Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Paul J

Turning points

Recommended Posts

I went in to play with the T with the intention of placing an order. I was so excited to get to the store and place my order.

 

I instantly loved the camera itself, the build and feel is simply phenomenal. I was thoroughly convinced by that alone and was grinning ear to ear. The heft and balance is, I would say, utterly perfect. It's an incredible design. The results I have been seeing on the net from the camera are really quite special too, the rendering, colour and sharpness is beautiful

 

However...I tried the evf and then when I put it up to my eye I had a sinking feel in my stomach. I just didn't get on with it. It felt alien to me. It feels too much like a handicam from decades ago (its probably not as bad as that) and the lag and refresh rate, to me, was just way too much of a distraction. As much as I saw life in front of me, I also saw the gaps where it didn't exist and it bugged the crap out of me. So did the "artifice" of the backlit screen.

 

To me An EVF seems like totally the wrong tool for taking pictures and I feel it will change both the the experience and results. It just feels a bit lifeless and soulless viewing life through that choppy backlit screen and I'm certain I will miss so much of the subtle nuance of life that separates a nice pic from a great pic, and just perhaps, not even connect to it in the same way in the first place. It's an alien experience for me at this stage which surprises me because I have always been one for new tools and new ways of seeing.

 

I have no idea how it compares to other EVF's, it sounds by the accounts i've read that it is relatively really quite good which is a both a concern a major disappointment because I was otherwise ready to place an order. I may revisit it some other time,and who knows maybe I will adjust, but at this point it's just not for me and I can't imagine an EVF ever will be.

 

Is an EVF really the future of photography? Not of me.

Edited by Paul J

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I intend to. I guess my point is I really hope that EVF's won't replace an OVF and actually can't imagine it happening. It's strange; I've always embraced new technology and I was excited about it but if an EVF is suppose to someday replace the way we judge life through a camera then I feel it is a very long way off before it is able to do that in a way that replaces optical viewing. I'm not convinced it will ever happen because of the artifice of the screen. At the moment I equate it to watching movie where every 5th frame or so is edited out.

 

I really liked this camera and really wanted to buy it

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It has always been the difference between looking at a screen an looking through a window.

My approach s different. I recognize the difference and deal with it. I guess it comes as a bit of a shock if you run into it unexpectedly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

EVFs are still relatively in their infancy so they will continue to improve and non-built-in ones can be upgraded easier than built-in ones, always provided that that facility is in the firmware.

I see today that the XE-2 has had a firmware upgrade including to the EVF, so it is possible.

Let us hope that the facility is inbuilt in the T, as it seems it isn't in the M, but then that has the OVF to fall back on.

 

As to whether an EVF is the way of the future ...... I'll leave that one up to you!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From the specs alone, the EVF of the T must be way ahead of the EVF2 of the M 240.

 

It is very close to the specs of the Sony A7, and I have to say, I really liked the latter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Paul –

I fully appreciate your quandary. You're coming from what is arguably the purest camera viewing experience (with the possible exception of certain of the Leica SLRs) and going to one that is relatively artificial. I say relatively because my first purchase of an EVF was with a D2 in March of 2004. That EVF is severely wanting compared to the next few I had, while still shooting with an R8, then R8/DMR. But each EVF bettered the previous one, but it is still not like the OVF on my R8. Perhaps more telling is the fact that we adapt to our situations. Countless studies, even just in the area of visual perception bear that out, the most classic of which involved making subjects wear spectacles that, through a prism, reversed everything they saw. Initially it was very disconcerting for the subjects who quickly adapted to their new visual world. When they were allowed to remove the spectacles they all experienced a very brief transition period back to normal. I've noticed pretty much the same thing, though far less dramatically, of going between my latest camera with EVF, my first camera with EVF and my R8.

Perhaps the classic M experience is perfect for you and one which you should cling to. Perhaps not.

I’ll be looking at the T, but I have no idea if I will buy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Perhaps people who are steeped in the traditions of rangefinder photography will have more difficulty initially in adjusting to EVF technology than those coming from SLR backgrounds. Rangefinder photographers spend more time with their eye to the finder, watching as situations develop and change outside the framelines and therefore experiencing the scene in a more dynamic fashion, through the window itself. An SLR photographer is more likely to be accustomed to viewing a scene from above the camera, only raising it to the eye to set the exposure and frame the shot immediately before firing the shutter. I would suggest that using an EVF might prove less jarring to an SLR style photographer because it is more familiar to his or her established process. It might be a case of having to allow oneself more time to adjust to an initially uncomfortable way of doing things, if one really wants to go down the EVF route.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The talk of "purity" is puzzling. Looking through the lens you are using and focusing an upside down image on a ground glass was probably considered pure in its time. The rangefinder (which I like) really is not "pure" unless you are using a lens about 28mm and can use the whole "window". Otherwise you are fitting things in rangefinder frames (qwhich has its advantages and disadvantages). A SLR may be "purer" in the sense you can have a nice bright image of exactly what the lens is seeing (wide open). That has its advantages and disadvantages. An EVF is closer to a SLR pentaprism but is hindered by the refresh rate. If EVF were the only camera you had you would figure out how to use it. My point is there are different ways of getting a camera to capture what you want it to capture, and the only thing that is superior is the one you are most comfortable with. My own experience with EVF is different than Paul's and I freely move from Leica M with OVF to Leica M with EVF to Nikon with pentaprism to Sony with EVF, and I am very much looking forward to the T, as I know the EVF just won't bother me. Paul and others may feel differently. It is a matter of adaptation (see Stu's point above).

Edited by WeinschelA

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I looked at one EVF in a previous Leica camera, rebadged Japanese something 10 years back. I gave it back in less than 5 sec.

 

Tried a NEX 5 something. Better, the the experience lasted 15 sec.

 

When reports show no lag and smooth enough pixels so it looks optical, I might try again.

To be honest, I would give up photography before using one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The talk of "purity" is puzzling. Looking through the lens you are using and focusing an upside down image on a ground glass was probably considered pure in its time. The rangefinder (which I like) really is not "pure" unless you are using a lens about 28mm and can use the whole "window". Otherwise you are fitting things in rangefinder frames (qwhich has its advantages and disadvantages). A SLR may be "purer" in the sense you can have a nice bright image of exactly what the lens is seeing (wide open). That has its advantages and disadvantages. An EVF is closer to a SLR pentaprism but is hindered by the refresh rate. If EVF were the only camera you had you would figure out how to use it. My point is there are different ways of getting a camera to capture what you want it to capture, and the only thing that is superior is the one you are most comfortable with. My own experience with EVF is different than Paul's and I freely move from Leica M with OVF to Leica M with EVF to Nikon with pentaprism to Sony with EVF, and I am very much looking forward to the T, as I know the EVF just won't bother me. Paul and others may feel differently. It is a matter of adaptation (see Stu's point above).

I don't know if you're addressing me or not but, in case you are, I made no judgement on the superiority or inferiority of different types of photography, only that, depending on your type, a greater period of adjustment may prove necessary. Nowhere did I mention purity.

You say that it is a matter of adaptation. So do I. That was my point. Apologies if your comments aren't meant for me, I broadly agree with what you say here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't know if you're addressing me or not but, in case you are, I made no judgement on the superiority or inferiority of different types of photography, only that, depending on your type, a greater period of adjustment may prove necessary. Nowhere did I mention purity.

You say that it is a matter of adaptation. So do I. That was my point. Apologies if your comments aren't meant for me, I broadly agree with what you say here.

 

I think we are in agreement. I wasn't trying to be critical of those who prefer OVF (if that's the way it came across, my apologies), but to make the same adaptation point. I happen to prefer OVF too, but do use the others as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Look through a fuji XT 1 you will be amazed.

 

HI There - I don't think he will - an EVF is an EVF (and see below).

 

From the specs alone, the EVF of the T must be way ahead of the EVF2 of the M 240.

 

It is very close to the specs of the Sony A7, and I have to say, I really liked the latter.

 

As I understand it Edward (and I could be wrong) the panels used in all the current EVFs are the same (i.e. Sony A7, Fuji X-T1, Olympus E-M1) the difference hinges around the magnification/contrast/eye level.

 

I spent a lot of time looking into all of these, and my personal opinion is that the Olympus one has the most natural look about it and the Fuji has the least lag (with the Sony having the most). I think the T EVF falls somewhere in-between.

 

I think that half an hour spent with it - and you hardly notice that it isn't 'real' . . . and like Jaap I'm quite happy swapping back and forth.

 

Still, Paul - hopefully you'll go back to your M with renewed enthusiasm.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
As do all right-thinking photographers!

 

Well, there are moments.

 

Just looking and deciding you don't like an EVF is one thing. But you can get used to seeing the exposure and the white balance whilst you're shooting - it's quite useful! and going back to shooting 'blind' from that respect is a little odd.

 

Also, shooting in poor light, a good EVF will gain up so that you can see what you're shooting, whereas an optical finder doesn't do that.

 

Personally I prefer a rangefinder (how outré can you get

)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The flapping reflex mirror in SLR cameras was a half-baked solution to a problem that doesn't exist anymore. So after having used SLR cameras for more than 30 years, I'm more than happy to abandon this clumsy anachronism. From now on, it's either rangefinder or EVF for me. No SLR finders anymore, yay!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well, there are moments.

 

Just looking and deciding you don't like an EVF is one thing. But you can get used to seeing the exposure and the white balance whilst you're shooting - it's quite useful! and going back to shooting 'blind' from that respect is a little odd.

 

Also, shooting in poor light, a good EVF will gain up so that you can see what you're shooting, whereas an optical finder doesn't do that.

 

Personally I prefer a rangefinder (how outré can you get

)

 

Yes, and I would add to this that there are circumstances where even for a OVF devotee, the EVF is truly an improvement. One is when using a polarizing filter. No more guesswork. You just see the effects and the exposure and twist the filter accordingly. I also have found it very useful in tricky lighting situations where the exposure can be adjusted more precisely, and of course there is macro, where using a RF is near impossible. This has all been on the M(240) with the VF2, which is now at least two generations behind in technology.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Putting aesthetics to one side for a moment, is it possible to mount an external OVF like, say, a SBOOI on the T or does the EVF/hotshoe physically prevent it? (I'm not interested for myself because I don't have an issue with EVFs - tools for the job - but it might help with Paul's dislike.)

 

Pete.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...