Paul Giguere
www.paulgiguere.com
- Location
- Wayland, MA USA
Hi all,
I bought an EVF for my RX1 when it came out and after several days I returned the EVF. Maybe I'm just spoiled by optical viewfinders, but I found the EVF to be "unreal." The quality of the image looked like a small LCD screen (and not a very good one at that although I understand this is probably as good as they get right now) and was very contrasty (not showing the scene truly as it was truly being lit but something more akin to fluorescent lights that are too bright for the room). Basically I felt that other than for very basic composition and being able to see camera data, the EVF was actually inferior to the LCD screen which can also show a more true to life preview of what you will get when you press the shutter button.
Yes, it can be difficult to see the LCD in bright light but I think most people haven't really tried it (it is quite good in all but direct on sunlight when you are using the "Sunlight" setting for the LCD brightness). Also some people don't like holding the camera out in front of them but most people who compose using the LCD (and know what they are doing) will, in reality, hold the camera closer to their face or, like me, to my chest where I can still see the image (kind of like how I used to use a twin-lens reflex camera). Only tourists (no offense to tourists intended) hold the camera out with fully extended arms (aka: the stinky diaper phenomenon) and I think this is overemphasized by people who hold this particular way of shooting in disdain.
Anyway, am I missing something here? Is there some advantage that I don't get or understand? Do you really get used to it over time? I'm asking all of these questions because I'm having second thoughts about the EVF for the RX1 and perhaps I should rethink it.
Thanks,
Paul
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD
I bought an EVF for my RX1 when it came out and after several days I returned the EVF. Maybe I'm just spoiled by optical viewfinders, but I found the EVF to be "unreal." The quality of the image looked like a small LCD screen (and not a very good one at that although I understand this is probably as good as they get right now) and was very contrasty (not showing the scene truly as it was truly being lit but something more akin to fluorescent lights that are too bright for the room). Basically I felt that other than for very basic composition and being able to see camera data, the EVF was actually inferior to the LCD screen which can also show a more true to life preview of what you will get when you press the shutter button.
Yes, it can be difficult to see the LCD in bright light but I think most people haven't really tried it (it is quite good in all but direct on sunlight when you are using the "Sunlight" setting for the LCD brightness). Also some people don't like holding the camera out in front of them but most people who compose using the LCD (and know what they are doing) will, in reality, hold the camera closer to their face or, like me, to my chest where I can still see the image (kind of like how I used to use a twin-lens reflex camera). Only tourists (no offense to tourists intended) hold the camera out with fully extended arms (aka: the stinky diaper phenomenon) and I think this is overemphasized by people who hold this particular way of shooting in disdain.
Anyway, am I missing something here? Is there some advantage that I don't get or understand? Do you really get used to it over time? I'm asking all of these questions because I'm having second thoughts about the EVF for the RX1 and perhaps I should rethink it.
Thanks,
Paul
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD