Next Rebel Going EVF? [CR1]

[Woody]

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."

 

[sanj]

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."

I like both EVF and Optical. Both should exist side by side. As of today.

 

[dgatwood]

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?

 

[Policar]

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!).

 

[Sella174]

That said, I've never owned an EVF camera (unless cell phones count ). I have tinkered with EVFs in hands-on moments in stores -- particularly Sony mirrorless models as I have a Sony store near me. I have found the EVFs to be bright and loaded full of information, but a shade laggy compared to what I am used to.

It depends on the available light: I have found that in certain light conditions, especially indoors with fluorescent light (which flickers at 50/60Hz) the EVF of my X-T1 does struggle a bit. But outside in the sun or indoors with incandescent light it is really fast enough.

 

[Sella174]

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.

Depends on your definition of what a "pro" photographer does for a living. Good professional photographers are primarily interested in creating the picture. Good professional photographers then use the gear best suited to producing said required/desired picture. Good professional photographers actually don't give a hoot about those things you've mentioned ... if you can't take a good picture with your FUJIFILM Instax or Apple iPhone, then you ain't a good professional photographer. I have seen too many "professional" photographers totally depending on the abilities of their "pro" cameras and "post" to actually take a mediocre picture. (Just for fun, go watch those DigitalRev episodes on YouTube where they challenge a professional photographer with a crappola camera ... and see who makes it and who don't, as it is very informative ... especially when you look at the "preferred gear" of those who do poorly on the test.)

 

[Sella174]

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!

Wow, talk about denial. Sheesh-kebabs!

 

[Tugela]

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.

 

[Tugela]

...the Oly is my choice for landscape...

...I really don't notice any longer the difference between the Optical Finder and the EVF...

These two are directly related. For landscape, you can get away without a viewfinder, in many cases. Try shooting low-light action with the EVF camera and you'll quickly find it in pieces on the ground after you've missed your hundredth consecutive shot.

Why? An EFV can see in the dark, an OFV can't.

With an EFV you get some idea of what your camera sees, in other words what the picture is going to look like. An OFV can't do that.

 

[sanj]

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.

 

[Tugela]

EVF are hopelessly bad. Still laggy. Yiiiiikes.

I'll take the tiny Rebel pentamirror any day over the EVFs available today.

The latest Olympus EVF has a lag of 0.016. (16 milliseconds). I wouldn't call that "hopelessly bad."

Even if it were true (I think it isn't), that's still hopelessly bad. It needs to be under 5ms for all lighting conditions, preferably closer to 2ms.

I wonder if you have actually used an EVF. To me, after using XE2 for over a year, they are GREAT.

I doubt it. I get the feeling that a lot of people here are reactionary and resist change just because it is different. ;D

 

[Policar]

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!

 

[Policar]

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.

 

[Tugela]

It's really interesting reading this debate the U.S. has had the worst take up of mirror less cameras. I've used them all the way back to the first Olympus E-PL1 and now use the Olympus OM-D E-M10. The E-M10 is a great camera with great IQ certainly better than my Canon 7d which I now hardly use. However the E-M10 is no match for the 6d which far excels it IQ wise.
As I can afford both systems they have separate uses for city / urban or walkabout the Oly is my choice for landscape the 6d is my choice and for wildlife & sport I still use the 7d.
I really don't notice any longer the difference between the Optical Finder and the EVF you quickly adapt to both I'm more interested in control layout and intuitive menus here Canon beats Olympus but the rotary control on the E-M10 to adjust exposure comp is easier than Canon.

Actually that is not true. All cameras except DSLRs are mirrorless, and DSLRs are a small potion of all cameras sold.

Mirrors are the exception, not the rule.

 

[Tugela]

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.

 

[Policar]

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.

 

[sanj]

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.

And give him my deepest regard. Yes lighting is foremost with the naked eye. But now with film gone away, the meters hardly come out, the monitor at the video village and the EVF do the job. And perfectly mind you. The suspense of watching dailies is long gone. What you see on the monitor is what you get. And if you don't, you can easily achieve that in grading.

 

[sanj]

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!

 

[Policar]

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.

 

[Gortimer]

I like EVF on the latest Olympus.