DSLR vs EVF

[Ronnoco]

The conventional advice to beginners is to go with the DSLR for which you already have film lenses for, with the assumption that you can move some of your film equipment over to DSLR. What is forgotten is that digital lenses are made to much tighter specifications than film lenses, with the result that less than top quality film lenses do not make a perfect transition to digital. Flare and light fall-off can be problematic. Focal length will not necessarily be the same either and the wide angle area often suffers. Flash often does not make the transition at all.

Perhaps EVF or SLR like digital cameras should be considered. Interesting that shots taken on a "comparameter" on one of the web sites demonstrated much to my surprise that EVF shots from Minolta and Nikon were sharper than DSLR shots from Canon, even up to the Mark 2. Price wise the equivalent of an EVF with the kit superzoom is about half the price of a DSLR with the same size/speed zoom. Of course, Canon DSLRs have far less noise than EVFs but is that low noise at the expense of a little sharpness. Then for some photographers the issue might be; "Is it worth paying twice the price for a little less noise in low lighting conditions given the convenience of not having to change lenses and yet still having 28mm to 200mm with macro or even more extreme ranges?"

It depends on the kind of photography that you do, of course but one photographer with a Minolta A2 EVF and a Canon 20D DSLR said that for more than 94% of the photos he could not tell the difference between the two cameras and then post processing would make any minor differences indistinguishable.

Ronnoco

[OldSchool]

Thanks,
Tim

[mwfanelli]

The conventional advice to beginners is to go with the DSLR for which you already have film lenses for, with the assumption that you can move some of your film equipment over to DSLR. What is forgotten is that digital lenses are made to much tighter specifications than film lenses, with the result that less than top quality film lenses do not make a perfect transition to digital. Flare and light fall-off can be problematic. Focal length will not necessarily be the same either and the wide angle area often suffers. Flash often does not make the transition at all.

Perhaps EVF or SLR like digital cameras should be considered. Interesting that shots taken on a "comparameter" on one of the web sites demonstrated much to my surprise that EVF shots from Minolta and Nikon were sharper than DSLR shots from Canon, even up to the Mark 2. Price wise the equivalent of an EVF with the kit superzoom is about half the price of a DSLR with the same size/speed zoom. Of course, Canon DSLRs have far less noise than EVFs but is that low noise at the expense of a little sharpness. Then for some photographers the issue might be; "Is it worth paying twice the price for a little less noise in low lighting conditions given the convenience of not having to change lenses and yet still having 28mm to 200mm with macro or even more extreme ranges?"

It depends on the kind of photography that you do, of course but one photographer with a Minolta A2 EVF and a Canon 20D DSLR said that for more than 94% of the photos he could not tell the difference between the two cameras and then post processing would make any minor differences indistinguishable.

Ronnoco

I'm a little confused by your separation of "EVF" and"DSLR" as they are independent. I am thinking that you mean a difference between an "all-in-one" or P&S compared to a DSLR.

Yes, for many shots with a small camera there will be no difference with those taken with a DSLR. This is especially true if they are viewed on a monitor that is a very low-res device. But if you use a DSLR, the larger prints look much better, you have a much less noise and higher useable ISO speeds, and a range of options not available in the integrated unit. I love my little Canon S400 and use it often. My Rebel takes better photographs.

As for EVF, that's a whole new kettle of fish. At this time, OVF is still vastly superior to the EVF being used in some cameras. With an OVF, the image is cleaner, brighter, and works at all he light levels that your eye does. Hands down, EVF loses out big time right now.

People should buy equipent for there own needs. Its not the equipment, its the photographer.

[Ultra Magnus]

The only think I know that EVF stands for is electronic view finder. It's what's in a lot of slr like all-in-one prosumer cameras, like my sony DSC-F828. It's not an SLR, which means no mirror, so it can't have an optical through the lense veiw finder, so they install a tiny LCD in the eyepiece to be used when it's too bright outside to frame shots on the big live LCD.

Now, my Sony has a 28-200 zoom (35mm equiv.) I, personally, can't STAND the slight increase in noise in low light, and heck, ALL lighting conditions. IMO, ISO 200 on my camera is useless, let alone anything higher. If I had it with me, I'd post some samples, and cant wait to save enough money to spend "twice the price for a little less noise in low lighting conditions..."

For a beginner photographer, digital photographer anyway, I think a SLR like all in one is a great value. Everything is there that you need to explore and learn the ins and out of the technical side of photography. I don't regret buying my Sony, but after two years, I'm more than good and ready to move on to a DSLR.

BM

[Sebastian]

Correct, EVF is Electronic ViewFinder.

[SmartWombat]

Just to make it more interesting, the latest Olympus 4/3 camera has EVF tilt/swivel screen and SLR so further blurring the distinction between the camera types.

[Ronnoco]

Thanks,
Tim

Hi Tim:

Put very simply EVF is a digital camera that looks likes an SLR and has a considerable range zoom lens from ex. 28mm to 200mm or 35mm to 300mm. with macro etc. Some would tend to say: How much more does the average photographer need?

The difference is instead of optically looking through the lens via a series of mirrors, you are looking at a the electronic view of a microchip that is looking through the lens. You can still use polarizers and other filters like a DSLR.

It is not a point and shoot, contrary to what some here have said, in that you have most, if not all of the manual, auto, and program modes of a film SLR.

As to noise in low light, a good auxiliary flash will cover 100+ feet with modeling features to prevent flat lighting, red eye prevention and high speed synch. In sunset scenics, a tripod, in camera noise processing, and a lower ISO solves almost all problematic situations.

Obviously every photographer has different needs but the decision about EVF versus DSLR should be based on thorough knowledge of the differences, rather than heresay from those who really have not looked at both formats carefully.

Ronnoco

[Ronnoco]

Just to make it more interesting, the latest Olympus 4/3 camera has EVF tilt/swivel screen and SLR so further blurring the distinction between the camera types.

Yes, and the Minolta A200 has a total swivel LCD screen which allows you to take photos from almost any position.

Ronnoco

[Ronnoco]

Now, my Sony has a 28-200 zoom (35mm equiv.) I, personally, can't STAND the slight increase in noise in low light, and heck, ALL lighting conditions. IMO, ISO 200 on my camera is useless, let alone anything higher. If I had it with me, I'd post some samples, and cant wait to save enough money to spend "twice the price for a little less noise in low lighting conditions..."

For a beginner photographer, digital photographer anyway, I think a SLR like all in one is a great value. Everything is there that you need to explore and learn the ins and out of the technical side of photography. I don't regret buying my Sony, but after two years, I'm more than good and ready to move on to a DSLR.

BM

The standard advice to camera buyers is to buy a camera from a company that manufactures cameras ie. Canon, Nikon,.Minolta, Pentax, Olympus etc. (not necessarily in that order). Sony however is not in the list, because Sony tends to make cameras for those consumers who want to take pictures at special events with minimal adjustments and "fuss", but definitely NOT for those that are serious photographic enthusiasts.

I am not at all surprised at your view of noise with Sony cameras. I was involved years ago in the evaluation of video cameras in the $4,000+ for production purposes and Sony did not make the cut at that time after a thorough technical evaluation. Even at that point,
colour noise due to over saturation was an issue. I am sure that there has been improvement but Sony still does not have the still camera technological expertise yet.

Ronnoco

[Ronnoco]

I'm a little confused by your separation of "EVF" and"DSLR" as they are independent. I am thinking that you mean a difference between an "all-in-one" or P&S compared to a DSLR.

No, an EVF is not a point and shoot. An EVF looks like an SLR with a very long lens as in 28mm to 200mm or 35mm to 300mm etc. All the camera makers have at least one and they are between the silver coloured point and shoot cameras and the DSLRs.

Yes, for many shots with a small camera there will be no difference with those taken with a DSLR. This is especially true if they are viewed on a monitor that is a very low-res device. But if you use a DSLR, the larger prints look much better, you have a much less noise and higher useable ISO speeds, and a range of options not available in the integrated unit. I love my little Canon S400 and use it often. My Rebel takes better photographs.

No, you are comparing DSLRs to point and shoots...a totally different category. Try comparing an 8 megapixel EVF with a 28mm to 200mm macro lens to a Canon 20D for example. Sharpness was better on the EVF according to a web site that compared photos. As to higher usable ISO speeds it depends on your shooting, a modeling flash with a 100feet+ range certainly negates that need for most situations. In other situations a tripod would probably be necessary anyway.

As for EVF, that's a whole new kettle of fish. At this time, OVF is still vastly superior to the EVF being used in some cameras. With an OVF, the image is cleaner, brighter, and works at all he light levels that your eye does. Hands down, EVF loses out big time right now.

The EVF amplifies the light in low lighting conditions even over the capability of an OVF finder for framing and manual focusing if necessary. The OVF image is often cleaner but that depends on the pixel count of the EVF viewfinder...at 250,000 pixels it gets pretty close and the advantage of EVF is truly what you see is what you get. You can VISUALLY in the viewfinder see your exposure adjustments and their effect before you take the photo.

People should buy equipent for there own needs. Its not the equipment, its the photographer.

Certainly true, but the choice of equipment should be based on thorough knowledge and complete information.

Ronnoco

[payn817]

I am sure that there has been improvement but Sony still does not have the still camera technological expertise yet.

Ronnoco

Perhaps I am misunderstaning that. Sony produces other manufacturers sensors, and those systems don't have the same noise problems. Isn't the noise issue relative to the sensor size? My KM has very little noise at 1600, and sensor is made by Sony.

EVF is electronic view finder, not a camera type really. Just a type of viefinder. IF it is a type of camera, my Kodak DX7630 (according to your def.) would be an EVf, but the viewfinder isn't an EVF. It has full manual operation, but an optical type view.

[OldSchool]

Hi Tim:

Put very simply EVF is a digital camera that looks likes an SLR and has a considerable range zoom lens from ex. 28mm to 200mm or 35mm to 300mm. with macro etc. ,,,

[snip]

Thanks for the explination Ronnoco. And, I agree with you that one should choose a camera based on their needs (current and anticipated), and not the hype or worry of looking like a "Fred".

Cheers,
Tim

[Ronnoco]

Perhaps I am misunderstaning that. Sony produces other manufacturers sensors, and those systems don't have the same noise problems. Isn't the noise issue relative to the sensor size? My KM has very little noise at 1600, and sensor is made by Sony.

The noise issue is a little more complicated than the sensor size. The heat generated by the sensor is a factor and in a smaller camera that heat has a tendency to be greater. There are also different approaches and philosophies for creating ideal electronic colours and over saturation can lead to colour noise.

I noticed that in comparing close-ups of a face that the Nikon 880 Coolpix was sharp but had a greenish tinge, the Sony DSCF828 was oversaturated toward the red and less sharp, and the Minolta A200 had both sharpness and the most natural skin colour.

EVF is electronic view finder, not a camera type really. Just a type of viefinder. IF it is a type of camera, my Kodak DX7630 (according to your def.) would be an EVf, but the viewfinder isn't an EVF. It has full manual operation, but an optical type view.

Yes, EVF is a viewfinder but it also tends to describe a type of camera like the Nikon 880 Coolpix or the Minolta A200 with a superzoom/all in one type kit lens that is in between the silver point and shoot type and the DSLR with the true interchangeable lens.

Ronnoco

[payn817]

Thanks, I guess the term pro-sumer is the same thing, and more in use in this area, but I get the idea.

To answer the original question, both serve a purpose. All of my paying work (very little) has been on a "all-in-one". I have yet to make a dime with either slr, or dslr yet. I am new to those types of cameras. So, I don't think either is the answer to anything particular.

Just learning technique? I'd go with the all-in-one, but that may be a comfort thing, if I had started with an slr it would likely be different.

[EOSThree]

The conventional advice to beginners is to go with the DSLR for which you already have film lenses for, with the assumption that you can move some of your film equipment over to DSLR. What is forgotten is that digital lenses are made to much tighter specifications than film lenses, with the result that less than top quality film lenses do not make a perfect transition to digital. Flare and light fall-off can be problematic. Focal length will not necessarily be the same either and the wide angle area often suffers. Flash often does not make the transition at all.Ronnoco

And that advice still holds true. AFAIK, lenses are lenses, good lenses are good lenses, poor lenses are poor lenses. The resolving ability of digital lenses hasn't been changed from their film counterparts, the biggest change in an EF-S, DX, DG, etc. lens is the image circle has been cut down to match the size of the sensor. Sure your digital sensor, and the ability to view the image on your computer at 100% is going to quickly reveal the shortcomings of some lenses, but not any more than a very large enlargement would for a film image. The lens that doesn't make the transition to digital wasn't a very good lens on a film camera either, just not nearly as noticeable because for the most part most of what we looked at were 4x6 prints, not nearly large enough to reveal problems. Flare is problematic in film or digital, purely a function of light striking the front element and reflecting between the lens' elements. Light fall off is definitely less on a DSLR used with a film lens, the image circle covers a much wider area than the sensor virtually eliminating this problem, even with a less than perfect inexpensive lens. CA is also a problem in either format, rarely revealed in the film world, because again we rarely looked at our film images at 100%. Wide angle suffers because of the crop of the sensors, even more so on the EVF type camera, those lenses often start out at a focal length of 6mm or so to get the equivelent FOV of a 35mm lens or so on a film camera.

Perhaps EVF or SLR like digital cameras should be considered. Interesting that shots taken on a "comparameter" on one of the web sites demonstrated much to my surprise that EVF shots from Minolta and Nikon were sharper than DSLR shots from Canon, even up to the Mark 2. Price wise the equivalent of an EVF with the kit superzoom is about half the price of a DSLR with the same size/speed zoom. Of course, Canon DSLRs have far less noise than EVFs but is that low noise at the expense of a little sharpness. Then for some photographers the issue might be; "Is it worth paying twice the price for a little less noise in low lighting conditions given the convenience of not having to change lenses and yet still having 28mm to 200mm with macro or even more extreme ranges?" Ronnoco

Maybe it should be considered, it depends on what the person buying the rig is used to, and what they are looking for in a camera. I have recommended this type of camera to friends several times, it wholly depends on the their needs. I use a G2(10D also), I have used a Panny Z5 and a Canon S2, I could never get used to the EVF, I liked using my G2s little viewfinder much better. The EVF was slow, jerky, and lacked enough resolution to really see what was in the photo. I found I often missed little details because the resolution of the EVF just wasn't enough. Using the EVF, I could tell where my subject was in the frame but little else, I found if it looked something like what I envisioned trip the shutter and then hope for the best and download the photo and see what I'd captured. Looking through the OVF on my G2 or 10D was much more accurate and...real. The design of these cameras require the use of the EVF because of the very large zoom range: a conventional viewfinder would never be able to cover that range, unless we were actually looking through the lens as in a DSLR. P&S and EVF(which fit in the same catagory) cameras have a very high degree of saturation, sharpness, and contrast applied in the camera, DSLRs produce a basically neutral image. If you want absolute simplicity, the P&S or EVF is definitely the way to go, your camera has most of the control of your image Point and Shoot, great picture. Control is what the DSLR is all about, you control the whole process from shot to print.

It depends on the kind of photography that you do, of course but one photographer with a Minolta A2 EVF and a Canon 20D DSLR said that for more than 94% of the photos he could not tell the difference between the two cameras and then post processing would make any minor differences indistinguishable.

Ronnoco

True for the most part, but, you are limited to exactly what you have with an P&S EVF, where your selections are nearly unlimited with your DSLR. Post processing can make up for some shortcomings, but the old computer adage still applies, garbage in=garbage out. I am not saying the output from a P&S EVF is garbage, far from it, but if the info is inferior in any way, no amount of post processing can recover something that isn't there in the first place.

[freygr]

Perhaps I am misunderstaning that. Sony produces other manufacturers sensors, and those systems don't have the same noise problems. Isn't the noise issue relative to the sensor size? My KM has very little noise at 1600, and sensor is made by Sony.

The nosie comes from the amplification of the output of the sensor before the AD convertor. The AD (Analog to Digital) convertor can also add nosie also, and all nosie is additive. No nosie can be added to the photo once it has been digitized.

Low nosie amplification is a lot more costly also just as a good fast low nosie AD convertor is.

[Ronnoco]

design of these cameras require the use of the EVF because of the very large zoom range: a conventional viewfinder would never be able to cover that range, unless we were actually looking through the lens as in a DSLR. P&S and EVF(which fit in the same catagory) cameras have a very high degree of saturation, sharpness, and contrast applied in the camera, DSLRs produce a basically neutral image. If you want absolute simplicity, the P&S or EVF is definitely the way to go, your camera has most of the control of your image Point and Shoot, great picture. Control is what the DSLR is all about, you control the whole process from shot to print.

True for the most part, but, you are limited to exactly what you have with an P&S EVF, where your selections are nearly unlimited with your DSLR. Post processing can make up for some shortcomings, but the old computer adage still applies, garbage in=garbage out. I am not saying the output from a P&S EVF is garbage, far from it, but if the info is inferior in any way, no amount of post processing can recover something that isn't there in the first place.

I agree with almost everything you said, until you reached this point and started to over-simplify. Although some P&S are quite literarly that, with pick the runner, the face, the sunset, or the flash shot, others have a considerable number of options including manual, shutter priority, contrast, sharpness, saturation, flash options including slow shutter, movie and sound.

Some EVFs with the superzooms go well beyond that in terms of options and selections.
One has 10 modes on the dial before you even get to menus and those 10 modes include pretty well everything you would see on a film SLR as in for example: auto, S, A, P, M, and even MR to create your own modes. So aside from some higher ISO options there are not many options missing from an EVF with a superzoom.

As to the few shortcomings, it depends on your photography. Very low light auto focus problems are not a great difficulty to overcome with manual focus. Noise at high ISOs are only an issue if you have to use them. A 50 meter flash can certainly solve that problem.
Otherwise colour, sharpness, resolution are just as good and in some cases better than particular DSLRs and some DSLRs have the same problems mentioned above.

Ronnoco

[EOSThree]

I think the all in ones or EVFs if you will, are fine cameras, in fact, I am entertaining the S3 to replace my aging 4mp G2. In using the electronic view finder I quickly learned to hate it. I just couldn't see what I wanted to see there, I couldn't even imagine trying to manual focus with it, I have a hard enough time with that in the small 10D viewfinder. The EVF was jerky, lacked detail, and was generally very poor. This held true for both the S2 and the Z5, poor but useable(barely IMO) but I feel that is the price I or anyone purchasing one of these cameras will have to pay to have a zoom of that range in that size camera.
When I spoke of the DSLR having unlimited choices, I was referring more to aperture/focal length/in camera processing(or lack thereof)/jpeg output, more than I was to recording modes. I have all of the manual modes and the silly photo modes on my G2 and my 10D I never get past the P. I recommend everyone shoot in P mode and work their way toward the S, A, M modes, and leave those auto modes alone. They are just pacifiers and will do the job if you don't want to learn anything about photography.

[Ronnoco]

I think the all in ones or EVFs if you will, are fine cameras, in fact, I am entertaining the S3 to replace my aging 4mp G2. In using the electronic view finder I quickly learned to hate it. I just couldn't see what I wanted to see there, I couldn't even imagine trying to manual focus with it, I have a hard enough time with that in the small 10D viewfinder. The EVF was jerky, lacked detail, and was generally very poor. This held true for both the S2 and the Z5, poor but useable(barely IMO) but I feel that is the price I or anyone purchasing one of these cameras will have to pay to have a zoom of that range in that size camera.

When I spoke of the DSLR having unlimited choices, I was referring more to aperture/focal length/in camera processing(or lack thereof)/jpeg output, more than I was to recording modes. I have all of the manual modes and the silly photo modes on my G2 and my 10D I never get past the P. I recommend everyone shoot in P mode and work their way toward the S, A, M modes, and leave those auto modes alone. They are just pacifiers and will do the job if you don't want to learn anything about photography.

Yes, I must admit that there are quite a range of EVF all-in-ones. The pixel count of the viewfinder and the external LCD are major factors as well as the refresh rate which determines the jerky or smooth behaviour in camera or subject motion.

One of my cameras is the A200 with an excellent all angle swivel LCD and a viewfinder that is only problematic under extremely low light..no jerky image however and good detail.
As to output it does have jpeg and raw both separate and together and with a 28mm to 200 mm macro, most of the focal length territory is covered. Since it shoots 800 by 600 video as well with stabilization, I can easily shift from stills to good quality video to cover wedding vows for example. This feature also means that I can put together a multimedia presentation with stills, transitions, text, and video for the educational or corporate sector.

Some photographers here have indicated that they spend an inordinate amount of time on self promotion in order to get recognition and jobs. That becomes far less necessary if you become far more flexible in the type of work you do and the "tools" you use. That does not mean that you don't have and use a DSLR, but it does mean that you recognize that an excellent EVF all-in-one is as good or better in "some" photographic situations.

I find that at the moment, the whole digital area is somewhat of a compromise and I cannot get everything that I want on one camera anyway. The challenge for the photographer is to see the best features of any particular camera and use them to advantage. In that regard, despite some shortcomings a good EVF all-in-one camera has some very convenient features such as not having to change lenses for a different focal length and not having to change cameras to move to video. In some fast moving situations as in sports, journalism, public relations work etc. that may mean the difference between getting the shot and not getting it. Since news video clips can also be sold to TV stations, there is another advantage for a photographer in the right place with an EVF all-in-one.

Ronnoco