EOS 7D Replacement Mentioned Again [CR1]

[jrista]

Oooh ... Nessie's been sighted again? Great!

... and ... it will be photographed with a 7D2 ;D

I tried photographing Nessie in 2010 with my 7D but due to low light conditions & limited ISO capability I couldn't capture it ... but the better specd 7D MK II should be able to capture it ;D

That'll be one for Guinness! To photograph Nessie with Nessie! You'll have finally solved the chicken and the egg problem. ;-P

;D ;D ;D ... so are you saying the 7D MK II ain't gonna happen?

LOL...no, not quite. It was a play on words and context, but I'm guessing not many people would actually get it.

The 7D2 and Nessie are nothing alike..... there are millions of people that believe Nessie is real

I was playing off the fact that JR called the 7D II "Nessie". When Reinz said he would photograph Nessie with his new 7D II, I then took the chance to play on the context...if Nessie (the ever-elusive, never seen mystical monster) IS the 7D II, then it would be quite a feat to photograph it with itself.

I'm surprised no one got that...but whatever...

 

[Steve]

If you are spending hours looking through the viewfinder, it's not just "the ability to frame an image". I think you're asking for migraines and digital eyestrain and a whole bunch of other uncomfortableness looking at a pixelated image for that amount of time.

I could see that as a possibility but I've also spent full days, dawn to dark, in hides photographing birds and my eye was to the viewfinder maybe 10% of that time. With wildlife and sports you spend the vast majority of your time waiting and only a little of it in the actual act of shooting. If you are literally spending hours with your face pressed against a camera body there is going to be a lot of general uncomfortableness at the end of the day no matter what.

 

[jrista]

We aren't talking cell phone distances here. Most EVFs are recessed at around a quarter of an inch or so, pretty much always less than an inch. At around an inch, 3000-5000ppi would do it, but at a quarter of an inch, people with better than 20/20 vision are going to see pixels.

Additionally, you must not shoot action. When your an action shooter, your eye LIVES in the viewfinder. It's never away from the viewfinder. I have spent so much time with my eye pressed up against my VF while photographing shorebirds that when I take my eye away and look around, I have to close my eyes and wait for them to adjust to the brighter light.

Not everyone is a landscape photographer or other kind of photographer where you spend a small amount of time looking through a viewfinder. Some of us live and die by the viewfinder...it is one of the single most important factors for choosing a camera body, alongside AF and frame rate (again, not everyone needs 25 stops of DR at ISO 100.)

So it isn't a weird complaint. It's a complaint based on the way I use my camera pretty much every single time I take it out and shoot something. If I have a camera in my hands, chances are, I'm looking through the viewfinder. The quality of the VF is of the utmost critical importance to me, so I think the complaint is entirely warranted and legit.

Ok, like I said if it bothers you that's your thing but I still don't understand why it bothers you. So what if you can see the pixels? It doesn't affect your ability to frame an image in any way. Refresh rate, battery life, those are complaints that I can understand because they have a real affect on the ability to make an image but being able to discern the individual pixels does not. To me, it seems like complaining that an OVF isn't contrasty enough or something.

Seeing pixels causes eye strain. The pixels of current EVFs, for the given viewing distance (remember, visual acuity is relative to ANGULAR size, not absolute size!), are HUGE. I mean not just "kind of visible"...they are big and obvious. If I had to look at something like that for more than a few minutes, I'm guaranteed to get a terrible headach. When your focused that close, your eye has to fight between seeing pixels, and seeing image detail.

The ever-constant march towards higher and higher pixel density smartphone screens was to eliminate visibility of pixels. They have achieved that for 8" viewing distances with 400-500ppi screens. Anything less than about 400ppi, and the pixels still aren't small enough, and you can still get eye strain from viewing your phone too much, especially if your one of those who view it 6" away. It's the same deal with EVFs...we need a lot more resolution to make pixels a non-factor for 1/4" eye relief...however for people with higher visual acuity, it is physically infeasible to create pixels small enough that your eye naturally blurs them out of existence, thus eliminating the possibility of eye strain.

For someone like me, who lives with his eye to the viewfinder whenever a camera is in hand, pixel size is utterly critical. That's why I always say that I'll cling to my OVF until someone prys it from my cold, dead hands. The nature of ground or laser etched glass is very different from pixels. It bends and warps the light a little bit, but you don't have that hard, jarring pixellation you get with an EVF. Therefor, no headache.

You can belittle the needs of photographers like me all you want, but that just means your ignorant and cannot expand your mind even the minimal amount required to see the situation from a broader scope than your own.

I do shoot action almost exclusively and I appreciate the OVF in my 1DIV but thats because it is large and bright and has a refresh rate of c. If an EVF had a refresh rate that was indistinguishable from reflected light, I would certainly be interested because of all of the other advantages that could be conferred, such as brightening the scene, magnification or overlaid information like zebras/focus peaking. It may be that it won't ever work for what I do but there is certainly potential in the technology and it seems weird to me discount it out of hand because you can see the pixels if you concentrate on finding them.

Well first, I don't have to concentrate on finding them. Your making an assumption that is incorrect. The pixel sizes of EVFs today are MONSTROUS for the given eye relief of the EVF screen itself. It doesn't take any effort at all to see the pixels...they are sitting right there, gigantic and intrusive, and there is nothing I can do about it. Double the current pixel density, and it would certainly be harder to see them, but the strain on the eye from looking "through" a grid of pixels to see an image would still exist. Triple current pixel density, and that might do the trick...but as I said, by that point, your starting to filter out red light...so color fidelity is going to suffer.

A lot of the EVF "features" that people think are exclusive to an EVF are not necessarily exclusive to an EVF. Canon has used transmissive LCD overlays in their OFVs for some time. There is no reason they couldn't upgrade the TLCD to be full color and higher resolution. Then, you could have most of the benefits of an EVF without the drawbacks associated with small pixels, low frame rates, limited dynamic range, low color fidelity, etc. You could do focus peaking, zebras, overlay a histogram, and who knows what else with a color Transmissive LCD overlaid on top of an OPTICAL preview of the image. About the only benefit you wouldn't have would be DOF preview, however at such a small scale, you aren't going to get an accurate representation of DOF regardless, so I consider that a relatively moot point.

There is a bigger world outside of the EVF box. There are a lot of possibilities that aren't necessarily tied to the limitations of electronic VFs, and those possibilities could be realized to the benefit of those who truly, fundamentally rely on the benefits of an OVF without the consequences of things like eye strain and constant headaches. (And those consequences are very real...out of the seven plus billion people on earth, I highly doubt I am the sole individual who has good visual acuity and experiences eye strain from looking at large pixels.)

 

[jrista]

If you are spending hours looking through the viewfinder, it's not just "the ability to frame an image". I think you're asking for migraines and digital eyestrain and a whole bunch of other uncomfortableness looking at a pixelated image for that amount of time.

I could see that as a possibility but I've also spent full days, dawn to dark, in hides photographing birds and my eye was to the viewfinder maybe 10% of that time. With wildlife and sports you spend the vast majority of your time waiting and only a little of it in the actual act of shooting. If you are literally spending hours with your face pressed against a camera body there is going to be a lot of general uncomfortableness at the end of the day no matter what.

This is a straw man argument, and not indicative of the average case for bird and wildlife photography. If you are photographing elusive birds, that's one thing. If your on a sandy beach packed full of shorebirds, waterfowl, etc. then your eye is going to be looking through the VF far more than 10% of the time.

I'm not going to say I spend 100% of my time looking through the VF, however if there are subjects in view, my eye is to the camera 80% of the time. There have been times here in Colorado, in the heart of the spring and fall bird migrations, where I've been able to set up, lay down on the ground near a popular shorebird spot, and spend the bulk of several hours with my eye through the lens...often to take pictures, sometimes just to observe their behavior.

 

[Tugela]

We aren't talking cell phone distances here. Most EVFs are recessed at around a quarter of an inch or so, pretty much always less than an inch. At around an inch, 3000-5000ppi would do it, but at a quarter of an inch, people with better than 20/20 vision are going to see pixels.

Additionally, you must not shoot action. When your an action shooter, your eye LIVES in the viewfinder. It's never away from the viewfinder. I have spent so much time with my eye pressed up against my VF while photographing shorebirds that when I take my eye away and look around, I have to close my eyes and wait for them to adjust to the brighter light.

Not everyone is a landscape photographer or other kind of photographer where you spend a small amount of time looking through a viewfinder. Some of us live and die by the viewfinder...it is one of the single most important factors for choosing a camera body, alongside AF and frame rate (again, not everyone needs 25 stops of DR at ISO 100.)

So it isn't a weird complaint. It's a complaint based on the way I use my camera pretty much every single time I take it out and shoot something. If I have a camera in my hands, chances are, I'm looking through the viewfinder. The quality of the VF is of the utmost critical importance to me, so I think the complaint is entirely warranted and legit.

Ok, like I said if it bothers you that's your thing but I still don't understand why it bothers you. So what if you can see the pixels? It doesn't affect your ability to frame an image in any way. Refresh rate, battery life, those are complaints that I can understand because they have a real affect on the ability to make an image but being able to discern the individual pixels does not. To me, it seems like complaining that an OVF isn't contrasty enough or something.

Seeing pixels causes eye strain. The pixels of current EVFs, for the given viewing distance (remember, visual acuity is relative to ANGULAR size, not absolute size!), are HUGE. I mean not just "kind of visible"...they are big and obvious. If I had to look at something like that for more than a few minutes, I'm guaranteed to get a terrible headach. When your focused that close, your eye has to fight between seeing pixels, and seeing image detail.

The ever-constant march towards higher and higher pixel density smartphone screens was to eliminate visibility of pixels. They have achieved that for 8" viewing distances with 400-500ppi screens. Anything less than about 400ppi, and the pixels still aren't small enough, and you can still get eye strain from viewing your phone too much, especially if your one of those who view it 6" away. It's the same deal with EVFs...we need a lot more resolution to make pixels a non-factor for 1/4" eye relief...however for people with higher visual acuity, it is physically infeasible to create pixels small enough that your eye naturally blurs them out of existence, thus eliminating the possibility of eye strain.

For someone like me, who lives with his eye to the viewfinder whenever a camera is in hand, pixel size is utterly critical. That's why I always say that I'll cling to my OVF until someone prys it from my cold, dead hands. The nature of ground or laser etched glass is very different from pixels. It bends and warps the light a little bit, but you don't have that hard, jarring pixellation you get with an EVF. Therefor, no headache.

You can belittle the needs of photographers like me all you want, but that just means your ignorant and cannot expand your mind even the minimal amount required to see the situation from a broader scope than your own.

I do shoot action almost exclusively and I appreciate the OVF in my 1DIV but thats because it is large and bright and has a refresh rate of c. If an EVF had a refresh rate that was indistinguishable from reflected light, I would certainly be interested because of all of the other advantages that could be conferred, such as brightening the scene, magnification or overlaid information like zebras/focus peaking. It may be that it won't ever work for what I do but there is certainly potential in the technology and it seems weird to me discount it out of hand because you can see the pixels if you concentrate on finding them.

Well first, I don't have to concentrate on finding them. Your making an assumption that is incorrect. The pixel sizes of EVFs today are MONSTROUS for the given eye relief of the EVF screen itself. It doesn't take any effort at all to see the pixels...they are sitting right there, gigantic and intrusive, and there is nothing I can do about it. Double the current pixel density, and it would certainly be harder to see them, but the strain on the eye from looking "through" a grid of pixels to see an image would still exist. Triple current pixel density, and that might do the trick...but as I said, by that point, your starting to filter out red light...so color fidelity is going to suffer.

A lot of the EVF "features" that people think are exclusive to an EVF are not necessarily exclusive to an EVF. Canon has used transmissive LCD overlays in their OFVs for some time. There is no reason they couldn't upgrade the TLCD to be full color and higher resolution. Then, you could have most of the benefits of an EVF without the drawbacks associated with small pixels, low frame rates, limited dynamic range, low color fidelity, etc. You could do focus peaking, zebras, overlay a histogram, and who knows what else with a color Transmissive LCD overlaid on top of an OPTICAL preview of the image. About the only benefit you wouldn't have would be DOF preview, however at such a small scale, you aren't going to get an accurate representation of DOF regardless, so I consider that a relatively moot point.

There is a bigger world outside of the EVF box. There are a lot of possibilities that aren't necessarily tied to the limitations of electronic VFs, and those possibilities could be realized to the benefit of those who truly, fundamentally rely on the benefits of an OVF without the consequences of things like eye strain and constant headaches. (And those consequences are very real...out of the seven plus billion people on earth, I highly doubt I am the sole individual who has good visual acuity and experiences eye strain from looking at large pixels.)

Wow...you must hate looking at TV screens and computer monitors, all those headaches and eye strain!!!

Seriously though, if you have some sort of freakish abnormal eyesight, you can't expect the world to be designed around your minority needs. I doubt that 99.9% of the market population has a problem with EFVs.

 

[jrista]

I never said 99.9% had a problem with them. However, I'd be willing to bet it's well more than 10%, probably a good third or more of people definitely have problems with EVFs, for a variety of reasons.

Also, I don't have freakishly good eyesight. I have 20/10 vision, which is very common among people who use corrective lenses. It's just "good" eyesight. I've read enough about people complaining about posterization and pixellation in some of the best EVFs to know I'm definitely not alone on this subject.

Oh, and BTW, yes, pixels in TVs and computer screens DO bug me. I have to take a break every couple of hours when I'm looking at a screen, because I DO get headaches. I've had things called ocular migraines, which, when they occur, can last for days...and they are excruciatingly painful, and drain you of every last ounce of energy you have (as they very often become full blown migraines). I truly cannot wait for UHD TVs to become affordable...the pixels are BEAUTIFULLY small, and in the average 55-65" TV are invisible in less than my current viewing distance. Same goes for 4k computer screens...at roughly the same dimensions as my current 30" screen (31.4" seems to be the key size for higher end 4k computer screens) the pixels are small enough that they would finally be invisible to me at my current viewing distances.

You belittle the situation...but it's only because you haven't experienced it. I'm not just making sh*t up here...I have a legitimate reason for my complaints about current and forthcoming EVFs, and a specific reason why I demand better. I've been a software developer for nearly two decades, and I've been programming since the age of eight. Over the last six months, I've been desperately trying to find an alternative means of making money, because I've had too many migraines over the last couple of years, along with other issues, that working in front of a computer screen eight to nine hours a day, then going home only to need to work in front of another computer screen for several more hours to process my photography, is just too much. I don't want to have to deal with ANOTHER pixelated screen in my next camera as well...just too many freaking pixels!

It's also the reason I truly hope that Canon will advance their Transmissive LCD technology. The etched glass focusing screen in an OVF has never caused me any problems, and a TLCD could be programmed to be just as capable as a full EVF, especially with a higher resolution RGB metering sensor.

 

[Don Haines]

I never said 99.9% had a problem with them. However, I'd be willing to bet it's well more than 10%, probably a good third or more of people definitely have problems with EVFs, for a variety of reasons.

Also, I don't have freakishly good eyesight. I have 20/10 vision, which is very common among people who use corrective lenses. It's just "good" eyesight. I've read enough about people complaining about posterization and pixellation in some of the best EVFs to know I'm definitely not alone on this subject.

Oh, and BTW, yes, pixels in TVs and computer screens DO bug me. I have to take a break every couple of hours when I'm looking at a screen, because I DO get headaches. I've had things called ocular migraines, which, when they occur, can last for days...and they are excruciatingly painful, and drain you of every last ounce of energy you have (as they very often become full blown migraines). I truly cannot wait for UHD TVs to become affordable...the pixels are BEAUTIFULLY small, and in the average 55-65" TV are invisible in less than my current viewing distance. Same goes for 4k computer screens...at roughly the same dimensions as my current 30" screen (31.4" seems to be the key size for higher end 4k computer screens) the pixels are small enough that they would finally be invisible to me at my current viewing distances.

You belittle the situation...but it's only because you haven't experienced it. I'm not just making sh*t up here...I have a legitimate reason for my complaints about current and forthcoming EVFs, and a specific reason why I demand better. I've been a software developer for nearly two decades, and I've been programming since the age of eight. Over the last six months, I've been desperately trying to find an alternative means of making money, because I've had too many migraines over the last couple of years, along with other issues, that working in front of a computer screen eight to nine hours a day, then going home only to need to work in front of another computer screen for several more hours to process my photography, is just too much. I don't want to have to deal with ANOTHER pixelated screen in my next camera as well...just too many freaking pixels!

It's also the reason I truly hope that Canon will advance their Transmissive LCD technology. The etched glass focusing screen in an OVF has never caused me any problems, and a TLCD could be programmed to be just as capable as a full EVF, especially with a higher resolution RGB metering sensor.

I see both ends of the spectrum ( pun intended). I have 20/2000 vision, corrected with glasses to 20/10. I am also bothered by the pixels on normal displays and can only look at them so long.... I have to take a break. I find the apple retina displays far easier on the eyes and can't wait until 4K displays get to a reasonable price.

I also get migraines if I stare at a screen too long programming.. I take a break every hour. I get up, walk around the office, do some stretches, and then back to work.

At least for me, I tend to not spend long periods looking through a viewfinder without breaks, so I am sure that an EVF will not bother me as much as a monitor... Call it personal preference, but at least for me, a high quality EVF, if coupled with decent features, may be preferable to an optical viewfinder.

As to your comment about how many people have problems with EVFs, my feeling is that it is at least three quarters of people who have problems with the current crop of EVFs. As they get better, the percentage will drop, but as things now stand, optical is better.

 

[jrista]

I never said 99.9% had a problem with them. However, I'd be willing to bet it's well more than 10%, probably a good third or more of people definitely have problems with EVFs, for a variety of reasons.

Also, I don't have freakishly good eyesight. I have 20/10 vision, which is very common among people who use corrective lenses. It's just "good" eyesight. I've read enough about people complaining about posterization and pixellation in some of the best EVFs to know I'm definitely not alone on this subject.

Oh, and BTW, yes, pixels in TVs and computer screens DO bug me. I have to take a break every couple of hours when I'm looking at a screen, because I DO get headaches. I've had things called ocular migraines, which, when they occur, can last for days...and they are excruciatingly painful, and drain you of every last ounce of energy you have (as they very often become full blown migraines). I truly cannot wait for UHD TVs to become affordable...the pixels are BEAUTIFULLY small, and in the average 55-65" TV are invisible in less than my current viewing distance. Same goes for 4k computer screens...at roughly the same dimensions as my current 30" screen (31.4" seems to be the key size for higher end 4k computer screens) the pixels are small enough that they would finally be invisible to me at my current viewing distances.

You belittle the situation...but it's only because you haven't experienced it. I'm not just making sh*t up here...I have a legitimate reason for my complaints about current and forthcoming EVFs, and a specific reason why I demand better. I've been a software developer for nearly two decades, and I've been programming since the age of eight. Over the last six months, I've been desperately trying to find an alternative means of making money, because I've had too many migraines over the last couple of years, along with other issues, that working in front of a computer screen eight to nine hours a day, then going home only to need to work in front of another computer screen for several more hours to process my photography, is just too much. I don't want to have to deal with ANOTHER pixelated screen in my next camera as well...just too many freaking pixels!

It's also the reason I truly hope that Canon will advance their Transmissive LCD technology. The etched glass focusing screen in an OVF has never caused me any problems, and a TLCD could be programmed to be just as capable as a full EVF, especially with a higher resolution RGB metering sensor.

I see both ends of the spectrum ( pun intended). I have 20/2000 vision, corrected with glasses to 20/10. I am also bothered by the pixels on normal displays and can only look at them so long.... I have to take a break. I find the apple retina displays far easier on the eyes and can't wait until 4K displays get to a reasonable price.

I also get migraines if I stare at a screen too long programming.. I take a break every hour. I get up, walk around the office, do some stretches, and then back to work.

At least for me, I tend to not spend long periods looking through a viewfinder without breaks, so I am sure that an OVF will not bother me as much as a monitor... Call it personal preference, but at least for me, a high quality OVF, if coupled with decent features, may be preferable to an optical viewfinder.

As to your comment about how many people have problems with EVFs, my feeling is that it is at least three quarters of people who have problems with the current crop of EVFs. As they get better, the percentage will drop, but as things now stand, optical is better.

Yikes, 20/2000 is pretty bad. You must LOOOVE your glasses. Years and years ago, it seemed the best I could get was about 20/18 with corrective lenses. Nowadays, with both my glasses and my contacts, I get 20/10. I can pick out a good half or so the characters in the 20/8 line, but 20/10 is my sweet spot.

BTW, I think you used the term "OVF" in a few places where "EVF" was intended (at least, given the context, that's what it seems.) Might want to do a quick edit and replace OVF with EVF where you intended EVF...just so other readers aren't confused.

I agree, EVFs bring certain features to the table. Again, I think that could be done with a higher quality, more capable TLCD layer in an OVF, coupled with a better metering sensor and maybe a dedicated processor (as in the 1D X). I think OVFs could be turned into powerhouse HUDs for us viewfinder junkies, without having to limit the underlying "screen" to something electronic (for us mirror slapper junkies. )

I'm also sure that some day, EVF pixel densities will reach a point where the pixels become more "background" than "foreground". I don't ever expect them to become entirely invisible, because I think there is a physical limit that will prevent that occurrence in the first place. Maybe a 5000ppi FF sized EVF set in at about a 1" eye relief would do it for me. If I could get that, in a DSLR sized and shaped body, then I'd be all in. (I don't suspect a wonder would be cheap, though...that's would probably 1D X price range territory for a good while before it reached a level of cost that's more within reach.)

 

[JimKarczewski]

"new" software features I'd love to see:

Built in Intervalometer

Ability to do more than 7 shots bracketed at a time, "pick your own" kind of thing. I do large HDR exposures in 1/3 stops, typically 20+ frames. It's a pain to do it quickly.. Would be nice if there was no set limit on the number of bracketed shots.

 

[jrista]

"new" software features I'd love to see:

Built in Intervalometer

Ability to do more than 7 shots bracketed at a time, "pick your own" kind of thing. I do large HDR exposures in 1/3 stops, typically 20+ frames. It's a pain to do it quickly.. Would be nice if there was no set limit on the number of bracketed shots.

Technically speaking, given how the math works when blending HDR, you shouldn't need 20+ frames. Not unless your trying to photograph the sun at the same time your imaging that star that's about to be occluded by it. With more than 20 frames, spaced a couple stops apart, you could get like 30+ stops of dynamic range. I don't know what your photographing, but I think you've gone a little overkill.

 

[Rienzphotoz]

"new" software features I'd love to see:

Built in Intervalometer

Ability to do more than 7 shots bracketed at a time, "pick your own" kind of thing. I do large HDR exposures in 1/3 stops, typically 20+ frames. It's a pain to do it quickly.. Would be nice if there was no set limit on the number of bracketed shots.

WOW! "20+ frames" ... could you please post some images and how you put it together?
Cheers

 

[Don Haines]

I never said 99.9% had a problem with them. However, I'd be willing to bet it's well more than 10%, probably a good third or more of people definitely have problems with EVFs, for a variety of reasons.

Also, I don't have freakishly good eyesight. I have 20/10 vision, which is very common among people who use corrective lenses. It's just "good" eyesight. I've read enough about people complaining about posterization and pixellation in some of the best EVFs to know I'm definitely not alone on this subject.

Oh, and BTW, yes, pixels in TVs and computer screens DO bug me. I have to take a break every couple of hours when I'm looking at a screen, because I DO get headaches. I've had things called ocular migraines, which, when they occur, can last for days...and they are excruciatingly painful, and drain you of every last ounce of energy you have (as they very often become full blown migraines). I truly cannot wait for UHD TVs to become affordable...the pixels are BEAUTIFULLY small, and in the average 55-65" TV are invisible in less than my current viewing distance. Same goes for 4k computer screens...at roughly the same dimensions as my current 30" screen (31.4" seems to be the key size for higher end 4k computer screens) the pixels are small enough that they would finally be invisible to me at my current viewing distances.

You belittle the situation...but it's only because you haven't experienced it. I'm not just making sh*t up here...I have a legitimate reason for my complaints about current and forthcoming EVFs, and a specific reason why I demand better. I've been a software developer for nearly two decades, and I've been programming since the age of eight. Over the last six months, I've been desperately trying to find an alternative means of making money, because I've had too many migraines over the last couple of years, along with other issues, that working in front of a computer screen eight to nine hours a day, then going home only to need to work in front of another computer screen for several more hours to process my photography, is just too much. I don't want to have to deal with ANOTHER pixelated screen in my next camera as well...just too many freaking pixels!

It's also the reason I truly hope that Canon will advance their Transmissive LCD technology. The etched glass focusing screen in an OVF has never caused me any problems, and a TLCD could be programmed to be just as capable as a full EVF, especially with a higher resolution RGB metering sensor.

I see both ends of the spectrum ( pun intended). I have 20/2000 vision, corrected with glasses to 20/10. I am also bothered by the pixels on normal displays and can only look at them so long.... I have to take a break. I find the apple retina displays far easier on the eyes and can't wait until 4K displays get to a reasonable price.

I also get migraines if I stare at a screen too long programming.. I take a break every hour. I get up, walk around the office, do some stretches, and then back to work.

At least for me, I tend to not spend long periods looking through a viewfinder without breaks, so I am sure that an OVF will not bother me as much as a monitor... Call it personal preference, but at least for me, a high quality OVF, if coupled with decent features, may be preferable to an optical viewfinder.

As to your comment about how many people have problems with EVFs, my feeling is that it is at least three quarters of people who have problems with the current crop of EVFs. As they get better, the percentage will drop, but as things now stand, optical is better.

Yikes, 20/2000 is pretty bad. You must LOOOVE your glasses. Years and years ago, it seemed the best I could get was about 20/18 with corrective lenses. Nowadays, with both my glasses and my contacts, I get 20/10. I can pick out a good half or so the characters in the 20/8 line, but 20/10 is my sweet spot.

BTW, I think you used the term "OVF" in a few places where "EVF" was intended (at least, given the context, that's what it seems.) Might want to do a quick edit and replace OVF with EVF where you intended EVF...just so other readers aren't confused.

I agree, EVFs bring certain features to the table. Again, I think that could be done with a higher quality, more capable TLCD layer in an OVF, coupled with a better metering sensor and maybe a dedicated processor (as in the 1D X). I think OVFs could be turned into powerhouse HUDs for us viewfinder junkies, without having to limit the underlying "screen" to something electronic (for us mirror slapper junkies. )

I'm also sure that some day, EVF pixel densities will reach a point where the pixels become more "background" than "foreground". I don't ever expect them to become entirely invisible, because I think there is a physical limit that will prevent that occurrence in the first place. Maybe a 5000ppi FF sized EVF set in at about a 1" eye relief would do it for me. If I could get that, in a DSLR sized and shaped body, then I'd be all in. (I don't suspect a wonder would be cheap, though...that's would probably 1D X price range territory for a good while before it reached a level of cost that's more within reach.)

You are right, I did goof up while typing.... I went back and corrected the post...

 

[Marsu42]

I do agree this camera will have to be extremely feature rich to be successful.

This is most likely the reason the 7d2 isn't here yet and neither "around the corner" ...

... but the competition is a moving target, the new Nikon 1 v3 has 20fps with servo af, full res 18mp and 40 shows raw buffer (http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=20018.0) so Canon should better come up with something really interesting or amateur wildlife photogs will switch to mirrorless.

The hybrid (evf/ovf?) viewfinder is the indication Canon is following suite - with a high-fps "mirror flipped up" mode, the days of the mirror-flipping high fps beast seem to be almost over.

 

[Steve]

This is a straw man argument, and not indicative of the average case for bird and wildlife photography. If you are photographing elusive birds, that's one thing. If your on a sandy beach packed full of shorebirds, waterfowl, etc. then your eye is going to be looking through the VF far more than 10% of the time.

I'm not going to say I spend 100% of my time looking through the VF, however if there are subjects in view, my eye is to the camera 80% of the time. There have been times here in Colorado, in the heart of the spring and fall bird migrations, where I've been able to set up, lay down on the ground near a popular shorebird spot, and spend the bulk of several hours with my eye through the lens...often to take pictures, sometimes just to observe their behavior.

That's not what a strawman argument is. I was responding to someone who said they were looking through a viewfinder for hours at a time. I find, in my personal experience and that of the other photographers I've observed, that statement to be a bit of an exaggeration. I've shot shorebirds during migration, snowy owl irruptions, and from hides with extremely active water features. Most recently, I was shooting a college basketball tournament with back to back games from 8am to 10pm for four days. I'd say 10% viewfinder time, maybe 20% on the high end, is about right, even in target rich environments. From my experience, most photographers spend more time talking to each other than actually taking pictures.

As I said in my other two posts and I'll repeat it again, if an EVF bothers you it bothers you and nothing I say is going to change that. It sounds to me though, that your problem is well within the scope of 'atypical'. I've never heard that complaint from anyone else and the reason I asked you about it was because from all the reading and talking about the problems with EVF's I've done, that's the first time I've ever seen anyone give "pixels" as the reason they will have to pry their mirrors from their cold dead hands. I don't think you have anything to worry about, though, since EVF's are still pretty niche and OVF's don't look like they are going away anytime soon. Also, do you have any info on that TLCD overlay stuff you were talking about? Google wasn't really coming up with anything and it sounds interesting.

 

[unfocused]

... the days of the mirror-flipping high fps beast seem to be almost over.

Marsu, don't tell me you're buying into the mirrorless hype.

Canon's delaying strategy worked on me and I bit the bullet last fall with a 5DIII. But, I'm still interested in a 7D II.

I think my list is pretty modest.

5DIII style autofocus
Dual card slots (one each)
600 RT settings through the menu (that's a certainty)
Modest improvement in sensor, particularly in reduced noise
If higher megapixels, no loss in image quality
Weather sealing at least to 5DIII standards
Same basic controls as 5DIII
Frame Rate equal to or better than current 7D

Basically, I want a second body that I can shoot birds and wildlife with when I'm distance limited and know I'll need to crop a significant portion of the frame away.

 

[Marsu42]

... the days of the mirror-flipping high fps beast seem to be almost over.

Marsu, don't tell me you're buying into the mirrorless hype.

Well, this forum is the stronghold of the old school "80s" dslr community, but alas, tempora mutantur, nos et mutamur in illis.

I'm buying the fact that in the near future, you can do 100fps full res with mirrorless - at amateur price w/o 1d-type construction and for shootings styles that need "take your pick". Me, I'm always using flash so 1fps is enough

But really, the whole mirror idea is based on the fact that the analog film needs to be hidden, with a digital sensor it's on its way out except for people who also use digital watches that were once cool. Your camera is a high-performance computer, but this fact is only used up to a tiny fraction by existing designs and software.

Canon is working on this with the whole dual pixel af gadgetry, and the 7d2 delay indicates they won't release it as the last flagship incarnation of the old school dslr system with "everything Canon has" stuffed in.

 

[Tugela]

The mirrors were there so you could see exactly what you were shooting, but were raised when the exposure was being done. The shutter in mechanical film cameras typically was a curtain in front of the film plane that moved aside.

If you don't use an optical viewfinder you don't need any of that mechanism.

 

[JimKarczewski]

Rienzphotoz-


This is older photos (lastyear), unfortunately I haven't uploaded the latest work which is about 30 frames at 1/3 intervals for HDR.

http://www.nwipix.com/p369641141

 

[Aglet]

I do agree this camera will have to be extremely feature rich to be successful.

This is most likely the reason the 7d2 isn't here yet and neither "around the corner" ...

... but the competition is a moving target, the new Nikon 1 v3 has 20fps with servo af, full res 18mp and 40 shows raw buffer (http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=20018.0) so Canon should better come up with something really interesting or amateur wildlife photogs will switch to mirrorless.

The hybrid (evf/ovf?) viewfinder is the indication Canon is following suite - with a high-fps "mirror flipped up" mode, the days of the mirror-flipping high fps beast seem to be almost over.

When I read the N1v3 can do ~60fps with focus locked almost made me choke on my ichiban noodles!

 

[Marsu42]

When I read the N1v3 can do ~60fps with focus locked almost made me choke on my ichiban noodles!

Well, at least we have Magic Lantern which can do 60fps+ raw with locked focus right now for Canon ("silent pix"), but alas, only at reduced live view resolution 1824x1224 ...