|
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
Paul D. Sullivan
Guest
|
 Posted: Tue May 22, 2007 12:45 pm Post subject: EVF - is 115,000 enough? Or is 205,000-230,000 really what |
 |
|
I'm curious about EVF's for superzoom cameras. One I'm looking
at has 115,000 pixels for the EVF, and I'm curious how well that
is working for most folks. Is it sufficient for clear focus at
specific points, or does that EVF resolution make it difficult to
achieve the precise focus that one may want?
Is a higher resolution on the EVF obviously preferred? Or is
115,000 sufficient for most folks?
Thanks |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Fix your Windows Problems - FAST.
FREE Safe Scan Registry Check. Locate & Fix Errors in Minutes!
|
|
Andrew MacPherson
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue May 22, 2007 12:45 pm Post subject: Re: EVF - is 115,000 enough? Or is 205,000-230,000 really w |
|
|
dudeboyz@hotmail.com (Paul D. Sullivan) wrote:
| Quote: | I'm curious about EVF's for superzoom cameras.
|
When I first got my Canon S1 I was *immediately* disappointed by the 115k
EVF. If I hadn't bought it mail order I might have handed it back. I did
love the EVF live preview as a creative tool, but hated the resolution
and the lack of easy focus confirmation.
The 200k-ish EVF on my Olympus SP-550 is much better, and confirms my
decision not to buy the Canon S2/3 (and now 5) purely because of the EVF
resolution. Sadly the rest of the 550 has failed to live up to my
initial expectations (ok, apart from the 28mm wide end... I love that).
But that's cameras for you. :-)
Andrew McP |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue May 22, 2007 12:46 pm Post subject: Re: EVF - is 115,000 enough? Or is 205,000-230,000 really w |
|
|
On Tue, 22 May 2007 11:27:04 GMT, "Paul D. Sullivan" <dudeboyz@hotmail.com>
wrote:
| Quote: | I'm curious about EVF's for superzoom cameras. One I'm looking
at has 115,000 pixels for the EVF, and I'm curious how well that
is working for most folks. Is it sufficient for clear focus at
specific points, or does that EVF resolution make it difficult to
achieve the precise focus that one may want?
Is a higher resolution on the EVF obviously preferred? Or is
115,000 sufficient for most folks?
Thanks
|
It's pretty poor. Unfortunately it's a common standard. You have to get used to
working within its limitations. You can sometimes use the pixilated image to
your advantage, in a sort of "reverse micro-prism" effect. Just as you would
watch on an SLR focusing screen for the micro-prism to stop scintillating and
disappear when the object was in-focus. In a low-resolution EVF you can watch
for "scintillation" on sharp contrasting bits and edges to start happening
letting you know you are near as possible to a good focus. This of course is
even easier if you use any digital focusing aids included, like the central
portion of the image being magnified to help with manual focusing. Then the
scintillation showing up in this magnified image makes the focus even more
accurate. Out of focus areas don't cause this scintillation because the pixels
slowly change as the subject moves. When it's in sharp focus the adjoining
pixels brighten and darken rapidly to match the sharper edges and higher
contrasts.
A low-resolution EVF and smaller sensor sizes are the ONLY things preventing
single-lens, long-zoom cameras from vastly surpassing dSLRs in performance and
functionality. They already surpass dSLRs in every other way, such as real-time
preview showing the exact image you are going to get, movies, longer
shutter/performance life-span, faster flash-sync speeds, etc.
Manufacturers purposely keep the EVF resolution low on these cameras just to
encourage people to buy into their more profitable and self-destructive dSLR
lines of cameras (which require more frequent replacement, repair, and
overpriced accessory lenses), just because they insist on using last century's
light-path technology.
I've since learned to use a low-res EVF to my advantage by watching for this
reverse micro-prism effect. When sharp edges start to scintillate I know I'm in
focus. I'd still prefer a much higher resolution EVF though. There's nothing to
prevent them from incorporating one, other than their own greed. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ray Fischer
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed May 23, 2007 3:23 am Post subject: Re: EVF - is 115,000 enough? Or is 205,000-230,000 really w |
|
|
Cynicor <j...tru.p...in@speak.ea.sy.net> wrote:
| Quote: | David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
Cynicor wrote:
There's a good chart here:
http://www.cameras.co.uk/html/shutter-lag-comparisons.cfm?sort=ShutterLag
How long does it take your F11 to take five photos? I see it's got a
shutter lag of 0.01 second according to dpreview.
Yep, the .01 is the half-press to full-press delay. And it's not a
problem, that's faster than most DSLRS.
Five photos, though, gets into the fact that there's no buffer. I think
it's about 2.5 seconds, if I can find continuous exposure mode.
No, the .01 is great. Any faster and it would be taking the photo before
you pressed the button.
|
In 5 years, maybe 10, cameras _will_ be able to take photos before you
press the button. It can be done now but it's too expensive.
And lest people think I've gone completely nuts: You do it by having
a "video" buffer of a second or two where the camera keeps shoving
images. When you press the button the camera looks back a bit to
before the button press.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CharleiD
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed May 23, 2007 3:23 am Post subject: Re: EVF - is 115,000 enough? Or is 205,000-230,000 really w |
|
|
On Wed, 23 May 2007 11:12:44 +1000, dj_nme <dj_nme@hotmail.com> wrote:
| Quote: |
What you are forgeting is that this is _after_ focus has been locked.
In the sort of low-light that your P&S would still be hunting for high
contrast to tell it that it's focussed, even the worst DSLR cameras can
either lock with AF and have taken several shots or the user could have
switched to manual focus and have taken several shots using their DSLR.
|
p.s. Where on earth do you get the stupid idea that high-end P&S cameras don't
have AF lock, AE lock, manual focus, manual exposure overrides, etc. etc. All
the good ones have all the same features as on your DSLR, plus hundreds of more
features that you only dream of having. Like real-time RGB and/or Y histograms
(in colors) and under/over-exposure regions being highlighted in real-time,
real-time slow-shutter motion-blur preview, video modes, stereo-audio recording
modes, EVF brightness boost in low-light conditions, (something you can't do at
all on a DSLR, or in some you can even focus in total darkness using built-in IR
lighting and see the image as if it was in daylight for focusing and composing),
the sky's the limit on what you can do once you get past last century's mirrors
and light-paths.
Quit trying to justify why you dumped all your money into DSLRs. None of your
reasons hold up next to real facts. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fix your Windows Problems - FAST.
FREE Safe Scan Registry Check. Locate & Fix Errors in Minutes!
|
|
dj_nme
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed May 23, 2007 4:28 pm Post subject: Re: EVF - is 115,000 enough? Or is 205,000-230,000 really w |
|
|
dennis@home wrote:
| Quote: | "dj_nme" <dj_nme@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:46542f9f$0$18010$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
I specifically mention manual focusing, which is much easier on even a
standard frosted focus screen (that most DSLR cameras have as original
equipment) in a DSLR camera than the pixelated mess which is all you can
see in an EVF (or LCD) when attempting manual focus on most small-sensor
digicams.
On my compact when you select manual focus and push the buttons (spit) it
enlarges the centre section so you can focus easier.
Still can't see the DoF very well though.
|
As I stated in another reply, I have a Dimage A200.
It also has the same 4x mag effect, except it occurs when the mf ring is
moved (regardless of af/mf setting).
The 4x mag preview is okay in good lighting (daylight or well-lit
office), but isn't very good at all in low light due to the amount of
noise and the fuzziness of the 4x mag image in the EVF.
I can only guess that it's because of the brightness amplification that
is needed in low-light to have something to display on the EVF.
| Quote: | Its much easier to focus the E500 which is just as well as the telescope it
attaches to doesn't have autofocus.
|
I suppose that I'm spoiled by the viewfinder on my Pentax ist-DS: it is
very clear, quite large (at least compared to a Digital Rebel and Evolt
I handled recently), with a Katzeye screen and a Nikon dk21m eyepiece
magnifier installed.
I'm not so sure that an EVF (except perhaps the much vaunted Dimage A2
300,000 pixel EVF) could realy match the clarity and ease of manual
focus with the setup I have.
In my experience, EVF digicams are at their best in good lighting and
rapidly show their weakness (contrast detection AF from the imaging
sensor) as the light falls off.
I was very impressed with the EVF on the Panasonic FZ20, but I only had
a chance to play around with one in a well-lit environment. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bill Funk
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed May 23, 2007 4:28 pm Post subject: Re: EVF - is 115,000 enough? Or is 205,000-230,000 really w |
|
|
On Tue, 22 May 2007 10:53:38 -0500, nobody@noplace.org wrote:
| Quote: | You dSLR folk sure are insecure about needing to hold onto why you wasted that
much money, aren't you. Your problem, not mine.
|
It's been my observation that the first to throw out the "insecure"
comment is the most insecure.
--
THIS IS A SIG LINE; NOT TO BE TAKEN SERIOUSLY!
Hillary Clinton said Monday the U.S. government
should pay for pre-school for all four-year-old
kids in America. It's not fair. After making it
all the way across the Mojave Desert, shouldn't
they be allowed to relax and enjoy their childhood
for a year? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
David J Taylor
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed May 23, 2007 4:28 pm Post subject: Re: EVF - is 115,000 enough? Or is 205,000-230,000 really w |
|
|
dj_nme wrote:
| Quote: | David J Taylor wrote:
M-M wrote:
[]
What P&S camera can manually focus simply by turning a ring while
looking through an optical VF?
The P&S's I own are quite difficult to manually focus, and
impossible in the daylight.
On some cameras, when using manual focus the centre part of the EVF
expands to make focussing easy. The Panasonic FZ20 offers this, and
a manual focus ring.
David
I am fully aware of this, as my KM Dimage A200 has exactly the same
feature. Unfortunately, in the same low-light situations that my
Pentax ist-DS will snap into focus quickly or I could have easily
focused manualy,
the EVF on the A200 shows so much noise that accurate focus even with
the 4x mag feature is almost (if not totaly) impossible.
If this has been improved in more recent EVF digicams, then I would be
rather surprised, as the sensor size seems to have generaly gone down
while the number of sensels has gone up.
In good light (such as daylight or a well-lit office) the difference
is much less pronounced, but still favours the DSLR over the EVF
digicam.
|
Thanks for your comments. I rather suspect that under very low lighting
conditions the resolution of the EVF isn't going to make a lot of
difference. I must confess that I have found the automatic focussing
really quite good on the small-sensor cameras I have used, with the
greater depth-of-field making it a much less critical issue than on SLRs.
David |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
David J Taylor
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu May 24, 2007 8:28 am Post subject: Re: EVF - is 115,000 enough? Or is 205,000-230,000 really w |
|
|
ASAAR wrote:
| Quote: | On Wed, 23 May 2007 16:02:25 GMT, David J Taylor wrote:
I must confess that I have found the automatic focussing really
quite good on the small-sensor cameras I have used, with the greater
depth-of-field making it a much less critical issue than on SLRs.
Hmm. Remember the fuss made here about a year ago where a few of
the elite Canonistas offered "proof" that DSLRs had DOFs at least as
large as little P&Ss? Now that I have a little DSLR of my own I
readily agree with their vie . . . ah ah aaarrgh.
Whew, sorry about that. Almost got sucked into the dark side. On
the other hand, while I've been generally satisfied with the P&S
cameras' AF performance, even in fairly dark conditions and at
distances far greater than the AF illuminators can reach, in many of
the conditions where they struggle and sometimes fail, using the
DSLR's AF is a real pleasure, with it seemingly snapping into focus
almost before I'm aware of pressing the shutter button. And this
with Nikon's most inexpensive DSLR body and with a kit lens, i.e.,
no assistance from a large aperture.
|
Yes, I remember the DoF discussions only too well!
DLSRs should indeed be rapid in their auto-focus, and the added focus
sensor on the small-sensor Nikon 8400 also produces noticable faster
focussing. If only DSLRs were not stuck with last century's 35mm format,
we could have some delightfully compact and light-weight equipment but
with almost all the performance advantages!
Cheers,
David |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
dj_nme
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri May 25, 2007 2:30 am Post subject: Re: EVF - is 115,000 enough? Or is 205,000-230,000 really w |
|
|
David J Taylor wrote:
| Quote: | M-M wrote:
P&S digicams are purposely made to produce wide DOF because the
autofocus is slow and many photos would be otherwise lost. It's good
for quick snapshots.
DSLR lenses are capable of narrow DOF to make the subject stand out.
This produces a way for the photographer to express artistry in
compositiion.
Here is a test shot of the difference. No artistry here, but just the
same scene shot at approximately the same aperture and focal length
with 2 different cameras= one a POS- oops, a P&S, and the other a
DSLR:
http://www.mhmyers.com/temp/4500-d80.jpg
The DoF difference is really a function of the sensor size - there have
been a few big-sensor P&S cameras which then have just the same DoF as
DSLRs.
David
|
You didn't mention that DoF is also dependent on the actual focal length
used.
All of the small-sensor digicams use focal lengths that are about 1/5
(or smaller) that of a 35mm camera to make up for the small sensor size
compared to a 35mm frame, so have a large DoF as a result.
Some confusion seems to have been caused by the practice of some camera
manufacturers of printing the "35mm equivalent" on the barrel of the
zoom lens on their small-sensor digicams (for example the KM A200) and
shown in the EVF/LCD display.
It isn't realy critical, unless you're after a particular "shallow DoF"
effect and want the subject sharp and the suroundings progressively blurred. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fix your Windows Problems - FAST.
FREE Safe Scan Registry Check. Locate & Fix Errors in Minutes!
|
|
dj_nme
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri May 25, 2007 2:30 am Post subject: Re: EVF - is 115,000 enough? Or is 205,000-230,000 really w |
|
|
CharleiD wrote:
| Quote: | On Thu, 24 May 2007 05:56:11 -0400, M-M <nospam.m-m@ny.more> wrote:
In article <J%b5i.36414$AR3.15972@newsfe07.phx>,
Bob Williams <mytbobnospam@cox.net> wrote:
What's not to like about an EVF finder
Blackout during continuous, making following a moving object impossible
for one.
The burst modes are so fast on my 2 P&S cameras, with a preview between each
frame saved that I never seem to notice this blackout that seems to prevent all
less capable dslr owners from following action. I follow birds in flight just
fine with both of mine.
|
Let's be clear here.
Is it realy a "UHS" (ultra high speed) capture mode (like on the KM
A200) that captures 20 frames per second in low resolution (eg: 640x480
or 800x600pixels)?
Or, is this a true high full-resolution frame-rate that can be sustained
for a few seconds?
Also, does your camera follow-focus or does it just lock focus and then
machinegun the shutter?
Please explain: make, model and mode you're using.
| Quote: | I guess that most dslr owners just don't know how to use a camera properly. They
must think that by throwing money at a camera it's going to make them into a
photographer.
|
Not knowing how to use a camera affects both EVF/P&S digicam users as
much as DSLR cameras users.
Making an idioticly sweeping statement only plants your foot firmly into
your own mouth. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
M-M
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat May 26, 2007 2:36 pm Post subject: Re: EVF - is 115,000 enough? Or is 205,000-230,000 really w |
|
|
In article
<465790e8$0$17967$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au>,
dj_nme <dj_nme@hotmail.com> wrote:
| Quote: | That will not change the DOF. All the macro setting does is allow the
camera to focus closer. It increases the focusing time since the lens
moves over a wider distance.
It decereses the aparent DoF in the final image, your background will be
nicely out of focus.
|
Maybe I misunderstood. Do you mean you are coming closer and zooming out?
--
m-m |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| |
Watched Topics
Search
Register
Log in to check your private messages
Profile
Log in
Memberlist
Usergroups