EVF v/s OVF

Somone in G1XM2 thread mentioned below and I thought I will open this discussion as to what everyone thinks about the EVF v/s OVF.

...If you want an OVF that badly, then go back to using DSLRs from the dinosaur age. EVFs and mirrorless cameras are the future....

I for one disagree with that statement. I don't think EVFs (of today) can easily be replaced for OVF. It might, but not just yet.

rndman wrote in post #16691124
Somone in G1XM2 thread mentioned below and I thought I will open this discussion as to what everyone thinks about the EVF v/s OVF.

...If you want an OVF that badly, then go back to using DSLRs from the dinosaur age. EVFs and mirrorless cameras are the future....

I for one disagree with that statement. I don't think EVFs (of today) can easily be replaced for OVF. It might, but not just yet.

The main unsolved issue with electronic viewfinders is image lag. The current generation of EVF-equipped cameras have a small but significant viewfinder delay.

For those who choose to gather images of moving subjects, this is a flaw. The tracking of subjects traveling laterally across your field of view requires absolute real-time location of the subject in the viewfinder. If what you see in the viewfinder is delayed for even a minor fraction of a second, you're likely to miss a shot.

Others will mention issues with EVF response to rapidly changing or very dim light, of course.

However, until viewfinder lag is resolved, EVF's won't be suitable for moving subjects.

^ yep, that's the primary flaw, and I don't think it's something that can ever be "fixed". Why? Because light travels at the speed of light. The photons aren't going to get to you any quicker. It either bounces at lightspeed off a mirror into a prism and into your eyeball, or it hits a "sensor", then you wait for it to be converted to electronic signals and be processed, and then have that converted into an image and projected up on a LCD. There will ALWAYS be a lag, which makes it ill-suited for certain types of photography.

But if all you do ever is shoot in studio, stock photography, posed portraits, then EVF will be pretty dandy to have.

rndman wrote in post #16691124
Somone in G1XM2 thread mentioned below and I thought I will open this discussion as to what everyone thinks about the EVF v/s OVF.

...If you want an OVF that badly, then go back to using DSLRs from the dinosaur age. EVFs and mirrorless cameras are the future....

I for one disagree with that statement. I don't think EVFs (of today) can easily be replaced for OVF. It might, but not just yet.

Well, despite what you may have seen on The Flintstones, dinosaurs did not actually use cameras.

As for the question asked, I'm not sure why people are trying to generate some kind of holy war about camera design.

For a number of years, SLR type cameras have been dominant for most types of photography because they have several advantages when it comes to composition and focus.

Digital cameras are now allowing alternatives beyond the older options of rangefinders and such. I expect some genres of photography will find these new digitals to be perfect for their needs.

If we reach a point where EVFs have no lag and the cameras that use them have some focus system that is as good or better than phase detect on a separate AF sensor, then that will probably become the dominant form.

In good light, the top EVFs work well. WYSIWYG is great shooting available light. In low light, EVF is great that it can see better than you can, making it easier to see what you're looking at, but they lag pretty bad, especially if you're panning or something like that.
OVF is still superior for motion. Vastly superior. When light is good or indoor at dusk level, OVF is still crystal clear and no lag. EVF only wins when it is so low light that you have trouble seeing what you're aiming at.

They both have advantages and disadvantages but there is no way the OVF is going away anytime soon. The tech just isn't there for EVF yet. OVF vs EVF is just like the mirrorless vs DSLR argument. Pretty much irrelevant to anyone who knows that a camera is just a tool and not a religion :/

There are also problems with limited dynamic range of the viewfinder image, and battery consumption.

I can shoot over 1,500 photos on my 6D using the viewfinder and IS on the lens, with a single battery charge. When the camera is in live view mode, that number drops by a huge amount. Then there is also the problem of sensor heat which can make your high ISO shots look worse.

In an ideal world there would be an accessory for the Canon DSLR hotshoe with an EVF for those who want the option.

Another issue is cooking your sensor when doing landscape tripod shots looking into the sun. With an OVF, this is no issue. With EVF, this could potentially fry the sensor.

EVF's are great, but for me the look of an optical VF is still much better. It's just more natural to view your subject through your own eyes and not via a monitor, no matter how nice that monitor may be, it's still a monitor and we're a long way off from them looking as good as what your own eye can see. Even 4k TV's are still electronic images, it's not the same as looking out a window.

EVF's will definitely not replace OVF cameras. I think they'll definitely supplement them, but to say that DSLR's have no future is blatantly false imo.

Canon_Lover wrote in post #16691679
There are also problems with limited dynamic range of the viewfinder image, and battery consumption.

Which viewfinder? The O or the E. The O is pretty dark around dusk but the E can see stuff a whole lot later in the day. I often can't see much detail in the shadows in the OVF on a sunny day. WIth the E you can zoom in for critical focus (just like LiveView) and you can see a live histogram superimposed etc etc. It's another compromise issue.

Canon_Lover wrote in post #16691679
I can shoot over 1,500 photos on my 6D using the viewfinder and IS on the lens, with a single battery charge. When the camera is in live view mode, that number drops by a huge amount.

I have several batteries

Canon_Lover wrote in post #16691679
In an ideal world there would be an accessory for the Canon DSLR hotshoe with an EVF for those who want the option.

That's what the LCD on the back is for (and yes things like the Hoodman allow you to hold the thing to your eye, and use it like the OVF).

Canon_Lover wrote in post #16691679
Another issue is cooking your sensor when doing landscape tripod shots looking into the sun. With an OVF, this is no issue. With EVF, this could potentially fry the sensor.

Just like the sun can give you a blind spot through the OVF.

My only point is there are pros and cons of both, and they balance differently for different shooting styles. I'm still hoping for (but not really expecting) a hybrid. The EVF is on one face of the pentaprism and comes on when the mirror is up. (Or can be switched on and superimpose whatever you like onto the optical image) Then the only issue is the image lag for motion shots but those often/usually have enough light that the OVF is an OK solution. And the lag will go down over time - people have lived with a lag in videocameras for a while now. Oh, wait, digital cameras these days are videocameras too

Thank you all. Good discussion and info. I did not think of the lag in EVF till now, was just thinking purely in terms of the natural view..

EverydayGetaway wrote in post #16691707
EVF's are great, but for me the look of an optical VF is still much better. It's just more natural to view your subject through your own eyes and not via a monitor, no matter how nice that monitor may be, it's still a monitor and we're a long way off from them looking as good as what your own eye can see. Even 4k TV's are still electronic images, it's not the same as looking out a window.

EVF's will definitely not replace OVF cameras. I think they'll definitely supplement them, but to say that DSLR's have no future is blatantly false imo.

Give it 5 years and you won't see new cameras with OVF. I've watched the emergence of evf over the last few years and they have made leaps and bounds over what they were just a few years ago. Who needs the extra bulk and weight required for the OVF. There is so much more information that can be displayed on a EVF and the only real issue today that needs to be solved is the lag.

Concerns of image quality aside, EVF lag is one of my biggest complaints. I think the hybrid OVF with EVF elements/overlays are the right step forward for now but some day they may get the lag worked down to a small enough amount to not matter.

Hogloff wrote in post #16692130
Who needs the extra bulk and weight required for the OVF. There is so much more information that can be displayed on a EVF and the only real issue today that needs to be solved is the lag.

Yeah, the weight of the pentaprism can instead be replaced by the weight of a battery to offset the loss of operational capacity due to greater drain on the battery by the EVF.

EVF is no different from Live View...and we know what Live View does for noise (due to heat generation in the sensor) and for battery life (providing power to the display).

To me, there's nothing superior to an OVF. Though, I'd rather have a decent EVF than be forced to use an LCD. The camera has to be to my eye.

I've used some of the latest Sony EVFs. They don't offer me a single thing that I need or desire over OVF. Sure I can cram a bunch of info into the viewfinder and block my view, but I don't wish to.

For landscape photography, they offer really nothing an OVF and LCD LV combo can provide. I have no problems using my LCD display in even the brightest light. I can also compose images under starlight using a f2.8 lens with the OVF, with not much problem.

It would be nice if Canon DSLR cameras would apply more gain to the LV LCD though. I think Sony and others do a little better in this regard.

evf definitely has some really cool advantages like peaking and general displaying. If that can be implemented into an OVF, that would be awesome. OVF with some sort of peeking or histogram would be great.