Is the optical viewfinder necessary?

[OldClicker]

Being new with a very small investment in past technology and, especially, knowledge; I’m asking if the future is (should be??) with the electronic viewfinder instead of the current optical one carried over from film photography.

When I look at the newer ‘live view’ type DSLR offerings, it seems that the ‘SLR’ is (or soon will be) just getting in the way and is only there because ‘real’ cameras are SLR. With film, the mirror shows the image, as close as possible, that the film is going to record. With digital, the display, when taken from the sensor, shows what will be recorded.

In terms of future advancement, the optical view will be pretty much as it is today. The only recent advances are in the mirror (gone, along with camera shake, noise, delay…) and in putting more information in the viewfinder (LCD). It’s also stuck pretty close to where it is. But with the electronic viewfinder, they have just begun to explore the placement possibilities of ‘live view’ with the flip-up and flip-down LCD. It could be remote, heads-up on your glasses, a flip down monocle or in a little hole on the top-back of the camera if that’s where you like it.

I’ve read the “Why Go To DSLR” thread, the “Digital SLR Guide” and a few others that came up in my search, but I don’t see anything mentioned that is a result of the SLR.

Hope I’m not being to bold for someone who has owned their DSLR for about two weeks, but I’m really interested in, “Why?”

TF

[Dylan8i]

Id be mad if the did away with the viewfinder. live view is good for certain shots, but holding the camera against your face, for instance, helps steady the camera, i think i frame pics better using it, etc.

[Photo-John]

I absolutely cannot shoot sports without an optical viewfinder. A really good EVF (electronic viewfinder) might work. But for accurate panning, having your eye to a viewfinder is not an option. There simply is no other way. For that reason, I own a digital point-and-shoot with an optical viewfinder and wouldn't consider buying one that didn't have one.

[Canuck935]

Well, I wouldn't mind an EVF over OVF if the following could be said for EVF:

1) Clarity. Resolution plays a part, but what about dark conditions. Will I be able to see clearly in the dark or am I going to get some high gain image that's all splotchy and grainy?

2) Battery drain. The OVF is on all the time and takes absolutely no juice. The EVF, well that'll shorten battery life.

3) Sensor noise. Because the EVF image will be coming from the sensor, it will be using it all the time and heating it up and causing noise and possibly overheating with larger sensor camera's.

Although I wouldn't be surprised if we did see a EVF DSLR soon, possibly with the micro 4/3 system.

[drg]

If you take the Live View from the imaging sensor, then the shutter has to be open and as mentioned this has repercussions. Power and certainly the resultant response time from having to close the shutter to then capture the image.

The life span of sensors is still an interesting question as to how long a sensor exposed to fairly continuous light for imaging will work. Or will the quality of image degrade?

EVF's currently do not have enough pixels to provide a truly representative display for critical work. The dynamic range of a display at this point to give a photographer the same output from the imaging sensor alone would double the cost of the cameras, or more.

To really replace the optical viewfinder the display would have to be of sufficient capability to let the photographer have an unimpeded view with different quality and styles of lens. If the lens is a fixed/built-in non-interchangeable type, that is one engineering problem. If it (the EVF/LCD display) has to support my arsenal of lenses, and do so across platforms (different bodies or brands) consistently, for my eye, that is a much tougher challenge. Just look at the problems, even with HD, of getting just two monitors to display the same color, let alone contrast, clarity, etc.

[Loupey]

I would just LOL if I saw someone trying to hand-hold a 500/600mm telephoto with their arms outstretched.

Seriously, watching people shoot P&S by holding the camera out at arms length makes me cringe. I still cannot take sharp images with my Canon G9 when I try to shoot with the LCD. I end up handing the G9 to the wife for her to shoot (true!).


The other point is reaction time. Even the slightest lag between the real world and the LCD display would cost me dearly. For many of my shots, even the slower shutter actuation of the Canon 5D (bigger mirror) verses the 40D is enough for me to limit what I can shoot with the 5D - I'm not talking about FPS, rather the time to shoot the first shot. Any lag on any EVF would render the camera a total waste to me.

[AgingEyes]

Hope I’m not being to bold for someone who has owned their DSLR for about two weeks,
TF

Not too bold, but just lack of experiences and so may have led to your not considering other factors.

[AgingEyes]

I would just LOL if I saw someone trying to hand-hold a 500/600mm telephoto with their arms outstretched.

But don't forget to take a picture of that feat though, considering that it's not something that most people can do.

I always wonder why so many people want their SLR cameras to have live view. I guess they're so used to the digital p&s cameras that they used when they first started photography. I could be wrong though of course.

[OldClicker]

First, I have assumed that the future electronics would be able to overcome any limitations of the current devices and that there would be huge advances in sensor technology. We now have a 24 MP Sony, and it would seem that we can soon stop going for bigger and concentrate on better. This would mean sensors providing very clean images with no penalty for being active when not actually recording a picture. Also, the display technology would continue to advance and be optimized to this application.

“Battery drain. The OVF is on all the time and takes absolutely no juice. The EVF, well that'll shorten battery life.

I see advances in the available power from batteries continuing. The companies have figured what length of time we will tolerate and will use the additional power for new uses to maintain that same length of time and the development of ‘Live View’ seems like a logical place to put it. Like PC speed and operating systems. It takes about the same amount of time to boot my Pentium Windows machine in 2008 as it did my Apple II+ in 1978. (btw – thanks for the EFV term.)

“If you take the Live View from the imaging sensor, then the shutter has to be open…certainly the resultant response time from having to close the shutter to then capture the image.”

I would envision electronic shutters that would simply ('simply' in use, not implementation) use the amount of light sensed starting 'now' and ending at 'shutter speed' seconds from now. I mechanical shutter may still be there for protection, but it would open when the camera turns on.

“To really replace the optical viewfinder the display would have to be of sufficient capability to let the photographer have an unimpeded view with different quality and styles of lens. If the lens is a fixed/built-in non-interchangeable type, that is one engineering problem. If it (the EVF/LCD display) has to support my arsenal of lenses, and do so across platforms (different bodies or brands) consistently, for my eye, that is a much tougher challenge. Just look at the problems, even with HD, of getting just two monitors to display the same color, let alone contrast, clarity, etc.”

But the EVF would provide the view of what will be recorded. It can be calibrated to some standard as well as any display. In the digital home of the picture, it is all relative. If you are saying that the photographer as an artist or craftsman needs to see what is actually visible to the eye and not just what the sensor sees, then that requires optics and I can envision no way around it - ever.

“I would just LOL if I saw someone trying to hand-hold a 500/600mm telephoto with their arms outstretched.”

An EVF does not require you to hold the camera in any position. With the ability to place it anywhere, the camera could be held in a position that is more stable than against the face (if there is one???).

“I absolutely cannot shoot sports without an optical viewfinder.”

The panning problem certainly would be a biggy for many, including me I think. But have you watched how those who entered the world post-analog can handle a video game controller? The direct eye/head movement and contact may not be necessary if you learn without it.

“Clarity. Resolution plays a part, but what about dark conditions.”

(Actually, I would worry more about bright conditions.) This may be a problem without a solution better than the one we already have. I can’t think of anything really elegant, but people tend to find solutions to problems when they have something that works very well for most applications.

“The other point is reaction time. Even the slightest lag between the real world and the LCD display would cost me dearly.”

I don’t understand why there would be a lag. The viewfinder would be showing what the sensor is seeing. The mirror is gone.

“Not too bold, but just lack of experiences and so may have led to your not considering other factors.”

Thank you. I don’t intend to imply that no one has ever thought of this before and that it hasn’t been seriously thought through. It’s just that I have practically nothing invested in the current way of doing things – not $, not knowledge and not techniques developed over many years of hard work. I’m always trying to think outside the box and, of course, find the easy way out.

TF

[Photo-John]

“I absolutely cannot shoot sports without an optical viewfinder.”

The panning problem certainly would be a biggy for many, including me I think. But have you watched how those who entered the world post-analog can handle a video game controller? The direct eye/head movement and contact may not be necessary if you learn without it.

I've got as much practice as anyone doing panning photos. I test cameras and ski and mountain bike so I am always trying to take pan shots with point-and-shoots that have no optical viewfinder. It just ain't happening. And why bother when the optical viewfinder works so well? An EVF would work if the resolution and refresh rate were good enough. But right now, they aren't.

And don't get me wrong - I'm not anti-live view. I was until I started using it in the studio. For studio product photography I absolutely love it now. I wouldn't want to work any other way. But for anything with people and/or action, I don't want to give up my trustworthy optical viewfinder.

Good subject by the way. You stirred things up a little and made us all think. Plus, this optical viewfinder rant is one I'm on all the time. Every time I review a point-and-shoot without an optical viewfinder I bring up the panning thing.

[Franglais]

The focussing system on DSLR's is usually built into the mirror assembly. It detects light like the sensor but it is a very specialised piece of hardware designed to detect if the image is in focus or not.

If you're in LiveView you can't use the specialised sensor any more. You're down to the camera sensor with the camera trying to figure out if the image is in focus or not. No specialised hardware possible.

Conclusion: current DSLR's are very good at finding focus quickly through the optical viewfinder and very slow at finding focus in Live View. Things might improve but Live View will never be as good as an optical viewfinder - unless someone finds a way to do it.

[Loupey]

I forgot one key reason why I MUST HAVE an optical viewfinder: Critical focusing - FAST.

I shoot everything manual focus and, at times, my DOF is only 1" or so of a live/moving bird that is 12' to 18' away using a 500mm or 600mm lens. No time to zoom into an LCD to check the focus and the resolution of the screen (from what I've seen) is insufficient to get the job done that quickly and that precisely.

Also, I shoot flying birds and bugs (also manually) and I can't see doing it any easier than "by eye".