue?.

If Pentax includes LV in the K20D, what brand will you choose? .

Charlie DavisNikon 5700, Sony R1, Nikon D300HomePage: http://www.1derful.infoBridge Blog: http://www.here-ugo.com/BridgeBlog/..

Comment #25

Chuxter wrote:.

Pentaxiantrooper wrote:.

If it's apples and oranges then why have this discussion, they'reboth view finders, the original poster advocated replacingconventional prism/mirror finders completely with EVF, it's worthcomparing the two techs directly..

The OP asked a question about the OVF vs an LCD (on the back of thecamera):.

"Wouldn't it be better to get rid of the whole viewfinder/mechanicalflapping mirror thing and use the LCD instead?".

Ok, and the answer to that question should be obvious.

You are the one on the soapbox, advocating your anti-EVF POV. You arethe one that brought EVF into the discussion. You are possibly theone who doesn't have a clue?.

If we're taking an OVF out of the equation there's going to be nothing but an LCD, OLED or similar display in use for focusing, with all the limitations that brings, this is what i've tried to explain to sigezar, the limited resolution of any LCD screen is an inherent problem and if we're talking about a full 2-3" LCD screen rather than an EVF there's the obvious problem of camera shake from having to hold the thing with outstretched arms..

Does exposure preview in LCD liveview make any more sense than it would in EVF live view?.

Maybe i'm as clueless as he is, more so even, but this isn't about soapboxes, I made a few comments and he jumped immediately to the defence of the EVF and live view, nothing I can say will shake his faith and conviction so I suppose pursuing this discussion further is largely pointless .

If Pentax includes LV in the K20D, what brand will you choose? .

They almost certainly already have, and it's something that I could choose not to use or switch on in situations where it might be advantageous, I don't see the K20D losing it's pentaprism, mirror or focus screen any time soon. There's already a digital depth of field preview in the current range of pentax DSLRs but it's an optional thing, full optical DoF preview is still there too..

If the D300 had come with no eye level viewfinder and just the LCD screen, would you have chosen it?..

Comment #26

Chuxter wrote:.

I agree!.

Also, in EVERY LV vs non-LV I have seen, there is a LOT ofmisinformation spewed out..

And seemingly an awful lot of smugness..

1. There is a difference in an EVF and an LCD. While and LCD may"wash out" in bright light, the EVF is shielded from ambient lightand does not suffer this effect..

2. An OVF does NOT have unlimited resolution. All screens arefrosted. This imparts a "grain" to the image. If the screen didn'thave the 'grain" you would be seeing an "aerial" image and you couldnot focus. If you don't understand this, it's understandable.



And focusing screens have a lower resolution than EVFs or live view LCDs? In normal use a ground glass screen has so much resolution it's not worth worrying about..

3. There is no objective evidence that holding a camera tightly,keeping your arms in to your sides, and smashing it against your faceproduces a more stable camera and thus less blurry images. Everyone"knows" this is true. But it has never been proven. In fact the fewobjective tests I have seen are inconclusive..

Taking photos without the camera braced against your face is one thing, turning the focus or zoom rings and expecting to avoid a lot of wobble from creeping in is another..

In general, I think people that don't know the difference between anEVF and an LCD, believe that an OVF has unlimited resolution, andthat holding a camera tightly solves human induced camera shake arenot credible when passing judgement on Live View. .

So, in your opinion Live View on a 3" LCD or similar is a perfectly good replacement for a ground glass focusing screen, this was, after all, what the original poster proposed. Manually focusing a large telephoto lens with your arms outstretched while eyeballing an LCD screen makes no sense, having the camera up against your face and arms drawn in may not eliminate camera shake but it will certainly make a huge difference, this is obvious. If Manual focus and large lenses isn't an issue then great, there are lots of P&S users who get by with nothing but liveview...

Comment #27

I'd like to have both, but I'd say for me liveview is more important even from the composition perspective. In the film times I always preferred a waist-level finder to direct viewfinder for that reason..

Http://lordofthelens.co.nz/.

(upgrade not quite finished, galleries lack back button)..

Comment #28

Pentaxiantrooper wrote:.

Chuxter wrote:.

Pentaxiantrooper wrote:.

If it's apples and oranges then why have this discussion, they'reboth view finders, the original poster advocated replacingconventional prism/mirror finders completely with EVF, it's worthcomparing the two techs directly..

The OP asked a question about the OVF vs an LCD (on the back of thecamera):.

"Wouldn't it be better to get rid of the whole viewfinder/mechanicalflapping mirror thing and use the LCD instead?".

Ok, and the answer to that question should be obvious.

I agree, but I suspect that YOUR obvious answer is different than MY obvious answer. SO perhaps it's not obvious? However, this is a distraction....

My point was that the OP didn't mention an EVF. He MAY have been thinking about an EVF, but he didn't ask about it. You and other posters ASSUMED that he was thinking EVF and responded...using LCD and EVF interchangeably!.

You are the one on the soapbox, advocating your anti-EVF POV. You arethe one that brought EVF into the discussion. You are possibly theone who doesn't have a clue?.

If we're taking an OVF out of the equation there's going to benothing but an LCD, OLED or similar display in use for focusing, withall the limitations that brings, this is what i've tried to explainto sigezar, the limited resolution of any LCD screen is an inherentproblem and if we're talking about a full 2-3" LCD screen rather thanan EVF there's the obvious problem of camera shake from having tohold the thing with outstretched arms..

Making broad generalized condemnations, such as, "...limited resolution of any LCD screen is an inherent problem..." is usually wrong. I doubt that you have looked through more than a couple of EVFs. Do you have reason to believe that ALL other EVFs are the same as the one(s) you personally experienced? Can you quote a reputable testing organization that has data on ALL EVF implementations, with specs like resolution, refresh rate, brightness, viewing angle, eye relief, etc?.

Does exposure preview in LCD liveview make any more sense than itwould in EVF live view?.

People differ on this. The dumb ones think the LCD is the way to do it. The ones that have a clue know that the EVF is the only way to view real-time-data. .

I actually think BOTH are good, at different times, with different conditions. However, the LCD should both flip and twist... .

Maybe i'm as clueless as he is, more so even, but this isn't aboutsoapboxes, I made a few comments and he jumped immediately to thedefence of the EVF and live view, nothing I can say will shake hisfaith and conviction so I suppose pursuing this discussion further islargely pointless .

Probably. You both dug your heels in....

If Pentax includes LV in the K20D, what brand will you choose? .

They almost certainly already have, and it's something that I couldchoose not to use or switch on in situations where it might beadvantageous, I don't see the K20D losing it's pentaprism, mirror orfocus screen any time soon. There's already a digital depth of fieldpreview in the current range of pentax DSLRs but it's an optionalthing, full optical DoF preview is still there too..

I'm curious to see how their LV screen in the optical path works and is accepted. Sooner or later, somebody will make this work...it's the BEST of both sides of the argument..

If the D300 had come with no eye level viewfinder and just the LCDscreen, would you have chosen it?.

No, but if it had a proper EVF instead of an OVF...plus that great LCD on the back, I would have proceeded. If they also did a proper LV with histogram in the EVF I would have paid more and been overjoyed to do so. If they had made the LCD on the back flip and twist, I probably would have had an orgasm before I got to the store? .

Charlie DavisNikon 5700, Sony R1, Nikon D300HomePage: http://www.1derful.infoBridge Blog: http://www.here-ugo.com/BridgeBlog/..

Comment #29

Pentaxiantrooper wrote:.

Chuxter wrote:.

I agree!.

Also, in EVERY LV vs non-LV I have seen, there is a LOT ofmisinformation spewed out..

And seemingly an awful lot of smugness..

I think that's true...on both sides. I will readily admit that I'm more advanced in my thinking than you are. You simply haven't the vision to anticipate how good this will get in a few years. Alternately, you simply have not been fortunate to experience a camera with a good LV implementation, probably because you look down your nose at all the good ones, because they were lowly P&S cameras..

However, I don't have a clue what your DC history has been...I just know that you hang out in the Pentax SLR Forum...and what you act like. I may be clueless too? You may not be a wild-eyed Pentax fanboi... .

1. There is a difference in an EVF and an LCD. While and LCD may"wash out" in bright light, the EVF is shielded from ambient lightand does not suffer this effect..

2. An OVF does NOT have unlimited resolution. All screens arefrosted. This imparts a "grain" to the image. If the screen didn'thave the 'grain" you would be seeing an "aerial" image and you couldnot focus. If you don't understand this, it's understandable.



And focusing screens have a lower resolution than EVFs or live viewLCDs? In normal use a ground glass screen has so much resolution it'snot worth worrying about..

I disagree. Nobody has, to my knowledge ever reported on the size of the grain on SLR screens. I suspect, that they vary a lot...the better, more expensive cameras have a finer grain to the screen. It sure looks like that to me. I "think" I can see the grain in my D300 screen...but not sure. I also think I can see the individual dots in the LCD screen, but again, I'm not sure.

It will look as good as the OVF. I agree that we haven't seen many of those yet (the A2 is the only one I remember), but we are close..

3. There is no objective evidence that holding a camera tightly,keeping your arms in to your sides, and smashing it against your faceproduces a more stable camera and thus less blurry images. Everyone"knows" this is true. But it has never been proven. In fact the fewobjective tests I have seen are inconclusive..

Taking photos without the camera braced against your face is onething, turning the focus or zoom rings and expecting to avoid a lotof wobble from creeping in is another..

Most photographers don't take pix WHILE focusing and zooming. They normally zoom, focus, and capture, in that order..

In general, I think people that don't know the difference between anEVF and an LCD, believe that an OVF has unlimited resolution, andthat holding a camera tightly solves human induced camera shake arenot credible when passing judgement on Live View. .

So, in your opinion Live View on a 3" LCD or similar is a perfectlygood replacement for a ground glass focusing screen, this was, afterall, what the original poster proposed..

Yes, that is a good replacement if the resolution is like on the D300/D3..

Manually focusing a largetelephoto lens with your arms outstretched while eyeballing an LCDscreen makes no sense, having the camera up against your face andarms drawn in may not eliminate camera shake but it will certainlymake a huge difference, this is obvious. If Manual focus and largelenses isn't an issue then great, there are lots of P&S users who getby with nothing but liveview..

When I hand-hold my 70-200, I use AF and use the OVF. When I add the 1.4X TC, I put it on a tripod and use the LCD (with LV-Tripod mode). BUT, if the camera had an EVF with VGA resolution, it would be better than it is now. I would have the CHOICE of which viewer to use....

Before you pounce, I'll admit that there is another hurdle for EVFs...the refresh rate is currently too slow...as we get more pixels on these little screens, the refresh rate tends to drop. Duh....

The first step is for people like Phil to start measuring and reporting the refresh rate of the LCDs, especially on the dSLRs that have LV. At this juncture, most users don't have a clue. By reporting it, we'll slowly educate them that refresh rate is something that should be considered. The worst part of this is that in dim light, cameras need more time to gather photons. And this results in the video stream to the LCD getting slower. The result is jerky motion due to the slow frame rate.

So far, nobody in marketing has this issue on their radar screen. When they do, the engineerrs can solve it. It's easy and cheap, but it requires the sensor to be designed differently...a system level solution..

I'd like Phil and others, like Dave Etchells to measure the angle of view, the brightness, the eye relief, the resolution, etc on ALL kinds of VF. With this data, we can objectively compare these solutions..

Charlie DavisNikon 5700, Sony R1, Nikon D300HomePage: http://www.1derful.infoBridge Blog: http://www.here-ugo.com/BridgeBlog/..

Comment #30

Click Here to View All...

Sponsored Amazon Deals:

1. Get big savings on Amazon warehouse deals.
2. Save up to 70% on Amazon Products.


This question was taken from a support group/message board and re-posted here so others can learn from it.

 

Categories: Home | Diet & Weight Management | Vitamins & Supplements | Herbs & Cleansing |

Sexual Health | Medifast Support | Nutrisystem Support | Medifast Questions |

Web Hosting | Web Hosts | Website Hosting | Hosting |

Web Hosting | GoDaddy | Digital Cameras | Best WebHosts |

Web Hosting FAQ | Web Hosts FAQ | Hosting FAQ | Hosting Group |

Hosting Questions | Camera Tips | Best Cameras To Buy | Best Cameras This Year |

Camera Q-A | Digital Cameras Q-A | Camera Forum | Nov 2010 - Cameras |

Oct 2010 - Cameras | Oct 2010 - DSLRs | Oct 2010 - Camera Tips | Sep 2010 - Cameras |

Sep 2010 - DSLRS | Sep 2010 - Camera Tips | Aug 2010 - Cameras | Aug 2010 - DSLR Tips |

Aug 2010 - Camera Tips | July 2010 - Cameras | July 2010 - Nikon Cameras | July 2010 - Canon Cameras |

July 2010 - Pentax Cameras | Medifast Recipes | Medifast Recipes Tips | Medifast Recipes Strategies |

Medifast Recipes Experiences | Medifast Recipes Group | Medifast Recipes Forum | Medifast Support Strategies |

Medifast Support Experiences |

 

(C) Copyright 2010 All rights reserved.