Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'The Watering Hole' started by Herman, Oct 26, 2011.
Is it really a very usefull thing on the X100?
When and why are you using the OVF or EVF?
Be lost without it now. Use the EVF for precise framing or to better judge exposure on exactly what's in the frame. But the OVF is indispensable for anticipating subjects entering the frame. So I fnd the EVF best for when I'm static and OVF when I'm stationery.
Personally, I love it....and if the anticipated X-ILC has it I'd find it a hard proposition to resist
I love the EVF for both the reasons that Mark has described. It helps me see in detail and the exposure adjustments are much more clear for me...what you see is what you get. I use the EVF most of the time, but not all the time. What I really like about both in the X100 is that one can control what amount of information is included or removed from the screens... The OVF is great for faster shooting...and low light. Heck, I use the LCD screen on the X100, too.
It is very useful. I use the EVF more than I thought, though. But I still use and love the OVF!
The only feature I miss with the X100 VF is the ability to swivel up 90 degrees.
I thought I'd use the OVF all of the time but the EVF on the X100 was *just good enough* for me to want to use it most of the time, save for anticipation / reaction benefits you get with the OVF. When there is time to, I much prefer to frame accurately in camera and the EVF, probably all EVFs, give you that potential. OVFs even as good as the X100 still just give an approximation.
For me the principal benefits of the OVF are that there is no lag or smearing when either the photographer or the subject is moving fast; you get the heads up warning of subjects entering the frame. And it does do better in low light, with some caveats.
A better EVF would perhaps reduce the OVF benefit to just providing heads-up. That's what I'm expecting from the NEX OLED viewfinder, anyway.
In a way the X100 sold me on the NEX viewfinder, because I was able to use the EVF on the X100 very successfully and used it far more than I expected - maybe more than 80 percent of the time. A better EVF - maybe I'd be at near 100% save for some real action shots and stuff the X100 isn't very good at anyway.
One concern I have for the hybrid finder is that the blades which block off the OVF light path when the EVF is in use represent yet another moving part, and its moving parts which tend to fail first on any device, right?
There's 2 things being discussed here. The EVF & the OVF.
The EVF, which I try not to use, but do sometimes is a proven functional ally.
They are not new. They do the job because you get about 100% of the frame and can adjust the amount of info viewed.
On the other hand, The OVF of the X100 shows about 90%+ of the frame. This is acceptable as its easy to figure where the outer limits of the frame reside.
Now the new issue. The X10 shows an 80% view of the frame. What is that about? It's useless for anything serious. If this is the wave of the future, where only 80% is viewed, well it ain't a pretty picture. There's no justifiable reason that the finder couldn't achieve 90% like its sister camera. Fuji takes marketing for granted. It's a lazy cost cutting way to sell a camera.
So my thoughts are, the EVF has its place because it does it's job we'll.
The OVF like the X10, well......
I'll live with the screen as it shows a 2 dimensional image in a 3 dimensional reality.
Informative as usual Don, teaching us young tackers a thing or two. I don't often question the master, but....
...is this not the case with the LCD on the back of the X100....as well as the OVF and EVF? The latter being my view of choice as I find training my eye within the VF provides better 'focus'....and I don't mean DoF, critical sharpness, etc., but about better attuning my visual perception with what I want to capture 'outside'. This is a very different experience for me when the camera is held at arms length. But even with my preference of having the camera squashed up against my nose I contend that I am still viewing 2D in a 3D reality.
Mark, in a way but it doesn't weigh enough.
Ok.... Why pay $1200.00 for a camera and not use the OVF? Of course the option with the X100 is a 3 way option. To not use the OVF is a waste of the camera. With the Ovf, you are seeing thru the subject much as a Leica M. So you are seeing a 3 dimensional image. With the EVF you are seeing a 2 dimensional image period. With a screen you are seeing a 2 dimensional image moving in a 3 dimensional space. It's a very unique way to see. I have my screen on B&W so I am essentially seeing my print in reality.
If a serious shooter uses the X10, and uses the finder... Cropping will be a certainty.
Think in terms of percentages. The X10 is minus 20% of the image. That's not great for framing.
The X100 is minus around 8-10%. That's acceptable.
There is no justifiable reason why OVF finders can't be more accurate.
If you end up using the screen or EVF, both accurate, then why get a camera with an OVF that's not accurate.
So, seeing an image in a 3 dimensional reality only happens with the screen. Yes, the EVF sees the same but the eye needs to be at the camera and thus erases the 3 dimensional reality.
The pros are that with an OVF, an EVF, and an LCD screen, you have all three options easily available (if only the rear screen would flip up, you'd have the whole spectrum covered). The only con would be if it didn't work, but on the X100, it WORKS. Really well. I've found a couple of things since I got back into shooting a year and a half ago or so. First, I don't really like using ANY eye-level viewfinder most of the time. Coming from an old film SLR background, that surprised me a bit, but its un-deniable. A STRONG preference. I also find that when I DO want to use an eye-level finder, I much prefer a good OVF to an EVF in any situation that doesn't specifically call out for the EVF. The X100 isn't my primary camera - its a wonderful and amazing change of pace and perspective check. I love it and I love using the OVF, but I don't use it for a lot of the kinds of shooting I like to do. The only time I prefer the EVF is in low light, where it might be too dim to see well in the OVF, but the EVF will gain up so you see what you're framing. Other than that, I much prefer the OVF, particularly the X100 OVF which shows you the scene developing outside of the camera's frame. And its in real time to the extent that time is real! I love getting a very quick review in the EVF after taking a shot with the OVF - that's my most used function for the EVF. But for macros or in low light, I'm thrilled to have it. And sometimes, for shooting from or at weird angles, I just use the LCD. The X100 isn't really quick enough to be a good hip shooter, but as long as I can see the screen to frame, I've got time to shoot.
I can't think of a downside to the hybrid. I'd love the OPTION on any camera, but other tradeoffs are more important to me. I'd love to see it on an interchangeable lens camera, but I have trouble imagining how it would work with ever changing focal lengths. Note that Fuji didn't eve try with the X10, but that may have been as much about trying to hit a price point as any technical challenges they may have anticipated.
Here's another reason... In bright sunlight even an EVF can be hard to read. Switch to the OVF and clarity reigns.