Why does camera needs small Viewfinder when it has display?

[giusgius]

Hi, please explain it simply, why does camera needs small Viewfinder when it has display?

 

What is a purpose of small viewfinder ? is it important to look in only on eye and take picture?

how is it better then look at 3 inch display to see whole image. 

 

Thanks

[nick name]

I guess it becomes more obvious once you use a camera with a display as its viewfinder.  They are dramatically slower in some cases than using a traditional viewfinder.  

[bigmug]

So many reasons!

1. Stability
When you hold the camera to your eye, it is stablized by your head and body, dramatically reducing the risk of blur at longer exposures or longer focal lengths. A display-only camera needs to be held away from your body.

2. Eyesight compensation
A good viewfinder will have an adjustable lens element to compensate for simple near- or farsightedness, so it can both accommodate people who use glasses but don't have good near vision with or without them, and those who don't use glasses but would need them for close objects. A display on a camera that needs to be held far enough away to be in sharp focus, may end up being very small in the field of view.

3. Visual isolation
When you look through the viewfinder, you see a bright, sharp image surrounded by a dark frame. Nothing distracting. No matter how bright the surrounding light, you'll always be able to see perfectly clearly through the viewfinder. A display could end up being difficult to use in very bright conditions, and even worse if light reflects off it.

4. Power consumption
A bright display will draw signicantly more power than the tiny indicator LEDs in the viewfinder, shortening the use time per charge.

5. Resolution
The image through the viewfinder is, essentially, limited only by your own visual acuity, so you'll be able to see very small details in the frame. A display is limited by its resolution, which could be too low to convey smaller details.

Don't get me wrong. A display is useful as well. I use it when I need to shoot from a very high angle, holding the camera high above my head with the display tilted down, or very close to the ground, so I don't have to bend down as much (bad back). And when shooting video.

[Lenovich]

First. Optical viefinder obsolete tech. But most of photographers because of their habits says, they need it. Second. Optical viefinder still cheaper than digital. Yes, mirror and prism and some glases defenetly cheaper than digital LCD and specific software and hardware.

 

LET THE HOLYWAR BEGINS!

[Lady Fitzgerald]

2 hours ago, Lenovich said:

First. Optical viefinder obsolete tech. But most of photographers because of their habits says, they need it. Second. Optical viefinder still cheaper than digital. Yes, mirror and prism and some glases defenetly cheaper than digital LCD and specific software and hardware.

 

LET THE HOLYWAR BEGINS!

No, optical viewfinders are not obsolete. Go back and reread this thread.

[Lenovich]

1 hour ago, Lady Fitzgerald said:

No, optical viewfinders are not obsolete. Go back and reread this thread.

No, obsolete because of wining of mirrorless systems. Did you ever try digital viewfinders? All sony A7 love them. All fuju users love them. There is no reasons to swich back to optical. how can you see somethimg in optical viewfinders, when digital camera can see a lot when set to ISO 100000. for example.

[Lady Fitzgerald]

1 hour ago, Lenovich said:

No, obsolete because of wining of mirrorless systems. Did you ever try digital viewfinders? All sony A7 love them. All fuju users love them. There is no reasons to swich back to optical. how can you see somethimg in optical viewfinders, when digital camera can see a lot when set to ISO 100000. for example.

I have a camera with a digital viewfinder. It simply isn't the same, nor is as good, as an optical viewfinder. The image from a digital viewfinder is not as an accurate representation of the target as an optical viewfinder. Digital viewfinders are becoming more popular because they cost less.

[bigmug]

Digital viewfinders share some of the problems of viewfinderless cameras. They draw power when in use, meaning you are limited in standby time. For certain types of photography, I can spend a lot of time looking through the viewfinder, waiting for something to happen. A digital image also lacks the dynamic range of human vision, limiting the brightness range possible to see at any given time. The inherent minimum surface brightness of the display can hurt low-light vision/dark adaptation, which can make photography in some situations practically impossible (because the eyes need to be dark adapted outside of the camera use).

The optical viewfinder has its place. But I fully expect that the ignorant masses will make sure it disappears, like the 3.5 mm jack on mobile phones.

 

[Lenovich]

6 hours ago, bigmug said:

The optical viewfinder has its place.

 

In past. Now tech are going move to forward. All problems of digital viewfinder will be soloved.

 

I is like 4/3 system all people says back then that is dead useless system. But this system open road to mirorless systems.

 

All tech are here, 240 hz dispalys, HDR, 4K e.t.c. 

[LyondellBasell]

29 minutes ago, Lenovich said:

In past. Now tech are going move to forward. All problems of digital viewfinder will be soloved.

 

I is like 4/3 system all people says back then that is dead useless system. But this system open road to mirorless systems.

 

All tech are here, 240 hz dispalys, HDR, 4K e.t.c. 

EVF has made some critical, game-changing strides since its inception.

 

I wouldn't be so quick to call OVF obsolete, though. Not only is it still usable, but it is superior in both resolution and dynamic range since it's limited only the capabilities of your lens and eyes. 

 

Neither of those aspects is the be-all, end-all and there are some great arguments to be made for why EVF is the way to go.

We're at the point where it's a matter of the photographer's preference, and I think that's a great place to be.

[Mihle]

Both optical and electronic viewfinders have it positives and negatives. Everyone that says that one of them better in all ways or all situations or for everyone is just plain wrong.

 

I prefer EVF because I can in normal situations can se more what the photo actually will look like. (Rather than OVF that you see more what irl world looks like) also the exsta information you can add in the viewfinder. 

But it's up to a person what of them is better, none of them is superior in all ways, and that will always be the case.

 

That said, EVF is going to continue to get better, but OVF won't.

[ThePointblank]

5 hours ago, LyondellBasell said:

EVF has made some critical, game-changing strides since its inception.

 

I wouldn't be so quick to call OVF obsolete, though. Not only is it still usable, but it is superior in both resolution and dynamic range since it's limited only the capabilities of your lens and eyes. 

 

Neither of those aspects is the be-all, end-all and there are some great arguments to be made for why EVF is the way to go.

We're at the point where it's a matter of the photographer's preference, and I think that's a great place to be.

Not to mention that EVF's have a bit of lag, as they are pulling information off the sensor and having to encode it and transmit it to the EVF for you to view. That's fine for more static subjects or subjects not moving erratically, but for anything else where the subject is moving erratically and quickly, tracking can become an issue.

 

It's gotten better recently, but still not to a level that's really acceptable for most professional sports and wildlife shooters.

 

The optical finder is obviously real time viewing, so no lag involved there.

[Lenovich]

11 hours ago, LyondellBasell said:

But it is superior in both resolution and dynamic range 

 

 

But what if typical consumer DSLR camera only have tiny OVF and weak Fresnel lenses? We are talking about mass market right? Ofcourse pro grade cameras have superior prisms and Fresnel lenses. But in most cases in consumer DSLR  OVF is weak point.

 

And more, if we talking about super compact mirrorless camera like fujifilms, OVF in that cases, just a usless rudiment.

[Lady Fitzgerald]

2 hours ago, Lenovich said:

But what if typical consumer DSLR camera only have tiny OVF and weak Fresnel lenses? We are talking about mass market right? Ofcourse pro grade cameras have superior prisms and Fresnel lenses. But in most cases in consumer DSLR  OVF is weak point.

 

And more, if we talking about super compact mirrorless camera like fujifilms, OVF in that cases, just a usless rudiment.

Obviously, your mind is made up and you just won't listen to reason so I'm not going to bother to respond to you anymore.

[Lenovich]

1 hour ago, Lady Fitzgerald said:

Obviously, your mind is made up and you just won't listen to reason so I'm not going to bother to respond to you anymore

Sorry. but you know, truth is, in most DSLR on market ovf is small and dark. 

[Guest]

15 hours ago, Lenovich said:

Sorry. but you know, truth is, in most DSLR on market ovf is small and dark. 

EVF will at some point match OVF but that is a way off yet. Try using an EVF, and yes I have used many including A9,R etc, to track very fast subjects. There is lag, tearing and blur. It makes things a struggle where a decent OVF such as on a 7D2 is a much better prospect.

 

The times an EVF is at its worst is in the cold. They really struggle and eventually give up. I have had that happen when shooting in snow. Not only do they eat batteries but like any LCD the crystals just stop operating both in the VF and the rear screen. 
 

So while EVF will one day be as good, it is just not there yet.

[bowrilla]

You are aware, that your discussion has nothing to do with the original question?

 

Viewfinder > Display

• better Pixel density
• better readability
• in case of DSLRs with optical viewfinders (with the exception of some older Sony/Minoltas) the use of mechanical shutter
• lower battery consumption
• better stability and ergonomics
• diopter adjustment
• more robust

 

OVF vs EVF

The OVF always works, needs no batteries has superior resolution and no lag. The EVF offers exposure preview, no blackout because of a mirror blocking the optical path, more information can be displayed and overlayed. Usually DSLRs have still better point AF yet mirrorless cameras with EVFs offer stuff like face detect or eye AF. The EVF is also smaller and lighter, but then you most likely need to carry more batteries. I've rarely drained the batteries of my old 5d mkii yet I quickly drain those in my H1.

 

There is no clear winner. It all depends on personal preferences and your specific shooting style. Some of the advantages of EVFs or mirrorless cameras in general come with drawbacks as well - the more sophisticated AF methods need a lot more customization settings especially in AF-C mode, on a DSLR you simply put the point where you want it and go. There's rarely much to customize in the menues which makes shooting smoother and quicker.

 

Yes, the future is mirrorless - but that is still a while until we get to that point and it's not because of EVFs but the advantages of mirrorless cameras in general.

[Fetzie]

On 1/30/2020 at 8:53 PM, bowrilla said:

You are aware, that your discussion has nothing to do with the original question?

 

Yes, the future is mirrorless - but that is still a while until we get to that point and it's not because of EVFs but the advantages of mirrorless cameras in general.

I prefer my D500 with its optical viewfinder, because I can leave it turned on and focused at middle-distance for the entire day waiting for an animal to show and I don't have to worry about the battery dying on me while a mirrorless can barely do that for an hour or two. Plus I have the option of using the display for when I need super-accurate focussing (stars, macro and so on).

[Chrisokane]

Both OVF & EVF have their pros and cons, its just personal preference.

 

My partner has a Fuji X-T3, I have a Fuji X100F, Nikon D750 + a few film cameras I prefer the OVF over EVF anyday.

 

As for the 3" display if should only really be used for fine tuning your focus macro etc. Not street or sports as the AF in 'live view' is slower and there id usually noticeable lag. Others above have given better reasons to not use the rear display

[brandishwar]

On 1/25/2020 at 7:31 AM, bigmug said:

3. Visual isolation
When you look through the viewfinder, you see a bright, sharp image surrounded by a dark frame. Nothing distracting. No matter how bright the surrounding light, you'll always be able to see perfectly clearly through the viewfinder. A display could end up being difficult to use in very bright conditions, and even worse if light reflects off it.

Yes and no.

 

This is going to vary by camera since some are better at this than others. It's one reason a lot of pros have a larger, shaped eyepiece on their E/OVF. This is particularly a problem when shooting landscape orientation where the body of the camera can make it difficult to get your entire eye onto the OVF to where you have minimal light entry from the side. If you're outdoors, depending on what you're shooting and the orientation to the light source (e.g. the sun, any overhead lights if at night), this could create flaring or other optical defects in trying to sight through the viewfinder.

 

But at least those enhanced eyepieces aren't expensive or difficult to install. And the OVF is still better than live view on that mark, unless you have a cover over the display to prevent glare. But with DSLRs, trying to take photographs using live view is... far from optimal since there is a longer delay between shots and you may not be able to take shots in rapid succession, along with the battery drain.

[bigmug]

1 hour ago, JITIHAD said:

is it important to look in only on eye and take picture?

how is it better then look at 3 inch display to see whole image. 

Read points 1, 3 and 5 in my list in my first post above. That'll tell you why.

[D13H4RD]

On 1/27/2020 at 5:10 AM, Lenovich said:

No, obsolete because of wining of mirrorless systems. Did you ever try digital viewfinders? All sony A7 love them. All fuju users love them. There is no reasons to swich back to optical. how can you see somethimg in optical viewfinders, when digital camera can see a lot when set to ISO 100000. for example.

OVFs still have advantages. It is true that EVFs have gotten better over the years and for many types of shooting, might be preferable over an OVF. But there is one kind of photography where OVFs still have advantages, and that's high-tier action and sports photography. Reason? Instant response time. 

 

Each implementation has its pros and cons and I firmly believe that EVFs may soon be the default standard when mirrorless technology and EVFs improve as a whole. But to write off OVFs entirely would be a mistake. It may be "old-fashioned" but there's a reason many high-tier sports photographers still use 1DX-tier cameras. The Sony a9 and its successor is wonderful, and I'm sure that when EVF technology gets to the point where response times come ever closer still to the "flick" of an OVF, it will be a major champ. But as of right now, OVFs still have their place.

 

And I'm saying that having used the 5D4, S1R, X-T3, a7Riv, a9ii, D850 and more.

[D13H4RD]

On 1/25/2020 at 8:54 PM, giusgius said:

What is a purpose of small viewfinder ? is it important to look in only on eye and take picture?

how is it better then look at 3 inch display to see whole image. 

The main reason is going to be when shooting in areas where it's difficult to look at the LCD, such as direct sunlight. Assuming your eyecup is properly shaped and deep enough for your eye to look through without light leakage, it allows you to better look at your composition window without glare from bright light. It's also generally better ergonomically as you would be holding the camera in a more stable position, minimizing the potential risk of handshake blur ruining your shots.