Seeing in 2-dimension vs 3-dimension

[rpcrowe]

I have a wild theory that some folks may have a hard time converting a three dimensional subject to a two dimensional image in their mind, which may be the reason that a lot of people prefer to view their images on an LCD rather than through an eye level finder. With the LCD, the subject is shown in two dimensions without the need to convert this in the photographer's mind.

Am I totally off the wall with this completely inconsequential theory

[Manfred M]

Am I totally off the wall with this completely inconsequential theory

I'd have to agree with that!

Most of our 3-D vision comes because we have two eyes and each eye sees a objects fro a slightly different side / angle. When looking through a camera viewfinder, we only use one eye, so are essentially seeing things things on a flat plane. Go a step further, with a DSLR, we are in fact looking at light falling on a focusing screen, which is essentially a 2-D display. With a mirrorless camera, both the screen on the back and the view through the viewfinder are both small flat displays.

The only thing that the screen on the back of the camera gives us is a larger image; one that has a reduced contrast because we are dealing with ambient light around us. The eye level viewfinder (both traditional and digital) seem brighter because the ambient light is blocked to a large extent.

[William W]

Interesting and I am interested - I have never thought of that reason.

Co-incidentally, recently I've discussed this exact practice - what seems to be more and nore people using the LCD screen and not the eye level finder.

The working conclusion that our discussion came to was twofold:
> "habit" (due to the increasing number of daylight hours using a screen of some type - it has become habit to use the LCD)
> "copy behaviour to be seen as a part of the group" (i.e. the more that a behaviour is taken up, the more likely it is to be taken up).

The group I've discussed this with were mainly all psychology working/trained people (poor me! - wife, daughter, daughter's friends) - our discussion probably had a bias toward their scope of views which would probably would not include Richard's thought.

WW

[Tronhard]

I think the rise of the use of the LCD rather than the viewfinder is the habit many people have of using a cell phone. I think many people pick up a camera and have this "memory" of using the phone and since the viewfinder works they go for it. I think people migrate to cameras and for shorter ranges holding the camera like a phone works but not for longer telephoto use.

I had that experience when I was shooting in a sanctuary. Two ladies beside me were using a Canon SX50HS super zoom camera (equivalent zoom range 24-1200mm) and bemoaning the fact that their images were blurry - they thought there was something wrong with the camera. I had observed them holding the camera like a cell phone but with the zoom extended. Not having a 3rd point of support they were getting consistent camera movement. I explained all this to them and took a shot with their camera using the EVF, which came out perfectly clear. They said they had never realized the EVF was there and they as they had got used to using their phones they just did what they always did.

The development of cameras without EVF is, I think, in part driven by this habit, combined with making cameras compact and since many people use their camera for video, where the LCD can be very effective, we are seeing more and more cameras abandon the EVF and rely on improving lens stabilization to allow the LCD to work acceptably. I can see Canon playing this game but offering a clumsy add-on EVF with the PowerShot G3X, which has a zoom range equivalent to 21-600mm and the EOS M6 MkII which also has and add-on EVF. I bought the G3X as a super-zoom with a better sensor (1"), but I must admit as a confirmed EVF user the setup is clumsy.

[Antonio Correia]

Personally, I use 90% of the time the EVF leaving the LCD for special occasions like shooting from ground or low level.
If you ask me why I can't answer or perhaps remembering old times...

My wife has two cameras the second one being a Sony RX100 II which has no EVF but on the other the A 6500 she uses mostly the viewfinder. I asked her why and she told me and the reason is simple: because it was more comfortable.

Just a few lines about this subject !

have a nice Sunday !

[LePetomane]

Another thing to keep in mind is that under normal circumstances, one eye is used for distance vision and the other is used for near vision. I find the EVF to be better than the LCD because the image obtained occupies the entire screen and field of vision of that eye.

[rpcrowe]

I use my eye level viewfinder about 95% of the time. The reason I originally switched to Sony was that I liked Face Detect on my Canon 6D Mark-2 but that mode was only feasible in Live View which,of course, necessitated viewing with the LCD. This is difficult for me in bright sunlight and I wanted a camera that had Face Detect when using the eye level viewfinder.

Funny thing is that when I shoot in studio conditions with my A6400 or A7iii I will often use the LCD for composing my shots. The great Eye AF of these cameras makes it a snap to attain and hold focus on the eye of my subject using either the eye level viewfinder or the LCD. Since usually I am shooting in darker conditions in the studio with only the subject lit, the LCD works just fine and I can see what the subject is doing by looking directly at her in addition viewing totally with the LCD...

Additionally, since the flash freezes any subject movement or camera shake, a 3-point hold is not as necessary for me in the studio as it is in other environments.

[xpatUSA]

Another thing to keep in mind is that under normal circumstances, one eye is used for distance vision and the other is used for near vision.

Is there a reference for one eye being used for distance vision and the other being used for near vision?

The statement is not intuitive, or I have misunderstood as usual.

[LePetomane]

Is there a reference for one eye being used for distance vision and the other being used for near vision?

The statement is not intuitive, or I have misunderstood as usual.

The retinal specialist I see pointed that out to me. I see him at regular intervals due to an eye injury that left me with a small blind spot. I consider myself pretty lucky.

[xpatUSA]

The retinal specialist I see pointed that out to me. I see him at regular intervals due to an eye injury that left me with a small blind spot. I consider myself pretty lucky.

Thanks Paul. Sorry to hear of the injury.

[LePetomane]

Thanks Paul. Sorry to hear of the injury.

Ted, thanks. 4 surgical procedures later and one more (cataract) to go. The eye is an interesting organ. It does not take injury well.

[Manfred M]

That makes sense Paul.

Back in my active scuba diving days, I would wear one contact lens that corrected by close-up vision in my left eye so that I could see my dive computer that was strapped to my left wrist; always important to know how much air was in the tank and how close I was getting to the decompression limit. The contact lens in my right eye corrected both my astigmatism and myopia (i.e. being near-sighted). It seemed strange when I first started wearing them that way, but within a few days my brain had straightened everything out and my vision seemed to be quite normal. I tended to wear glasses when not diving as I worked in an environment that could be a bit dusty and contact lenses were not suitable for all-day use. It was certainly a less expensive solution than having custom lenses made for my dive mask.

I knew some people that had a similar approach for contact lenses; one eye near and one eye for distance for everyday use.

[DanK]

I knew some people that had a similar approach for contact lenses; one eye near and one eye for distance for everyday use.

You can do the same with cataract surgery. I did. The surgeon concluded (correctly) that I relied more on my right eye for distance, so the artificial lens was selected for distance vision. The left eye was set to about 28 inches (computer monitors, car dashboards, etc.)

However, my experience is that this arrangement (which is called monovision, as opposed to truly monocular vision) doesn't work as well as true binocular vision. Although my brain does rely primarily on my right eye in processing distance vision, the left eye still has some effect, and I get better distance vision using corrective lenses. I notice the difference, for example, when watching movies or plays. My surgeon told me to expect this.

I had truly monocular vision briefly a few times after surgery (I needed multiple surgeries for one eye), when one eye was patched. That's a whole other thing, because you lose depth perception.

[rpcrowe]

My one and only try at contact lenses was a debacle. The prescription was for one lens for closeup work and the other lens for distance. O.K. during the day but, for me, it was horrible for driving at night with bokeh balls from all the bright light sources...

[LePetomane]

A few years ago when most of what I did was anesthesia for neurosurgical cases one of our cases was removal of a tumor near the optic chiasm. The optic chiasm is where the two optic nerves meet. They then split and travel to the visual cortex. Some cross the midline. The surgeon had the nerves exposed and it was absolutely fascinating to see the entire visual pathway. A lot more complex than our cameras.