The GetDPI Photography Forum

Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!

OVF vs EVF

Shashin

Well-known member
Ultimately, it is not what you see in your viewfinder, but what others see in your pictures...
 

Godfrey

Well-known member
Ultimately, it is not what you see in your viewfinder, but what others see in your pictures...
Yes.

I have cameras with optical tunnel viewfinders, coupled rf viewfinders, single lens reflex viewfinders, waist level ground glass viewfinders, and various forms of liquid crystal display viewfinders, both eye level and "reading distance", on my many different cameras. They all work just fine for different things, all have their advantages and disadvantages. I'm just as "in the moment" when I'm shooting, and not distracted, with all of them. My subjects neither know nor care what kind of viewfinder I'm using. Most hardly even know when the exposures are made. That's when I know I'm in the groove and have achieved a proper rapport with my subject, if I'm making portraits.

The point is to concentrate on what you're doing. If you do that, the type of viewfinder should not matter at all if it achieves providing you a usable view of the subject you are trying to shoot in the conditions that you're making photos in.

G
 

pegelli

Well-known member
For framing nothing other than functional fingers/hands are needed.


(If you train yourself to “see” in the FL you are working, even that is unnecessary)
Maybe a fuctional eye can come in handy as well. ;)
In the end I think it's all about the accuracy required. :clap:
 

Jorgen Udvang

Subscriber Member
Maybe a fuctional eye can come in handy as well. ;)
In the end I think it's all about the accuracy required. :clap:
I prefer EVF for work and OVF for photography. The EVF has many practical advantages and helps me work faster when needed. It does disconnect me from the scene though, and once I don't do this stuff as part of my income, and economy permits, I'll probably replace or supplement my EVF cameras with a DSLR. It should be a lightweight camera though, and the only two that qualify for that and offer great optical viewfinders are the Df and the D500. No, I can't afford a Leica M.
 
V

Vivek

Guest
BTW, FWIW, EVFs are tiny high resolution LCDs with an OVF in front of them.
 

PeterA

Well-known member
I can understand people's personal preferences based on experience and idiosyncratic preferences for workflow - I have totally removed mirror slap from my photographic bugbears and hopefully soon enough shutter slap will go the same way.

btw, perhaps as a philosophical digression and in response to a common statement that is generally agreed to without little if any opposing opinon

- I totally disagree with the notion thet "what matters is what other people see by way of finished image"

I'm not an artist hoping to sell something to someone, nor do I do much commercial work - therefore other people's expectations, reactions, opinions have little to no utility or amenity or relevance - photography for me is a one of the few things I can indulge in - without reference to expectations - except my own self direction and my own judgement. the journey, the practice, the experience, the gestalt if you like is what it is all about for me and always has been.

I suspect this is true for most amateurs to a greater or lessor extent and if not - how sad.
 

ptomsu

Workshop Member
I prefer EVF for work and OVF for photography. The EVF has many practical advantages and helps me work faster when needed. It does disconnect me from the scene though, and once I don't do this stuff as part of my income, and economy permits, I'll probably replace or supplement my EVF cameras with a DSLR. It should be a lightweight camera though, and the only two that qualify for that and offer great optical viewfinders are the Df and the D500. No, I can't afford a Leica M.
D500 should be the way to go! I also thought already about adding one of these to my arsenal for when I want to shoot DSLR. Especially if I decide to take a Z7 for going the FF mirrorless path ....
 

Godfrey

Well-known member
...
I totally disagree with the notion thet "what matters is what other people see by way of finished image"
...
Although it might seem like a contradiction, I agree with that too. When I'm speaking as a person using a tool, any tool, the specific qualities of the tool are the important thing. "I like some cameras ... I don't like others" ... translates to "Not all cameras are the same or work the way I want to work."

However, it is difficult to make these kinds of generalizations water tight when it comes to discussing "types of things." For instance, the EVF on one camera may be a total POC, but on another camera it might work exactly the way you want and expect. Same for OVF differences between cameras ... I recall a few film SLRs that the viewfinder was worse than staring through a coke bottle bottom, and others that were superb, clear, ideal matches for my eyesight. Examples: The Leica IIIf viewfinder was a misery, the Leica M-D viewfinder is clarity itself. Et cetera. The Panasonic FZ10 EVF was so slow on refresh that birds in flight (and small aircraft!) disappeared, the Leica SL viewfinder is so good that it helps me see birds in flight that I otherwise don't see. The Nikon F viewfinder is sharp and clear to the point that I can focus anywhere on a matte fresnel focusing screen without focusing aids and always nail the focus perfectly; the Konica Autoreflex-T viewfinder from the same era was so weirdly unable for me to focus that even just looking through it for five minutes gave me a headache. And on, and on ...

Which is why I have a bunch of cameras with many different kinds of viewfinders, all of which I like. I chose to keep them out of all the other cameras of similar types that I tried and didn't like. These work the way I want and expect. :D

G
 

jdphoto

Well-known member
I prefer EVF for work and OVF for photography. The EVF has many practical advantages and helps me work faster when needed. It does disconnect me from the scene though, and once I don't do this stuff as part of my income, and economy permits, I'll probably replace or supplement my EVF cameras with a DSLR. It should be a lightweight camera though, and the only two that qualify for that and offer great optical viewfinders are the Df and the D500. No, I can't afford a Leica M.
I'm very curious about the DF. I like the styling,especially black. but have never held one yet. Also, at 16mp might it be considered a FF fat pixel sensor?
 

Jack

Sr. Administrator
Staff member
Search the forum for the Df thread -- GREAT body. Something about that sensor renders in a very film-like fashion, reminiscent of say a Vericolor 100 palette... It also has very good high ISO capability.
 

Steen

Senior Subscriber Member

Search the forum for the Df thread -- GREAT body. Something about that sensor renders in a very film-like fashion, reminiscent of say a Vericolor 100 palette... It also has very good high ISO capability.

Here's the link to the Nikon Df thread - in my opinion one of the most funny and passionate conversations we have had about a rumored new camera model.

https://www.getdpi.com/forum/nikon/49079-digital-nikon-fm2.html

Nikon ought to pay careful attention to the amount and reason of excitement and expectations that camera generated, more than anything else I can recall.

.
 

pegelli

Well-known member




Here's the link to the Nikon Df thread - in my opinion one of the most funny and passionate conversations we have had about a rumored new camera model.

https://www.getdpi.com/forum/nikon/49079-digital-nikon-fm2.html

Nikon ought to pay careful attention to the amount and reason of excitement and expectations that camera generated, more than anything else I can recall.

.
Thanks for the link, and indeed an interesting discussion.

I think the most landmark post on the first page is Jorgen predicting the Nikon Z6/7 more than five years ago :ROTFL:
 

doug

Well-known member
I'm 100% EVF.

After using the Leicaflex SL, the OVF of DSLR viewfinders never impressed me. A good EVF isn't as pleasant a view as the Leicaflex but it's far more functional.
 

Jorgen Udvang

Subscriber Member
Thanks for the link, and indeed an interesting discussion.

I think the most landmark post on the first page is Jorgen predicting the Nikon Z6/7 more than five years ago :ROTFL:
That's actually pretty funny, particularly since I say "Me, I would prefer a full frame V2 with an FM2 user interface and AF with AF-S Nikkors".

Here's the V2 and the Z7:

 

Photon42

Well-known member
Although it might seem like a contradiction, I agree with that too. When I'm speaking as a person using a tool, any tool, the specific qualities of the tool are the important thing. "I like some cameras ... I don't like others" ... translates to "Not all cameras are the same or work the way I want to work."

However, it is difficult to make these kinds of generalizations water tight when it comes to discussing "types of things." For instance, the EVF on one camera may be a total POC, but on another camera it might work exactly the way you want and expect. Same for OVF differences between cameras ... I recall a few film SLRs that the viewfinder was worse than staring through a coke bottle bottom, and others that were superb, clear, ideal matches for my eyesight. Examples: The Leica IIIf viewfinder was a misery, the Leica M-D viewfinder is clarity itself. Et cetera. The Panasonic FZ10 EVF was so slow on refresh that birds in flight (and small aircraft!) disappeared, the Leica SL viewfinder is so good that it helps me see birds in flight that I otherwise don't see. The Nikon F viewfinder is sharp and clear to the point that I can focus anywhere on a matte fresnel focusing screen without focusing aids and always nail the focus perfectly; the Konica Autoreflex-T viewfinder from the same era was so weirdly unable for me to focus that even just looking through it for five minutes gave me a headache. And on, and on ...

Which is why I have a bunch of cameras with many different kinds of viewfinders, all of which I like. I chose to keep them out of all the other cameras of similar types that I tried and didn't like. These work the way I want and expect. :D

G
Can't agree more. I have used lots of different cameras with all sorts of sophistication levels when it comes to finders. If the implementation of the finder concept working, I am fine. There are pros and cons for rangefinders, optical viewfinders, ground glass focussing, electronic viewfinders etc. I have the same fun shooing a CL or z7 as a classic rangefinder or and F2. It is just about quality implementation for me.
 

tcdeveau

Well-known member
I'm good with either and am glad both OVF and EVF are viable options these days, depending on one's preferences. Horses for courses and each has advantages and disadvantages.

Lately I've been favoring the EVF-style cameras, although I find I almost exclusively use the rear LCD in lieu of EVF unless I'm shooting in bright sunlight. For me, EVF/live view LCD means WYSIWYG and less chimping, less chimping means more time with and concentration on the subject. I also do a lot of shooting with 10 stop ND filters, and EVF/live view LCD makes life SO much easier than OVF in those scenarios.

That being said, I do miss the OVF on the Hasselblad H series I used to use from time to time (so big and bright), and I have been again enjoying the OVF on the D800 I recently picked up for my wife. I prefer the battery life of OVF-based cameras like the D800 and op's D810 compared to EVF-based cameras, and have found I prefer using OVFs when using polarizers and grad ND's over EVFs.
 

jdphoto

Well-known member
Can't agree more. I have used lots of different cameras with all sorts of sophistication levels when it comes to finders. If the implementation of the finder concept working, I am fine. There are pros and cons for rangefinders, optical viewfinders, ground glass focussing, electronic viewfinders etc. I have the same fun shooing a CL or z7 as a classic rangefinder or and F2. It is just about quality implementation for me.
It was actually shooting sports with the CL outdoors on a bright day that I realized the EVF is not for me for that kind of shooting. Definitely not the camera for that, but I had to try. I just couldn't get use to the phone-like screen glaring through the finder of any EVF. Yes, cameras are tools, although, I think of them a little more emotionally then that because their an extension of my creativity. Build quality goes a long way to that emotional connection too. If a tool is uncomfortable to use or doesn't quite get the job done, then it's off to find one that can.
 
Last edited:

msadat

Member
evfs are the way of the future, though lots of improvements are needed and it will happen in time. both will have a place. I like the Fuji x-pro hybrid version, u get both.
 
Top