Viewfinding

There is great interest in a rumored upcoming new interchangeable lens camera line from Canon. Some commentors believe that the defining dimensions (including mount flange back [register] distance) could be chosen so as to effectively preclude the line including any models with the single lens reflex (SLR) formulation, meaning that eyepiece-oriented through-the-lens viewing (for aiming, framing, and perhaps focusing) could only be of the "electronic viewfinder" (EVF) type. Of course, non-TTL viewfinders (as we have in rangefinder cameras) would not be at all ruled out. (In this regard, I do not consider a monitor screen to be an "eyepiece-oriented viewfinder", although I do have an eyepiece adapter for mine.)

Others feel that the desire for single-lens reflex viewing would be so potent by some photographers that the new line would of necessity have basic parameters that would allow the including of models having the SLR mode (perhaps alternatively to an EVF mode).

My own thoughts have been that, assuming that the implementation of an EVF scheme moved beyond some of the limitations of the past, there would be no real need to support an SLR mode.

I'd be interested in what the members here think about that issue.

Best regards,

Doug

I've no knoweledge of the Canon camera, or its rumors, that you referenced, Doug. Sorry. Just some shards of thoughts.

- I think that recent product successes, mainly in non-Canon cameras, point strongly toward the desirability of offering some type of viewfinder in cameras. The lcd-only camera is quickly being subsumed by phones. So all "real" cameras will have to have to-the-eye viewfinders.

- Synthetic optical viewfinders (i.e. EVFs), such as the Oly E-P2's accessory and the just-out Fuji X100, offer substantial downsizing of camera body sizes due to elimination of the mirror box. These cameras, and a few others, have clearly demonstrated that high-resolution display technology exists to facilitate an acceptable EVF as a substitute for an optical TTL-style viewfinder. This technology is only getting better, too.

- In addition to size reduction, a good EVF offers a great deal more ergonomic design flexibility than does an optical finder. For example, one of the strong attributes of the classic Leica M rangefinder design was the eccentric viewfinder. By siting the viewfinder on the camera's upper left corner M-style cameras enable the shooter to see the whole scene with their left eye open. (Many photographers also suggest that using a small-ish camera that does not cover your face makes you less intimidating to subjects, but I rather discount this claim.) The appetite of the enthusiast market for "retro" styling, which only an EVF could facilitate, also seems hard to ignore.

- Beyond all of this, the EVF offers a tremendously richer and more flexible shooting experience than any TTL optical finder ever could. Even now, for example, the hinged accessory EVF on my Olympus Pen E-P2 enables me to shoot in a variety of attitudes impossible with an optical viewfinder.

Indeed, I would find it unbelievable to discover that Canon (and Nikon) aren't marshaling their design energies toward mirror-less EVF camera body designs. But here's one other aspect to consider: smaller bodies with different recording plane-to-lens relationships probably also means new lens lines. That's where the real gravy gets made. Remember, Canon, Nikon, and Olympus each started as optical (lens) makers. That they've had to wrap application gadgets (cameras, copiers, microscopes) around their lenses for 60-70 years was largely out of necessity. They each love lenses and know how to make them very, very well. I can only imagine that embracing a "new", small, Leica-like line of lenses for these new small bodies would be a challenge that these companies would each embrace madly. "Tora! Tora! Tora!"

That is, if their damn plants don't melt into the sea first.

The technical advances on EVF come first to professional video cameras, simply because it is a market where price can be higher and because there are far less constraints on size or power supply.

At present, the state of the art in EVF is comparable to what you would have in an entry level APS-C DSLR. The image is bigger, the amount of detail is not very different, but the colors and refresh rate are not comparable.

It will be some time before they arrive at the level of full-frame 35mm DSLRs (what has been acknowledged by Sony, a large player in EVFs). They will probably never arrive at the level of medium format cameras.

Good point, Jerome. Unlike still photography, videography has no heritage of optical finders. (Unless, of course, you consider optical finders of film motion picture cameras which, I would argue, is not really analogous.)

I've (sadly) not touched any of my own video cameras for years. My XL1s, AGDV-100, and GL-2 are all sadly outdated now. But I do recall that the top-end video camera viewfinders were (and I think still are) tiny black-and-white crt screens. In fact, I still have one for my XL1s. The reasoning behind this design was that color can be deceptive when it comes to accurate focusing. Back in the day, I accepted this without question. But I wonder what the specs of today's top-end cameras show for a viewfinder.

Still I don't expect to see high-res b&w EVFs coming to a camera near you! ;-)

Hi, Ken,

Ken Tanaka said:

Good point, Jerome. Unlike still photography, videography has no heritage of optical finders. (Unless, of course, you consider optical finders of film motion picture cameras which, I would argue, is not really analogous.)

Click to expand...

One exception is the Arriflex line (film and now video), a bona fide single-lens reflex configuration (the rotating shutter is a mirror on its front side).

Best regards,

Doug

Ken Tanaka said:

But I wonder what the specs of today's top-end cameras show for a viewfinder.

Click to expand...

Basically, a good prosumer camera like the sony NX5 uses about the same system as the Alpha A55 (which has good resolution but is a sequential color device). For pro cameras, small B&W CRTs still exist, but are on the way out. This is an example of state of the art portable viewfinder:
http://pro.sony.com/bbsc/ssr/cat-broadcastcameras/cat-xdcam/product-HDVFC35W/

Basically, it is a small color LCD behind a magnifier. The resolution is not full HD. Some other systems use OLED displays, which have the potential of a higher resolution, but are not quite there yet.

One of the often forgotten problem of electronic viewfinders, is that they need to be fed with a signal (isn't it obvious?). Creating this signal in full HD with a decent refresh rate is not as trivial as it seems, especially if the system must run out of a tiny battery.

Jerome Marot said:

At present, the state of the art in EVF is comparable to what you would have in an entry level APS-C DSLR. The image is bigger, the amount of detail is not very different, but the colors and refresh rate are not comparable.

Click to expand...

I had the occasion to compare a Sony A55 to a DLSR today. I forgot one drawback of the EVF: it is not able to render as much contrast as the eye can see. For example, being in a shop, either the inside of the shop was correctly exposed, but the windows were just overexposed or you could see details outside, but the inside of the shop was plain black.

Some people may believe that it is a help, since the picture will not be able to render as much contrast as the eye sees anyway. I don't quite agree: the little display is far, far worse than the sensor can be.

Still, considering how appallingly bad some entry-level optical viewfinder can be (Sony having amongst the worse ones because of their "quick live view" secondary camera system...), an EVF can be considered an attractive proposition in that case. But only by comparison...

Hi, Jerome,

Jerome Marot said:

I had the occasion to compare a Sony A55 to a DLSR today. I forgot one drawback of the EVF: it is not able to render as much contrast as the eye can see. For example, being in a shop, either the inside of the shop was correctly exposed, but the windows were just overexposed or you could see details outside, but the inside of the shop was plain black.

Click to expand...

An excellent point. Thanks.

Best regards,

Doug

Jerome Marot said:

I had the occasion to compare a Sony A55 to a DLSR today. I forgot one drawback of the EVF: it is not able to render as much contrast as the eye can see. For example, being in a shop, either the inside of the shop was correctly exposed, but the windows were just overexposed or you could see details outside, but the inside of the shop was plain black.

Some people may believe that it is a help, since the picture will not be able to render as much contrast as the eye sees anyway. I don't quite agree: the little display is far, far worse than the sensor can be.

Click to expand...

Jerome,

We might agree that the 5DII has a great LCD screen with useful live view. So it really surprised me when I tested the Phase One IQ 180 that I hardly used the LCD screen at all. Once I saw what was appearing on the Macbook Pro screen, I no longer had to check. The optical view is so bright and crisp that my manual focus was accurate. I had confidence in that. (The camera's AF is as accurate or better. Again that surprised me.)

As you point out, only the optical viewfinder gives the brain the widest dynamic range. Once one knows one's lighting, the optical viewfinder is all one needs. Frankly, I can't imagine an electronic viewfinder that could match the clarity of the pure optical experience.

So I agree that, at least for the next 5 years, optical viewfinders will be the mark of the best studio and pro cameras.

Asher

Hi, Asher,

Asher Kelman said:

We might agree that the 5DII has a great LCD screen with useful live view. So it really surprised me when I tested the Phase One IQ 180 that I hardly used the LCD screen at all. Once I saw what was appearing on the Macbook Pro screen, I no longer had to check. The optical view is so bright and crisp that my manual focus was accurate. I had confidence in that. (The camera's AF is as accurate or better. Again that surprised me.)

As you point out, only the optical viewfinder gives the brain the widest dynamic range. Once one knows one's lighting, the optical viewfinder is all one needs. Frankly, I can't imagine an electronic viewfinder that could match the clarity of the pure optical experience.

So I agree that, at least for the next 5 years, optical viewfinders will be the mark of the best studio and pro cameras.

Click to expand...

An excellent point, again.

I was earlier amazed to learn Arri's recent high-performance video camera, the Arriflex D-21, has a bona fide SLR viewfinder. Now I finally get to appreciate the attraction.

Thanks, guys.

This all lends credence to the prospect that the New Canon Thing (NCT) will be a configuration that, while well-suited to EVF-only eyepiece viewing models, will also accommodate models with a bona fide SLR viewfinder (perhaps with an alternative EVF or hybrid mode).

Some "creative" reading between the tea leaves of a recent Canon patent on an EF-to-whatever lens adapter suggests a relatively large flange back distance for the NCT (perhaps 30.0 mm), which again may be in support of the prospect of a mirror box in some models.

This would well fit the rumored prospect that that native maximum frame size of the NCT would be 18 x 12 mm ("2.00x"). It is not inherently incompatible with the rumored prospect that the native maximum frame size of the NCT would be about 28 x 18.5 mm ("1.29x"). (Typical flange back distances for SLR-based systems have been not significantly less than the required image circle diameter, which would be 33.56 mm for that frame size.)

But this is just conjecture on top of conjecture.

Best regards,

Doug

Asher Kelman said:

Jerome,

We might agree that the 5DII has a great LCD screen with useful live view. So it really surprised me when I tested the Phase One IQ 180 that I hardly used the LCD screen at all. Once I saw what was appearing on the Macbook Pro screen, I no longer had to check. The optical view is so bright and crisp that my manual focus was accurate. I had confidence in that. (The camera's AF is as accurate or better. Again that surprised me.)

As you point out, only the optical viewfinder gives the brain the widest dynamic range. Once one knows one's lighting, the optical viewfinder is all one needs. Frankly, I can't imagine an electronic viewfinder that could match the clarity of the pure optical experience.

So I agree that, at least for the next 5 years, optical viewfinders will be the mark of the best studio and pro cameras.

Asher

Click to expand...

Asher,

I Have duct tape my optical viewfinder over - I use my eyes to check the light and live view to bring the image to focus. Works well for me !

cheers

Hi, Mark,

Mark Hampton said:

Asher,

I Have duct tape my optical viewfinder over

Click to expand...

Oh, how nikulturniy! Gaffer tape would have been ever so much more appropriate!

Best regards,

Doug

Doug Kerr said:

Hi, Mark,

Oh, how nikulturniy! Gaffer tape would have been ever so much more appropriate!

Best regards,

Doug

Click to expand...

Doug,

Delightful - I was thinking of this song -

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wTGvq5WE0Q

in relation to duct tape guess you nailed it i am a nikulturniy

it does look good !

I had an olympus pen epl2 and did not like the EVF. Reasons being 1)The noise when shooting low light made manual focusing difficult and 2) the fact I couldn't have a viewfinder and shoe mount flash at the same time.

Also the scene never looked as I saw it with my own eyes in respect to WB and the amount of light in the scene. So a darker scene looked far more lit than in real life through the EVF.