With a $9,000 instant rebate, I might consider it.
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
I've never tried stabilized binoculars. How well do they work?
OVFs are inferior in every way but... oh darn I can't really think of one.
EVFs with a proximity sensor use no power when you're not looking through it.
The horrible EVF lag on my 7 year old P&S never stopped me from taking oodles and oodles of pictures with it, and human reaction time is only around 50ms at best anyway.
The EVF tells you exactly where in the scene the sensor is reaching its limits
and gives you boatloads of information about how to make your picture better before you take it, it's really not even close.
Your whole argument seems to hinge on the inability to see the image produced by the lens with your own eye, as though some ethereal aspect of your artistic skill is cut off by not directly absorbing the photons bouncing off the subject.
I'm not wholly against the OVF, and I agree that given the current state of on sensor AF it's still the better choice for fast action, I just think that the one thing it can do that the EVF can't is so easily compensated for that you'd be crazy not to jump on all the benefits of the EVF.
EVFs basically stink, and the only reason I want a hybrid EVF/OVF viewfinder is to use the EVF for video and for manual focus situations. Other than that, you can keep them. Their only redeeming feature is that they are better than the LCD on the back of the camera because they are eye-level.
But you wouldn't want to shoot video at eye level with a DSLR. Bracing is all wrong. Form factor of DSLRs is rubbish for video.
I have a shoulder mount for my 600D and flip out screen. It sits about 6"-12" in front of my eye, perfect, means I also get to see 'around' my shot with my other eye. Nothing worse than trying to walk up or down stairs with your eyes pressed to an EVF with either a wide or tele lens.
The mirror assembly serves a very useful purpose, and EVFs are many, many generations away from being "good enough" for me (I'd estimate decades away). The difficulties with 36x36 sensor extend to the entire lens system as well.
You seem to be throwing out the baby with the bathwater. Just because the EVF is less than ideal in one range of use doesn't make it inferior on the whole, or even unacceptable for those less than ideal uses. In virtually every circumstance other than long range action, people are going to take a good look at the scene with their own eyes, then take the picture.
If you don't like the in camera image there's nothing stopping you from adjusting things afterwards anyway.
For the few critical things a viewfinder has to do the EVF is generally better, and as a side benefit (almost more important than the EVF itself) on sensor focusing is more accurate. As mentioned, it puts an end to lens-to-camera calibration. That, is a big deal. Especially in long range action. Maybe on sensor AF isn't blazing fast at the moment but I doubt it will be long before you can track a BIF with it (on that point, with 80% of the surface of Canons new sensor performing AF it may end up far superior in that application).
Sure, things can get better, but it doesn't make sense to completely abandon the superior system just because of a few problems with one or two specific activities.
Basically, to compare the experience of a cinema camera user like those of the RED cameras, to folks shooting stills on an OM-D isn't that valid. The principles, expectations and requirements are entirely different.
Adjusting the EVF isn't sufficient. What I can do in post is much more than can be done in the 5ms or so available to the processing pipeline in the camera, and it's very often the case that all of that post is what's necessary to get the image to look as it did to my eye. Further, the sensor can't even do what my eye can do, partly because my eye is a much larger format even than full frame and partly because my eye can do its own pre-processing (different ISO at different locations, lateral inhibition) before the data is even sent to the brain.I once (20 or so years ago) overheard a conversation with a symphony conductor who was asked whether CD or LP sounded more like what he heard on the podium. His reply was that the listener doesn't want to hear what he hears on the podium, that the instruments are not properly balanced at that location; but he is accustomed to this, so he knows how to manage the performers so it will be balanced for the audience. He said the real question is which sounds more like what the audience is supposed to hear.
I see the same thing for VF's. I completely concede that EVF's do not show "reality," but that's the point: they can show the information needed for the photographer to capture the raw image that will result in a well-adjusted photo. For example, an OVF doesn't show blown highlights or clipped shadows; an EVF can.
Or think of ML and its focus peaking feature.
Video cameras have EVFs because they have to, and they all stink. Even some users of RED's nearly $4000 EVF have demanded a non-TTL OVF because the EVF isn't suitable to their uses.It would be interesting to hear the pros and cons from those folks.
QuoteThe image circle isn't big enough, and some lenses already have rectangular hoods or rear windows, or both.I was under the impression that the maximal image circle was 43 x 43, but that the edges (outside of 36mm) are almost completely unusable. Rectangular baffles can be removed (for a modest fee, of course). But your basic point is correct: not every lens would be able to make use of this feature.
I want my pictures to look like they looked or would have looked to my naked eye, not like what they out-of-camera JPEG looks like, and they are very often dramatically different.Presumably, on a pro body you'd be able to adjust the EVF to suit your needs. Also, what if it's dark? Your naked eye won't see much, but EVF can see in near-darkness now. (maybe this doesn't apply to your style of photography)
QuoteThe mirror assembly serves a very useful purpose, and EVFs are many, many generations away from being "good enough" for me (I'd estimate decades away).I guess I'm more optimistic. Aren't high-end video cameras all EVF now? If so, it seems like just a matter of a few years before that tech comes to still cameras.
QuoteThe difficulties with 36x36 sensor extend to the entire lens system as well.
Let's be honest. All three people that wanted an EF-mount mirrorless camera already bought one.
I want one but don't yet have one. My first (consumer) digital camera had an EVF, which I really liked. I'm very much looking forward to the day that we can leave the SLR mirror on the dustbin of obsolete technology. Many will argue that a mirror allows them to see the frame as it really is, but I can do that with my naked eye.
I want to see the frame as the sensor sees it, so I have a better idea of what the resulting image will actually look like.
I may well get an M2, but what I really want is an SLR-replacement with fast AF and fast EVF refresh. The mirror assembly is a waste of space and weight, and impedes the introduction of 36 x 36 sensors to replace "full-frame." Good riddance.
To me, the requirement some seem have for IS on the 24-70 is somewhat difficult to understand and I wonder if it is based on real world experience or just theoretical thinking. When I first bought it, it replaced my 24-105 f4 IS as my standard walk-around lens, and I thought I would miss both the 70-105 range and IS. The truth is I don´t. I have a very low threshold for buying the latest and greatest, but I don´t see how IS on this lens would tempt me.