CCC Forum

DPReview asked its staffers fo their opinions and got a range of answers.

https://www.dpreview.com/opinion/965163 ... viewfinder

What do others prefer?

17 reads at the time of writing and no one appears to have a view* either way. I'll answer my own question.

The best EVF I have ever looked through was on a Leica SL. It is the closest to the reality of an OVF which I have seen. Besides the obvious issue, the camera and native lenses are just too large and heavy. Even if I could afford the SL, I would be reluctant to carry it around.

The least satisfactory EVF I have used was on a Panasonic G3, largely because the colours were so muted. Until I got used to it, I found myself composing the scene, then taking my eye from the viewfinder to see how it really looked.

Normally, I prefer an EVF, mainly due to the abllity to see level and histogram information. Of the two, level is more useful. Like many people, I find I do not always instinctively hold the camera straight. Unfortunately, the E-M10 does not allow me to see both at the same time. I am not sure if Olympus has fixed this in its latest cameras, but it is a quirk given how configurable their cameras are otherwise.

Fuji does present both level and histogram simultaneously. The two cameras I use, X-Pro1 and X-E2, have older technology which limits their utility. The EVF in the X-Pro1 is not very bright, which makes it difficult to see in anything other than dull conditions. Fortunately, it also has an OVF on which level and histogram information can be overlaid. However, the OVF does not zoom and the frame lines simply get smaller or bigger as focl length changes. There is a magnification option, but the system is best suited to shorter focal lengths. The other issue with the X-Pro1's EVF is lag, which is significant. Trying to compose when something is moving in the scene is fraught with difficulty because what you are seeing is ancient history.

The X-E2 is better, being brighter, but the lag issue is not wholly resolved. Still, it is good enough for much of what I do. (Subtle humour there. ) Fuji does seem to have improved things with the X-T2, which has an EVF which approaches the one the one in the Leica SL. I have not done a side by side comparison, but I suspect the Leica is better as it has a higher resolution. The X-T2 eclipses F'uji's other current models, which would make it my choice if I were buying.

*

The EVF on the sony A7 series makes me feel like iron man but in terms of what I actually prefer to use, OVF. Yet to find an EVF that is better.

davidc wrote:Yet to find an EVF that is better.

I would agree that EVFs have yet to match OVFs in the way that they render the scene, but I find that the additional information they provide makes up for that. Now that I have got used to using an EVF, I do not really notice that I am looking at what is essentially a TV screen. Until something moves and the frame rate cannot keep up, but that is rarely an issue for the majority of my photography. Inevitably, there will always be a slight lag with an EVF and for action shots an OVF remains the better option.

I'm not sure they provide much more in the way of useful info that an OVF doesn't?
Aperture, shutter, iso, exposure compensation - what else changes so rapidly that you need a constant reminder of how it's set?

Sometimes I think EVF's are guilty of the "we can show it, so we will" mentality when it's not something we need or benefit from.

The only EVF I used frequently is the X100S and that's because the OVF suffers from parallax issues when you're near your subject. It's fine, but given the choice I'd rather not use it and save some battery.

davidc wrote:I'm not sure they provide much more in the way of useful info that an OVF doesn't?

It depends whether you can handhold a camera exactly straight. I can't, so the level indicator often comes in handy and saves fiddling with horizons etc. later in post capture.

davidc wrote:Aperture, shutter, iso, exposure compensation - what else changes so rapidly that you need a constant reminder of how it's set?

A live histogram is helpful, especially in avoiding blown highlights. As one example, I would have found it beneficial when I was shooting the hockey yesterday and had everything set manually. Generally exposure was consistent as it was an overcast day, but occasionally the sun broke through and I had to guess the new ISO setting. Admittedly that could have been avoided if auto ISO on the camera was less crudely implemented and allowed a minimum shutter speed to be specified. I could then have shot using aperture priority.