EVFs compared (M, NEX7, A99, OM-D, X100)

[Lightwrangler]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Most likely the LCD is hardwired to the main processor, and the output from the main processor is engineered to give the most efficient feed to match the resolution of the LCD.

 

The viewfinder is being fed through a USB port and probably has to have another chip to further convert the output to match the small display if it's a lower resolution than the LCD.

 

According to your logic shouldn't it be vice-versa then? The VF-2 has 1.4 mio pixel resolution, the LCD-screen of the M has 920,000!

 

And I really doubt there is a USB-port involved. But we will see as soon as the first Ms hit the real world.

 

Mike

Edited October 8, 2012 by Royal_Corona

[Jaybob]

 

Focus peaking didn't work all that well. A lot of areas that I knew was not in focus showed up as red. I hope Leica can get that fixed soon.

 

 

Could anyone expand on this just a little? On my NEX-5 I can set the sensitivity for focus peaking (low, medium, and high) and also change the colors (white, yellow, or red). There is also the ability to zoom 7x and 14x and scroll aorund inside the image for focus confirmation. Is this something the M's software/EVF combo (or live view screen) is capable of doing? Is there a live histogram?

 

BTW, I happily use a Hoodman cinema kit on my NEX-5, and enjoy a HUGE EVF with zero lag, and never hold the camera at arms length for any reason, EVER.

[Advertisement]

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

[AlanG]

Could anyone expand on this just a little? On my NEX-5 I can set the sensitivity for focus peaking (low, medium, and high) and also change the colors (white, yellow, or red). There is also the ability to zoom 7x and 14x and scroll aorund inside the image for focus confirmation. Is this something the M's software/EVF combo (or live view screen) is capable of doing? Is there a live histogram?

 

I can't answer your questions but I think that as long as there is ample programmable memory space, the firmware perhaps could have various features added to it over time.

[beewee]

@AlanG Re: Color Accuracy

 

Color and white balance, at least on the A99, changes depending on the white balance mode that you use. This means that color accuracy for the viewfinder is both a function of the choice of white balance mode (or auto white balance performance of the camera), as well as the panel accuracy/calibration/quality. The EVF really needs to be evaluated and designed as a system rather than an individual part, from sensor, to image processor, to panel. Overall however, when using auto white balance on the A99, the EVF on the A99 is very nice and has minimal colour differences compared to what my eyes can see in real life.

 

About the NEX7 and A99 panel, the A99 panel has a much higher resolution, color fidelity, as well as refresh rate compared to the NEX7. If I remember right, the NEX7 panel refreshes at 60Hz, whereas the A99 refreshes at 120Hz. But again, EVF performance is not just a matter of panel refresh rates but the whole signal processing chain from sensor to panel.

 

 

@Jaybob Re: Focus peaking

 

The focus peaking feature inadequacy that I noted has to do with the edge detection (red-highlighting). The actual zooming in for more accuracy focusing works brilliantly (provided you can keep the camera stable enough) but don't bother to shoot fast moving objects using focus peaking. You won't be able to focus quickly enough and by the time you nail the focus, you won't have time to zoom out and frame the image. This is really a feature best used for static (landscape, architecture, etc...) subjects.

 

Regarding live histogram, I don't have that information. I only played with it for a very brief period of time (I was suprised the guy at the Leica Boutique store even let me touch it). I think you might be able to get more information on this from some of the literature from Leica or from the many video interviews from photokina.

 

 

@AlanG Re: EVF vs LCD live view

 

I really don't have an answer for this since I didn't think to compare this. What I can tell you is that based my impression of the image quality from the LCD and the EVF is that the image quality (perceived color accuracy and resolution), the LCD image looked much better than the EVF. Perhaps the reason was that, having used the M8.2 for so long, finally seeing a decent quality LCD on the new M came as a relief to me and was one of the things that stood out during my short time with the M.

[AlanG]

This got me thinking more about lag time and AF speed. Despite shooting mostly architecture I do shoot people and some action on occasion. I see one review of the 5DIII that says it has an improved lag time of 59ms over the 5DII. Yet this link on Wikipedia lists the 5DII at 40ms. So one or the other is either incorrect or use different measuring procedures.

 

Shutter lag - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

Having owned many cameras over the years I can't say I thought about lag time that much even when I was shooting racing cars as I knew one had to anticipate the action and press the shutter release sometime in advance. I am not sure how much the differences between cameras matter once you get your timing down. But I guess if it is longer than a certain amount, you might be bothered by it.

 

Yesterday I was shooting some portraits and I wanted to animate them a bit by having my subject turn her head to make her hair move. First I had to see what speed she needed to move to get the hair into the right motion. And then I had to practice at what point to press the shutter to capture her head at the right spot in the turn. Now despite using a 5DIII that is supposed to have a pretty short lag, I still had to keep looking at the images as I shot them to get a rhythm and some idea if things were working out. There was no way just via observing the subject that I could judge if I was getting things right... but had to shoot many frames before it all came together pretty well on one.

 

Now I don't know if things would be much different using a camera with a shorter or longer lag time, but I will repeat this at some point using my old Konica Minolta A2 that uses an EVF (and I can't imagine is close to the timing of today's best) as well as with the Nex 6 once I get it. This is a fairly repeatable type of action that may represent as far as many of us are typically trying to capture subjects via moderate timing needs.

 

AF - I was working with manual focus and pre-focused my shots as I had an idea of where the eyes would end up. But I still found that I had to be stopped down a bit to have a good chance of holding focus. On some frames the focus was off a bit even at f6.3 with the lens at 93mm. And other setups that had more movement were also pretty challenging. I can see for even modest motion in portraiture and fashion that an advanced AF in the future that could use some intelligence and really lock onto the eyes and keep them sharp even with large apertures would be pretty beneficial.

 

I remember shooting tennis with an early digital p&s and I had to press the shutter when the racket was going backwards in order for the shot to have the racket moving forward. That was the only camera I ever had where the lag required such conscious compensation. But I think in general we learn to press the shutter in advance anticipating the peak moment.

 

So here is an example from that shoot with just a few of the "misses." I think anyone can test a similar circumstance and see how well their timing works with their camera and maybe compare that with the M's EVF should they get a chance to do so.

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

Edited October 9, 2012 by AlanG

[wildlightphoto]

But I think in general we learn to press the shutter in advance anticipating the peak moment.

 

Some subjects' motion is almost random, un-repeatable, and with no apparent cause (to the photographer, at least). The moments when it all comes together may be minutes apart, seconds apart, or days apart, and will last for only a split-second. For these subjects the lag is critical.

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

[AlanG]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I understand Wildlightphoto, nothing can replace a photographer's reaction time, and for action, the shorter the lag the better. And this even applies when shooting fleeting facial expressions. But there was no way other than by anticipation and compensation for the (IDII's short) lag that I could get this. (Plus some luck.) I panned one jet and had to press the shutter release for the other one before it was in the picture. (Just glimpsing it out of the corner of my eye as it was approaching.) BTW, when I shot racing cars with long lenses, sometimes my reaction time or the lag caused me to miss having a car in the shot at all if I wasn't panning with it. (Leicaflex SL and Nikons.) And I was young and quicker then.

 

But what I was getting at is that most people can test out an easily repeatable action such as having someone turn their head and flip their hair to compare different cameras for their lag and reaction times.

 

I don't know what the lag is on your camera but they have been getting a bit faster as DLSRs have developed. Also regardless of some people pooh poohing high frame rates, that is another tool. It looks like the newest mirrorless cameras with 1st curtain shutters have very low lag times.

 

I did this test below and my reaction time is around 250ms. So I think that has to be considered as a large factor when comparing shutter lag and EVF lag.

http://cognitivefun.net/test/1

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

Edited October 9, 2012 by AlanG

[barjohn]

The EM-5 has selectable refresh rates for the EVF between 60 fps and 120 fps. At 120 fps there is very little lag but still some. My personal experience says 30fps is almost unusable except for still subjects and even then slight shifts in camera position cause sudden jumps in the image and it is disconcerting for framing and focusing because where you thought the focus point was and where it actually was is not the same.

[wildlightphoto]

It looks like the newest mirrorless cameras with 1st curtain shutters have very low lag times.

 

This may be their saving feature... the viewfinder lag by itself may not be a problem if the total system lag is short.

 

I did this test below and my reaction time is around 250ms. So I think that has to be considered as larger factor when comparing shutter lag.

 

Cognitive tests: Visual Reaction Time

 

187 for me.

[AlanG]

This may be their saving feature... the viewfinder lag by itself may not be a problem if the total system lag is short.

 

I agree completely. That will be the key and I'd expect advances in electronics to only speed things up. Once there are no shutters and enough memory, we will just shoot continuously and "go back to any point in time" to choose our frame. The Nikon 1 already does this at 60fps. And that camera is for amateurs and enthusiasts who can be "out-shooting" me with one. You think Sports Illustrated shooters won't go this route someday? This will make the concepts of reaction time and lag irrelevant.

 

As for the reaction times... I am doing as well as I can expect for my age I guess. And I certainly wouldn't press a shutter button as hard as I clicked with my mouse.

Edited October 9, 2012 by AlanG

[wildlightphoto]

... Once there are no shutters and enough memory, we will just shoot continuously and "go back to any point in time" to choose our frame.

 

"Enough" memory will have to be enough for several minutes @60 frames/sec while waiting for the split-second when the bird's head is turned the right direction. Fast frame rates don't do anything for me if the bird's head is turned away once the camera starts recording.

[AlanG]

"Enough" memory will have to be enough for several minutes @60 frames/sec while waiting for the split-second when the bird's head is turned the right direction. Fast frame rates don't do anything for me if the bird's head is turned away once the camera starts recording.

 

Memory is constantly getting cheaper and larger. My first computer had 64K. A 10 meg hard drive was $1000. In 2003 I paid $275 for each 1 gig CF card I bought. At some point the idea of trying to time individual frames to capture action will just disappear.

 

Unless you get your reaction time and camera lag below 10ms, 24 fps should more than suffice. My understanding is that our visual system can only process around 10-12 images per second.

 

Most photography is a bit more predictable than waiting for a bird to do something special.

 

I'm not as patient so I couldn't wait all day for some dolphins to come by and jump in the right place.

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

Edited October 10, 2012 by AlanG

[pop]

"Enough" memory will have to be enough for several minutes @60 frames/sec while waiting for the split-second when the bird's head is turned the right direction. Fast frame rates don't do anything for me if the bird's head is turned away once the camera starts recording.

 

If the bird does not anything interesting during those "several minutes", you don't need the camera to permanently store those shots. I would think it straightforward for the camera to cut down the recording to the last 10 seconds recorded. When you then decide that the bird did indeed something you want recorded, you signal to the camera to permanently keep the last batch and to start a new one.

[FlashGordonPhotography]

Considering Michael Reichmann's and Nick Devlin's opinion of the viewfinder, probably not. This most important feature has been deteriorating since the Leicaflex SL2 was replaced with the R3. The A99 has lots of useful features, and if I hate the viewfinder I wouldn't use the camera.

 

As a user of an a77 I couldn't disagree more with Richmond opinion of the viewfinder. In the a77 it's sensational. It's large ans bright and almost perfectly matches the exposure. Who cares if you can see more DR than the viewfinder? The evf in the Sony shows you the DR of the sensor. You can actually see what's in the exposure range of the camera before you Roush the button.

 

Plus he seemed to totally neglect the other benefits of the evf. No mention of full time AF in video mode. No mention of the electronic first curtain shutter. No mention of the electronic level, live histogram or white balance preview.

 

One of his lesser reviews, I'm afraid.

 

Gordon

[omalansky]

Michael Reichmann and a coleague are far from being so satisfied with the A99 EVF

 

This is not an accurate representation of what Michael Reichmann said at all. What he actually said was that, in his opinion, the A99's EVF was not good enough to replace the big, bright OVF that pro shooters are accustomed to seeing on top-of-the-line, full-frame DSLR's. Nowhere in his extensive comments did Michael Reichmann suggest that the A99's EVF was inferior to other EVF's in any way.