Nex vs A77 vs A580 vs A900 vs others

[jonoslack]

there's no way you can get more accurate manual focus with an OVF vs a zoomable EVF. EVF's can also be focused using the working aperture which does not introduce focus shift. parallax errors, from rangefinder cams, are also mitigated.

Quite agree
Added to which you can have focus peaking - used in professional quality videocameras for years - you can see the actual white balance rather than the actual colours (much easier to see if it's right at the time than when you get back to the studio).

The more I use an EVF the more I realise how useful it is for critical shooting. It's not as nice to look at I'm afraid, and you don't feel so involved - but I'm increasingly coming to the realisation that it's the way forward - not because we can't avoid it (which was what I used to think) but because it's a better set of compromises.

 

[Terry]

Quite agree
Added to which you can have focus peaking - used in professional quality videocameras for years - you can see the actual white balance rather than the actual colours (much easier to see if it's right at the time than when you get back to the studio).

The more I use an EVF the more I realise how useful it is for critical shooting. It's not as nice to look at I'm afraid, and you don't feel so involved - but I'm increasingly coming to the realisation that it's the way forward - not because we can't avoid it (which was what I used to think) but because it's a better set of compromises.

I guess it just took a while to get one to perform up to your standards oke:
Just kidding around. This is a giant leap in your thinking!

 

[jonoslack]

I guess it just took a while to get one to perform up to your standards oke:
Just kidding around. This is a giant leap in your thinking!

You're damned right it is - I've been against them for years - the final nail in the coffin was shooting this party yesterday with a 5n the viewfinder and a 35 summarit - the focus peaking worked like a dream - really good.

mngnmgmg (jono eating his hat)

 

[Godfrey]

Electronic VFs aren't perfect yet, but then neither are optical VFs. Both have their place, both are useful.

Digital camera technology is reaching a balance point. Between FourThirds and APS-C formats there is enough focus zone control, enough acutance and DR, enough sensitivity. Certainly enough pixels. There are plenty of very good lenses for these formats. Body size, control ergonomics and viewfinder usability (whatever type) are the deciding factors now.

Things will continue to progress.

 

[Paratom]

So now we are at the point that we need to have an EVF to better manually focus manual lenses on an AF cameras because there are no AF lenses available which offer the same benefits
Just kidding here.
But for some part its sad that we have really good AF systems but a lack of high quality AF glass.
For my taste an optical viewfinder with a reliable AF is the best solution for big cameras and the EVF makes mainly sense for smaller cameras, dx format maybe being the border.
I believe it also depends in which kind of light one shoots.
And last I believe many things are also a question of being used to some thing.

 

[jonoslack]

Electronic VFs aren't perfect yet, but then neither are optical VFs. Both have their place, both are useful.

Hi Godfrey
I can only carry on eating my hat for so long . . .

 

[Godfrey]

So now we are at the point that we need to have an EVF to better manually focus manual lenses on an AF cameras because there are no AF lenses available which offer the same benefits
Just kidding here.
But for some part its sad that we have really good AF systems but a lack of high quality AF glass.
For my taste an optical viewfinder with a reliable AF is the best solution for big cameras and the EVF makes mainly sense for smaller cameras, dx format maybe being the border.
I believe it also depends in which kind of light one shoots.
And last I believe many things are also a question of being used to some thing.

There are certainly excellent AF lenses available ... nearly any of the pro-grade Olympus, Nikon, Canon, Zeiss for Sony, etc, qualify for that rating. With auto focus, the question of whether EVF or OVF becomes somewhat moot as the viewfinder becomes more a framing and control device than a focusing device.

The problem after that is that AF is not a total solution to focusing ... no AF system as yet created can read my mind and focus precisely, exactly where I want the focus to be placed, although most are competent enough to get the focus placed near where I want it which is often good enough. So no matter how excellent the AF system is, it cannot compete with critical manual focus at the end of the day, which is why a good viewfinder of whatever description for focusing, even if only to override an AF system's necessary lack of telepathy, remains a critical need.

 

[douglasf13]

Most of these folks play 1 guitar model all the time but almost all of them have several guitars of the same model. When you play guitar you also want to have the possibility to use different models and brands, as no 2 guitars are really the same, so you finally start using different for different occasions.

WRT cameras, I have tried several times to just be able to work with one model and 1 or 2 lenses - I finally returned all the times to more cameras. Plus for me it is something good to work with different cameras and brands, as they all offer different advantages and strength. Plus if you really want to make great portraits and use a Hasselblad with a 2.2/100 it will be almost impossible to get the same great look with say a M9 and .95 Nocti and for sure not with a X100 or NEX etc. - agree?

Oh, I generally agree. Slash is a hilarious example, because he owns dozens of Les Pauls. My point is more about needing a gigantic lens assortment from a brand like Canon. Unless one is part of the relatively small group that spends the money very long, fast teles, or maybe t/s lenses, there aren't really any gaps in the Sony lineup for most users.

 

[Bill_Green]

Waitaminute! The A77 has real focus peaking through the viewfinder? Can you see it clearly enough for it to be useful?

 

[jonoslack]

Waitaminute! The A77 has real focus peaking through the viewfinder? Can you see it clearly enough for it to be useful?

YES . . . . really yes


So does the NEX 5n

 

[Paratom]

There are certainly excellent AF lenses available ... nearly any of the pro-grade Olympus, Nikon, Canon, Zeiss for Sony, etc, qualify for that rating. With auto focus, the question of whether EVF or OVF becomes somewhat moot as the viewfinder becomes more a framing and control device than a focusing device.

The problem after that is that AF is not a total solution to focusing ... no AF system as yet created can read my mind and focus precisely, exactly where I want the focus to be placed, although most are competent enough to get the focus placed near where I want it which is often good enough. So no matter how excellent the AF system is, it cannot compete with critical manual focus at the end of the day, which is why a good viewfinder of whatever description for focusing, even if only to override an AF system's necessary lack of telepathy, remains a critical need.

As long as the focus points/sensors are small enough I dont see much problem to autofocus on the area that I want to have sharp. Multiple focus points (and choosing one of them manually) even compensates the faults created by focus and recompose technique.
And even the focus with central Af-point and recompose works pretty well (thats what we have to do with Leica M anyways)
Nothing against manual focus, but a good AF can work very good as well.

 

[jonoslack]

As long as the focus points/sensors are small enough I dont see much problem to autofocus on the area that I want to have sharp. Multiple focus points (and choosing one of them manually) even compensates the faults created by focus and recompose technique.
And even the focus with central Af-point and recompose works pretty well (thats what we have to do with Leica M anyways)
Nothing against manual focus, but a good AF can work very good as well.

I quite agree Tom.
. . . . but focus peaking on an EVF is a bit of an eye opener (wether manual or AF)

 

[Godfrey]

As long as the focus points/sensors are small enough I dont see much problem to autofocus on the area that I want to have sharp. Multiple focus points (and choosing one of them manually) even compensates the faults created by focus and recompose technique.
And even the focus with central Af-point and recompose works pretty well (thats what we have to do with Leica M anyways)
Nothing against manual focus, but a good AF can work very good as well.

I have no quibble with that, but in the end AF is always an approximation. Is it good enough? For many cases yes. For a few, it's not.

Besides, if you're manually piloting the AF system's focus points to make it do what you want it to, you're putting just as much effort and energy into focusing as focusing the lens itself requires.

So why not just focus the lens? It's simpler and puts you, not the camera, in control.

 

[Bill_Green]

YES . . . . really yes

Guess I better start saving up for an A99.

 

[dbogdan]

Jono,
So I gather that focus peaking is available through both the LCD/EVF, is that correct?
And are you getting comparable results (low ISO image quality) to the 900 for close work? .
db

 

[Paratom]

I have no quibble with that, but in the end AF is always an approximation. Is it good enough? For many cases yes. For a few, it's not.

Besides, if you're manually piloting the AF system's focus points to make it do what you want it to, you're putting just as much effort and energy into focusing as focusing the lens itself requires.

So why not just focus the lens? It's simpler and puts you, not the camera, in control.

Side note: I often do focus manual. But if you have a real good AF (like for example the Nikon AF) than the AF is a) faster and b)more precise than what I can do with my eyes.
Same valid for the S2, if the subjects is good to detect for the AF the AF is more precise than my eyes, and its faster.
But I have not yet tried the focus peaking feauture. What I dont like so much is when shooting m4/3 in manual focus the magnification. It works good for still but for everything where I also want to use the viewfinder to see whats going on and catch the right moment and also use it for compositing I find it distracting.If I can first compose and have time and then can focus (still subject) it works very well though.

 

[jonoslack]

Jono,
So I gather that focus peaking is available through both the LCD/EVF, is that correct?
And are you getting comparable results (low ISO image quality) to the 900 for close work? .
db

Hi There
yes - through both . . and no - I'm not getting comparable results to the A900 yet - but I use aperture, and the RAW files aren't supported yet. I wasn't really happy with the Adobe DNG converter files, so I've been holding off final judgment until I see the RAW files in Aperture.

Soon I hope!

 

[jonoslack]

But I have not yet tried the focus peaking feauture. What I dont like so much is when shooting m4/3 in manual focus the magnification. It works good for still but for everything where I also want to use the viewfinder to see whats going on and catch the right moment and also use it for compositing I find it distracting.If I can first compose and have time and then can focus (still subject) it works very well though.

I quite agree - the magnified focusing on m4/3 is only any good when:
1. you're using a tripod (otherwise it's gone off again by the time you've checked your shot and composition and pressed the shutter).
2. you've got a static subject

Focus peaking is quite a different thing - it's no surprise that it's been used in video cams all this time - it's really good - and manual focus with really good peaking in a really good EVF is (for me) a real challenge to both an SLR screen and a rangefinder - it's nice to use, and it works. Having said that, I think it might be good for a little refinement in the A77 and NEX - with percentage peaking etc. implemented.

However, for me, it's the first time I've actually enjoyed using my M lenses on anything other than an M camera.

 

[doug]

The problem after that is that AF is not a total solution to focusing ...

+1!!

I consider focus peaking - as long as it works over the entire picture area - a real improvement over focus 'points' of any form, auto or manual. Focus & re-compose isn't reliable with shallow DOF, and I'd rather that the composition of my pictures isn't dictated by the factory's idea of where a subject 'ought' to be.

 

[jonoslack]

I consider focus peaking - as long as it works over the entire picture area - a real improvement over focus 'points' of any form, auto or manual. Focus & re-compose isn't reliable with shallow DOF, and I'd rather that the composition of my pictures isn't dictated by the factory's idea of where a subject 'ought' to be.

Hi Doug
I couldn't agree more - focus peaking has lots of advantages - and of course it is over the whole frame - it's an interesting way of seeing the curvature of field on some lenses!