November 27, 2014, 12:02:18 AM

Show Posts

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.


Messages - Policar

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 29
1
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 6D photos on a 4K TV monitor
« on: November 14, 2014, 01:10:12 AM »
All things equal, yes, but the 4k display might not have the same contrast ratio, refresh rate, color gamut, calibration, etc.

So unless the pixels are really the big problem, and you're willing to risk (maybe lose, maybe not) contrast/gamut/whatever, I wouldn't go for 4k quite yet. But when you find the right panel, yes, it will help.

2
Canon General / Re: Canon Cinema EOS C300 Mark II Will be 4K [CR2]
« on: November 09, 2014, 04:41:25 PM »
This rumor make me worried for two reasons.

1) If they introduce 4K with the C300 Mark II, then it seem doubtful that 4k will find its way to the relatively cheaper models. I don't desperately need 4k, but it would nice see it in a Canon body that doesn't cost $12,000. So for example I wouldn't expect them to give the 5d Mark IV 4k, in order to not cannibalize the C300.

2) The idea of a shoulder mounted production camera is very interesting, but if they are targeting the same marked as the Arri Alexis, then it's not something that would be relevant to everyone here, if you don't work with high budget productions. And I think that is a damn shame. I love the idea of big sensor camera for documentaries that I just can take out of the box and on my shoulders, and then go out shooting.

It the same thing Sony are trying to do with the FS7, but I would love to see Canon do the same.  But of course this is just rumors, so I can still be pleasantly surprised.

Canon is trying to position itself like Arri (and Red... sort of) as an "industry leader" that doesn't need to compete with specs so much on image, trust among producers and DPs, and not on the basis of specs. Arri doesn't offer 4k (even at 60k); red doesn't offer it for under 15k realistically for 4k-ready package. Canon is at the low end of the industry in terms of specs, but also prices for a well-liked professional solution. The F5 didn't catch on great, but it's as expensive as the C300.

The C300 rents very well. I find the IQ from the camera awesome, I far prefer it to the F5 despite the F5's better specs.

The A7S and GH4 are not gaining traction among serious shooters due to reliability issues (even the F5 has poor timecode sync); the IQ is there and if all you're after is IQ just buy one! Canon won't cater to you, the same as Arri won't. Stop waiting. Canon is after the professional market, which demands less in terms of image quality and more in terms of reliability and conventional workflow (which is where Red stumbles and Arri does best, despite... only 2k on the body).

Listen, I actually don't care about IQ that much. As a video-journalist I want a new C300 that I can comfortably put on my shoulder without building a rig or the need of a external evf. Mix in broadcast friendly codecs, sell it at $8000, and then I am a happy camper.  If this rumor is true, then Canon will not make that camera.

It sounds like they're making that camera, it might just not be the C300.

Would be cool if it were.

3
Canon General / Re: Canon Cinema EOS C300 Mark II Will be 4K [CR2]
« on: November 09, 2014, 02:46:40 PM »
This rumor make me worried for two reasons.

1) If they introduce 4K with the C300 Mark II, then it seem doubtful that 4k will find its way to the relatively cheaper models. I don't desperately need 4k, but it would nice see it in a Canon body that doesn't cost $12,000. So for example I wouldn't expect them to give the 5d Mark IV 4k, in order to not cannibalize the C300.

2) The idea of a shoulder mounted production camera is very interesting, but if they are targeting the same marked as the Arri Alexis, then it's not something that would be relevant to everyone here, if you don't work with high budget productions. And I think that is a damn shame. I love the idea of big sensor camera for documentaries that I just can take out of the box and on my shoulders, and then go out shooting.

It the same thing Sony are trying to do with the FS7, but I would love to see Canon do the same.  But of course this is just rumors, so I can still be pleasantly surprised.

Canon is trying to position itself like Arri (and Red... sort of) as an "industry leader" that doesn't need to compete with specs so much on image, trust among producers and DPs, and not on the basis of specs. Arri doesn't offer 4k (even at 60k); red doesn't offer it for under 15k realistically for 4k-ready package. Canon is at the low end of the industry in terms of specs, but also prices for a well-liked professional solution. The F5 didn't catch on great, but it's as expensive as the C300.

The C300 rents very well. I find the IQ from the camera awesome, I far prefer it to the F5 despite the F5's better specs.

The A7S and GH4 are not gaining traction among serious shooters due to reliability issues (even the F5 has poor timecode sync); the IQ is there and if all you're after is IQ just buy one! Canon won't cater to you, the same as Arri won't. Stop waiting. Canon is after the professional market, which demands less in terms of image quality and more in terms of reliability and conventional workflow (which is where Red stumbles and Arri does best, despite... only 2k on the body).

4
Canon General / Re: Canon Cinema EOS C300 Mark II Will be 4K [CR2]
« on: November 07, 2014, 04:09:29 PM »
It'll be 4k. Hopefully 10 bit codec. Probably the same sensor.

5
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon Announces the Cinema EOS C100 Mark II
« on: October 21, 2014, 08:58:16 PM »
As a C100 owner, I'm pretty happy with Canon's update!

Fwiw I still think the CX00 series offers the best looking image on the market below the Alexa, though Canon Log sucks (wide DR is great).

For the best specs, get anything else and spend a lifetime grading it to look as good as Canon's AVCHD.

6
Landscape / Re: Fall colours
« on: October 14, 2014, 04:51:12 PM »
Handheld 1/50th second

7
EOS Bodies / Re: Next Rebel Going EVF? [CR1]
« on: October 03, 2014, 06:40:27 PM »
Many of us on this forum have been asking Canon to catch up with Sony, but we want Canon to catch up with their sensors, and NOT the horrible evf!

Unfortunately, the EVF end is inevitable. See here:
http://www.dslrbodies.com/newsviews/sensors-are-a-moving-target.html

"... it’s inevitable that DSLRs eventually become mirrorless... DSLRs are too complex to continue to drop in inflation-adjusted pricing and stay in that under-US$1000 pocket. So we’ll see separate parts (meter, focus sensor) move into the ever-improving image sensor, and the things they previously needed to support them disappear. Exactly the way Sony has done it in the A7 series...

Mirrorless approaches will drive out problematic complexity and cost; they remove components (meter, focus system) and put them on the sensor itself at no other tangible cost than R&D."

That's silly.  Pros don't give a flying you-know-what about whether they're in the under-$1000 pocket.  They care about things like low latency, maintaining dark adaptation of their eyes at night, fast focusing speed, and ability to see critical focus with the naked eye (at normal f-stops, anyway).  EVFs can't deliver that combination, nor are they likely to be able to deliver it within the next ten years.

The OLED displays are getting close to not blowing out your night vision, but they only last two or three years, and they have poor resolution, which means you can't focus accurately by eye alone (without zooming in and losing the ability to pay attention to what's happening around you, anyway).  And LCD-based EVFs have higher resolution and longer life, but have crap contrast and can't get very dark.  And latency and focusing speed have a long way to go.

I just don't see EVFs replacing OVFs for high-end still photography gear any time soon.  It's not that they're not quite ready; it's that they're nowhere near ready.  In theory, I could see them take over the Rebel line, but in practice, I can't see that, either.  the problem is, they won't be able to call them DSLRs anymore, and a sizable percentage of the folks who buy low-end DSLRs buy them because they're DSLRs.  Half of them don't even know what DSLR means, but they know that they want one.  So I would expect mirrorless cameras to continue to exist alongside true DSLRs for many more years even at the low end.  Then again, what do I know?  :)

While I agree entirely, and have suffered from using the C100's awful EVF during daylight enough to prove it, I find the Rebel line's finders so poor that I would take a great EVF over their dreadful OVFs in some circumstances and I think most inexperienced photographers who want WYSIWYG exposure, histograms, etc. would agree. Sony has marketed faux-dSLRs for years to the gullible; as have others. If Canon does, no huge surprise.

The idea that an EVF is better is laughable. Even the most precisely calibrated monitor won't retain the color gamut, resolution, and contrast of real light. If you find yourself preferring EVFs, either learn to shoot or consult your eye doctor. :)

But I've been spoiled a bit. The 5D Mark III has a gorgeous finder. I've used film cameras with poor finders and I realize it's all relative. I've found the Alexa to have an adequate EVF, but a mercifully uncluttered one (not even the option to pull up a waveform monitor or histogram!).

What is laughable is the notion that you need color gamut, resolution and contrast in a viewfinder.

The purpose of the viewfinder is to compose the image, nothing more.

EFVs can display extremely useful information that an optical viewfinder cannot, such as exposure information and focus information.

Funny, I like to compose an image in full resolution based on the actual light, and find the resolution of a ground glass far superior to that of a small, pixellated LCD. I'd rather compose in real time than with lag, and don't enjoy rainbow artifacts when I'm trying to base my image on color.

And generally I nail my exposures, by, you know, metering correctly in the first place.

But if it's adequate for you, great!

You don't shoot in RAW? The color you see through your viewfinder is irrelevant, you can change all that in post. What is critical are things like exposure and focus, both of which have OFVs as poor cousins to EFVs in terms of the information they deliver.

An EFV can tell you what is overexposed and what is underexposed. An OFV can't.

If you are doing manual focus, forget about it with an OFV. With an EFV you can switch on focus aids, plus you can zoom in on your critical focus point and visually see if it is in focus or not. An OFV - not so much - you have to guess, and on a one square centimeter piece of glass your guess is probably going to be wrong.

I hear bicycles fall over less with training wheels. :)

Having tools available to you to capture the perfect image is a bad thing? Real men walk backwards in the snow uphill for an hour to do their thing? Really? that is your argument????::)

Depends what tools you need. For me, the racing bike would be the better tool than the training wheels (metaphorically speaking, I've never used a bike that takes a good photo.) OVFs offer better performance in every area except having a built-in histogram, which is pretty useless to anyone who meters competently.

8
EOS Bodies / Re: Next Rebel Going EVF? [CR1]
« on: October 03, 2014, 06:04:52 AM »
...
The idea that an EVF is better is laughable. Even the most precisely calibrated monitor won't retain the color gamut, resolution, and contrast of real light. If you find yourself preferring EVFs, either learn to shoot or consult your eye doctor. :)
...

Right and because of color gamut issues (amongst others), you'll never see on your monitor at home or on paper what it is that you saw through the viewfinder that was glass and mirrors. In which case, what value does the optical view finder have if the colors that you see will not be the colors that are captured and displayed later?

The resolution and gamut of ground glass surpasses both an EVF and a print, but the RAW file (22 megapixels, 16 bit color) still surpasses what's seen in the low res EVF by far. Even an analogue negative far surpasses what's seen on the print... It's just part of the process.

Whether I capture all of it or not, I'm composing based on what I see, and either attempting to replicate that accurately or improve upon it by throwing in a subjective spin or at worst mitigating the damage if the scene is too detailed/there's not enough light/the contrast ratio is too high. When I grade, I don't use an iPhone. I want a high end CRT or Flanders LCD (or my Dreamcolor at home at worst!). Just because the final result is inevitably a compromise doesn't mean I need to compose for a worst case scenario.

When I shoot, I want the truest representation of the scene available to compose from; as for worrying about contrast ratios and white balance and whatnot well... years of spot metering and color temperature metering gives me the experience to know roughly what I'm getting and if I don't, I take out the meter.

I'm not kidding when I say if you win the Tour de France it doesn't matter if you have on training wheels. If your photos are amazing in the print, you could have taken them blind for all I care. 

But, personally, I do better when I don't. :)

9
EOS Bodies / Re: Next Rebel Going EVF? [CR1]
« on: October 03, 2014, 05:33:06 AM »
Many of us on this forum have been asking Canon to catch up with Sony, but we want Canon to catch up with their sensors, and NOT the horrible evf!

Unfortunately, the EVF end is inevitable. See here:
http://www.dslrbodies.com/newsviews/sensors-are-a-moving-target.html

"... it’s inevitable that DSLRs eventually become mirrorless... DSLRs are too complex to continue to drop in inflation-adjusted pricing and stay in that under-US$1000 pocket. So we’ll see separate parts (meter, focus sensor) move into the ever-improving image sensor, and the things they previously needed to support them disappear. Exactly the way Sony has done it in the A7 series...

Mirrorless approaches will drive out problematic complexity and cost; they remove components (meter, focus system) and put them on the sensor itself at no other tangible cost than R&D."

That's silly.  Pros don't give a flying you-know-what about whether they're in the under-$1000 pocket.  They care about things like low latency, maintaining dark adaptation of their eyes at night, fast focusing speed, and ability to see critical focus with the naked eye (at normal f-stops, anyway).  EVFs can't deliver that combination, nor are they likely to be able to deliver it within the next ten years.

The OLED displays are getting close to not blowing out your night vision, but they only last two or three years, and they have poor resolution, which means you can't focus accurately by eye alone (without zooming in and losing the ability to pay attention to what's happening around you, anyway).  And LCD-based EVFs have higher resolution and longer life, but have crap contrast and can't get very dark.  And latency and focusing speed have a long way to go.

I just don't see EVFs replacing OVFs for high-end still photography gear any time soon.  It's not that they're not quite ready; it's that they're nowhere near ready.  In theory, I could see them take over the Rebel line, but in practice, I can't see that, either.  the problem is, they won't be able to call them DSLRs anymore, and a sizable percentage of the folks who buy low-end DSLRs buy them because they're DSLRs.  Half of them don't even know what DSLR means, but they know that they want one.  So I would expect mirrorless cameras to continue to exist alongside true DSLRs for many more years even at the low end.  Then again, what do I know?  :)

While I agree entirely, and have suffered from using the C100's awful EVF during daylight enough to prove it, I find the Rebel line's finders so poor that I would take a great EVF over their dreadful OVFs in some circumstances and I think most inexperienced photographers who want WYSIWYG exposure, histograms, etc. would agree. Sony has marketed faux-dSLRs for years to the gullible; as have others. If Canon does, no huge surprise.

The idea that an EVF is better is laughable. Even the most precisely calibrated monitor won't retain the color gamut, resolution, and contrast of real light. If you find yourself preferring EVFs, either learn to shoot or consult your eye doctor. :)

But I've been spoiled a bit. The 5D Mark III has a gorgeous finder. I've used film cameras with poor finders and I realize it's all relative. I've found the Alexa to have an adequate EVF, but a mercifully uncluttered one (not even the option to pull up a waveform monitor or histogram!).

What is laughable is the notion that you need color gamut, resolution and contrast in a viewfinder.

The purpose of the viewfinder is to compose the image, nothing more.

EFVs can display extremely useful information that an optical viewfinder cannot, such as exposure information and focus information.

Funny, I like to compose an image in full resolution based on the actual light, and find the resolution of a ground glass far superior to that of a small, pixellated LCD. I'd rather compose in real time than with lag, and don't enjoy rainbow artifacts when I'm trying to base my image on color.

And generally I nail my exposures, by, you know, metering correctly in the first place.

But if it's adequate for you, great!

You don't shoot in RAW? The color you see through your viewfinder is irrelevant, you can change all that in post. What is critical are things like exposure and focus, both of which have OFVs as poor cousins to EFVs in terms of the information they deliver.

An EFV can tell you what is overexposed and what is underexposed. An OFV can't.

If you are doing manual focus, forget about it with an OFV. With an EFV you can switch on focus aids, plus you can zoom in on your critical focus point and visually see if it is in focus or not. An OFV - not so much - you have to guess, and on a one square centimeter piece of glass your guess is probably going to be wrong.

Absolutely correct about it all. And if anyone does not agree with you, ask them to shoot with a cover on the LCD. They will then understand!

Welp, enjoy the mediocre images. Goodness knows your audience won't.

Fwiw, my day job is color grading. Not at the highest level, but seven figure budgets... I am young getting started. My other job is in camera department and I've seen DPs who shoot properly and those who don't.

If you can win the tour de france with training wheels, more power to you, but composing a picture in a thumbnail leads to a thumbnail-worthy photo. I'd rather compose on ground glass.

And I'll give Roger your best regards next time I see him. :)

I'd try shooting with the LCD off, but my 4x5 doesn't have one and I don't shoot serious work on my dSLR.

10
EOS Bodies / Re: Next Rebel Going EVF? [CR1]
« on: October 03, 2014, 04:36:02 AM »
Many of us on this forum have been asking Canon to catch up with Sony, but we want Canon to catch up with their sensors, and NOT the horrible evf!

Unfortunately, the EVF end is inevitable. See here:
http://www.dslrbodies.com/newsviews/sensors-are-a-moving-target.html

"... it’s inevitable that DSLRs eventually become mirrorless... DSLRs are too complex to continue to drop in inflation-adjusted pricing and stay in that under-US$1000 pocket. So we’ll see separate parts (meter, focus sensor) move into the ever-improving image sensor, and the things they previously needed to support them disappear. Exactly the way Sony has done it in the A7 series...

Mirrorless approaches will drive out problematic complexity and cost; they remove components (meter, focus system) and put them on the sensor itself at no other tangible cost than R&D."

That's silly.  Pros don't give a flying you-know-what about whether they're in the under-$1000 pocket.  They care about things like low latency, maintaining dark adaptation of their eyes at night, fast focusing speed, and ability to see critical focus with the naked eye (at normal f-stops, anyway).  EVFs can't deliver that combination, nor are they likely to be able to deliver it within the next ten years.

The OLED displays are getting close to not blowing out your night vision, but they only last two or three years, and they have poor resolution, which means you can't focus accurately by eye alone (without zooming in and losing the ability to pay attention to what's happening around you, anyway).  And LCD-based EVFs have higher resolution and longer life, but have crap contrast and can't get very dark.  And latency and focusing speed have a long way to go.

I just don't see EVFs replacing OVFs for high-end still photography gear any time soon.  It's not that they're not quite ready; it's that they're nowhere near ready.  In theory, I could see them take over the Rebel line, but in practice, I can't see that, either.  the problem is, they won't be able to call them DSLRs anymore, and a sizable percentage of the folks who buy low-end DSLRs buy them because they're DSLRs.  Half of them don't even know what DSLR means, but they know that they want one.  So I would expect mirrorless cameras to continue to exist alongside true DSLRs for many more years even at the low end.  Then again, what do I know?  :)

While I agree entirely, and have suffered from using the C100's awful EVF during daylight enough to prove it, I find the Rebel line's finders so poor that I would take a great EVF over their dreadful OVFs in some circumstances and I think most inexperienced photographers who want WYSIWYG exposure, histograms, etc. would agree. Sony has marketed faux-dSLRs for years to the gullible; as have others. If Canon does, no huge surprise.

The idea that an EVF is better is laughable. Even the most precisely calibrated monitor won't retain the color gamut, resolution, and contrast of real light. If you find yourself preferring EVFs, either learn to shoot or consult your eye doctor. :)

But I've been spoiled a bit. The 5D Mark III has a gorgeous finder. I've used film cameras with poor finders and I realize it's all relative. I've found the Alexa to have an adequate EVF, but a mercifully uncluttered one (not even the option to pull up a waveform monitor or histogram!).

What is laughable is the notion that you need color gamut, resolution and contrast in a viewfinder.

The purpose of the viewfinder is to compose the image, nothing more.

EFVs can display extremely useful information that an optical viewfinder cannot, such as exposure information and focus information.

Funny, I like to compose an image in full resolution based on the actual light, and find the resolution of a ground glass far superior to that of a small, pixellated LCD. I'd rather compose in real time than with lag, and don't enjoy rainbow artifacts when I'm trying to base my image on color.

And generally I nail my exposures, by, you know, metering correctly in the first place.

But if it's adequate for you, great!

You don't shoot in RAW? The color you see through your viewfinder is irrelevant, you can change all that in post. What is critical are things like exposure and focus, both of which have OFVs as poor cousins to EFVs in terms of the information they deliver.

An EFV can tell you what is overexposed and what is underexposed. An OFV can't.

If you are doing manual focus, forget about it with an OFV. With an EFV you can switch on focus aids, plus you can zoom in on your critical focus point and visually see if it is in focus or not. An OFV - not so much - you have to guess, and on a one square centimeter piece of glass your guess is probably going to be wrong.

I hear bicycles fall over less with training wheels. :)

11
EOS Bodies / Re: Next Rebel Going EVF? [CR1]
« on: October 03, 2014, 04:08:55 AM »
Many of us on this forum have been asking Canon to catch up with Sony, but we want Canon to catch up with their sensors, and NOT the horrible evf!

Unfortunately, the EVF end is inevitable. See here:
http://www.dslrbodies.com/newsviews/sensors-are-a-moving-target.html

"... it’s inevitable that DSLRs eventually become mirrorless... DSLRs are too complex to continue to drop in inflation-adjusted pricing and stay in that under-US$1000 pocket. So we’ll see separate parts (meter, focus sensor) move into the ever-improving image sensor, and the things they previously needed to support them disappear. Exactly the way Sony has done it in the A7 series...

Mirrorless approaches will drive out problematic complexity and cost; they remove components (meter, focus system) and put them on the sensor itself at no other tangible cost than R&D."

That's silly.  Pros don't give a flying you-know-what about whether they're in the under-$1000 pocket.  They care about things like low latency, maintaining dark adaptation of their eyes at night, fast focusing speed, and ability to see critical focus with the naked eye (at normal f-stops, anyway).  EVFs can't deliver that combination, nor are they likely to be able to deliver it within the next ten years.

The OLED displays are getting close to not blowing out your night vision, but they only last two or three years, and they have poor resolution, which means you can't focus accurately by eye alone (without zooming in and losing the ability to pay attention to what's happening around you, anyway).  And LCD-based EVFs have higher resolution and longer life, but have crap contrast and can't get very dark.  And latency and focusing speed have a long way to go.

I just don't see EVFs replacing OVFs for high-end still photography gear any time soon.  It's not that they're not quite ready; it's that they're nowhere near ready.  In theory, I could see them take over the Rebel line, but in practice, I can't see that, either.  the problem is, they won't be able to call them DSLRs anymore, and a sizable percentage of the folks who buy low-end DSLRs buy them because they're DSLRs.  Half of them don't even know what DSLR means, but they know that they want one.  So I would expect mirrorless cameras to continue to exist alongside true DSLRs for many more years even at the low end.  Then again, what do I know?  :)

While I agree entirely, and have suffered from using the C100's awful EVF during daylight enough to prove it, I find the Rebel line's finders so poor that I would take a great EVF over their dreadful OVFs in some circumstances and I think most inexperienced photographers who want WYSIWYG exposure, histograms, etc. would agree. Sony has marketed faux-dSLRs for years to the gullible; as have others. If Canon does, no huge surprise.

The idea that an EVF is better is laughable. Even the most precisely calibrated monitor won't retain the color gamut, resolution, and contrast of real light. If you find yourself preferring EVFs, either learn to shoot or consult your eye doctor. :)

But I've been spoiled a bit. The 5D Mark III has a gorgeous finder. I've used film cameras with poor finders and I realize it's all relative. I've found the Alexa to have an adequate EVF, but a mercifully uncluttered one (not even the option to pull up a waveform monitor or histogram!).

What is laughable is the notion that you need color gamut, resolution and contrast in a viewfinder.

The purpose of the viewfinder is to compose the image, nothing more.

EFVs can display extremely useful information that an optical viewfinder cannot, such as exposure information and focus information.

Nooo! With me shooting on RED and Alexia for film making I judge lighting in the viewfinder with perfect ease and success.

Tell that to Roger Deakins. :)

But while I am a big fan of optical finders over electronic ones, I'll admit the Alexa has a nice EVF and the red a... well... adequate one. Better than the current Rebel's OVF, even.

Even if so, you're in the minority. I find most modern DPs are awful at judging ratios and can't light a set without a camera in front of them. The others use a meter. :)

12
EOS Bodies / Re: Next Rebel Going EVF? [CR1]
« on: October 03, 2014, 04:07:00 AM »
Many of us on this forum have been asking Canon to catch up with Sony, but we want Canon to catch up with their sensors, and NOT the horrible evf!

Unfortunately, the EVF end is inevitable. See here:
http://www.dslrbodies.com/newsviews/sensors-are-a-moving-target.html

"... it’s inevitable that DSLRs eventually become mirrorless... DSLRs are too complex to continue to drop in inflation-adjusted pricing and stay in that under-US$1000 pocket. So we’ll see separate parts (meter, focus sensor) move into the ever-improving image sensor, and the things they previously needed to support them disappear. Exactly the way Sony has done it in the A7 series...

Mirrorless approaches will drive out problematic complexity and cost; they remove components (meter, focus system) and put them on the sensor itself at no other tangible cost than R&D."

That's silly.  Pros don't give a flying you-know-what about whether they're in the under-$1000 pocket.  They care about things like low latency, maintaining dark adaptation of their eyes at night, fast focusing speed, and ability to see critical focus with the naked eye (at normal f-stops, anyway).  EVFs can't deliver that combination, nor are they likely to be able to deliver it within the next ten years.

The OLED displays are getting close to not blowing out your night vision, but they only last two or three years, and they have poor resolution, which means you can't focus accurately by eye alone (without zooming in and losing the ability to pay attention to what's happening around you, anyway).  And LCD-based EVFs have higher resolution and longer life, but have crap contrast and can't get very dark.  And latency and focusing speed have a long way to go.

I just don't see EVFs replacing OVFs for high-end still photography gear any time soon.  It's not that they're not quite ready; it's that they're nowhere near ready.  In theory, I could see them take over the Rebel line, but in practice, I can't see that, either.  the problem is, they won't be able to call them DSLRs anymore, and a sizable percentage of the folks who buy low-end DSLRs buy them because they're DSLRs.  Half of them don't even know what DSLR means, but they know that they want one.  So I would expect mirrorless cameras to continue to exist alongside true DSLRs for many more years even at the low end.  Then again, what do I know?  :)

While I agree entirely, and have suffered from using the C100's awful EVF during daylight enough to prove it, I find the Rebel line's finders so poor that I would take a great EVF over their dreadful OVFs in some circumstances and I think most inexperienced photographers who want WYSIWYG exposure, histograms, etc. would agree. Sony has marketed faux-dSLRs for years to the gullible; as have others. If Canon does, no huge surprise.

The idea that an EVF is better is laughable. Even the most precisely calibrated monitor won't retain the color gamut, resolution, and contrast of real light. If you find yourself preferring EVFs, either learn to shoot or consult your eye doctor. :)

But I've been spoiled a bit. The 5D Mark III has a gorgeous finder. I've used film cameras with poor finders and I realize it's all relative. I've found the Alexa to have an adequate EVF, but a mercifully uncluttered one (not even the option to pull up a waveform monitor or histogram!).

What is laughable is the notion that you need color gamut, resolution and contrast in a viewfinder.

The purpose of the viewfinder is to compose the image, nothing more.

EFVs can display extremely useful information that an optical viewfinder cannot, such as exposure information and focus information.

Funny, I like to compose an image in full resolution based on the actual light, and find the resolution of a ground glass far superior to that of a small, pixellated LCD. I'd rather compose in real time than with lag, and don't enjoy rainbow artifacts when I'm trying to base my image on color.

And generally I nail my exposures, by, you know, metering correctly in the first place.

But if it's adequate for you, great!

13
EOS Bodies / Re: Next Rebel Going EVF? [CR1]
« on: October 03, 2014, 02:50:52 AM »
Many of us on this forum have been asking Canon to catch up with Sony, but we want Canon to catch up with their sensors, and NOT the horrible evf!

Unfortunately, the EVF end is inevitable. See here:
http://www.dslrbodies.com/newsviews/sensors-are-a-moving-target.html

"... it’s inevitable that DSLRs eventually become mirrorless... DSLRs are too complex to continue to drop in inflation-adjusted pricing and stay in that under-US$1000 pocket. So we’ll see separate parts (meter, focus sensor) move into the ever-improving image sensor, and the things they previously needed to support them disappear. Exactly the way Sony has done it in the A7 series...

Mirrorless approaches will drive out problematic complexity and cost; they remove components (meter, focus system) and put them on the sensor itself at no other tangible cost than R&D."

That's silly.  Pros don't give a flying you-know-what about whether they're in the under-$1000 pocket.  They care about things like low latency, maintaining dark adaptation of their eyes at night, fast focusing speed, and ability to see critical focus with the naked eye (at normal f-stops, anyway).  EVFs can't deliver that combination, nor are they likely to be able to deliver it within the next ten years.

The OLED displays are getting close to not blowing out your night vision, but they only last two or three years, and they have poor resolution, which means you can't focus accurately by eye alone (without zooming in and losing the ability to pay attention to what's happening around you, anyway).  And LCD-based EVFs have higher resolution and longer life, but have crap contrast and can't get very dark.  And latency and focusing speed have a long way to go.

I just don't see EVFs replacing OVFs for high-end still photography gear any time soon.  It's not that they're not quite ready; it's that they're nowhere near ready.  In theory, I could see them take over the Rebel line, but in practice, I can't see that, either.  the problem is, they won't be able to call them DSLRs anymore, and a sizable percentage of the folks who buy low-end DSLRs buy them because they're DSLRs.  Half of them don't even know what DSLR means, but they know that they want one.  So I would expect mirrorless cameras to continue to exist alongside true DSLRs for many more years even at the low end.  Then again, what do I know?  :)

While I agree entirely, and have suffered from using the C100's awful EVF during daylight enough to prove it, I find the Rebel line's finders so poor that I would take a great EVF over their dreadful OVFs in some circumstances and I think most inexperienced photographers who want WYSIWYG exposure, histograms, etc. would agree. Sony has marketed faux-dSLRs for years to the gullible; as have others. If Canon does, no huge surprise.

The idea that an EVF is better is laughable. Even the most precisely calibrated monitor won't retain the color gamut, resolution, and contrast of real light. If you find yourself preferring EVFs, either learn to shoot or consult your eye doctor. :)

But I've been spoiled a bit. The 5D Mark III has a gorgeous finder. I've used film cameras with poor finders and I realize it's all relative. I've found the Alexa to have an adequate EVF, but a mercifully uncluttered one (not even the option to pull up a waveform monitor or histogram!).

14
EOS Bodies / Re: Next Rebel Going EVF? [CR1]
« on: October 02, 2014, 06:42:26 PM »
Rebels always had bad viewfinders. Entry-level shooters prefer WISYWIG though god knows anyone who has a clue what they're doing prefers optical finders.

Always glad to see insulting, ignorant comments on the web!


Good for you, I can tell. Continue posting them!

Those of us who know what we're doing will get back to shooting with optical finders and knowing how to meter properly in the first place. :)

As for my apology, you've earned it. I'm sorry you've been shooting that long and still don't have a clue how to meter!

15
EOS Bodies / Re: Next Rebel Going EVF? [CR1]
« on: October 02, 2014, 04:58:14 PM »
Rebels always had bad viewfinders. Entry-level shooters prefer WISYWIG though god knows anyone who has a clue what they're doing prefers optical finders.

I can see it happening. Although between the Rebel line and the C100 Canon has proven their adeptness at making any kind of finder horrible lol.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 29