EVF luminance and such

In a recent thread on the Sony A7, Jerome Marot said:


In my Panasonic DMC-FZ200, the overall luminance of the EVF image is quite comparable to that of the scene itself, over a wide range of scene luminance - nighttime through full sun.

The clinker is its lack of what we can call dynamic range: It is hard to see the detail in the darker portions of the scene, regardless of the overall scene luminance.

The other shortcoming is that VF parameter that is never spoken of: the VF image size.

If we have a camera with a full-frame 35-mm format size (43.3 mm sensor) for which the viewfinder, with a lens focal length of 50 mm in effect, exhibits a viewfinder image magnification of 1.0, the diagonal subtense of the viewfinder image (the metric of "VF image size") is about 47 degrees (for any focal length, of course - the VF image size does not vary with focal length).

But in my DMC-FZ200, the diagonal subtense of the viewfinder image is about 19.5 degrees. Its linear size is about 40% that of the viewfinder image on the first camera.

And that is the greatest cause of difficulty with that EVF.

Size matters.

Best regards,

Doug

The apparent size of the image of the NEX 7 EVF is quite large actually. It is similar to the one of a 24x36 camera.

As to brightness, it is much less bright than full sunlight as seen in an optical viewfinder. In darkness, it is much brighter than the scene, which I find blinding (nigh eye adaptation is compromised).

While we are at it, we may also criticize the habit from the manufacturers to quote resolution of screens and EVF in dots, where red, green and blue dots are counted separately. The NEX-7, like the A99 and A7/A7r viewfinder is only 1024x768.

Hi, Jerome,

Jerome Marot said:

While we are at it, we may also criticize the habit from the manufacturers to quote resolution of screens and EVF in dots, where red, green and blue dots are counted separately.

Click to expand...

Indeed!

Best regards,

Doug

I agree with everything above, my own major objection with EVF, is with its talent to destroy peoples ability to visualise the outcome… It certainly replaces the interpretation of the eye (the actual vision) in relation to the mind (the visualisation) and hence it promotes the "digital view" as being a photograph… (which surely will promote further corruption of the "photography meaning"). In my view, EVF can be precious if it serves what its best advantage is… and that is replacing what a polaroid back in film MF was aimed to do… i.e. to study a scene and judge its technical parameters (exposure, DOF, focus accuracy ..etc) ...better. Which is some professional use…. I don't see where the use of EVF can serve artistic photography (I do see the opposite), or any other kind of photography for that matter, other than studio still life or other similar that would require the study of a polaroid first to maximise the result… and of course video...

Hi, Theodoros,

Theodoros Fotometria said:

I agree with everything above, my own major objection with EVF, is with its talent to destroy peoples ability to visualize the outcome…

Click to expand...

That sounds exactly upside-down to me.

The use of an EVF (of course I don't mean a poor one) in fact allows the photographer to see what the camera will capture.

Best regards,

Doug

Doug Kerr said:

The use of an EVF (of course I don't mean a poor one) in fact allows the photographer to see what the camera will capture.

Click to expand...

Not quite, actually. First, the EVF dynamic range is much smaller than what a camera can achieve. Second, the resolution of the EVF is much smaller than what I can see in an optical viewfinder. Third, the colors EVFs produce are not calibrated to anything sensible and are not matched to the external illuminant color temperature.

Unless you are talking about the practice of studio photographers who shoot tethered to a computer and watch the results on a calibrated wide gamut monitor under the controlled light of their studio, an EVF is not very accurate. From experience with the NEX-7, I would say that it has some advantages but accurate preview is not one of them. I would even say that the live preview they offer is more misleading than anything else.

Hi, Jerome,

Jerome Marot said:

Not quite, actually. First, the EVF dynamic range is much smaller than what a camera can achieve. Second, the resolution of the EVF is much smaller than what I can see in an optical viewfinder. Third, the colors EVFs produce are not calibrated to anything sensible and are not matched to the external illuminant color temperature.

Click to expand...

I believe you are speaking of typical 2013 enthusiast camera EVFs.

Unless you are talking about the practice of studio photographers who shoot tethered to a computer and watch the results on a calibrated wide gamut monitor under the controlled light of their studio, an EVF is not very accurate.

Click to expand...

Today, this is the most practical way to get a good EVF.

From experience with the NEX-7, I would say that it has some advantages but accurate preview is not one of them. I would even say that the live preview they offer is more misleading than anything else.

Click to expand...

I'm sure this is so of the NEX-7., and most comparable cameras today.

Best regards,

Doug

Doug Kerr said:

Hi, Jerome,



I believe you are speaking of typical 2013 enthusiast camera EVFs.



Today, this is the most practical way to get a good EVF.



I'm sure this is so of the NEX-7., and most comparable cameras today.

Best regards,

Doug

Click to expand...

Doug, what Jerome means (and he is right) is that the values of photography change no matter how good an EVF will ever become…. You see, ...when photography was given a birth and after it was recognised as an art that one could express feelings, or meanings, or other "artistic communication language", this (the fundamental behind it in other words) was because there was the requirement of one to visualise an outcome (the photograph) by using human vision as it is known. Hence, since using an EVF is and will always be different to human vision, the visualisation to the outcome path is altered, which of course insults the fundamental and thus it is not applicable…
OTOH, in studio and still life (no matter if it is professional or artistic creation), the outcome is visualised through real vision and the settings (lighting, frame …etc) is performed without using a camera, the camera only enters as the additional tool/record media where parameters (that have been set/directed already according to the visualisation by using "real" vision) have only to be checked for accuracy… Hence, EVF is not (and IMO cannot be) a media when visualisation occurs through the viewfinder, but when the viewfinder use is pointless, EVF (or LV) is a great media to check the accuracy of the parameters set and great to use! …just like using a polaroid back, but only much better.

Hi, Theodoros,

You tell us that photography is only the capture of images and their delivery on a paper print, and that the imperative of the good photographer is to plan his photography with visualization of that finished process.

Yet you then tell us that to have the proper visualization, we must compose the picture by looking through something that gives us a fairly-direct view of the scene (of course, only a "sports finder" completely fulfills that criterion, but you are evidently content - as is I think reasonable - to accept the modest interventions of ground glass, viewing telescope, and such).

In brief, you seem to suggest:

• The photographer must contemplate his result from the viewpoint of the very end of the imaging chain (the anticipated print). Thus he must contemplate the effect of such things as tonal scale, possible "conversion" to monochrome, chromatic idiosyncrasies of the whole chain, and such. Fair enough.

yet

• He must do this by regading an image that is as near as possible to being from the viewpoint of the beginning of the chain (as near as possible to viewing the actual image, perhaps only with the mechanical assistance of an indication of the boundaries of the "frame").

I cannot reconcile these two imperatives.

Best regards,

Doug

Theodoros Fotometria said:

Doug, what Jerome means (and he is right) is that the values of photography change no matter how good an EVF will ever become…

Click to expand...

I would appreciate if you would not put words in my mouth. Thank you in advance.

Doug Kerr said:

I believe you are speaking of typical 2013 enthusiast camera EVFs.

Click to expand...

Yes. I have ample experience with the NEX-7, which is still supposed to be one of the best EVFs available. I also saw the viewfinder of the A99 which appears to be exactly the same electronics with improved (bigger) optics.

This being said, I am sure that you will appreciate that EVFs have been around for a long time in video cameras (Sony uses the same components in the Alpha cameras and in some of their video line) and that the need for a better viewfinder for video equipment that costs considerably more than SLRs is still not fulfilled, while camera operators would be willing to pay a lot for one. And video cameras do not have the limited space and power consumption of photo cameras. Improving resolution, display rate and even color directly translate in improving processing, readout speed of the sensor, etc… It is a very difficult problem.

Therefore, I do not expect the viewfinders of still cameras to improve markedly in the coming years. The "typical 2013 enthusiast camera" is where we have been for the past years and likely to be where we will be in the coming years.

Doug Kerr said:

Hi, Theodoros,

You tell us that photography is only the capture of images and their delivery on a paper print, and that the imperative of the good photographer is to plan his photography with visualization of that finished process.

Doug

Click to expand...

I don't tell you anything… I suggest that a "photo"(lighting) - "graph"(righting/recording) is a print by definition as is a fasma-"graph", a dent-"graph", a radio-"graph" or any other-"graph"… "It's all Greek to me" …anyway!

Doug Kerr said:

Yet you then tell us that to have the proper visualization, we must compose the picture by looking through something that gives us a fairly-direct view of the scene (of course, only a "sports finder" completely fulfills that criterion, but you are evidently content - as is I think reasonable - to accept the modest interventions of ground glass, viewing telescope, and such).

Doug

Click to expand...

No… this you've got all wrong… "visualisation" is a process that can't be taught and refers to the ability of a creator to execute the process accurately so that he will achieve what he visualised… In other words, a photographer (that's his difference with one that uses a camera), visualises the print in his mind (because he knows that what his eye sees is different to the outcome) and executes setting the parameters in order to achieve the photograph… (i.e. the print), which of course includes the pre-knowledge of how he will execute the whole process… (shooting parameters, development method and what he will do, and full profile control as to achieve the print… even the material he will print is included) …in more words, as a painter visualises the painting and has pre chosen the material he will paint on, the colours and how he will mix them, the size, the lighting …etc, or as a writer visualises the novel along with the scenes, the language style, the characters and their language …etc, …it's the same with a photographer! …or he isn't a photographer!

Doug Kerr said:

In brief, you seem to suggest:

• The photographer must contemplate his result from the viewpoint of the very end of the imaging chain (the anticipated print). Thus he must contemplate the effect of such things as tonal scale, possible "conversion" to monochrome, chromatic idiosyncrasies of the whole chain, and such. Fair enough.

Doug

Click to expand...

Answered…

Doug Kerr said:

yet

• He must do this by regading an image that is as near as possible to being from the viewpoint of the beginning of the chain (as near as possible to viewing the actual image, perhaps only with the mechanical assistance of an indication of the boundaries of the "frame").

I cannot reconcile these two imperatives.

Doug

Click to expand...

Answered….

Doug Kerr said:

Best regards,

Doug

Click to expand...

Thanks Doug for giving me another chance to share my views...

Jerome Marot said:

I would appreciate if you would not put words in my mouth. Thank you in advance.

Click to expand...

Sorry Jerome… if you have or spotted anything that you disagree with and isn't your view, you may be specific on it… I still agree with you and think that my post was accurate on your views… it's only a discussion that I agree with you, not an attempt to alter your sayings. ….(unless of course if you find anything altering them).

I never wrote anything pertaining to the values of photography in relation to EVFs.

Jerome Marot said:

I never wrote anything pertaining to the values of photography in relation to EVFs.

Click to expand...

No you didn't… do you disagree?

Theodoros Fotometria said:

No you didn't… do you disagree?

Click to expand...

Obviously.

Jerome Marot said:

Obviously.

Click to expand...

On what you do disagree?

Hi, Theodoros,

Theodoros Fotometria said:

I don't tell you anything…

Click to expand...

Yes, I fear so.

I suggest that a "photo"(lighting) - "graph"(righting/recording) is a print by definition as is a fasma-"graph", a dent-"graph", a radio-"graph" or any other-"graph"…

Click to expand...

The last radiograph I received was delivered as a PDF file bearing a digital image. Must have been out of paper that day at the hospital.

No… this you've got all wrong… "visualisation" is a process that can't be taught and refers to the ability of a creator to execute the process accurately so that he will achieve what he visualised… In other words, a photographer (that's his difference with one that uses a camera), visualises the print in his mind (because he knows that what his eye sees is different to the outcome) and executes setting the parameters in order to achieve the photograph… (i.e. the print), which of course includes the pre-knowledge of how he will execute the whole process… (shooting parameters, development method and what he will do, and full profile control as to achieve the print… even the material he will print is included) …in more words, as a painter visualises the painting and has pre chosen the material he will paint on, the colours and how he will mix them, the size, the lighting …etc, or as a writer visualises the novel along with the scenes, the language style, the characters and their language …etc, …it's the same with a photographer! …or he isn't a photographer!

Click to expand...

Ah, I see.

A pity that one who uses a camera to generate images whose principal fate is not to be as a "paper print" cannot employ any similar hereditary skill.

or

Lucky that one who uses a camera to generate images whose principal fate is not to be as a "paper print" need not worry about the desirability of employing any similar hereditary skill.

Best regards,

Doug

Doug Kerr said:

Hi, Theodoros,


Yes, I fear so.


The last radiograph I received was delivered as a PDF file bearing a digital image. Must have been out of paper that day at the hospital.

Of course, traditional radiographs were delivered as negative transparencies on cellulose acetate-based material (nitrocellulose-based material even earlier).​

Ah, I see.

A pity that one who uses a camera to generate images whose principal fate is not to be as a "paper print" cannot employ any similar hereditary skill.

or

Lucky that one who uses a camera to generate images whose principal fate is not to be as a "paper print" need not worry about the desirability of employing any similar hereditary skill.

Best regards,

Doug

Click to expand...

As I said before Doug, "it's all Greek to me"! …I am sorry, but I can see the difference between "supported argument" and SA posting… Remember Aristoteles and logic?

P.S. One more thing Doug… Never again post a phrase out of a sentence… it proves motive to alter a saying… In other words, if one says "I don't like A.Adams photography of the "Nevada desert" and some SA Quotes… "I don't like A.Adams photography" _ "quote"... the quoter is a proven jerk!

Theodoros Fotometria said:

As I said before Doug, "it's all Greek to me"! …I am sorry, but I can see the difference between "supported argument" and SA posting… Remember Aristoteles and logic?

P.S. One more thing Doug… Never again post a phrase out of a sentence… it proves motive to alter a saying… In other words, if one says "I don't like A.Adams photography of the "Nevada desert" and some SA Quotes… "I don't like A.Adams photography" _ "quote"... the quoter is a proven jerk!

Click to expand...

We don't need to "change the page" Doug….

Hi, Theodoros,

Theodoros Fotometria said:

P.S. One more thing Doug… Never again post a phrase out of a sentence… it proves motive to alter a saying… In other words, if one says "I don't like A.Adams photography of the "Nevada desert" and some SA Quotes… "I don't like A.Adams photography" _ "quote"... the quoter is a proven jerk!

Click to expand...

A thousand pardons.

Here is your entire sentence:

OTOH, since photography is still "only the printed thing on paper", I don't see how one can think of improving his photography without trying to perfect his visualisation…

Click to expand...

Best regards,

Doug

Doug Kerr said:

Hi, Theodoros,



A thousand pardons.

Here is your entire sentence:



Best regards,

Doug

Click to expand...

Yet, you repost another "cut" from a five line sentence, which was post to another thread and another person (Tom in this case) without presenting in what this replies or what the subject is… AND ADDITIONALLY you post it twice, although you've done so before (in that previous thread) and it has ben answered to you… Naughty boy Doug… not a wise decision. Some may think of you as …described above!