Viewfinder options, so many, which to choose and why?

[cernobila]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I think the issue is more one of allegiance and philosophy than of logic. Because of the rangefinder/viewfinder, Leica users may form a stronger bond with a particular viewing system than users of some other cameras. Thus having other options may be at odds to what attracted them to the camera in the first place... despite the obvious advantages in having additional choices.

 

I think this is the core of the matter, nothing wrong with being passionate about something, but should be open minded as well. Instead of criticizing others for blasphemy, all they need to say is....."I understand what you are saying, but this is not for me".

 

I also worked in a photo retail store in the 1970's for nine years and talked and became friends with Leica owners/users, ended up with a box of bits and pieces to be able to create any kind of photo imaginable.....Leica allowed complete versatility via accessories, this was their philosophy, help photographers become great photographers with the right tools.

 

PS. I should imagine that Leicas philosophy has not changed.

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[AlanG]

Cost. Why do so may digicams have no OVF any more? Because they have to have an LCD and an OVF is seen as just an unnecessary extra cost. EVF? Even the best ones don't match an OVF for clarity, especially in low light -- but features, not quality, is the overriding factor nowadays.

 

I think image quality and features have advanced over the past few years. Even a $100 p&s can produce a pretty nice image.

 

So one camera has an LCD for viewing and no optical viewfinder. And another has an optical viewfinder and no LCD for live viewing. You complain about the limitations of one approach and don't see any hypocrisy in not acknowledging limitations with the other approach?

 

Every p&s I've purchased had both viewing methods and I've used each method where appropriate.

[cernobila]

Cost. Why do so may digicams have no OVF any more? Because they have to have an LCD and an OVF is seen as just an unnecessary extra cost. EVF? Even the best ones don't match an OVF for clarity, especially in low light -- but features, not quality, is the overriding factor nowadays.

 

Some of the greatest photos from the past have been shot without using the viewfinder at all. I don’t need a viewfinder to shoot normal scenes with a standard lens, (in any light conditions) I use the camera at chest height allowing me to view the scene with both eyes. (pre-focus on manual focus cameras)

Quality and features can go hand in hand, you can have both or none.

The reason I like the flip-out LCD screen is that it allows me to shoot over bridges or waterfalls, along the muddy ground without getting dirty, over peoples heads in a crowd, from the hip while looking down pretending to be adjusting my camera........all this with little guesswork and good success rate. (with any hand held lens)

[NZDavid]

I think image quality and features have advanced over the past few years. Even a $100 p&s can produce a pretty nice image.

 

So one camera has an LCD for viewing and no optical viewfinder. And another has an optical viewfinder and no LCD for live viewing. You complain about the limitations of one approach and don't see any hypocrisy in not acknowledging limitations with the other approach?

 

Every p&s I've purchased had both viewing methods and I've used each method where appropriate.

 

Quite right, they all vary, but I think "hypocrisy" is a bit strong. Adjust your viewfinder for hypocritical focus...

 

LCDs can be useful for composition -- provided you can see them in bright light. I'd find touchscreen LCDs where you poke at one corner to adjust a setting would be even harder to use in practical shooting situations. It really is so much easier just to turn a dial!

 

EVFs are probably better in bright light and useless in low light.

 

Some OVFs, especially on little digicams of a few years ago, were pokey little things. Even the finders on the great screwmount Leicas were tiny. Then came the big brilliant M3 range/viewfinder. Prism finders on old SLRs (Leicaflex, Olympus) were huge in comparison with today's ones.

 

Yes, IQ and features of digital cameras have improved (if you think more is better) but that is not the same thing as build or design quality.

[adan]

Some of the greatest photos from the past have been shot without using the viewfinder at all.

 

You've said that a couple of times, now - I'd like some examples, please.

 

For me, it boils down to:

 

I don't have any use for autofocus. Manual focusing, especially fast (under 0.5 sec) manual focusing is part of my "back swing" in seeing and taking a picture. A split-image system (RF or split-prism SLR screen) is the easiest and fastest way for me to do that. Squeeze the two images into alignment and shoot.

 

When SLR makers dropped their split-screens for AF points, I quit buying SLRs and moved to Leica M.

 

IMHO, EVF screens are just bad SLR screens. They take a lot of time to focus with manually. For Alan G, who is usually trying to capture the wild and elusive living room from a tripod, "slow" is probably OK. It doesn't work for me any more than AF.

 

Speaking of Alan: "...It seems that most people have somehow come to grips with having such a feature (live view)."

 

Throughout the history of photography "most people" have used Kodak Brownies or the equivalent of their era - the ever-popular P&S with a 38-90 f/3.5-f/5.6 zoom being the last iteration of the film era. So what?

 

In any field of human endeavour, "most people" (> 99%) are morons. In the field of writing horror novels, I'M a moron. And I'd strongly advise anyone hoping to become a successful horror fiction writer to pay no attention to me and my preferences or choices (as regards fiction writing) - or anyone else in the bottom 99%. Study what Stephen King does instead. Or Edgar Allan Poe.

 

Stick to the masters, not vox populi.

[cernobila]

You've said that a couple of times, now - I'd like some examples, please.

 

For me, it boils down to:

 

I don't have any use for autofocus. Manual focusing, especially fast (under 0.5 sec) manual focusing is part of my "back swing" in seeing and taking a picture. A split-image system (RF or split-prism SLR screen) is the easiest and fastest way for me to do that. Squeeze the two images into alignment and shoot.

 

When SLR makers dropped their split-screens for AF points, I quit buying SLRs and moved to Leica M.

 

Stick to the masters, not vox populi.

 

I agree with you, the split system is the best when looking through the camera, no question about that. Quite often AF systems frustrate me when in a hurry.

 

Now, some examples.......I have read in respected books in the library a long time ago that Cartier-Bresson often shot with his camera away from his face and many other photographers of his day done likewise.....as to which specific picture was done this way, this was never specified in print.

 

The other example I can give you is my teacher......his name was Joe, an Italian, his real name was Josef. (not sure about the spelling) Unfortunately he is no longer with us......he loved his Leicas because they were very quiet, only the shutter moved. His cameras were an extension of his body and soul......he developed his own darkroom process which made his prints talk to you. He not always used a lightmeter for outdoor work but always for studio work combined with his Hasselblads. His Leicas were his street cameras. He loved the split focusing systems in his cameras but was by no means reliant on them.

[AlanG]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Speaking of Alan: "...It seems that most people have somehow come to grips with having such a feature (live view)."

 

Throughout the history of photography "most people" have used Kodak Brownies or the equivalent of their era - the ever-popular P&S with a 38-90 f/3.5-f/5.6 zoom being the last iteration of the film era. So what?

 

In any field of human endeavour, "most people" (> 99%) are morons. In the field of writing horror novels, I'M a moron. And I'd strongly advise anyone hoping to become a successful horror fiction writer to pay no attention to me and my preferences or choices (as regards fiction writing) - or anyone else in the bottom 99%. Study what Stephen King does instead. Or Edgar Allan Poe.

 

Stick to the masters, not vox populi.

 

What I was getting at is that if adding live view to a camera increases its complexity, how is it that the "morons" can somehow deal with it? I'd think that masters and most Leica users would not find the inclusion of it to be intimidating or overly complex in use. I didn't.

 

As I asked earlier, if the M8 and M9 included live view to begin with, would this even be a topic of debate at this point?

[diogenis]

Every p&s I've purchased had both viewing methods and I've used each method where appropriate.

And you dare comparing a p&s OVF with Leica's??? Well, every p&s OVF I have used is junk. I believe they are made exactly to prove the efficiency of an EVF. Plastic junk that fatigues eyes, this is no way to shoot.

 

Alan, if you can't see the difference in philosophy between a Leica M and a Japanese dSLR, then it's not our fault.

Leica also makes a great p&s the X1. Well, now with the recent f/w the camera all it needs is a decent OVF, because the included EVF just plain sucks. And even if you do purchase that OVF, it's still disconnected from focusing. You get a wonderful optic VF but you have to chimp to manual focus.

 

Anyway putting all tech restrictions aside, explain to us how can you compare the superiority and clarity of true life's BIG screen with unlimited resolution to a miniature 3" gadget with pixels? Here are the pros of an OVF:

1. BIG screen like unlimited FoV, unlimited resolution as opposed to a toy of 2"-3"

2. No need for power, as opposed to loads of it

3. Bright. No jerkiness from moving pixels unlimited response times, whereas with an LCD you talk I don't know of 10s of msecs response time especially in the dark

4. Unobtrusive as human sight, where the LCD as Bill showed kills night vision.

OH and one MORE THING:

5. If you buy a x1.4 mag diopter for an M and are blessed with right eye vision you get FULL 3D BIG SCREEN VISION!!!! as opposed to the obvious obsolete electronic miniature LCD screens

 

Do you agree or disagree with that? So we have a base with our conversation, because every now and then the matter of EVF pops back always

[Guest stnami]

crappy leica photos get compared with crappy p&s photos so naturally cameras get compared. The cameras are not the problem, it's the users

[cernobila]

Anyway putting all tech restrictions aside, explain to us how can you compare the superiority and clarity of true life's BIG screen with unlimited resolution to a miniature 3" gadget with pixels? Here are the pros of an OVF:

1. BIG screen like unlimited FoV, unlimited resolution as opposed to a toy of 2"-3"

2. No need for power, as opposed to loads of it

3. Bright. No jerkiness from moving pixels unlimited response times, whereas with an LCD you talk I don't know of 10s of msecs response time especially in the dark

4. Unobtrusive as human sight, where the LCD as Bill showed kills night vision.

OH and one MORE THING:

5. If you buy a x1.4 mag diopter for an M and are blessed with right eye vision you get FULL 3D BIG SCREEN VISION!!!! as opposed to the obvious obsolete electronic miniature LCD screens

 

Do you agree or disagree with that? So we have a base with our conversation, because every now and then the matter of EVF pops back always

 

Lets have a look at some of these;

 

1. When I used my M3 I could only see what was in the viewfinder and a bit with my left eye. Using that tiny LCD screen at chest height, I see the screen or in a blink I see all around me just by moving my eyes a little.

2. I never had a digital camera without a screen, so don't know about power consumption.

3. In the dark, I cant see too well regardless of type of viewfinder.

4. Again, in low light I am ok, in the dark, I use a tripod and most likely a reflex camera. If you are talking about night vision, how dark is it.

5. Things that are obsolete people usually don't want anymore, I am not sure you can say that about LCD screens on cameras.

6. I would add that if you use any kind of filter or want to know what is actually on the film plane (special effects) you need something other than an optical viewfinder/rangefinder to get that information.

 

But this is only my opinion, I am sure there are many that will not agree.

[adan]

What I was getting at is that if adding live view to a camera increases its complexity, how is it that the "morons" can somehow deal with it?

 

Don't confuse operational complexity with engineering complexity.

 

An automatic transmission is easier for an untrained person to drive than a manual shift. But behind the "simple" PRNDL lever and no-clutch-pedal interface is a much more complex mechanism that took the auto industry 50 years or more to develop.

 

The Macintosh graphic user interface was/is arguably simpler to use than the DOS (or for that matter Apple's own) command-line interface prior to 1984 (unless one was a computer geek). It also requires much more complex underlying code and hardware. The geeks PREFERRED DOS for quite a while, because IF one knew what one was doing, it was more flexible and cost a lot less in terms of hardware and memory. Mortals like me, who were not interested in writing code, paid to have Apple's techs do our work for us.

 

In 1949, the lenses for the first pentaprism Contax S http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9d/Contax-s.jpg was no more complex than a Leica RF lens: basic helical focusing, aperture that stopped down when the aperture ring was turned. It was a pain in the butt to use, however - dark viewing at any stop other than wide open, and - yes - one actually had to look at the screen and decide for oneself if the image was in focus.

 

Over time, by adding complexity to the MECHANISM, SLR lenses became easier to USE. Preset designs which allowed a quick stop-down at the last moment, then auto-stop-down linkages, then metering prongs, forks, and levers, then AF drive systems.

 

A Nikkor ED-AF 180mm f/2.8 lens of 2005 is much more "complex" internally than a Zeiss 180 f/2.8 of 1952 - and also much "easier" to use (I know - I've owned and used both )

 

The history of consumer technology over the past 150 years has always been to add more and more complexity behind the scenes to the devices and systems - in order to make them easier and less complex for the average untrained person to use.

 

Having said that - a dual system of viewfinders does add a bit of complexity to USE over a single viewfinder system. Canon had to ADD a button to live-view SLRs to turn on the live-view, right? And add menu items or instruction-book pages to govern live-view operation? (Which means more circuitry, an additional button, either a bigger camera or more cramped controls in the same size, more complex firmware, a bigger ROM for the extra code, a more complex manual.)

 

Cellphones and simpler P&S cameras that have only live-viewing avoid that extra operational AND engineering complexity by giving the user no option. Those who are happy with cellphone cameras would probably prefer Canon get rid of the prisms and mirrors and all the other "SLR gear" (as Sony has with the NEX) - and all the associated complications required to switch from live-view to reflex viewing. Perhaps you would, too - I don't know.

 

As I asked earlier, if the M8 and M9 included live view to begin with, would this even be a topic of debate at this point?

 

Probably - there are those M users who still wish there was no LCD at all (and do wish there was a manual wind lever ). There would probably be threads on the M8 forum about: "Why the stupid live-view button which I never use - Leica should have made that an ISO button!"

[NZDavid]

Don't confuse operational complexity with engineering complexity.

 

 

Yes.

 

...The history of consumer technology over the past 150 years has always been to add more and more complexity behind the scenes to the devices and systems - in order to make them easier and less complex for the average untrained person to use...

 

If only that were true. Many products add more features or USPs (unique selling points) which just make them more complex to use. Examples abound, from microwave ovens to DVD recorders, cell phones, most remote controls, and clocks on just about any electronic device.

 

Too often, it seems, product design is dictated by marketing people and not by engineers.

[cernobila]

Too often, it seems, product design is dictated by marketing people and not by engineers.

 

This is the way of the world nowdays.........marketing does the research, finds out what the market wants and then the producers/manufacturers go out and design/manufacture/produce to please future customers.....as time goes by more and more dreams can become affordable realities. Computers today look like mobile phones.....try and buy a mobile phone that is just a phone, no chance. Serious cameras of the future may not look anything like cameras that we know today.......

[diogenis]

Lets have a look at some of these;

 

1. When I used my M3 I could only see what was in the viewfinder and a bit with my left eye. Using that tiny LCD screen at chest height, I see the screen or in a blink I see all around me just by moving my eyes a little.

2. I never had a digital camera without a screen, so don't know about power consumption.

3. In the dark, I cant see too well regardless of type of viewfinder.

4. Again, in low light I am ok, in the dark, I use a tripod and most likely a reflex camera. If you are talking about night vision, how dark is it.

5. Things that are obsolete people usually don't want anymore, I am not sure you can say that about LCD screens on cameras.

6. I would add that if you use any kind of filter or want to know what is actually on the film plane (special effects) you need something other than an optical viewfinder/rangefinder to get that information.

 

But this is only my opinion, I am sure there are many that will not agree.

Try this on your M3, which also has a 1:1 OVF, therefore you don't need any magnifier lens in it:

If your dominant eye is right (mine is left sadly), use it to watch through the VF as you normally would, only this time have your left eye open as well. Because the VF is 1:1 it is like seeing the scene using your sunglasses. In fact after some time, you forget that you have a camera in front of you! It's THAT immediate. Obviously you see things in 3D, which I said it for fun and to tease Alan, because our eyesight is stereoscopical you get a DoF. Nothing will ever be able to beat that feeling of an Leica OVF over any EVF or LCD screen.

 

As for power consumption, alas, those screens re THE most power hungry electronic part draining power. Otherwise batteries could last for months

 

In the dark, human night vision needs some 20-30 mins to become sensitive depending on age and eye condition. However it only needs a second to destroy it or "pollute" it just by watching a light source. Red light preserves night vision, unless its very bright, but it preserves it and Leica chose red led for the VF for this reason. However it is still very bright. Also submarines use red light for the same stealth and sensitivity purposes I guess. Another well thought out issue from our German friends.

[lct]

The M3 VF mag. is 0.91x. We need a Bessa or an R-D1 to get real 1:1. Much better than any Leica to shoot both eyes open. Using a magnifier is another (uncomfortable) solution.

[AlanG]

And you dare comparing a p&s OVF with Leica's??? Well, every p&s OVF I have used is junk. I believe they are made exactly to prove the efficiency of an EVF. Plastic junk that fatigues eyes, this is no way to shoot.

 

Alan, if you can't see the difference in philosophy between a Leica M and a Japanese dSLR, then it's not our fault.

Leica also makes a great p&s the X1. Well, now with the recent f/w the camera all it needs is a decent OVF, because the included EVF just plain sucks. And even if you do purchase that OVF, it's still disconnected from focusing. You get a wonderful optic VF but you have to chimp to manual focus.

 

Anyway putting all tech restrictions aside, explain to us how can you compare the superiority and clarity of true life's BIG screen with unlimited resolution to a miniature 3" gadget with pixels? Here are the pros of an OVF:

1. BIG screen like unlimited FoV, unlimited resolution as opposed to a toy of 2"-3"

2. No need for power, as opposed to loads of it

3. Bright. No jerkiness from moving pixels unlimited response times, whereas with an LCD you talk I don't know of 10s of msecs response time especially in the dark

4. Unobtrusive as human sight, where the LCD as Bill showed kills night vision.

OH and one MORE THING:

5. If you buy a x1.4 mag diopter for an M and are blessed with right eye vision you get FULL 3D BIG SCREEN VISION!!!! as opposed to the obvious obsolete electronic miniature LCD screens

 

Do you agree or disagree with that? So we have a base with our conversation, because every now and then the matter of EVF pops back always

 

??????????????????????? Your reading comprehension may still need some work.

[AlanG]

Probably - there are those M users who still wish there was no LCD at all (and do wish there was a manual wind lever ). There would probably be threads on the M8 forum about: "Why the stupid live-view button which I never use - Leica should have made that an ISO button!"

 

And what does that tell you about these individuals?

[diogenis]

??????????????????????? Your reading comprehension may still need some work.

 

Why? I just said, that I prefer a big screen OVF with 3D and super HD rather than a tiny 2" LCD 2D @ 720i .. it's a matter of specs

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[AlanG]

Cellphones and simpler P&S cameras that have only live-viewing avoid that extra operational AND engineering complexity by giving the user no option. Those who are happy with cellphone cameras would probably prefer Canon get rid of the prisms and mirrors and all the other "SLR gear" (as Sony has with the NEX) - and all the associated complications required to switch from live-view to reflex viewing. Perhaps you would, too - I don't know.

 

 

Some cameras can detect when your eye is at the viewfinder and turn off the LCD automatically. P&S cameras have the LCD and the optical finder available at all times. One simply chooses which to use - no switch is required. One can turn off the LCD if one wishes. Again, it seems that even "morons" can deal with this.

 

AND FOR THOSE WITH COMPREHENSION PROBLEMS - I AM NOT SAYING P&S CAMERAS ARE BETTER THAN THE M9. AND FOR THE 1,000TH TIME, I AM NOT SAYING THAT LIVE VIEW IS SUPERIOR TO THE OPTICAL FINDER, OR SHOULD REPLACE IT. NOBODY IS DISPUTING THAT THE OPTICAL VIEWFINDER IS NICE. I AM JUST SAYING THAT THERE ARE ADVANTAGES IN HAVING BOTH!!!! I am sure that Leica realizes this too and if they can wave their magic wand and add live view and a clip on EVF to the M10, they will.

 

Even if Leica adds a button, it won't be the end of world. For those who think so, there can be special Leica run therapy classes in VIenna.

[diogenis]

Alan, take a deeeeep breath. Let it out... and again. Don't let your age kick like that.

As for the rest:

You CLAIM: it's only advantageous in having BOTH OVF and EVF, we say with whatever advantages you get with this, you also have disadvantages.