Canon EOS M

[arith]

I've shot with eye level TTL optical viewfinders, I've shot with eye level optical range finders, I've shot with eye level electronic viewfinders, I've shot with waist level viewfinders, I've shot using ground glass screens with a ruddy great cloth over my head and I've shot with every shape, form and type of rear LCD - it doesn't make the hapeth of difference to me....I couldn't care less.

If pushed I'd admit to preferring a SLR style viewing system but I'd be a poor photographer if I limited my choice of camera to just that.

Rear screens allow shooting at the sorts of unusual angles that an eye level viewfinder simply can't do.
A waist level finder lets you view the image from a distance and that I find helps visualise the overall compositions in a way that looking through an eye level one simply can't do.
Using a ground glass screen on a 5x4 plate camera makes you think very hard, very long and with a great deal of care before you press the shutter. My 'keeper rate' when I had my MPP was far higher than with any other camera I have ever used.

You don't need a DSLR to take a great picture.
You don't need a raft of information in the whatever viewing system you are using to take a great picture.
You don't need to rigidly hold a camera up to your face to take a great picture.

What you do need is a creative eye, an artistic flair and an open mind....a bit of technical know-how will help from time to time but it won't always give a better image.

The best camera is the one you have with you - I don't alway have my D300s with me so it ain't always the best camera.

Always found the upside down image of the medium format difficult to handle, but it was amazingly bright Robin. For some reason I find live view difficult but useful for things like focus stacking.

[rpcrowe]

Forum friends, I promise that I will not make any more comments on ths subject after this final post!

I have to retract one of my earlier statements. To paraphrase that statement "if there were no eye-level viewfinder on digital cameras, I would still be shooting film".

Thinking about it; I would not! What I would probably do in that circumstance is to use a loupe like the Hoodman to enable me to use the LCD as an eye-level viewfinder.

However any statement alluding to any certain type of focusing system 'making' the photographer "... think very hard, very long and with a great deal of care before you press the shutter." is simply a convolution of cause and effect.

An inanimate piece of gear cannot change my thought process and 'make' me do anything. I will not dispute that using a groundglass or LCD viewing system would result in slower shooting (IMO that is really a problem rather than an advantage) however, the thought process behind the taking of a picture depends on the photographer. If I need a certain piece of gear before I think "long and hard" about my image - I would not consider myeslf to be a competent photographer. OTOH... if I am shooting with equipment that "forces" me to "think... very long" about my shot (simply because I cannot shoot quickly and accurately using it); I would probably lose out on a lot of shots.

I am thinking right now about a recent outing to photograph a polo match. I got some fairly decent shots which I doubt I would have been able to achieve with a three inch LCD 12-inches to 18-inches away from my eye. I am sure that I could never have seen the small polo ball using an LCD. I would imagine that the size of that ball on the LCD would have been less than 1/32 inch (after all the entire LCD has a diagonal of only three inches or so). Seeing something that small moving at a fast speed on an LCD a foot or a foot and a half away from my eye would be impossible for me... If you can do it, more power to you!



As far as not needing a raft of information on the LCD mnitor to shoot a worthwhle picture, no you don't need it. However, being able to monitor my camera settings on the fly is helpful. I started shooting the Polo match using ISO 800. However, by monitoring my shooting parameters shown in my viewfinder; I was able (without taking the camera from my eye) to ascertain that I could easily achieve a sufficient shutter speed and f/stop using ISO 400. I was able to switch to ISO 400 without taking my eye from the camera. When I want to slow down my shuter speed to achieve motion blur or background blur while panning; I can select this shutter speed and then return to the original faster shutter speed without taking the camera away from my eye and possibly missing a shot.

NOPE! I don't always use the eye-level viewfinder for action shooting. Sometimes I will use a sportsfinder like this one which allows even faster subject aquisition - especially when shooting with a very long lens...



I sometimes use this to find my subject against a very plain background (such as the sky for a flying bird or the ocean for pictures of a surfer) and then quickly shift to the eye-level viewfinder for shooting.

One final comment and I promise that I will let this subject rest. When I am shooting with an eye level viewfinder, I see my image to the exclusion of everything around it. This allows me concentration on the image. I am standing within the image! I do not see my arm, hand, camera body, and all the rest of the action surrounding the tiny image like I would if I were using the LCD without a loupe.

I also cut my teeth on large format cameras with ground glass viewing. However, I always used a dark cloth to #1 enable me to see the image better in bright sunlight and #2 separate the image from the rest of the distracting world.

And yes... there is a place in photography for live view. Macro work is one venue that comes in mind. However my original statement was not that live view capability in a camera is bad but, simply that eliminating eye level viewing and depending entirely on a LCD viewing is not good!

[thequacksoflife]

curiously Richard I don't disagree with you! I understand that manufacturers what to remove the bulk but at the very least camera makers should offer the option to add a viewfinder via hotshoe etc.

[Black Pearl]

...and its official:

http://www.dpreview.com/news/2012/07...nds-on-preview

[Colin Southern]

...and its official:

http://www.dpreview.com/news/2012/07...nds-on-preview

Darn. Only just bought the 1Dx - now I'll have to trade it in

[Black Pearl]

Last years technology but I'm sure someone will give you a few quid for it

[Eric M]

While I haven't been doing much on the photography front lately, the Canon mirrorless is something I have been waiting on. Frankly, I was hoping for something to compete with the OMD-E5 that could take EF and EF-S glass via an adapter (and retain IS, AV control) and have Canon flash compatibility. The EOS-M is probably just a starting point, but it certainly isn't up to the level of the Oly in regard to features or build.

At this point the thought has crossed my mind of buying the Olympus and, if it works for me, dumping Canon altogether. We'll see.

[jcuknz]

I have mentioned this before but, there is no way that I would ever select a camera in which the lack of a proper eye-level viewfinder would force me to use an LCD viewfinder as my only way of viewing. IMO, liveview is a very inefficient way to shoot. If all digital cameras were set up like this, I would still be shooting film. However, if you can stand liveview as the only viewing method; I guess that this camera might be a bit better than a sharp poke in the eye...

I have probably mentioned this before, somewhere, that I wouldn't buy a camera without an EVF ... the point is that each system has its defects and it depends on your style or subject matter as to which you prefer.

[jcuknz]

curiously Richard I don't disagree with you! I understand that manufacturers what to remove the bulk but at the very least camera makers should offer the option to add a viewfinder via hotshoe etc.

I thought that too and when I bought my e-PL1 I also bought the VF-3 ... a dreadful and expensive mistake ... the VF cost as much as the camera and in practice I prefer to use the LCD away from my head [ obviously ] In my opinion the EVF needs to be part of the camera not an add-on though for action I'd like a sports finder if it was mated to my x10 zoom ... probably impossible.

[jcuknz]

I can't speak for others, but there is just no way I could shoot most of the things that I shoot without a viewfinder; camera stabilisation alone would be a nightmare.

I am quite sure that in fact you could but are accustomed to the OVF and fear the arms length technique. I prefer to have the camera to my eye but from experience know that all things equal the armlength, or at least bent arm length, can be just as good. This is 'fighting talk' I'm sure with those on this forum but for me it is a fact of life.
It is how you take the photo that matters not where you hold the camera.
I would guess the difference between the Japanese tourists and those here is not where they hold their cameras but how the camera is organised to make taking sharp images possible.... my new cellphone is to my thinking impossible urrrgh!

[Colin Southern]

I am quite sure that in fact you could but are accustomed to the OVF and fear the arms length technique.

EVF may well be fine for an outside shot, but (a) in bright light I suspect it would be difficult to see (b) in low light when I'm forced to shoot hand-held at low shutterspeeds there is no way I can brace it into my shoulder, and (c) in the studio when I'm trying to zoom in / out and compose / shoot several hundred frames in 20 minutes, it just wouldn't work.

It's a bit like trying to use a $200 2-seat car as a taxi; in theory the limitations can be overcome, but in the "real world", it's just not workable for a professional if you're having to perform at a certain level.

[inkista]

EVF may well be fine for an outside shot, but (a) in bright light I suspect it would be difficult to see (b) in low light when I'm forced to shoot hand-held at low shutterspeeds there is no way I can brace it into my shoulder, and (c) in the studio when I'm trying to zoom in / out and compose / shoot several hundred frames in 20 minutes, it just wouldn't work.

Colin I think you're confusing EVF (electronic view finder) with LCD. Because the built-in EVF on my G3 is perfectly capable in bright light, and lets me brace the camera up against my face just like a dSLR's OVF (optical view finder) does.

Panasonic DMC-G3's EVF:


Electronic Viewfinders are still eye-level viewfinders. They're just more like videocam viewfinders, where you stare at a little tv screen. Now, EVFs are not everybody's cuppa. But I would argue they're not useless. It's why most of the complaints you see about the EOS-M are that it lacks one or the ability to add one, and why everyone wants to see an enthusiast model in the mount with either an EVF, or a hybrid OVF/EVF like the Fuji X100.

The flip side of the EVF's little tv display annoyances are that you can digitally overlay information and have liveview in the viewfinder. I have full access to all my camera menus and image playback without ever having to take my eye from the viewfinder. I also have exposure simulation, DoF or shutter speed simulation, 10x magnification (automatic with manual focus, or manually triggered) and live histograms. And during Comic-Con while I was "zooming in/out/composing and shooting several hundred frames in 20 minutes," it pretty much worked the way my dSLR OVFs work, and helped me nail shots.


G3, Lumix G Vario 45-200 f/4-5.6 OIS. @200mm, iso 3200, f/5.6, 1/160s.
(remember, with a 2x crop factor, this is the equivalent of a 90-400 IS lens on a 5D. It cost me $250. And it's smaller and lighter than my 75-300 III and tons sharper.)

And, I know that it's much despised, but the arms-length LCD thing has strengths, too on mirrorless cams. Touchscreen controls for AF point placement being the main one to me, but also more intuitive and faster access to menu selections vs. 4-way control buttons. And, having a flip-out LCD makes overhead or low-to-the-ground composition absolute cake vs. a dSLR OVF.

I have to agree with jcuknz that maybe you're being a tad hidebound at exactly how a camera has to be configured. Or maybe it's just that you need to play with one of these things to get it. The m4/3 gear I was hauling around Comic-Con was my G3, five lenses, and it all fit in the same bottom section of a laptop & camera backpacks, where I could barely cram a 5Dii, 24-105 and 135L before, and weighed about half as much as the 5D+2 lenses.

It's a bit like trying to use a $200 2-seat car as a taxi; in theory the limitations can be overcome, but in the "real world", it's just not workable for a professional if you're having to perform at a certain level.

If you're talking about the EOS-M/EP-M1/GF-5 without a viewfinder option, sure. But if you're talking the OM-D/G5 (which have EVFs built-in), I'd say it's more like using a Toyota Prius as a cab. There can be benefits to the small camera system and some of the added P&S technology is actually useful and worthwhile.

However, I do think the guy who's going to be shooting the Olympics with a Panasonic DMC-G5 is nuts. Sports is not in the m4/3 wheelhouse. Yet.

[jcuknz]

I most certainly would not advocate the use of the LCD at bent-arm length with other than fairly wide lenses but the advantage of the EVF/LCD is that they adjust for the light levels and in the case of the G3, A wonderful example of its capability at 3200ISO there Inkista , also to cater for those who judge exposure through the VF unlike most EVF the G3 adjusts three stops either side of 'correct' exposure before adjusting its brightness. The G3 has a very large 'apparent' viewfinder unlike sadly my more recent purchase the Olympus VF-3 which is like looking through a tunnel .. the usual complaint about EVFs On the other had the Oly camera has sensor shift working with any lens, why I bought it

I repeat that I suspect as a competant and experienced photographer using the same measures that you do with the camera to your eye for stability, those same steps would result in similar satisfactory results at 'bent-arm' length. I do not believe that where the camera is matters as much as how the camera is operated. I have obtained a satisfactory result holding cameras away from my head numerous times with various cameras ... it is a matter of the relationship between man and equipment to get horribly esoteric .

At 2am I didn't expect much but frankly I am thrilled by what I got at 6400ISO earlier this year at Highburn100 "Supporter waits for her runner" after years of working at 100 ISO with my bridge cameras.

[jcuknz]

(c) in the studio when I'm trying to zoom in / out and compose / shoot several hundred frames in 20 minutes, it just wouldn't work.l.

This reminds me of the difference between types of photography and my memory of viewing the film "Blow-Up' which featured a fashion tog of the '50s when I was at photo school. My training had me make an exposure and then develop the plate and such "Bang-Bang_bang" simply wasn't good photography .... little did I know in those days

[Colin Southern]

I repeat that I suspect as a competant and experienced photographer using the same measures that you do with the camera to your eye for stability, those same steps would result in similar satisfactory results at 'bent-arm' length.

Well we'll probably never know, because I doubt you'll ever see a competant and experienced photographer using one in a professional studio shoot. I for one won't be (I'd get laughed out of the shoot).

[Colin Southern]

Colin I think you're confusing EVF (electronic view finder) with LCD.

Yes - my apologies. Haven't had much to do with EVF (in the correct sense this time!) - I'm meaning - in essence - "live view on the LCD on the back of the camera".

[Bootsy]

i to was holding out on the Canon EOS M.as a possible replacement to my 40D which i take to work every day.basically i was looking for a less bulky camera.i tried using just liveview for a week instead of the OVF but i only managed 2 days.but i'm happy to use the same view using my iphone and produce images that i'm happy with.trying to track a plane coming in to land using the rear LCD was just a pain. most weeks i use a canon 40D,olympus OM10,OM30 and a iphone.and apart from the iphone i dont think could get on with just a lcd screen.i think i'll be looking to buy a olympus om-d e-m5 but i'm yet to have a go with one.
one question i do have about EVF. if EVF is basically a small colour monitor is it possible to use it in a black&white mode to aid black&white photography.

[jcuknz]

Well we'll probably never know, because I doubt you'll ever see a competant and experienced photographer using one in a professional studio shoot. I for one won't be (I'd get laughed out of the shoot).

That is a popular attitude and unfortunately in my opinion reflects badly on the writer and their peers.

[Colin Southern]

That is a popular attitude and unfortunately in my opinion reflects badly on the writer and their peers.

Perhaps it's a "popular attitude" amongst professionals because we have the real-world experience to know what we're talking about when we take that attitude? John - honestly - I really don't want to argue with you about it; all I can say is that - as a reasonably experienced professional - and as one who has owned and used many point and shoot cameras with only the LCD screen on the back to compose shots - all I can say is that in the context of my fast-paced style of shooting models, the approach you're suggesting wouldn't work for me. It's not even close to being workable - and I'd even go so far as to say it's bordering on ludicrous. Completely unworkable.

If you're ever in Nelson you're welcome to bring one into the studio and we'll go "head to head" with a few models and see how one fares.

I'm done with this thread.

[jcuknz]

I respect you as a very competant and experienced photographer from what I have seen of your work. I have never done model work so I take your word on the subject but I like message 21 for its open mindedness. I do not suggest 'bent-arm' as a general practice, I prefer from habit the viewfinder in whatever form it comes, but I am aware that when I need to I can and will use even stretched arm with good result. But I enjoy fully articulated LCDs in these days of digital to bring greater accuracy to the process, assuming I can see the blessed image in bright sunlight

Richard [22] ...when I made and used a loupe on my Canon s20 I found it magnified the pixels and I couldn't see the image until I defocussed it slightly