Agreed. Nearly 100% of my landscapes are shot using the LCD - 100% of them on a tripod, and even most of them when shot handheld, despite the reduced stability. I find the LCD's view easier to get a feel for composition where looking through the VF feels like seeing only a few parts of the composition at once (for me anyway). I guess the only time I really use the VF is if I'm shooting into the sun and can't see the LCD sufficiently even with full brightness.
There are currently 3 EOS R system cameras coming in the second half of 2022 [CR2]
- Thread starter Canon Rumors Guy
- Start date
IBIS is less effective the longer the focal length; the RF 100-500L is rated as giving 5 stops of stabilisation with ILIS and 6 combined with IBIS; for the RF 800mm f/11 officially no extra stabilisation is gained by using IBIS (it's rated at 4 stops).
Why is it more efficient? Some things are objectively true: a screen is less effective in bright ambient light (especially with direct sun on it), and holding the camera against the head can be more stable, especially with bulkier lenses. But how is using the EVF more efficient? What does that even mean?
"Keepsakes" versus "art" doesn't matter. Art isn't great because it meets technical standards. Of course everyone's standards - both technical and affective - differ; regardless, my point is, if the audience for a camera body (in this hypothetical case, a cheap entry level body without an EVF) is satisfied, then it could be a sensible way for Canon to keep the price low, which is vastly more important to many potential customers than if their composition is "lousy".
PS I treasure photos because of their content, and this is by far the commonest view; as a sometime photography nerd, I also happen to appreciate technical aspects, but that puts me (and you) in the minority. My experience with lay folk is, even explaining what noise, or sharpness, or focus are is difficult and misses the point much of the time.
"It's a lot cheaper to build it into the camera in the first place."
Incorrect. It's not cheaper to build it into the camera in the first place. A camera without EVF is cheaper to build than one with it. First the EVF and rear display both need display driver chips. And they will not use the same driver chip either. Second, the voltage monitor circuit eye sensor has to be programmed. This was Sony's A1 flaw with using an outdated spare parts LCD on it's new A1 that consequently caused camera blackouts and nearly four months of reprogramming and ultimately an update to solve this issue. It's not as simple as simple as merely addiing an unrelated display.
All of the above may be done without an EVF. Commercial product photography is done all the time without an EVF. Ever tried using an external 4k monitor, or tethering with a 4k monitor? No EVF needed at all. An EVF is simply a Micro OLED. That's all it is. A micro display. Actually composition on a larger and brighter display with two eyes is more "efficient" than looking through an eye piece with one eye. The EVF only advantage is the brightness as compared to the poor and outdated LCDs that some camera manufacturers have been using on cameras to avoid the cost of brighter LCDs or OLEDs with higher NITs.
Last edited:
Why on earth would it cost that much (pleased don't give Canon such ideas!)? The R6 will creep down to the $2000-$2400 range, so a new Rmk2 body that is supposed be a step down and the only (new) body above a seriously-handicapped RF-Rebel-without-EVF costing maybe $600, the price point should be close to the launch price of the RP in 2019, i.e $1,399. Specs: R body, LP-E6NH battery, better 30+ MP sensor, probably no IBIS, improved EVF, support for HEIF, not too much on the video side (i.e. for photographers mainly). The body + kit lens must be below $2,000, maybe including a removable or built-in super-compact LED flash.
A brighter rear new generational LCD/OLED rear display, as long as Canon has solved the supply chain & driver chip issue and doesn't resort to using outdated old LCDs and uses the brighter touch screen ones as they have on their latest camera models. Brighter new generation LCDs and OLEDs have long since overcome the age old problem of brightness and visibility in sunlight. OLEDs and LCDs in bright sunlight are in use on many of new generational consumer devices and well as ones on the battle field. Display driver chips for them is another issue. Some camera manufacturers are still producing devices with outdated old and antique rear LCDs and wonder why their customer base is shrinking. As if that micro OLED EVF used for one eyeball is all there is available.
"It's the display stupid" says Apple and Samsung.
"It's the display stupid" says Apple and Samsung.
Last edited:
Genuine confusion/clarification: Let's say I fix the position of the camera and a subject, then I take a picture of the subject with the R5. Next, I take a picture of the subject with an RF APSC camera from the same position as the R5, and that this APSC camera uses the same R5 sensor but 'crop' to APSC specs (ie. about 18mpx). Wouldn't the amount of light falling on the APSC be the same as that falling on the area of the FF sensor that covers the same area as the APSC? Wouldn't the actual noise would then be the same? If by perceived noise, you meant comparing the two images at the same physical size, then the APSC image, having to 'scale' up to the same physical size, would look noisier. I might not have explained well, so please bear with me.
It is a lot of fun. Often spend summer evenings at one of the local reservoirs shooting them. A friend of mine sat with me a couple of times with his 300f2.8 and you could almost hear his arms burning. Still, he persevered and got a few nice shots, He now uses a lighter lens. Ont the plus side, once you get the hang of swifts everything else feels slow.
Sure, they are far more *likely* to take a photo if the camera can fit in a pocket, but I don't see that as ruling out having an EVF - there are plenty of small cameras with pop-up EVFs and I think a small full frame RF camera could easily accommodate a pop-up EVF (although it would push the price up a bit).
My point is that an EVF or OVF will help them take *better* photos because it will help them to see distracting background items, and to appreciate depth of field etc. Sure, subject matter is what matters most to most people, especially novices, but using an eye-level viewfinder will help them to see "problems" with composition, focus, trees growing out of people's heads etc - things that I think they'll be less likely to notice if they compose on a 3" flippy screen.
For landscape and tripod-macro I've traditionally used a right angle finder on my DSLRs. The far better stabilisation of my R5 has meant that I shoot almost everything hand-held these days. I've never used the fully articulating screen on my R5 for hand-held work, partly because I find it awkward to use - I'd be more likely to use it if it was a Nikon-style tilting screen or a Panasonic-style hybrid screen. But my main reason for not using it is for the reasons given in my previous posts.
Last edited:
What do I mean by "more efficient" ?
It's more efficient because it is much easier and quicker to judge composition, exposure, bokeh, depth of field, focus and everything else. The image in an EVF is brighter, clearer and magnified, infintely better IMO than peering at a small screen at arms length.
Using an EVF (or OVF) also means that the camera will be braced against the face, reducing camera shake, and making it a great deal easier to track a moving subject.
The best it can? So, you are among those that beleive that more MPs means better. Better FPS? No. Better Buffer capacity? No. Better file storage capacity? No. Better high ISO noise? No. Better resolution is the only better that I can think of and the resolution improvement is one of diminishing returns as more MPs means diffraction sets in at lower apertures, higher shutter speeds are needed or you need to use a tripod more often. All of these reasons are why the high MP camera is clearly a niche product that is not a high priority for Canon or anyone else. I think we will see one - and one has been rumored for a long time - but the fact that it is pretty much last in line as far as being made should tell you that most consumers do not think high MP in a camera is "the best."
Your last point is especially true when shooting video. I don’t do it often but I can track subjects with the viewfinder. Switching to the rear screen, as had to be done with a DSLR, means you either have wobbly footage or you loose the subject. It certainly doesn’t help with composition shooting video on the rear screen. That is when shooting handheld, easier on a tripod.
If there's a camera among the three without EVF, I just hope it ain't the APS-C model. That would make it very far from a 7D replacement.
There's no difference between a crop sensor and cropping the image to APS-C size fro a FF sensor, if the sensor technology is the same. Same as if you just use 1.6x crop mode on the R5. Of course, with the same lens (focal length) on the two cameras in your example, you would not have the same picture, but assuming your subject fit within the APS-C area of the R5, that would not matter.
The short version is that the noise would be the same at the pixel level, not at the picture level. Personally I find it more relevant to compare pictures, not pixels.
As I stated in one of my earlier posts, my comments do not apply to TV, cinema or other applications where an external monitor is used. These monitors are a great deal larger and much clearer and brighter than the puny screens on the back of APS and FF cameras, and those are what I'm criticising here - to be precise, my original post was about a fear that the advent of a screen-only budget RF camera could start a trend whereby that highly undesirable trait extended to models higher in the range.
You do understand that the angle of view when using a telephoto lens is often so small that even the slightest hand movement or shake moves your subject and composition across a much larger percentage of the frame (or screen). Thus far more critical even if there are 2 or 3 less stops of stabilization than a wide angle or standard lens.
I think you've misinterpreted my post. What I'm saying is that it's cheaper to make a camera with a built-in EVF, than to produce one without an EVF and then have to buy a clip-on EVF to make it usable for any scene containing action or careful composition. The ridiculous £250 price of the Canon EVF-DC2 accessory makes this abundantly clear.
No argument about how rear screens can be better, more visible, etc, but the one thing I like about my mirrorless is that I can fold the screen away (facing inwards) and use the EVF exclusively. In a way, back to my old film SLRs, in dark places I am not visible, and with relatively heavy lenses I find more stability and less arm fatigue holding the camera up to my eye. The controls are also easier to use in that posture, be it the rings on the lens or the rotary dials and buttons on the camera. A personal thing but Canon would be wise to factor in the habits of "seasoned" photographers on products (as in a bag full of cameras, lenses, batteries, flash, ...) that cost considerably more than a phone. I do appreciate the rear screen for the odd detailed image check and for shooting in awkward positions (close to the ground, above a crowd, etc.) and of course for tripod work, which is in my case only 1% of usage.
Similar threads
