Your eyes, and viewfinders

[davidedric]

Just musing.

If you have an OVF, you can pan across and see everything as you go.

If you have an EVF, you maybe experience "tearing". I have never noticed, but it's much reported.

Now try looking over one shoulder, and swing your head across to the other. Can you see clearly everything in between ? I certainly can't.

So maybe an EVF is somewhat better than my eyes in this respect, and an OVF much better.

OTOH, if I can get along with my eyes, I should be able to manage with either viewfinder technology?

Dave

[CP140]

It is an interesting question. Here's my theory....

Our vision (normal/corrected) is reasonably sharp in the middle (the spot we are really looking at) and somewhat less sharp around the periphery... our peripheral vision being there to keep us aware of our surroundings.

When I turn my head from side to side, I'm not really focused on any one area. I'm just doing a quick sweep to assess my surroundings. If I pause for a split second and concentrate on the animal I want to hunt, then my vision will focus on that one spot.

With an EVF, there's some lag as you pan around. All that data coming in has to be folded/spindled and thrown onto the screen, then your eye has to focus on it, by which time a new view has presented itself.

With an OVF, there's no lag due to processing time or screen redraw... and since the OVF represents such a small portion of your eye's natural visual field you will see more clearly because you are focussed on a small portion of the area your eye sees....

It's my theory....

[DanK]

If you have an EVF, you maybe experience "tearing". I have never noticed, but it's much reported.

Now try looking over one shoulder, and swing your head across to the other. Can you see clearly everything in between ? I certainly can't.

So maybe an EVF is somewhat better than my eyes in this respect, and an OVF much better.

I think you are asking the wrong question.

Nothing can be better than your eyes, because the question is what you perceive with your eyes looking through the viewfinder.

I may be wrong, but I think the issue is this: the OVF will not limit how fast you can pan. The limit is simply how fast your brain can process the data from your eyes. If you track through an OVF at the fastest speed at which you can see sharp images with the naked eye, you will see sharp images with an OVF.

In theory, the EVF can impose two more limits. It may not be able to redraw the screen as you pan at that maximum speed. Second, it may take a short time to draw the screen once you have rested your sight on another position.

I just tried this with my only EVF, a little Lumix LX-100. I could perceive a slight lag, but it isn't large; I had never noticed it before you raised it. However, for people who track moving things--soccer players, birds in flight, whatever--this might be an issue.

[xpatUSA]

It is an interesting question. Here's my theory....

<>... and since the OVF represents such a small portion of your eye's natural visual field you will see more clearly because you are focussed on a small portion of the area your eye sees....

Does that hold good for interchangeable lens cameras, Martin?

For example, I have an 8-16mm (APS-C) lens which is almost a fish-eye at 8mm but my "normal" field of view is about 60 degrees per eyeball according to Wikipedia.

Perhaps I misunderstood ...

[rpcrowe]

I am certainly not an expert in the field of EVF but, the ones that I have come across have a definite lag in the refresh time which may cause problems in panning or in moving your camera quickly to pick up a moving object. The movement of a subject in the EVF is somewhat jerky due to that slow refresh rate. Granted, the EVF I am most familiar with is on my Canon SX-50 HS and that certainly is certainly not a top line camera.

There is another phenomenon that can cause me a bit of a problem in following a fast and erratically moving subject. When I shoot in high speed burst mode on my Canon 7D Mark II (which is somewhere around 10 FPS), the viewfinder is blanked out for a split second between exposures so I can have a slight problem following a subject...

[revi]

There's also something differnent in that the eye doesn't sweep a scene in a constant motion, but in a series of jumps. The jumps don't occur when you are following a subject with your eyes.

With a viewfinder, your eyes have a fixed frame as reference (the border of the viewport), so your eyes are (more or less) following a subject, which means the movement is smooth.

The "tearing" that can occur with an EVF is completely unrelated to this, but a result of the technology used (related to the deformation possible at fast shutter speeds).

[CP140]

Does that hold good for interchangeable lens cameras, Martin?

For example, I have an 8-16mm (APS-C) lens which is almost a fish-eye at 8mm but my "normal" field of view is about 60 degrees per eyeball according to Wikipedia.

Perhaps I misunderstood ...

Again, it's just my theory... but the lens, regardless of its field of view, projects the image onto a small OVF which (the OVF) occupies a relatively small portion of your eye's visual field...

[xpatUSA]

Again, it's just my theory... but the lens, regardless of its field of view, projects the image onto a small OVF which (the OVF) occupies a relatively small portion of your eye's visual field...

Makes sense, I guess. Based on that, I wonder what angle the OVF image subtends from the eye, bearing in mind eye-relief and stuff ...

[davidedric]

I think there are lots of interesting points here. The observation that our eyes move in steps seems exactly right, at least for my eyes. I understand that our eyes are rather poor optically, and that a lot of processing is needed to make us think we see a sharp image. I wonder if they are related?

I've tried again to see tearing with my G80, and I just can't (in fact to be honest, I'm not sure what it would look like), nor can I see any perceptible lag. I haven't tried with a long telephoto, but for me in that respect at least, the evf is entirely good enough.

The point that Martin made in post #2 about central vision is very true. Three years ago one of my eyes decided to create a "macular hole" in that region, the "macular". It's entirely self destructive, and no-one knows why it happens. Even though the hole was only about 100 microns across, the result was a hole in the middle of my vision. Fortunately, expert surgery gave me some central vision back, but it illustrates just how delicate our eyes are.

Apologies for the ramble,

Dave

[Manfred M]

Dave - I do notice "tearing" with my GX7, but frankly other than being something to get used to, it really does not affect how I photograph with the camera any more than the mirror operation does with my DSLR.

So far as I can tell, the OVF technology continues to improve, but one thing I have noticed with people that do shoot with new model, higher end mirrorless camera is that they often use the view screen on the back of the camera (as a default), rather than the OVF when they compose and shoot. This seems to be the case regardless of manufacturer; Sony, FujiFilm, Olympus and Panasonic shooters I know all seem to work that way. To me that suggests that the technology is still not quite there.

My main complaint with the technology is that the viewfinder is tiny and challenging to use. This is an implementation issue as I virtually always use the electronic OVF when I shoot with a video camera. In the case of my cameras, these are far larger than the ones found on "still cameras".

[royent]

I always found with Rollie and Hasselblad that I saw more in the viewfinder than I do with DSLR. probably because apart from the image being reversed, I was looking at the viewfinder rather than through it. It was more noticeable on 5x4 where it is also upside down

[CP140]

No need to apologize. I can't imagine having my vision impaired... I turn my head and close my eyes when I light the BBQ.

The processing power of the brain is what makes our eyes work so well. We can see "blue" or "red" regardless of the ambient light... daylight, tungsten or fluorescent... we can see (given time to adapt) in near darkness and in bright sunlight (yeah that's a rod and cones thing but you see what I'm getting at)

And Dave... as an aside, we (my much better half and I) are toying with hiring a canal boat in your neighbourhood next summer...

[CP140]

Makes sense, I guess. Based on that, I wonder what angle the OVF image subtends from the eye, bearing in mind eye-relief and stuff ...

I'm not even sure how to figure out an answer here. Just contemplating it gives me a headache

Now if they could invent an OVF (or EVF) that could compensate automatically for me looking through it with/without glasses on... instead of having to turn/slide/twist the diopter adjustment thingy...

[xpatUSA]

... Now if they could invent an OVF (or EVF) that could compensate automatically for me looking through it with/without glasses on... instead of having to turn/slide/twist the diopter adjustment thingy...

+1 to that.

[Hanginon]

Flew up to NY for a wedding and brought an original 5D. Getting myself in group shots was difficult - there is almost no one who knows how to use an OVF any more - it is like total confusion when you pass them the camera. Everyone is used to looking at a screen!

[Manfred M]

Getting myself in group shots was difficult - there is almost no one who knows how to use an OVF any more - it is like total confusion when you pass them the camera. Everyone is used to looking at a screen!

Try to find someone who uses something other than a cell phone to take pictures and you could get your wish.

The fact that so many people with EVF tend to use the screen on the back of the camera to frame and compose the shot suggests to me that the EVF technology is not quite there yet.

[Neelly]

Try to find someone who uses something other than a cell phone to take pictures and you could get your wish.

The fact that so many people with EVF tend to use the screen on the back of the camera to frame and compose the shot suggests to me that the EVF technology is not quite there yet.

The in the group I shoot with, nine people only one of whom is hanging on to their Canon rest have EVF cameras, I have never seen anyone use the back screen to compose on, just saying

[xpatUSA]

The in the group I shoot with, nine people only one of whom is hanging on to their Canon rest have EVF cameras, I have never seen anyone use the back screen to compose on, just saying ...

... on the other hand, I use my Panasonic G1 and GH-1 for table-top work and their fully-articulating LCDs are far more convenient than the EVF which is often difficult to access due to the necessary camera positioning.

[davidedric]

So far as using the rear screen or evf is concerned, a couple of years ago I was buying a m4/3 lens from a local(ish) camera store, which is a father and son operation. Chatting about technique, the son told me he always uses the rear screen, but his dad the evf. I assume they were both competent photographers, though the son did a lot of video so that would have been another difference. I suspect there's more going on here than the quality of the evf.
Another random thought, maybe young eyes cope better moving between screen and real world.

Dave

Try to find someone who uses something other than a cell phone to take pictures and you could get your wish.

The fact that so many people with EVF tend to use the screen on the back of the camera to frame and compose the shot suggests to me that the EVF technology is not quite there yet.

[Manfred M]

The in the group I shoot with, nine people only one of whom is hanging on to their Canon rest have EVF cameras, I have never seen anyone use the back screen to compose on, just saying

Neil - I shoot my mirrorless camera using the EVF most of the time as well, especially when working outdoors in fairly bright conditions. For shots that are easier to do with my articulating screen, I do use it from time to time, but my EVF does swivel 90 degrees and I often use it at an angle that is not flush to the camera.

The fact that the group you shoot with does so as well comes as no surprise. I regularly shoot with two groups and less regularly with another three, so my sample size is closer to around 40 - 50 shooters. The back of the screen preference is something I have noticed among a majority of the mirrorless shooters. That being said, on a recent shoot I noticed a couple of shooters using their DSLR in LiveView mode for shots I was taking through a traditional prism viewfinder on my DSLR.

Whatever works.