On Mon, 5 Nov 2007 17:25:44 -0000, "Henry" <henry RemoveThis @home.com> wrote:
>What I don't want in *no* VF at all - which seems to be a growing trend, I
>couldn't bear holding out the camera at arm's length to see the shot on the
>rear LCD (although lots of people seem perfectly happy with that
>arrangement)
While I agree that just an LCD only viewfinder would be unusually limiting at
times, don't discount some of the things it can be used for.
One excellent example is when trying to take macro-photos of insects in flight.
I invented a technique for myself where I set the focus manually to about 2 feet
in front of the lens, using a tele-macro lens arrangement so I get a good
close-up but with lots of working distance. Then setting the f/stop about
halfway for a fairly deep DOF. By holding the camera with arms half extended and
looking in the LCD only, you can quickly swing the camera around in all 3
dimensions to accurately follow and frame that insect in flight as it's buzzing
around plants and flowers. Following its rapid movements while also keeping it
within the depth you've chosen for clear focus by moving the camera toward and
away from you too, just as fast as the insect is flying. I've obtained some
macro photos of insects in flight using this method that would be impossible
with an EVF or any optical viewfinder held to the eye.
Another method is to use the same technique as an advance image stabilization
system when you are in a moving vehicle that is shaking or any platform that is
moving far beyond what any IS system can compensate for. By using the inertia
and mass of the camera, you partially tense your arm muscles into a sort of
spring suspension while framing and focusing through the LCD. You can be riding
on the back of a bouncing snowmobile at 50 mph and still hold the camera
perfectly still once you get the hang of how it works. Learn to practice this
am-spring-balance method. Again, this is impossible to do by using an EVF or
optical viewfinder held to the face.
These are just two of the more extreme and impossible to duplicate examples
where an LCD may come in handy for you one day.
>
>My memories of EVF's are of fairly grainy images that gave you a general
>picture (no pun intended) of the scene, but were not much good for focus or
>detailed framing.
Framing is 100% accurate. Unlike all optical viewfinders which are never 100%
accurate, and any stray light entering from the back of the camera will offset
the exposure readings in any DSLR. But you might still be annoyed by some of the
lower resolution EVF displays, until you get used to them and find their
benefits.
I have also found a technique where you can use a pixelated EVF display to
improve manual focusing to where it is even faster and more accurate than using
an optical viewfinder. Think of the whole screen as a micro-prism, like you are
used to seeing as the small semi-circle in any SLR focusing screen. Now, think
of its properties in reverse. In an EVF when the details and contrasting edges
are in focus, those pixels will scintillate as they are individually lit and
darkened as the in-focus features pass over the EVF's pixels. Any areas not in
focus won't cause this scintillation effect because they are only gradually
lighting and darkening adjoining pixels. The exact opposite of what happens in a
micro-prism in an optical viewfinder.
Once you learn how to see this you'll wonder how you ever did without it. That
coarse and grainy image is more beneficial than you might first think. Instead
of wondering if just the center is in focus, as in an optical viewfinder (unless
its just a low-contrast and low-light frosted screen), you can rapidly see which
parts of your whole scene are in accurate focus in an EVF from this pixel
scintillation.
>
>Perhaps EVF's have improved in the last few years?, I suppose they must
>have.
Some have, some have not. But I have found that the more of them that I used,
the more ways I found to use them to my benefit, greatly increasing my chances
of getting the best shot. Some photos that I could have never accomplished at
all with an optical viewfinder in the past.
You'll find out, once you get the hang of it.
Think in new ways. Try new things.
I did. That's why I'll never care if any camera I own ever has an optical
viewfinder ever again. People can cry about the benefits of an optical
viewfinder all they want. Doesn't matter one bit to me. I know better now. They
don't.
>> Stay informed about: Decent alternative to dslr? 
FAQ
Search
Profile
Private Messages
Log in
Mind you, I