If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Mirrorless buyers being underserved by review sites because of
On 2/11/2019 9:31 PM, RichA wrote:
Lack of thorough reviews and comparisons of EVFs. Half the sites report on the resolution of the EVF and nothing in-depth about it. There are three KEY points about the EVF which will determine your shooting experience: -Resolution -The OPTICS of the viewfinder, their quality is paramount. -How the EVF handles movement. I bought a Panasonic G1 (first mirrorless) when it came out. The EVF today's standards is low rez, 430,000 pixels. But the viewfinder optics are good and it's easy to focus with it. The first mirrorless Olympus I had (E-M5) had twice the pixel-count in the EVF, but the viewfinder optics were crappy and it was difficult to manually focus, the view sucked. The Olympus E-M5II is a vast improvement, but i came from improved viewfinder optics and not increased resolution. Panasonic's expensive GX8 has a phenomenal EVF, the best I've used and even though the resolution is LOWER than the top Panasonics, apparently, the clarity and lack of distortion in the view is superior. That includes bodies costing FAR more, like Sony's A7's and Panasonic's G9. This is why there has to be good reviews of these things, not many people these days has a way to physically compare multiple cameras. I think people are obsessed with resolution as an indication of usefulness in an EVF. I was doing a lot of pro videography in the '70s, and all of the cameras had EVFs at around 480x720 as well as manual lenses (even when the lenses had motorized focus controls). However, their UIs that indicated exposure and focus were fast and functional. -- best regards, Neil |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Mirrorless buyers being underserved by review sites because of one key thing:
In article , Neil
wrote: I bought a Panasonic G1 (first mirrorless) when it came out. The EVF today's standards is low rez, 430,000 pixels. But the viewfinder optics are good and it's easy to focus with it. The first mirrorless Olympus I had (E-M5) had twice the pixel-count in the EVF, but the viewfinder optics were crappy and it was difficult to manually focus, the view sucked. The Olympus E-M5II is a vast improvement, but i came from improved viewfinder optics and not increased resolution. Panasonic's expensive GX8 has a phenomenal EVF, the best I've used and even though the resolution is LOWER than the top Panasonics, apparently, the clarity and lack of distortion in the view is superior. That includes bodies costing FAR more, like Sony's A7's and Panasonic's G9. This is why there has to be good reviews of these things, not many people these days has a way to physically compare multiple cameras. I think people are obsessed with resolution as an indication of usefulness in an EVF. as they should be, just as they are for normal displays, along with high refresh rate. I was doing a lot of pro videography in the '70s, and all of the cameras had EVFs at around 480x720 as well as manual lenses (even when the lenses had motorized focus controls). However, their UIs that indicated exposure and focus were fast and functional. those displays were crap. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Mirrorless buyers being underserved by review sites
nospam wrote:
In article , Neil wrote: I bought a Panasonic G1 (first mirrorless) when it came out. The EVF today's standards is low rez, 430,000 pixels. But the viewfinder optics are good and it's easy to focus with it. The first mirrorless Olympus I had (E-M5) had twice the pixel-count in the EVF, but the viewfinder optics were crappy and it was difficult to manually focus, the view sucked. The Olympus E-M5II is a vast improvement, but i came from improved viewfinder optics and not increased resolution. Panasonic's expensive GX8 has a phenomenal EVF, the best I've used and even though the resolution is LOWER than the top Panasonics, apparently, the clarity and lack of distortion in the view is superior. That includes bodies costing FAR more, like Sony's A7's and Panasonic's G9. This is why there has to be good reviews of these things, not many people these days has a way to physically compare multiple cameras. I think people are obsessed with resolution as an indication of usefulness in an EVF. as they should be, just as they are for normal displays, along with high refresh rate. I was doing a lot of pro videography in the '70s, and all of the cameras had EVFs at around 480x720 as well as manual lenses (even when the lenses had motorized focus controls). However, their UIs that indicated exposure and focus were fast and functional. those displays were crap. I believe that you folks might be amazed if you try the EVF in the Fujifilm X-T3, or any of the MF GFX 50s. -- Regards, Savageduck |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Mirrorless buyers being underserved by review sites because of one key thing:
In article , Savageduck
wrote: I think people are obsessed with resolution as an indication of usefulness in an EVF. as they should be, just as they are for normal displays, along with high refresh rate. I was doing a lot of pro videography in the '70s, and all of the cameras had EVFs at around 480x720 as well as manual lenses (even when the lenses had motorized focus controls). However, their UIs that indicated exposure and focus were fast and functional. those displays were crap. I believe that you folks might be amazed if you try the EVF in the Fujifilm X-T3, or any of the MF GFX 50s. what's the resolution (actually ppi) and refresh rate on those? |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Mirrorless buyers being underserved by review sites
nospam wrote:
In article , Savageduck wrote: I think people are obsessed with resolution as an indication of usefulness in an EVF. as they should be, just as they are for normal displays, along with high refresh rate. I was doing a lot of pro videography in the '70s, and all of the cameras had EVFs at around 480x720 as well as manual lenses (even when the lenses had motorized focus controls). However, their UIs that indicated exposure and focus were fast and functional. those displays were crap. I believe that you folks might be amazed if you try the EVF in the Fujifilm X-T3, or any of the MF GFX 50s. what's the resolution (actually ppi) and refresh rate on those? X-T3 EVF: 0.5 inch. 3.69 million dots OLED Color Viewfinder Coverage of viewing area vs. capturing area: 100% Lag time 0.005 sec Refresh rate 100fps -- Regards, Savageduck |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Mirrorless buyers being underserved by review sites because of one key thing:
In article , Savageduck
wrote: I think people are obsessed with resolution as an indication of usefulness in an EVF. as they should be, just as they are for normal displays, along with high refresh rate. I was doing a lot of pro videography in the '70s, and all of the cameras had EVFs at around 480x720 as well as manual lenses (even when the lenses had motorized focus controls). However, their UIs that indicated exposure and focus were fast and functional. those displays were crap. I believe that you folks might be amazed if you try the EVF in the Fujifilm X-T3, or any of the MF GFX 50s. what's the resolution (actually ppi) and refresh rate on those? X-T3 EVF: 0.5 inch. 3.69 million dots OLED Color Viewfinder Coverage of viewing area vs. capturing area: 100% Lag time 0.005 sec Refresh rate 100fps in other words, about 10x as many pixels as that 1970s era 720 x 480 display (345600 pixels). |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Mirrorless buyers being underserved by review sites
nospam wrote:
In article , Savageduck wrote: I think people are obsessed with resolution as an indication of usefulness in an EVF. as they should be, just as they are for normal displays, along with high refresh rate. I was doing a lot of pro videography in the '70s, and all of the cameras had EVFs at around 480x720 as well as manual lenses (even when the lenses had motorized focus controls). However, their UIs that indicated exposure and focus were fast and functional. those displays were crap. I believe that you folks might be amazed if you try the EVF in the Fujifilm X-T3, or any of the MF GFX 50s. what's the resolution (actually ppi) and refresh rate on those? X-T3 EVF: 0.5 inch. 3.69 million dots OLED Color Viewfinder Coverage of viewing area vs. capturing area: 100% Lag time 0.005 sec Refresh rate 100fps in other words, about 10x as many pixels as that 1970s era 720 x 480 display (345600 pixels). Yup! -- Regards, Savageduck |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Review sites DESPERATE for SOMETHING to test | Savageduck[_3_] | Digital SLR Cameras | 2 | August 3rd 10 05:56 AM |
Camera review sites | m Ransley | Digital Photography | 4 | June 17th 06 07:29 PM |
Good review sites? | Andy Turner | Digital Photography | 4 | November 17th 04 09:11 PM |
digicam review sites | Jamie | Digital Photography | 4 | October 14th 04 07:32 AM |
Lenses review sites ? | Yannis | 35mm Photo Equipment | 9 | September 19th 04 06:39 AM |