- Location
- Seattle
- Name
- Andrew
I've used a lot of LCD screens and viewfinders of various kinds over the years. In fact you could say that the only thing my choices in cameras owned proves on this point is that I haven't made up my mind at all. However, I realized the other day that I can sort of put my feelings into words. Interested if anyone else feels the same way here.
The camera is a transition tool between the scene and the resulting photograph. Its compositional aid (OVF/EVF, LCD) gives a certain connection. Optical viewfinders don't represent the image, they represent the scene. So in a way, an optical viewfinder usually provides connection with the scene. Bigger, brighter viewfinders do a better job, while small viewfinders with small magnification levels can have the opposite effect, until you get down to some of the tiny compact 35mm camera finders, which are an active disconnection from the scene. In effect, you're peering through a small, distorted box and while they work for a framing tool, the effect on your consciousness is of being disconnected, to an extent.
Of course, the optical viewfinder has a sort of battle of information to include to help out the photographer. SLRs are the most exact, rangefinders often let you see what's just outside the frame, hotshoe finders tell you nothing about the camera's rendering but still offer a sort of connectedness to the scene. You still feel the interaction with the world around you, less like you're interacting with the resulting image or the electronic box that's making the image. A hotshoe finder works pretty well on my Bessa-T with B&W film that has a ton of latitude, and I am usually zone focusing.
An electronic viewfinder, by comparison, takes you further out of the scene but offers connectedness with the image. A good, large, detailed and accurate EVF gives you a pretty good representation of the resulting image. You're no longer looking at reality, but at your result. EVFs are great for tricky lighting, or any work where you're more concerned with the result than your own interactivity with the scene. Now, bad EVFs don't show as accurate a representation of the final image, due to poor color rendition, graininess or low resolution, distortion or other issues. These are like being at a double remove: you're removed from both the scene (peering at a screen, not the world), plus seeing an inaccurate representation of the image.
Now, interestingly, I find LCD screens are kind of a useful compromise. Because you're not peering into a narrow view which obscures the rest of the world, you still have some connectedness to the scene. Your attention is focused on the camera, so it's not true connectedness, but it's closer than with an EVF because of your peripheral knowledge of what's going on. Plus, the LCD gives a very accurate representation of the image, providing decent connectedness to it, minus whatever visibility issues the LCD may have in bright light. Of course, there are also ergonomics, for example, a heavier camera or lens makes the act of holding a camera to look at the LCD quite cumbersome. But for a small camera, I find I do actually feel more comfortable with my connection to both the image and the scene.
What do y'all think? Logically, a low-quality EVF ranks worst, and I feel my experience agrees with that.
The camera is a transition tool between the scene and the resulting photograph. Its compositional aid (OVF/EVF, LCD) gives a certain connection. Optical viewfinders don't represent the image, they represent the scene. So in a way, an optical viewfinder usually provides connection with the scene. Bigger, brighter viewfinders do a better job, while small viewfinders with small magnification levels can have the opposite effect, until you get down to some of the tiny compact 35mm camera finders, which are an active disconnection from the scene. In effect, you're peering through a small, distorted box and while they work for a framing tool, the effect on your consciousness is of being disconnected, to an extent.
Of course, the optical viewfinder has a sort of battle of information to include to help out the photographer. SLRs are the most exact, rangefinders often let you see what's just outside the frame, hotshoe finders tell you nothing about the camera's rendering but still offer a sort of connectedness to the scene. You still feel the interaction with the world around you, less like you're interacting with the resulting image or the electronic box that's making the image. A hotshoe finder works pretty well on my Bessa-T with B&W film that has a ton of latitude, and I am usually zone focusing.
An electronic viewfinder, by comparison, takes you further out of the scene but offers connectedness with the image. A good, large, detailed and accurate EVF gives you a pretty good representation of the resulting image. You're no longer looking at reality, but at your result. EVFs are great for tricky lighting, or any work where you're more concerned with the result than your own interactivity with the scene. Now, bad EVFs don't show as accurate a representation of the final image, due to poor color rendition, graininess or low resolution, distortion or other issues. These are like being at a double remove: you're removed from both the scene (peering at a screen, not the world), plus seeing an inaccurate representation of the image.
Now, interestingly, I find LCD screens are kind of a useful compromise. Because you're not peering into a narrow view which obscures the rest of the world, you still have some connectedness to the scene. Your attention is focused on the camera, so it's not true connectedness, but it's closer than with an EVF because of your peripheral knowledge of what's going on. Plus, the LCD gives a very accurate representation of the image, providing decent connectedness to it, minus whatever visibility issues the LCD may have in bright light. Of course, there are also ergonomics, for example, a heavier camera or lens makes the act of holding a camera to look at the LCD quite cumbersome. But for a small camera, I find I do actually feel more comfortable with my connection to both the image and the scene.
What do y'all think? Logically, a low-quality EVF ranks worst, and I feel my experience agrees with that.
Last edited: