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!
Yes.Ultimately, it is not what you see in your viewfinder, but what others see in your pictures...
Maybe a fuctional eye can come in handy as well.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)
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.Maybe a fuctional eye can come in handy as well.
In the end I think it's all about the accuracy required. :clap:
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 ....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.
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."...
I totally disagree with the notion thet "what matters is what other people see by way of finished image"
...
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?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.
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.
Thanks for the link, and indeed an interesting discussion.
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.
.
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".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:
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.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.
G
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.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.