Will there be a new EVF ?

[mjh]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Sony’s SLT models use the pellicle mirror for the phase detection AF only; the viewfinder is an EVF and gets its live view image from the main sensor. Strictly speaking these are not SLRs if you take SLR to refer to the viewfinder.

 

Canon’s SLRs with a fixed pellicle mirror were real SLRs, as were the Olympus E-10 (2000) and E-20P (2001), both compact DSLRs with a pellicle mirror and an optical SLR viewfinder.

[bocaburger]

Nikon's F3H (high speed) also had a pellicle mirror.

[CheshireCat]

I have used the CV 12 and 15 lenses with the EVF, and as such have tried to focus them (both mine are LTM's and not rangefinder coupled) and found it actually easier with the EVF than lenses of that focal are on a reflex.

 

Why ? Focus peaking ?

Reflex lenses are usually AF

[Jennifer]

According to Leica Mayfair, Leica AG has for a while now stopped supplying them with any EFV2's. Now I read here that the EVF2 is no longer advertised as an accessory for the X/X Vario. Maybe it's simply a blip in the supply chain given the M-P will likely remain the current production model well into next year and probably beyond and that the received wisdom maintains that the chip set in both the M and M-P prevents the adoption of an upgraded EVF........ Or perhaps we've got it all wrong and there is, indeed, an imminent replacement in the offing?

[AlanJW]

 

And I have to concur about the Sonys. I bought and use a Nex6 because of less issues with wide angle non-retrofocus lenses, but I played with the A7s and R and in terms of ability to focus manually I wouldn't call them better than the M240+EVF2, in fact although the Sony's focus peaking seems brighter, I get the impression it's not as shallow as the M240's and therefore a tad less precise when DOF is very limited, as in macro. Maybe that's just my perception, I haven't really tested it out.

 

 

I concur, based on my experience with Nex 7 and A7r. The Sony focus peaking is too imprecise for my taste. Too much is "peaked".

[jaapv]

A tad? It is so in your face that even with a 135 @ 3.4 a whole herd of Zebra turns lumiscent red in the viewfinder, even at the lowest setting. It is useless for long lenses and shallow DOF, whereas the Leica implementation is really good for tele. It is acceptable for video, though.

[CheshireCat]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

A tad? It is so in your face that even with a 135 @ 3.4 a whole herd of Zebra turns lumiscent red in the viewfinder, even at the lowest setting. It is useless for long lenses and shallow DOF, whereas the Leica implementation is really good for tele. It is acceptable for video, though.

 

Both Sony and Leica implementations are not ideal in several circumstances. Note that the Sony algorithm is not tuned for teles, as most users won't use long lenses, and if they do, they have AF.

 

The solution in both cases is very simple: give the user more control to tune focus-peaking level. Preferably in real-time, using a dial on the camera.

[jaapv]

They have a three step setting on the Sony. Unfortunately even the lowest setting is far too imprecise.

And yes, the Leica implementation is sub-optimal as shorter focal lengths, but then it does not need to be good in that case, as there is the OVF-RF.

[philcycles]

Having the auto-review set to hold shutter button is just so you aren't staring into blackness, right? I mean, it doesn't somehow actually shorten the time until the EVF view comes alive again does it?

 

And I have to concur about the Sonys. I bought and use a Nex6 because of less issues with wide angle non-retrofocus lenses, but I played with the A7s and R and in terms of ability to focus manually I wouldn't call them better than the M240+EVF2, in fact although the Sony's focus peaking seems brighter, I get the impression it's not as shallow as the M240's and therefore a tad less precise when DOF is very limited, as in macro. Maybe that's just my perception, I haven't really tested it out.

 

I have used the CV 12 and 15 lenses with the EVF, and as such have tried to focus them (both mine are LTM's and not rangefinder coupled) and found it actually easier with the EVF than lenses of that focal are on a reflex. However those are relatively slow lenses with generous DOF even wide open, and always gave me the sharpness I wanted just zone focusing them since the film days.

 

I've got a Sony NEX-5N with the EVF and a 240 with one too. Used them both a lot. I find the Sony easier to use, why I don't know. But I get well composed and focussed shots with the 240 so go figure.

Phil Brown

[bocaburger]

Actually I don't find peaking very user-friendly period on any of these cameras. I can focus longer lenses well enough visually. Shorter lenses as Jaap said are handled fine by the rangefinder (and it was always thus, much more precise than reflex viewing). The things I dislike most about EVF's are the lag after the shot before the view goes live again (almost as annoying as a Hasselblad or a Visoflex-II where I had to manually bring the mirror back down); and the general "look" which is like looking at a monitor vs a live image. It just seems to take me a step away from direct interaction with the subject.

[philcycles]

Actually I don't find peaking very user-friendly period on any of these cameras. I can focus longer lenses well enough visually. Shorter lenses as Jaap said are handled fine by the rangefinder (and it was always thus, much more precise than reflex viewing). The things I dislike most about EVF's are the lag after the shot before the view goes live again (almost as annoying as a Hasselblad or a Visoflex-II where I had to manually bring the mirror back down); and the general "look" which is like looking at a monitor vs a live image. It just seems to take me a step away from direct interaction with the subject.

 

I was a TV cameraman for about 15 years-studio and field-and I guess that's why

EVFs don't bother me.

Phil Brown