a55 and ASTRONOMY

[Dusty]

Philosophical question. Do we really need a viewfinder electronic or optical to show us exactly what we are going to come up with as a final product? It wasn't that way for film, it's certainly not that way for digital. There has always been some ambiguity in what we see at the moment we press the shutter and what we get as our final product. So does the fact that an EVF isn't the same REALLY matter? If I can compose my subject and get it framed the way I want, what more do I NEED?

For me, I always tried to get what I saw in the viewfinder to be the same as what I captured on film, and try to also with digital. With film that meant matching the film used to the subject at hand, with digital it means tweaking in PP, which I'm not very good at.

This means we take in to account our experiences about how our eyes are better at DR than film or digital, and how we need to adjust the exposure to make sure highlights aren't blown out or shadows aren't clipped to black.

My problem with any EVF - and this includes the LCD in Live View - is that the camera is making some of those adjustments already, and they change with the conditions. OVF gives me the best chance to match my mind's eye with the final output.

Dusty

[edrice]

I don't think the point raised about AF is very comparable to EVF's.

Without realizing it, you're making my point for me. "Auto-focus? Who needs it? It's not any better than manual focus. Brings it's own set of problems. I'll never buy one of those. I'll switch brands first!" I remember that then and now we're getting deja vu all over again with EVF.

Hence the EVF problems it's not a one fix wonder some fans suggest it is.

Haven't seen anyone say that except you.

And forget about WYSIWYG in low light because it has to gain up so you can see...

In low light it gains up and while it's somewhat fuzzier than the eye, it's brighter than the eye. Haven't seen a disadvantage yet and it's quite useable and helpful.

Some folks are never happy...

I'm starting to see what you mean...

I've never had a problem using an OVF with film nor digital.

me neither. But who cares! Not me. Never had any probem with Tri-X either.

Ripping out the OVF will be a catastrophic disaster for some.

Geez! Couldn't just replace the OVF, could we? Nope, has to be ripped out in a catastrophic manner!

Taking away film cameras and switching to digital will be a catastrophic disaster for some.

Oh, wait... we've already done that.

Ed

[bfitzgerald]

I don't think the point raised about AF is very comparable to EVF's.

Without realizing it, you're making my point for me. "Auto-focus? Who needs it? It's not any better than manual focus. Brings it's own set of problems. I'll never buy one of those. I'll switch brands first!" I remember that then and now we're getting deja vu all over again with EVF.


Geez! Couldn't just replace the OVF, could we? Nope, has to be ripped out in a catastrophic manner!

Taking away film cameras and switching to digital will be a catastrophic disaster for some.

Oh, wait... we've already done that.

Ed

You should know better than to quote me out of context..it won't work anyway!
I use digital too and I don't like EVF's, I'm not alone in that thinking either.

I do not see any connection between Autofocus and an EVF..none not even slightly close to it (AF does not stop you using MF for one, it's a tool not an enforced no choice setting). And this is way before my time anyway..so the 50 years shooting MF SLR's won't rub either
Yes some posters have suggested the EVF is a magic fix all solution..at the end of the day I have yet to find any DSLR users who have expressed a desire for an EVF it's not a topic that comes up at all from people I speak to. That's real people outside an internet forum. We had this all with the G1..it was going to change the world and suddenly everyone would buy one and not a rebel DSLR. It didn't happen..and that was some time ago.

This has a lot more to do with video than a big ground swell demand from users for EVF's. Folks I know just don't ask for it. Don't ask why give? More to the point..Sony do risk losing some users if they stop making OVF's.

[edrice]

For me, I always tried to get what I saw in the viewfinder to be the same as what I captured on film, and try to also with digital. With film that meant matching the film used to the subject at hand, with digital it means tweaking in PP, which I'm not very good at.

This means we take in to account our experiences about how our eyes are better at DR than film or digital, and how we need to adjust the exposure to make sure highlights aren't blown out or shadows aren't clipped to black.

My problem with any EVF - and this includes the LCD in Live View - is that the camera is making some of those adjustments already, and they change with the conditions. OVF gives me the best chance to match my mind's eye with the final output.

Dusty

I hear what you're saying because I've been doing that very thing for the last 40 years. But I'm at a bit of a loss to follow the reasoning about matching your mind's eye. Usually I've done the matching before the viewfinder ever gets to my eye and maybe that comes from the old days of working with a light meter or of metering off various objects with the camera before composing. What did Ansel Adams do? Maybe sometimes old habits die hard.

But you do get a live histogram in the EVF before you shoot, if you so choose. I never was a fan of staring at the LCD in back after each shot to see what happened because I have to move my eye away from the viewfinder and then try the shot again if I'm not happy. But I just did it because that was the only option I had. Now it's changing and I haven't shot much with this one yet, but I find I'm already developing new habits that are making things a bit more efficient with less lost effort. I don't have to move the camera away and I have it set for 2-second display. If that's longer than I want, I press the shutter release half way and it disappears and ready to go again.

I'm really starting to like this thing! Oh, NO! There's no going back to a primitive OVF! One day OVF cameras will be on display in museums for our great grandkids to stare at in wonder and ponder how we ever made photos with those crude devices... sort of like Gallileo's telescope or crossing and ocean with an ancient chronometer.

Maybe bfitzgerald is right. Maybe this is a one fix wonder.

Ed

[edrice]

You should know better than to quote me out of context..it won't work anyway!

Just funning ya, bfitzgerald. Don't take me too seriously.

One thing to keep in mind is that many people may care even less about how much you're threatened by EVF and how much you say that you don't care about it at all. I guess what makes that so hard to fathom is how much we keep hearing about how much you don't care about it.

Methinks thou doth protest too much. You might be a closet EVFer and I'm going to out you.

Ed

[bfitzgerald]

I think the EVF/OVF debate is controversial and strikes a chord with many users on both sides.
I like choices so whilst AF came along and changed things it didn't stop us using MF if and when you wanted to.
Just pointing out the live view argument as well where you can get the WB and see the 100% image..it's there on most DSLR's on the market.

So I'd throw this one out..who needs an EVF?
As for Sony they've had an opportunity to demonstrate a commitment to OVF's and have not done so (no press release no comments from Sony) So yes that's a huge deal to me and hence my fairly strong views on it. So again I'd like to invite Paul Genge to comment on this (via DK if desired)

I know what to expect..silence!

[edrice]

I need to go back and recover some of what I said before about using AEL with the polarizer. We finally got one of those magnificent southern California days with bright sunshine and deep blue sky, which we hadn't had with my previous test shots. We were getting over some weather here. Southern California generally doesn't have weather, we have climate.

Anyway, using the polarizer with the EVF was exactly like using it with an OVF. I didn't have to use AEL or anything else to make it work normally. But it's nice to know in the event I run into conditions like that again, but it looks like most of the time where I live it will be unnecessary.

Today was the first chance I really got to spend with the EVF and I can see under these typical conditions I have to consciously think about it being an EVF because it just doesn't scream out that something is different. I put it in my wife's hands without telling her it was a different kind of viewfinder and it never crossed her mind that anything was odd. And she goes back to her Nikkormat days.

I really like having the live histogram in the viewfinder and the same with the aircraft level (I'll use that a lot) and all the other data you get that normally you have to look at the LCD for. I can see now where only on occasion will the LCD come out of hiding from facing against the camera back. It bothered me to no end getting face grease all over that shiny plate anyway so now that part is over and I can go back to shooting like I did for decades with X-700s, SRTs and AF Maxxums and whatnot, but with a lot more data than those could ever offer. We've come full circle only with a bigger circle. And I like the fact that I can change to Auto HDR or other settings or display modes without having to move my eye from the finder.

I'm sold! This is a true advancement. Sony is brilliant! LCDs are for thumb-sucking amateurs moving over from digicams, not for r##l photographers.

Ed

[Greg Beetham]

Here is an example of recording an asteroid flyby. http://www.spaceweather.com/submissions ... 394943.gif
In astronomical distance terms one could say that this is a close pass. There was one a few years ago that passed between the earth and the moon (near miss), that one was a previously unknown.
The Arizona crater was made by a rock about 150ft wide, so the current thinking goes.
Greg