Lack of EVF on DSLRs to change?

Discussion in 'Digital SLR' started by Rich, Jan 8, 2006.

  1. Rich

    Skip M Guest

    There's a difference. EVF really doesn't give any advantage over an optical
    viewfinder, with the possible exception of brightness stopped down. And
    that would be artificial, so I'm not sure how much I'd trust it.
    Calling people "idiots," (I fixed your typo) is a great way to influence
    people. I'll say the same thing about EVFs that I said about digital. I'll
    make the change when it does something for me that the present technology
    doesn't. Unlike digital, I don't see it doing that in the foreseeable
    future.
     
    Skip M, Jan 10, 2006
    #21
    1. Advertisements

  2. Rich

    eawckyegcy Guest

    Any EVF would (a) cost more (b) consume power (c) suffer from noise (d)
    present the eyeball with less dynamic range. Even if (a), (c) and (d)
    were utterly solved (zero cost, zero noise, infinite DR), the fact that
    an EVF consumes power makes it a complete non-starter as an idea. I've
    sat at my eyepiece for, literally, hours -- and I'm hardly alone in
    this.

    Basically, you've come up with yet another braindead idea. If it was
    even yours to begin with.
     
    eawckyegcy, Jan 10, 2006
    #22
    1. Advertisements

  3. Rich

    JPS Guest

    In message <dpukpk$nfi$>,
    What about tomorrow's EVFs?

    What if they were 1.3MP?
    --
     
    JPS, Jan 10, 2006
    #23
  4. Rich

    JPS Guest

    In message <080120061313176334%>,
    With a 1.3MP EVF, I don't think you'd be going backwards. I doubt the
    average ground glass screen delivers more than 1 MP worth of resolution.
    --
     
    JPS, Jan 10, 2006
    #24
  5. Rich

    JPS Guest

    In message <>,
    Optical viewfinders suck. They are dark, caorse, and have grainy dark
    areas all over them.

    I would welcome an EVF with 1.3MP resolution, if no other compromises
    were made.
    --
     
    JPS, Jan 10, 2006
    #25
  6. Rich

    JPS Guest

    In message <>,
    No, but they are made possible by the same sensor technology. You'll
    likely see both on the same camera.
    --
     
    JPS, Jan 10, 2006
    #26
  7. Rich

    JPS Guest

    In message <>,
    I agree. Who would like to view images on their computer with ground
    glass in front of the screen, with the same total resolution and
    darkness of the ones in an SLR?

    People are making judgements based on current common technology. A
    1.3MP EVF would probably be sharper than matte glass, and definitely
    brighter in low light.
    --
     
    JPS, Jan 10, 2006
    #27
  8. Rich

    eawckyegcy Guest

    Power is power, and not subject to technological change. A dSLR just
    sitting there on a tripod consumes microamps of current while the
    photographer is monitoring the action. An EVF would convert this
    situation into a few hundred milliamps. For what gain? At the least
    you'll have to provide a optical, zero-power, mode. This is easy with
    dinky P&S's: it's just another hole and some cheap plastic lenses.
    (My Optio 43WR has one, and a mode that shuts off the LCD viewfinder
    for power-savings). It's not so easy with a dSLR.

    Now if you are complaining about the quality of your viewfinders, yes,
    the Canon 10D and 20D have pretty horrible viewfinders. The Canon 1
    series cameras are better. But for the best of all (at least as far as
    I have tried), you need to look at (or I guess through) Nikon.
     
    eawckyegcy, Jan 10, 2006
    #28
  9. Rich

    RichA Guest

    Either show me where I said anything of the kind about today's EVFs or
    learn to read,
    your choice.
     
    RichA, Jan 10, 2006
    #29
  10. Rich

    Jeremy Nixon Guest

    Not all of them. The ones in lower-end cameras are a bit lacking, but
    still better than an EVF. However, looking through a D2X is massively
    different from looking through a D70; try a pro-level body before you
    dismiss optical viewfinders.
    I'm not seeing the advantage. I wouldn't want to have to look at an
    EVF, especially when it's dark; it's rather uncomfortable. And manually
    focusing is bad enough with the manufacturers failing to provide focusing
    screens with microprisms or whatever. I wouldn't want to have to live
    with trying to focus on an EVF, especially with my eyes already being
    strained from looking at the thing.

    I can certainly *imagine* a hypothetical EVF that would be good, but
    I've never seen one anywhere near that and the technology for it doesn't
    exist. I'd rather go in the direction of having an LCD superimposed
    over the optical finder showing a real-time histogram, or something
    along those lines, until the time comes when an EVF can be made that
    actually gives some kind of advantage over an optical viewfinder.

    And then there's the power drain. I don't want that, either, especially
    since newer SLRs seem to be getting *less* battery life (the D2X doesn't
    last as long as the D70, and apparently the D200 has even less).
     
    Jeremy Nixon, Jan 10, 2006
    #30
  11. I saw one just a couple months ago on a brand new camera and it was
    shit. You've got an optical viewfinder already with a DSLR. You don't
    need a little TV to look at.
     
    Randall Ainsworth, Jan 10, 2006
    #31
  12. Rich

    Jim Guest

    1.3 MP is a long way from my optical SLR viewfinder.....
     
    Jim, Jan 10, 2006
    #32
  13. Rich

    Jim Guest

    On 2006-01-08 14:15:35 -0500, Rich <> said:


    I ditto.. the reason I don't own a P&S digital is no optical finder.
    EVF today is useless.
    Maybe someday a 500.000 pixel EVF will be available.. but seeingas 14
    MP seams to the the stretch I am not holding my breath.
     
    Jim, Jan 10, 2006
    #33
  14. Dunno about that, I just don't like the current crop of them - too dark when
    the light is low, at least to my eyes. I'll stick to the optical
    viewfinders. It was a pleasure to finally get a DSLR two years ago and have
    a good OVF.
     
    Peter A. Stavrakoglou, Jan 10, 2006
    #34
  15. The Konica-Minolta A2 advertises a 900,000 pixel EVF, which was actually
    VGA resolution (640 x 480 x RGB pixels). I owned one of these cameras
    briefly and using the EVF was a pleasant experience. I do find the
    present EVFs even on top-of-the-range cameras disappointing.

    David
     
    David J Taylor, Jan 10, 2006
    #35
  16. Rich

    Charles Self Guest

    Pentax, at least the D, is better. IMO.
     
    Charles Self, Jan 10, 2006
    #36
  17. Rich

    Charles Self Guest

    And it is still in the category known as "speculative." And as others have
    mentioned, that EVF is going to give a big boost to the battery industry,
    and reduce the number of shots per charge on DSLRs. At the moment, I'm
    getting an easy 700-800 shots with NiMH and 1400 or more with CVR3s in my
    *istD. It has an excellent OVF.

    Would I be interested in half that viewing quality with a 1.3 MP EVF, and,
    maybe, a third that number of shots? Nope.
     
    Charles Self, Jan 10, 2006
    #37
  18. I think the first question is whether the main sensor is going to be used for
    EVF or an auxiliary sensor. Current sensors in DSLRs cannot provide the
    20 fps or more you need to frame fast action using an EVF. Adding support
    for a video mode is likely to reduce dynamic range, increase noise, etc.
    The next problem is that AF systems in DSLRs depend on the mirror being down.
    Using video from the sensor is not ideal for autofocus.

    An alternative design is to replace the prism with an auxiliary sensor. The
    reintroduction of removable finders would it possible to chose between an
    optical finder and an EVF, even in the field.

    The disadvantage is of course that the EVF does not show what the real sensor
    sees (but with a image review in the EVF that should not be a big problem).

    What sort of surprises me (given the apparent demand for EVFs) is that nobody
    builds cameras with P&S style sensors and viewfinders, but with an SLR style
    mount.

    A body with the same sensor as the Sony R1 but with a Nikon mount would quite
    interesting for applications where you don't want to look through the
    viewfinder.
     
    Philip Homburg, Jan 10, 2006
    #38
  19. Rich

    Charles Self Guest

    Years ago--more than 30, in both cases--Miranda and Canon both had slide off
    pentaprisms. Waist level shooting was easy with those, as was ground level
    and overhead. I'm not at all sure what even the upcoming crop of EVFs will
    offer that a slide off pentaprism doesn't, except, maybe, dust free
    operation. I shot a lot of film with my old Canon, much of it with the
    pentaprism in my pocket or bag, and never had a dust problem, so it
    shouldn't add to dust hassles today, either.

    The biggest problem with such old technology is not that it doesn't work,
    but that it's not new. Marketing departments are afraid it will bite them in
    the ass, so to speak, so no one is willing to try it.
     
    Charles Self, Jan 10, 2006
    #39
  20. Nikon still offers a finder for that kind of work for the F5: the DW-30.
    I think it offers a lot of freedom to place a camera in one place and
    to control the whole situation from somewhere else. With a motorized pan/tilt
    head, you may be able to watch a dangerous animal approach your camera
    from a distance.

    The current solution is to attach a small camera to the eye-piece of the
    (D)SLR. No doubt, in few years, a camera manufacturer suddenly invents
    a finder with a built-in camera.
     
    Philip Homburg, Jan 10, 2006
    #40
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.