NikonGear'23
Gear Talk => Camera Talk => Topic started by: BEZ on March 19, 2017, 21:59:39
-
SEEMS NOT!
......I went to the National Photography Show today, with funds in place to get the best deal on a GFX. My dream was to replicate my youth, when I shot with Pentax 6x7, LX, MX.
My new trio was to be GFX, X-Pro, X100 (Camera makers love X's!) for my personal photography ....I was prepared to put up with fujifilm foibles and ugliness, to own the large lush sensor. Sadly my dream was shattered the moment I put the viewfinder to my eye. People love or hate EVF's, seems I am still the latter ....but I do love the dual optical and electrical finders on my other two Fuji's. As EVF's are very useful to me for things other than the decisive moment.
Now the GFX is forgotten I am wishing for a D810 update with a hybrid OVF, EVF finder, 50+mp, and Multi-CAM 20K. If they also made a digital S3, I could say goodbye to fujifilm instead.
Cheers
-
Love you, BEZ. I hated the VF of the GFX too!
I will keep my X100T and wait for a better Firmware to the GFX and an option to buy it without this VF or a better VF or for tethered shooting in the studio only.
-
Arrival of a digital S3 would be keeping up the Nikon tradition for the 100 year anniversary :D
Dreams are for free. But I'd buy it without any hesitation should it materialise.
-
Pentax 645Z :o :o :o
-
Love you Frank ...I imagine fujifilm will eventually iron out firmware issues, as they do. But despite the hype, EVF's still seem a long way off from being suitable for my use.
Bjørn, Nikon are pushing their anniversary big time at the show, but no hints of anything that exciting!
Richard, Pentax don't still make cameras, do they??
-
SEEMS NOT!
.... As EVF's are very useful to me for things other than the decisive moment.
Cheers
Bez, couldn't agree more :)
I shoot many events where I need immediate response from the camera. I have shoot a couple of events using only Olympus and one using only the Sony a7xx cameras but neither system works for catching that split second as my Nikons do. It is one thing to be shooting when I know exactly where the target will be but entirely different when the shot wanted can be anywhere in 360 degrees.
-
I have used Panasonic G1, and it already offered most of the benefits of EVF despite its coarse image. However, the strain imposed on my eye looking into the EVF was the major problem. Looking into EVF is like staring at a bright screen in a dark room. No good for the eye. This problem hasn't been solved on any of the most modern models.
-
Arrival of a digital S3 would be keeping up the Nikon tradition for the 100 year anniversary :D
Dreams are for free. But I'd buy it without any hesitation should it materialise.
So I do ! 👍🏻
-
For events the D500 is wonderful as is the D5 for everything above ISO 20K where it runs circles around everything else. But that is not what I need for my daily work which is not events.
I need silent operation. The D500 does that well. I need great performance up to ISO 20K. Check. Great VF also for manual focus. Check. Great body ergonomics. Check. Superb AF. Check. Superb WB. Check....
Only thing I miss is a bigger recording chip. The D810 chip would be enough for me but I learned that more Megapixels do not hurt if the chip is "back side illuminated" .... so give us that.
On a bsi full frame we should triple the amount of light collected by the D500 at least so we get a great tonality and full use of the image circle of our lenses.
For me even a D600 chip in a "professional context" like a D500 housing and electronics would be a big step forward.
-
Ditto to buying whatever D810 replacement arises, provided it has some more pixels, the same custom ISO 64 and perhaps a better LiveView screen. I sent my GFX back as a "good try," but the lenses were not what I am used to, so I am kind of trapped by all the great lenses I love to use. They did not look that good adapted to the GFX, so I wish Nikon would get off the dime.
-
Thanks for sharing your experience Bez! New is not always better,,,
-
Richard, Pentax don't still make cameras, do they??
Why wouldn't they?
The 645Z was one of the first cameras to get the 33mm x 44mm Sony Exmor sensor. And yes, it has the optical viewfinder. I guess people want a bigger sensor in a smaller camera. ;) In life and cameras, there is no perfect solution.
A full frame 645 DSLR with digital back (Phase One XF 100) costs about 50k. :o Phase One & Sony sensor so it should have very nice image quality.
-
If one needs reliable performance with a predictable outcome it's rarely wise to step into first or second gen technology.
The D1/D100 were a joke, the D2/D200 were Okish and the D3/D300/D700 were mind-blowing, even by todays standards.
The a7R was a joke, the a7RII is OKish and all signs give the impressions that the MkIII models will to be on par with their DSLR rivals.
The GFX is stretching of what is technically possible today, very cool if one can live with its limitations but too soon for those whom demand a predictable outcome...
-
Camera technology is continuously evolving, there is no firm distinction between "generations" as between generations there are individual models you could call sub generations, it is more a case of continuous improvement of technology. Camera development didn't start from digital, neither did Fuji start making the GFX from scratch as they have many years of experience.
-
I agree JA, New products needs maturing, very seldom a completely new product is introduced in a complete and satisfactory package, lenses also needs to be there,,,
It isn't until recently the Sigma lenses have risen to something worth using along side the Nikkors, some users report. Zeiss is still MF for their compatible lenses in Nikon F mount,,,
There are numerous other examples of this,,,
Dave has shot extensively with the Pentax 645Z since many years, I recall Lofoten!
-
If one needs reliable performance with a predictable outcome it's rarely wise to step into first or second gen technology.
The D1/D100 were a joke, the D2/D200 were Okish and the D3/D300/D700 were mind-blowing, even by todays standards.
The a7R was a joke, the a7RII is OKish and all signs give the impressions that the MkIII models will to be on par with their DSLR rivals.
The GFX is stretching of what is technically possible today, very cool if one can live with its limitations but too soon for those whom demand a predictable outcome...
My thoughts exactly. I have owned all of the above. I owned the A7R, the A7RII, the A7s, and all of the Nikon DSLRs (back to the D1x). The GFX weakness for me was their two lenses. If that is a sample of what is coming, not thanks. Not good enough and there are all kinds of MF lenses out there that IMO are not good enough. I sold all of my Mamiya lenses (eleven of them) for the same reason.
Either Sony or Nikon will come up with something I will buy.
-
I have used Panasonic G1, and it already offered most of the benefits of EVF despite its coarse image. However, the strain imposed on my eye looking into the EVF was the major problem. Looking into EVF is like staring at a bright screen in a dark room. No good for the eye. This problem hasn't been solved on any of the most modern models.
I get more eyestrain and annoyance from using my Fuji XE-1 EVF in bright daylight....it's like looking in a dark finder from a poorly-designed 1940's consumer camera(Argus C3, anybody?). I may be immunized against the flicker and pulsing of the EVF due to my experience operating broadcast television cameras.
-
I get more eyestrain and annoyance from using my Fuji XE-1 EVF in bright daylight....it's like looking in a dark finder from a poorly-designed 1940's consumer camera(Argus C3, anybody?). I may be immunized against the flicker and pulsing of the EVF due to my experience operating broadcast television cameras.
The flicker or the pulsing doesn't matter to me due to the popular use of the fluorescent lights in Japan. :D
But I also share the annoyance with (again, any) EVF in bright daylight. I inserted a piece of three-stop ND gel cut to fit the eyepiece rubber to reduce the strain, so the annoyance described byKeith was even worse!
Another annoyance is that I cannot see the borders between the screen and the edges of the frame when the large dark area is on the edge(s) of the frame, which led the framing error. Panasonic is the only manufacturer that has addressed the problem by displaying light-gray lines when the horizontal or the vertical borders of the selected proportion don't coincide with the mechanical borders of the EVF and LCD.
-
The worst feature of EVFs is when they suddenly find out the brightness needs to be increased and blast you with a dose of strong light. In particular on the stupid systems that aim to switch automatically between the finder and the rear view panel. Horrible and takes away any night vision for a good while. Besides, the high intensity and contrast cause a lot of eye strain. Add to that the nausea caused by sluggish response when the camera is moved.
Some day, in a galaxy far far away, an engineer will discover that users of cameras are humans not robots, and redesign the finders to reflect that amazing fact. Well, hopes are for free.
-
never liked the EVF. very unnatural. some people like it, though. :o :o :o
-
never liked the EVF. very unnatural. some people like it, though. :o :o :o
I fall in the last category and am kinda lost when borrowing a DSLR :o :o :o
Things I miss in an OVF:
- Focus peaking with MF lenses
- The ability to zoom in with MF lenses for critical focus
- Live histogram
- The option to use a B&W viewfinder when shooting B&W images
- Image review thru the viewfinder on sunny days
Please beware that I mainly shoot static objects nowadays and frame by frame (so no blackout issues for me).
If I would do more action / animals I would probably get a DSLR again which is better suited for observing subjects (like tracking an animal for a few minutes) and the ability to nail the critical moment.
-
As a user of an EVF for just over a year now, Fuji X-T1/2, I cannot recall seeing(no pun intended) any flickering, blackouts or a lag of the VF, and certainly have no eye strain because of an EVF.
I find it a bit odd that some who are using a mirrored camera are saying that mirrorles cameras blackout insinuating that mirrored cameras don't, really!
I agree with Jan Ann and his comments regarding EVFs!
I shall now decamp to my reinforced bunker and hunker down.
-
Each to his own, Mike. That is the beauty of an agnostic community. What I do is no obligation for anyone else, or vice versa.
-
I feel a bit guilty to have extended the EVF vs OVF argument. :-[ :-[
The eye-strain problem is highly dependent on the individual physical conditions, so it makes no sense to "argue" over it. Also, the info on the merits and the demerits of EVF should be already pretty well shared among both mirrorless users and DSLR users. So, again, it should make little sense to "argue" over the matter.
-
that's OK. this is a matter of personal taste :o :o :o
I like exotic women, some don't ::)
-
Akira, complaints about eye-strain, fatigue, and even nausea, are quite common. It is not mistrust of the future that keeps a lot of users away from EVFs.
If one experiences these issues, there is no argument whether or not EVF is superior. These problems have to be solved by the designs themselves. Human eyesight cannot be expected to evolve that quickly and certainly not in the quick pace seen in technology.
-
I had the issue that the OVF gave me eye strain, due to difficulties with manual focus. Particularly in poor light the issues were exacerbated. So, for me the EVF solved all of this with focus peaking and a viewfinder magnifier. Eventually this lead me to sadly leave Nikon, as it was practically an AF only system for me.
As is obvious to everyone, I have no eye strain issue with the EVF, but instead with the OVF.
The Sony A7 came to the rescue, and I have not looked back. Not even today 3.5 years after Sony announced the A7, has Nikon introduced a mirrorless FX camera that would have let me used my Nikkors (since sold) with full functionality.
I had a detour to micro 43, nice weight saving, but full frame beats everything, so no big weight saving anymore, but for me a fully useable viewfinder.
Yes, I know some look down on Sony, but for me returned the fun to photography, and the lenses are just as good as the Nikkors I once had.
-
The improved refresh rate and the ability to turn off picture effect in the EVF of my X-T2 has greatly closed the gap towards an OVF. But I am now 80/20 in favour of the EVF. I still have a nit to pick with Fuji re. ergonomics in certain areas though.
-
Although I do not like EVFs and feel quite strongly about this regarding my own use, I am all in favour of diverse viewfinder solutions that answer each individual's preferences and requirements to be available on the market, so that everyone can find what they need and focus on the photography. We should be happy about the options available today, and they're getting more diverse by the day. Sadly sometimes I see that people are unhappy that their preferred technology is not the only one available on the market, which is strange.
I use autofocus most of the time with OVF in my DSLRs for hand held use, and do not prefer manual focus for photographing people. For me the moment and human emotion are the main things to concentrate on in this type of photography. I think autofocus has allowed me to catch many situations where previously I would have been too slow to notice being occupied by the activity of focusing manually, and has helped greatly improve my photography. However, for tripod based work of landscapes etc. I almost always use manual focus and use both the OVF and the back LCD screen for focusing and adjusting tilt. I prefer both to be available in this situation.
-
The Nikon D800 made the limitations of the OVF very clear in my case, and the liveview was poor. That camera turned out to be my last DSLR. The D700 was nice and 12mp less taxing, but back then Nikon was still Nikon.
I use AF as well as MF, but prefer both to be available and useable, in case the autofocus isn't able to do its job properly.
-
The Nikon D800 made the limitations of the OVF very clear in my case, and the liveview was poor. That camera turned out to be my last DSLR. The D700 was nice and 12mp less taxing, but back then Nikon was still Nikon.
I use AF as well as MF, but prefer both to be available and useable, in case the autofocus isn't able to do its job properly.
Nikon really goofed with the D800.
-
I feel very happy that I skipped D800 and waited for the D810 ;D
-
Each to his own, Mike. That is the beauty of an agnostic community. What I do is no obligation for anyone else, or vice versa.
Very true Bjorn, but I see these arguments against EVFs as counter productive and wanted put the other side of the argument!
I have seen many reviews and comments from others of in particular in my case to Fuji, not once have I seen a complaint regarding " blackouts", lagging VFs! IMHO mirrorless is the way things will inevitably go, so I'm very sad to leave Nikon(not cheap by the way) if only they had come up with a mirrorless D810, I might well be enjoying my munch lamented Nikkor 300mm f4 PF lens, but probably the weight would still have been a problem for me. The lack of eye relief would also be problematic.
To paraphrase you vive le difference.
-
Very true Bjorn, but I see these arguments against EVFs as counter productive and wanted put the other side of the argument!
I have seen many reviews and comments from others of in particular in my case to Fuji, not once have I seen a complaint regarding " blackouts", lagging VFs! IMHO mirrorless is the way things will inevitably go, so I'm very sad to leave Nikon(not cheap by the way) if only they had come up with a mirrorless D810, I might well be enjoying my munch lamented Nikkor 300mm f4 PF lens, but probably the weight would still have been a problem for me. The lack of eye relief would also be problematic.
To paraphrase you vive le difference.
I agree a 100%, Mike.
-
....
- Focus peaking with MF lenses
- The ability to zoom in with MF lenses for critical focus
- Live histogram
- The option to use a B&W viewfinder when shooting B&W images
- Image review thru the viewfinder on sunny days
...
And this why I still lust over a mirrorless camera, something better than my V1 , not to difficult to do better right ?
I did experiment with a sony nex5n , and hated the thing, this has kept me away from trying any other sony
I'm still eyeing the fujis ...
-
,,,I have seen many reviews and comments from others of in particular in my case to Fuji, not once have I seen a complaint regarding " blackouts", lagging VFs!,,,,,
Wow Turning the blind eye :o
-
Fuji and Olympus have successfully reduced the total lag ("EVF display lag" plus "shutter response" after the release button is pushed). I personally felt that the E-M5 MkII that I used for some time was very responsive. Its total lag was easily comparable to the higher-end Nikon DSLRs whose viewfinder lag is nil. Fuji X-T1/2 and Oly E-M1 should be even more responsive.
That said, the EVF may be very slightly disadvantageous when you want to react predictively.
-
And this why I still lust over a mirrorless camera, something better than my V1 , not to difficult to do better right ?
I did experiment with a sony nex5n , and hated the thing, this has kept me away from trying any other sony
I'm still eyeing the fujis ...
Sony as well as other manufacturers have come a long way since the Nex-5n.
-
Wow Turning the blind eye :o
Well Erik, please show me then?
-
Every 'complaint' about EVFs and OVFs in this thread have validity for the person making them. I find it educational to read the opinions of all the experienced photographers here, pro or con, yes or no, whatever. As long as our opinions are presented as our own, personal observations there can only be increased knowledge.
Forum old-timers will remember issues like the funkadelic viewfinder of the D800 being talked about in the past. SLR blackout was a hot subject way back when the 'other choice' was a Leica M. All part of this wonderful world we live in.
-
Keith, I fully agree!
-
The Nikon D800 made the limitations of the OVF very clear in my case, and the liveview was poor. That camera turned out to be my last DSLR. The D700 was nice and 12mp less taxing, but back then Nikon was still Nikon.
I didn't have problems using the D800 for manual focus using the live view, as most of my manual focus work is with tripod and stopped down for large depth of field, but the D810's live view is much better (higher resolution, less noise in lower light, two subsections of the image can be used to adjust tilt and focus in some cases). The D810's OVF is also with better coatings giving a clearer image which more pleasing to work with. The D5 is a further improvement in viewfinder quality in my experience. I don't routinely use it for manual focusing hand held though, since I use autofocus lenses now for that kind of shooting. For the tripod based shooting typically I shoot with the D810 and aim for extended depth of field (stopping down to f/9-11, using tilt to maximize the near-to-far sharpness, I find the OVF useful for initial adjustment of the tilt and focus, to be refined by LCD). If I wanted to use manual focus with fast primes, I too might feel strained eyes, but when trying the A7R II, I noticed that I wasn't able to focus using the unmagnified EVF even remotely well enough to get usable results with the 135/2 Apo Sonnar. By using the zoomed view focusing was made possible but then I can't monitor the subject's and the image's overall expression at the same time if I have to view a zoomed-in subsection of the image. This kind of approach of hand holding the camera and zooming in for a partial view is not an acceptable way of working for me and I wouldn't be able to concentrate of the image content and timing doing that. I by far prefer to use an OVF to monitor the subject's emotion and clues to changes in it, and let the camera's continuous autofocus do the focusing. Subtle details of facial expression is something I can't see through an EVF, and without the use of zooming in, manual focus would not be possible either, so for me the EVF concept is unfortunately a non-starter. It doesn't give me anything that I could use to work with. However, I completely understand that my subjects are not everyone's, and people have widely varying preference regarding viewfinders and what kind of camera design works best for them. This is what is great about the situation today: There is something for everyone.
The D800's AF gave me plenty of headaches with fast primes; the D810 was a significant improvement which solved most of the inconsistencies that I had. The D5 AF is phenomenally fast and sensitive in low light and in particular, it allows me to shoot moving subjects at f/1.4 on a routine basis with very few out of focus images. Especially with longer distances the earlier Multi-CAM 3500 series cameras had problems which I do not see with Multi-CAM 20k. However, time will tell how the new module will perform on a high resolution sensor. For me 20-24MP is plenty enough for most of my practical applications, and I've been very happy with the D5's resulting image quality, though not as good as D810 at low ISO.
In 2012 there is a breakthrough in one area (sensor and image quality) but because of production problems due to the 2011 natural disasters I understand that they had difficulty making correctly functioning cameras. This is regrettable but Nikon's products are far too valuable to me to not forgive them for their errors. I can understand that when there are large-scale casualties, evacuations, no working infrastructure, it can be difficult to concentrate on manufacturing cameras with precision requirements. Things have improved greatly since and I'm very happy with Nikon's quality control from the last few years. Also their progress with the D5 autofocus is really amazing.
-
I subscribe Illka's point of view. And much is dependent on the shooter subject and photographer. For me, an EVF doesn't work out; it's like drawing a (electronic) curtain between me and the subject. But I would be in favor for a pilot like HUD display where you have an overlay of electronic information while maintaining an optical view on the subject.
-
recent comparison by Ming Thein
https://blog.mingthein.com/2017/03/06/optical-finder-or-evf/#more-13655
-
Even such a claimed authority cannot get basics correct;
"brightness is somewhat proportional to the total amount of light captured, too: bigger formats simply capture more light"
forgetting that this is a circular argument as a larger area means "more" light but as area increases, intensity remains constant as there is a larger area to cover.
Oh well. Simple advice is to keep the salt shaker easily accessible.
-
Somewhat is not a word to be used in Physics :)
-
Agree to that :D
One might as well argue that with larger formats, (exceeding the FX), lenses increasingly tend to be slower and thus the finder image gets darker not brighter. Any old hand of the view camera era will be familiar with that and usually having had the experience of shooting "wide open" at f/8 or f/11* ... Having a finder groundglass of 4x5" doesn't mean it is blazingly bright !!
* my long Nikkors at that time were the excellent T-series Nikkor ED lenses; 270 mm f/6.3, 360 mm f/8, 500 mm f/11, and 720 mm f/16. Those were the days.
-
I didn't have problems using the D800 for manual focus using the live view, as most of my manual focus work is with tripod and stopped down for large depth of field, but the D810's live view is much better (higher resolution, less noise in lower light, two subsections of the image can be used to adjust tilt and focus in some cases). The D810's OVF is also with better coatings giving a clearer image which more pleasing to work with. The D5 is a further improvement in viewfinder quality in my experience. I don't routinely use it for manual focusing hand held though, since I use autofocus lenses now for that kind of shooting. For the tripod based shooting typically I shoot with the D810 and aim for extended depth of field (stopping down to f/9-11, using tilt to maximize the near-to-far sharpness, I find the OVF useful for initial adjustment of the tilt and focus, to be refined by LCD). If I wanted to use manual focus with fast primes, I too might feel strained eyes, but when trying the A7R II, I noticed that I wasn't able to focus using the unmagnified EVF even remotely well enough to get usable results with the 135/2 Apo Sonnar. By using the zoomed view focusing was made possible but then I can't monitor the subject's and the image's overall expression at the same time if I have to view a zoomed-in subsection of the image. This kind of approach of hand holding the camera and zooming in for a partial view is not an acceptable way of working for me and I wouldn't be able to concentrate of the image content and timing doing that. I by far prefer to use an OVF to monitor the subject's emotion and clues to changes in it, and let the camera's continuous autofocus do the focusing. Subtle details of facial expression is something I can't see through an EVF, and without the use of zooming in, manual focus would not be possible either, so for me the EVF concept is unfortunately a non-starter. It doesn't give me anything that I could use to work with. However, I completely understand that my subjects are not everyone's, and people have widely varying preference regarding viewfinders and what kind of camera design works best for them. This is what is great about the situation today: There is something for everyone.
The D800's AF gave me plenty of headaches with fast primes; the D810 was a significant improvement which solved most of the inconsistencies that I had. The D5 AF is phenomenally fast and sensitive in low light and in particular, it allows me to shoot moving subjects at f/1.4 on a routine basis with very few out of focus images. Especially with longer distances the earlier Multi-CAM 3500 series cameras had problems which I do not see with Multi-CAM 20k. However, time will tell how the new module will perform on a high resolution sensor. For me 20-24MP is plenty enough for most of my practical applications, and I've been very happy with the D5's resulting image quality, though not as good as D810 at low ISO.
In 2012 there is a breakthrough in one area (sensor and image quality) but because of production problems due to the 2011 natural disasters I understand that they had difficulty making correctly functioning cameras. This is regrettable but Nikon's products are far too valuable to me to not forgive them for their errors. I can understand that when there are large-scale casualties, evacuations, no working infrastructure, it can be difficult to concentrate on manufacturing cameras with precision requirements. Things have improved greatly since and I'm very happy with Nikon's quality control from the last few years. Also their progress with the D5 autofocus is really amazing.
Using liveview would have meant I could only have used the D800 on a tripod, and then with something like a Hoodman loupe. In total I found that setup cumbersome. Handheld use with LV would haveant holding a DSLR away from me as if it were a smartphone. Practical use steered me toward Sony mirrorless.
I found the liveview and EVF on my Sony to be of higher quality than that of the D800 with line skipping. When the D810 came with improved LV, I had already moved to mirrorless.
-
Even such a claimed authority cannot get basics correct;
"brightness is somewhat proportional to the total amount of light captured, too: bigger formats simply capture more light"
forgetting that this is a circular argument as a larger area means "more" light but as area increases, intensity remains constant as there is a larger area to cover.
Oh well. Simple advice is to keep the salt shaker easily accessible.
Well spotted. Interestingly, he writes immediately after that:
which if condensed into an output projected image of a fixed size will be much brighter than a smaller format ‘expanded’ to cover
Is anyone aware of an SLR camera where that is the case?
If there were such a camera, his argument would have some merit.
But my understanding is that the viewfinder size is pretty much determined by the size of the mirror, which in turn must be pretty close to the size of the sensor.
There really should be some kind of peer review process for bloggers :D
Independent of popularity of the blogger, there are a lot of false statements out there, and critical comments tend to be suppressed.
Somewhat is not a word to be used in Physics :)
Right, at least not in conjuction with 'proportional'. Either it is proportional (to some statistical significance level) or not.
-
What he's getting at is that smaller format cameras (DX, original 4/3) with TTL optical viewfinders usually have small pokey "tunnel vision" viewfinders compared to FX and larger format cameras. These cameras are generally fitted with slow zooms projected over a proportionally smaller format, so the viewfinder image is also proportionally smaller. The viewfinder could be larger but the light would be spread over a larger area making the image rather dim. You could solve that by using a faster lens, but a fast lens on a DX camera with a big viewfinder would be considerably bigger and more expensive, which really defeats the advantages of the smaller format cameras.
His explanation may not be quite right, but the general point is correct.
-
A poor finder system can mar any format, but that is not a causality for the strange explanations given.
An f/1.4 (or f/8 or any other aperture) lens will illuminate the camera sensor with equal intensity at all formats (within its projected image circle, and ignoring small differences in transmittance by different optical designs; if necessary use T-values instead). Finder brightness is in turn set by incoming light intensity. If not, it is the design of the finder that is flawed not any correlation to the format. Thus one is grasping at straws here.
For the nth time, at the same set aperture, all formats receive the same intensity of light. That is the basic of photography that hasn't changed over the last couple of centuries to my knowledge.
-
The D500 VF has 1.0x magnification; the D5 VF 0.72x.
-
I think the D4, D800 were very significant milestones for the nikon dslrs.
The 36mp and dynamic range of the D800 still amaze me today.
But it has it's defects, all my my af lenses, including the primes needed af tuning on the d800, once that is done , af is accurate, speed is fast with all lenses except the 150 macro and that is to be expected.
Live view is ugly, in video mode is dlightly better.
my 800 is now 5 years old, it has problems wit the left af points, and a broken chasis, glued so it can be used on a tripod, but I still use it often and get the results I want
I use a vf magnifier , dk something, that makes the vf acceptable
I had originally planned to use it for 3 years, if I had to replace it today I'll get a D810
-
The D500 VF has 1.0x magnification; the D5 VF 0.72x.
If I am not mistaken, this means that the the viewfinder virtual images would be roughly the same size, but the D5's about one stop brighter. Can someone verify this with a light meter?
One stop is probably too small to notice because the eye will immediately adapt.
-
For the nth time, at the same set aperture, all formats receive the same intensity of light. That is the basic of photography that hasn't changed over the last couple of centuries to my knowledge.
It' worth pointing it out. But this is not where you disagree with Ming. It is the additional assumptions that are not disclosed.
As Ilkka suggests, the additional assumption seems to be that the size of the viewfinder image is similar across formats. While this seems approximately true of the D5&D500, my guess is that there are many counterexamples as well.
The possible assumptions about which lenses is usually fitted to various cameras would also be possible, but this would be too far-fetched in my opinion since it has nothing to do with optics.
-
All is part of the confused mess masquerading as 'bigger is brighter', 'equivalence' or what have you.
I mentioned the overlooked fact that the incoming intensity is independent of recording format. The finder adds a scaling either up or down from unity so as to make the image on the groundglass/panel comfortable to view at a virtual distance of approx. 1 m while at the same time (one must hope) letting eye discern sufficient fine detail.
In practice a very small format has a magnification and a larger format might have a reduction of the projected image format. Thus the final outcome is an interplay between format and finder that could make the finder appear brighter or darker according to the criteria used for its design and whether or not measures such as Fresnel microlenses are employed.
For a (D)SLR, the choice of the focusing screen is absolutely critical with regard to its perceived finder quality. On the FX/24x36 format, easy to evaluate due to its long history and diverse development stages, one can have finders so dark they are almost impossible to use for focusing to those so bright that your eyes are blasted yet still not being able to focus the image. The latter type, claimed to be optimised for 'AF' are commonly implemented today and makes it well-nigh impossible to focus fast lenses visually. The dark often coarse screens of the earlier SLRS needed eye accommodation under anything than bright daylight, but did allow pin-point focusing accuracy even with slower lenses. The intermediate and more optimal approach perhaps was to have devices such as split prism or microprisms integral to the ground glass to make breaking up of the aerial image more complete and hence allow better visual focusing. With earlier F-series models, up to F5(6), a selection of replacement finder screens and was available to optimise focusing under a wide range of shooting situations. Finder heads also could be replaced (not on F6? never used that model). I do wish that approach had survived to the current days.
Medium and larger format cameras were increasingly burdened by dark finders and for the view cameras, focusing the slow lenses in use frequently necessitated a finder loupe.
-
Thanks for the detailed explanation.
This was my understanding: there are so many additional assumptions (same type of screen, finder rectangle the same size etc.) that have to be satisfied in order to have the correlation that Ming is trying to argue for, that his explanation does not hold much water.
Also, some of the cheaper DX cameras do not even have a pentaprism, but only mirrors. This may also account for some light loss and as a consequence, dimmer finders.
On a similar note, it is clear that it would be easy to make a very bright viewfinder image by making the viewfinder rectangle very small ;D
-
On a side note, not every member of these discussions has used a sufficiently wide range of formats over the years to appreciate the true differences in existence. Switching between small and really big formats was a daily encounter with reality in my earlier days as a nature photographer.
The above might explain not excuse the strange argumentations washing around the 'net these days.
-
This concern would be addressed by simply restricting the generality of the statement.
I understand that Ming Thein is not making universal statements, but only such statements that concern his own universe.
Of course it would be much nicer for him to make a disclaimer. For people who do take him as an authority (I don't, partly because I have seen him perpetuate much more severe misconceptions about optics, and not correct himself after the errors had been pointed out by others), I think such a disclaimer is important.
But even within the range of cameras he is discussing, his statement is questionable IMHO.
-
Thus the inevitable conclusion is that Ming Thein is "somewhat questionable" :D
Time to move on to more entertaining topics.
-
When I was small, a common depiction of a photographer was someone standing behind a tripod with a dark cloth over their head. And at times I have been that person, but as young as I may be, that image seems hopelessly archaic. I should fish that stuff from my closet and teach my son while I have the chance.
-
More fuel for the fire :)
http://www.sonyalpharumors.com/provocative-dpreview-article-reccomends-buying-ff-instead-fuji-gfx/
https://www.dpreview.com/opinion/2341704755/thinking-about-buying-medium-format-read-this-first
-
With modern cameras from Sony, Nikon etc. we get a lot of quality already, there's a lot of medium-format-ness in the cameras we already own. 35mm digital is way ahead of 35mm film. Going for Fuji or Hasselblad gives just a bit more of that.
I find the crop factors applied to "medium format" just hillarious. What is being cropped? Why should the 35mm format be cannonical and assigned the role of unity?
I'm fine with calling 33x44mm medium format. We need to liberate ourselves from film conventions, now that we have gone digital. I suppose there's a very scarce selection of MF film now?
Need more fuel, JA? Just my little ramblings for today. ;)
-
I find the crop factors applied to "medium format" just hillarious. What is being cropped? Why should the 35mm format be cannonical and assigned the role of unity?
It serves as a reference point for marketing purposes in this era of various format sizes.
-
Well, there were many formats in film as well, and medium format included 6x4,5, 6x6, 6x7, 6x9 and 6x17cm ...
They were all significantly different from 35mm. With this new format one has to ask what's the point, it's like moving to Sahara and saying we need to move away from this old idea of living near fertile land or where there are other people living. The manufacturers just want to sell you a new line of lenses before you realize there is not much benefit for the user as they have to buy all new infrastructure / lenses. Personally I enjoy having lenses available.
-
I find the crop factors applied to "medium format" just hillarious. What is being cropped? Why should the 35mm format be cannonical and assigned the role of unity?
...because a lot of photographers never shot anything but 35mm (24x36mm) format in the days of film? Rather than understanding what a 75mm lens does on 4x5" or a 150mm lens does on 6x6 they must translate everything back into their mother tongue.
Dave
-
More fuel for the fire :)
http://www.sonyalpharumors.com/provocative-dpreview-article-reccomends-buying-ff-instead-fuji-gfx/
https://www.dpreview.com/opinion/2341704755/thinking-about-buying-medium-format-read-this-first
The fact that Dpreview is negative to the GFX, makes me think that the camera may very well be a great camera. Such a camera is about more things than applying the flawed "format equivalence theory". More people will have access to a sensor bigger than glorious* "full frame", which may have ruffled some feathers on the 'net. The "full frame" isn't the fullest frame anymore. :)
Personally I'll keep using Sony 35mm format and dream about Hasselblad. :D
*glorious to be understood in the Monthy Python way. ;)
-
I have kept all my large-format gear, up to a massive 8x10" system, but won't dream of them today. Bigger isn't always better and with a larger format, other considerations come into play that users of smaller formats never need to concern themselves about.
Basically the best approach is enjoying whatever system you deal with now and use it to the maximum advantage.
-
To me, 33x44mm format is too small to "step up" from the 24x36 format, simply because the difference between 33x44 and 24x36 is much smaller than that between FX and DX. When the 4:3 format is trimmed to 3:2, the difference is even smaller.
I also consider Sony BSI 42MP sensor as game changer.
I remember Bjørn's review of D1. Its "lowly" 2.7MP sensor (see the decimal point?) already surpassed the resolution of Fuji Velvia 50.
-
Full frame isn't a format, the term refers to camera with sensor that uses the image circle projected by the lens fully, of the size of sensor which is the largest that the lens covers.
The correct term when referring to 24x36mm sensors is "35mm full frame". Full frame in itself doesn't specify a format size. Micro Four Thirds camera is full frame with MFT lenses. There is also 645 full frame, available for $48000 from Phase One. It is best to be specific when using this terminology.
Fuji GFX 50s is full frame with its native lenses. Pentax 645Z with also this size of sensor is, however, not full frame with most lenses for the Pentax 645 system.
One reason why full frame matters is the availability of high quality wide angle lenses. In many cases when the system of lenses is designed for a larger size, and then a smaller "crop" sensor camera is introduced, wide angle options are limited.
-
Full frame isn't a format, the term refers to camera with sensor that uses the image circle projected by the lens fully, of the size of sensor which is the largest that the lens covers.
The correct term when referring to 24x36mm sensors is "35mm full frame". Full frame in itself doesn't specify a format size. Micro Four Thirds camera is full frame with MFT lenses. There is also 645 full frame, available for $48000 from Phase One. It is best to be specific when using this terminology.
Fuji GFX 50s is full frame with its native lenses. Pentax 645Z with also this size of sensor is, however, not full frame with most lenses for the Pentax 645 system.
One reason why full frame matters is the availability of high quality wide angle lenses. In many cases when the system of lenses is designed for a larger size, and then a smaller "crop" sensor camera is introduced, wide angle options are limited.
This would be an excellent usage for the term full frame, but unfortunately most places 24x36 mm sensor format is taken as the meaning of "full frame". :(
-
To me, 33x44mm format is too small to "step up" from the 24x36 format, simply because the difference between 33x44 and 24x36 is much smaller than that between FX and DX. When the 4:3 format is trimmed to 3:2, the difference is even smaller.
I also consider Sony BSI 42MP sensor as game changer.
I remember Bjørn's review of D1. Its "lowly" 2.7MP sensor (see the decimal point?) already surpassed the resolution of Fuji Velvia 50.
We can look at it another way: If 24x36 is trimmed to 24x32 yielding a 4:3 aspect ratio, the difference between the two formats become 1.89. I think that the ultimate choice here will be a personal one based on taste. The 4:3 aspect ratio is closer to many classical MF and LF formats than the 3:2 of 35mm format and APS-C/DX sensors.
I agree also that the Sony 42mp BSI sensor is a game changer, but for many more reasons than just competing favourably with the 50mp sensor in the Fujifilm GF50s camera on image quality. It helps provide speed and versatility to the Sony A7RII and the Sony A99II, that you won't associate with a slower paced MF camera.
I think both 35mm and mini MF 33x44 will find their friends.
-
I don't want to be the guy who says "10 Megapixels are enough", but when I hear about 50mp being a game changer I wonder what game they would change. I think having my camera be able to see in the dark is more important to me than extra resolution. I think it is time for the game to change away from megapixels.
Certainly not for everyone. Most will continue in their own personal trajectories. This is the same thing we saw when we look back at the film to digital transition - the most recent format extinction event. I think we are due for a change and it isn't a change to the larger side. Many photographers on this list won't participate or drive the change but I am certain it will happen.
-
Having a lot of pixels benefits base ISO dynamic range, and with BSI it seems high ISO can also be excellent.
In my opinion, we are seeing a healthy diversification of camera types and sensor sizes, not extinction.
The mobile phone of course is everywhere now. For a dedicated camera to do well, it has to offer clear advantages over the mobile phone. This is one reason the high end market is seeing now more options, I think, to allow photographers to find a camera that suits their working style and subjects, and offers something distinctive.
-
I don't want to be the guy who says "10 Megapixels are enough", but when I hear about 50mp being a game changer I wonder what game they would change. I think having my camera be able to see in the dark is more important to me than extra resolution. I think it is time for the game to change away from megapixels.
Certainly not for everyone. Most will continue in their own personal trajectories. This is the same thing we saw when we look back at the film to digital transition - the most recent format extinction event. I think we are due for a change and it isn't a change to the larger side. Many photographers on this list won't participate or drive the change but I am certain it will happen.
Cameras with fewer megapixels that "see in the dark" already exist, like the 16mp Nikon Df, 20mp Nikon D5 or the 12mp Sony A7s and A7s II. There are cameras with everything from 12mp to 50mp, so there is somethingvfor everyone.
I use the 24mp Sony A7II, and I'm happy with that.
-
I didn't call BSI 42MP sensor "game changer" because of the pixel count. The BSI construction enables larger photosites without reducing the pixel count. A sensor of 36MP and higher can go without AA filter, which can be nice for those who like and/or need sharpness.
-
The readout speed, ability to do on sensor PDAF, good low-ligh AF performance, video capabilities DR, the BSI construction makes Sony's 42mp sensor more wide angle friendly. There are many things that sum up to make this sensor a game changer.
-
Considering the poor low light AF capability, BSI 42MP sensor is not a game changer in terms of AF, regardless of the method (CDAF or PDAF).
-
Imaging resource, http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/sony-a7r-ii/sony-a7r-ii-field-test-part-ii.htm (http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/sony-a7r-ii/sony-a7r-ii-field-test-part-ii.htm), has tested the A7R II in low light and they say:
"Great low-light autofocus more often than not
And as I reported in my earlier field test, the Sony's autofocus system also handled low light admirably. Only a relatively few times did I hit a scene where it had to rack focus or failed to lock focus properly on the first try or two, and in every one it was a circumstance in which I'd expect most cameras to struggle. Autofocus is definitely a strength of this camera versus its predecessor."
Dpreview is also pleasantly surprised with the low-light AF of the A7R II, https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/sony-alpha-7r-ii/12 (https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/sony-alpha-7r-ii/12).
One more from Dpreview, "Sony Alpha 7R II can match or beat DSLR low light AF performance", https://www.dpreview.com/articles/6884391759/sony-alpha-7r-ii-can-match-or-beat-dslr-low-light-af-performance (https://www.dpreview.com/articles/6884391759/sony-alpha-7r-ii-can-match-or-beat-dslr-low-light-af-performance).
-
I remember Bjørn's review of D1. Its "lowly" 2.7MP sensor (see the decimal point?) already surpassed the resolution of Fuji Velvia 50.
I have a print which is about 470 x 690mm (18.5 x 27") made from a drum scanned 35mm Velvia 50 slide. Sharpness is superb. I really wonder if a 2.7MP image would match it ...
-
I once had an order of an image to be printed 8 by 4.5 m from a cropped D1X file. It was marvellous even up close but then I spent nearly an entire working day in the pre-press stage to get the maximum quality. I started out with only 5.5 MPix for the project.
All depends on the subject, the light, and the viewing distance.
-
I don't think comparing AF speeds using a 35/1.4 lens on one and 50/1.4 on the other two is fair. The focusing elements of 35/1.4 lens is much lighter and shorter travel, which makes easier to focus faster.
D750 (and even Canon 5D MKIII) proved their solid AF performances even slightly darker (the lenses used were 35/1.4, though):
https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikon-d750/7
I have a print which is about 470 x 690mm (18.5 x 27") made from a drum scanned 35mm Velvia 50 slide. Sharpness is superb. I really wonder if a 2.7MP image would match it ...
Here's Bjørn's review of D1 I was referring to. Sorry that the film was not Velvia but Kodak E100VS. And D1 didn't "outperformed" it. My memory is not non-volatile. :-[ But it was well understandable that 2.7MP is enough to compete with the finer grain films.
http://www.naturfotograf.com/D1_review.html#top
-
Sometimes sharpness isn't all, and print size is not in question, but resolution is everything and the pictures is made for inspection on screen. Like the reindeer picture I posted recently in the pattern-thread. http://nikongear.net/revival/index.php/topic,2148.msg90651.html#msg90651
The picture was taken for counting the reindeers, and D1X was just at the limits for resolve that many animals in one picture. Most of the pictures I have of that herd, is not good enough. But this one is, thanks to even distribiution of the animals, and very good communication with the pilot of the plane. Even 2000 and 1000 reindeers was a challenge for D1X.
Now I use D800e for this, and the pictures are far better, and I can actually feel that on my eyes after hours of counting. The eyes are not that sore anymore.
-
I'm not surprised by your observations, Asle.
The D1X had an almost film-like graininess to its files due to the weird layout of its sensor with the unavoidable consequences for their processing. Results could be very pleasing in tonality but sheer resolution suffered in many cases.
The D800 ushered in the 36 MPix class which allowed nearly 90% higher resolution than the D1X and its 10 MPix brothers. Plus, the D1X was just 10 MPix in theory, not in practice.
-
I'm not surprised by your observations, Asle.
The D1X had an almost film-like graininess to its files due to the weird layout of its sensor with the unavoidable consequences for their processing. Results could be very pleasing in tonality but sheer resolution suffered in many cases.
The D800 ushered in the 36 MPix class which allowed nearly 90% higher resolution than the D1X and its 10 MPix brothers. Plus, the D1X was just 10 MPix in theory, not in practice.
"weird layout"? :o :o :o
I agree with what Asle had to say, designing for the charts isn't the most important thing.
-
A recent comparison of Fuji GFX and Hasselblad X1D
https://photographylife.com/fuji-gfx-50s-vs-hasselblad-x1d-50c/
-
"weird layout"?
...
The D1X had rectangular photo sites so software had to interpolate at the very least one dimension. Either downsampling to 6 MPix, or preferably, upsampling to 10 MPix to make the pixels equivalent to a square area.
Its native pixel dimension was ~ 4000 x 1000. Approximate figures as the various RAW programs at the time had a competition how much they could squeeze out of the "dark frame" borders around the central active sensor area. Typical figures would be 4016 x 1020 or thereabout.
-
Arrival of a digital S3 would be keeping up the Nikon tradition for the 100 year anniversary :D
Dreams are for free. But I'd buy it without any hesitation should it materialise.
Nary a day goes by, that I don't muse on the feasibility of cannibalizing someones' digital box for the purpose of creating my own Franken-Nikon's monster at the expense of some hapless, thoroughly innocent, F or FE body. (If I could write code, this nightmare scenario would have surely come to past by now. Oh, the horror!) As though not in possession of my own faculties, I surrender to compulsion and break out in sweats whilst impulsively trawling eBay® parts listings for Nikon F backs or "as-is" FE hulks. The convulsions are maddening as they are debilitating -- and fortunately at that. After the shock treatments I rarely can recall what came over me, until... [shudders; shakes head impulsively; reaches for oatmeal cookie] :o
-
"weird layout"? :o :o :o
Actually the CCD used in D1 series was a 10MP+ sensor made by Sony. However, Nikon combined four photosites to use them as one pixel, which made the D1 a 2.7MP camera. Nikon combined two photosites to make D1X a 6MP camera, but the combined two square photosites resulted in one rectangular pixel. So, the raw data of D1X needed to be interpolated to expand vertically.
I noticed weird rectangular artifacts in larger prints from D1X data.
-
Somewhat is not a word to be used in Physics :)
That, and nor is "black-whole". ;)
-
That, and nor is "black-whole". ;)
;D