Jock Elliott
Hall of Famer
- Location
- Troy, NY
The top post at The Online Photographer was entitled Readings (PetaPixel and The New Yorker). It’s interesting, and I recommend checking it out.
One of the readers responded, including a thought I have been having for some time. The complete comment is below. I have underlined the bit I found intriguing.
R. Edelman: "I was a long time Canon user, starting back in the 1970s. I like Canon, and I think its repair service is very good. A few years ago, I tried using a Sony A7, and I loved it. The smaller size was just one attractive feature. I liked the menu system. No more custom functions with labels such as 'C04.' I liked that I could use my EOS and older lenses on it.
"But something initially unforeseen happened. For a variety of reasons, I grew to really appreciate the electronic viewfinder and the focusing accuracy. Of course, some large-aperture lenses are on the large size, but I also have the option of smaller lenses. Although the smaller size and lower weight are still appreciated, these now matter less to me compared to the benefits of mirrorless technology. At this point, an optical viewfinder would be a 'downgrade.'"
I agree; I think an optical viewfinder would be a downgrade. When I was in high school, I shot some sports with a Leica. Everything had to be preset, including focus distance, and framing was a hit-and-miss experience. A decade later, I was writing for a living and the pro photographers I worked with all used Nikons. Why? “Because the viewfinder shows the exact framing that will appear on the film.”
Today’s EVFs show not only the exact framing but also exactly how it will appear. I took a lot of awful pictures when I was using an SLR because I could not imagine what the resulting image would look like on the film. Now, with an EVF, it’s pretty much what-you-see-is-what-you-get, and I think my “keeper” rate has gone up.
Having said that, I recognize that there are folks here who do some wonderful work with DSLRs and other cameras that use an optical viewfinder. I’d love to know why you prefer optical viewfinders.
Cheers, Jock
One of the readers responded, including a thought I have been having for some time. The complete comment is below. I have underlined the bit I found intriguing.
R. Edelman: "I was a long time Canon user, starting back in the 1970s. I like Canon, and I think its repair service is very good. A few years ago, I tried using a Sony A7, and I loved it. The smaller size was just one attractive feature. I liked the menu system. No more custom functions with labels such as 'C04.' I liked that I could use my EOS and older lenses on it.
"But something initially unforeseen happened. For a variety of reasons, I grew to really appreciate the electronic viewfinder and the focusing accuracy. Of course, some large-aperture lenses are on the large size, but I also have the option of smaller lenses. Although the smaller size and lower weight are still appreciated, these now matter less to me compared to the benefits of mirrorless technology. At this point, an optical viewfinder would be a 'downgrade.'"
I agree; I think an optical viewfinder would be a downgrade. When I was in high school, I shot some sports with a Leica. Everything had to be preset, including focus distance, and framing was a hit-and-miss experience. A decade later, I was writing for a living and the pro photographers I worked with all used Nikons. Why? “Because the viewfinder shows the exact framing that will appear on the film.”
Today’s EVFs show not only the exact framing but also exactly how it will appear. I took a lot of awful pictures when I was using an SLR because I could not imagine what the resulting image would look like on the film. Now, with an EVF, it’s pretty much what-you-see-is-what-you-get, and I think my “keeper” rate has gone up.
Having said that, I recognize that there are folks here who do some wonderful work with DSLRs and other cameras that use an optical viewfinder. I’d love to know why you prefer optical viewfinders.
Cheers, Jock
Last edited: