The mirrorless versus SLR debate is the most hotly discussed topic in photography circles. One of the main reasons given for sticking to the SLR system is the superiority of the optical viewfinder (OVF). Over the past couple of years, I’ve started to question this point. In this article, I explore the areas where an electronic viewfinder (EVF) offers an advantage over on OVF.
I started photography at a time when the SLR system was the undisputed king. If you had told me then that 12 years later we’d be composing images using “the photo preview screen,” I would have laughed at you.
I stuck faithfully to the SLR system until the release of the Sony a7R II. At that point, I switched to using the Sony as my primary workhorse camera with my Canon 5DS serving as a backup.
After a year of using the Sony, due to a client requirement, I switched back to the SLR system with the Canon 1DX Mark II. I discovered that after a year of using the EVF of the Sony, I preferred using the EVF of the Canon. I now find myself in the position of only having SLRs, but hardly ever using the viewfinders. This is not a mirrorless versus SLR discussion, rather, it is why I prefer an electronic viewfinder regardless of the system that I’m using.
1. Accurate Composition
One of the great challenges we face as photographers is how to represent a three-dimensional world on a two-dimensional medium. We have a compositional guidelines, such as the use of leading lines, to help represent a three-dimensional world, but all too often, I would make compositions that were less than ideal when composing the OVF. One of the reasons for this is that the world is still three dimensional when looking through the OVF. In a single glance, I see my primary subject, but there are areas in the frame that are in my peripheral view.
When looking at the EVF, you’re looking at a flat image, effectively seeing the same two-dimensional view that the final image will show. This helps show up problem areas which can be fixed before taking the photograph.
Similarly, although the OVF on modern cameras show almost 100 percent of the frame, it is difficult to see the entire frame in a single glance while looking through the viewfinder. This meant that sometimes I would get unwanted elements cutting into the borders of my images. I’ve found the being able to see the entire composition in one quick view helps me to eliminate border distractions.
When we can see in three dimensions, we perceive depth. When viewing the image in two dimensions, it flattens the depth, meaning that the second stumps from the left appear to be one mishaped stump.
This was from a video shoot, meaning that I was using the EVF. As I could see the entire scene as a two-dimensional image, I could see the problem and recomposed the image.
2. Composition for Long Exposures
When using a 10-stop ND filter, it is impossible to see through the OVF. When I first started doing long exposures, I would compose without the filter, lock the composition and focus, and then drop in the filter to create the final image. This process got tedious very quickly, so I was elated to discover a better way.
My discovery happened completely by accident. With the 10-stop filter on, I accidentally pressed the live view button. To my surprise, a perfectly clear image appeared on the back of the camera, enabling me to compose and focus without having to remove the filter.
This extends to using graduated ND filters. As you drop the graduated filter down, the live view provides real-time feedback for when your exposure is perfectly balanced. This makes it easier to be accurate with the placement of the graduated filter.
When photographing any scene with water, I love doing long exposures to flatten out the texture of the water, simplying the composition. Using the EVF, I've been able to make the process of long exposures far more enjoyable.
3. Accurate Autofocus
I have a problem lens, a Canon 24mm f/1.4 that back-focuses. This means that the focal point is always slightly off, making the lens unusable at wide open apertures. I recently did a shoot where 90 percent of the images I shot were unusable.
You may be wondering what happened with the other 10 percent; How did a lens that back-focuses get anything correctly focused? On analysis, I discovered that for the images that were correctly focussed, I had used Live View.
This seemed too good to be true, so on my next shoot, I tested this. The results were conclusive. This problem lens was able to focus accurately 100 percent of the time when using Live View.
The reason for this is that Live View focuses by getting a reading off the sensor. "Normal" autofocus uses a special set of sensors placed in the light path between mirror and the eye piece. Therefore, it is subject to calibration issues like my back-focusing 24mm. Ryan Cooper explains in more detail in this article.
Live view is slower to focus than using the OVF, but it is more accurate. It also means that lenses do not need to be calibrated for perfect focus.
The top scene shows the example of back-focusing. Notice I have sharp brick work and an unsharp face. Using the EVF for the scene below, the autofocus proved to be accurate.
Better for Me
If you’re a photo journalist or sports photographer, I imagine you might be feeling frustrated with the content of this article. With the speed and fluidity that you’re working at, none of the reasons why I prefer the EVF are relevant. As a photographer primarily covering architecture and travel, I can afford to deliberate over my compositions. I’m mostly on a tripod, which makes working with an EVF even more suitable. For what I do, an EVF is almost always superior to an OVF. I would love to hear which situations you prefer using an OVF. Right now, having an SLR with an excellent Live View system gives me the best of both worlds, but if there are only few situations that call for the use of an OVF, one wonders if there is a future for the SLR system.
I’d love to hear how it goes for you William. Personally, I find it easier to see through the OVF, but then again, my cameras are quite old and EVF tech is always improving.
Focus peaking is amazing for fast manual focusing.
If i had to pick between the two I'd get the Z because as I see it, there's a higher ceiling for how that camera can be updated as new firmware updates come out that can add features to the EVF. With a traditional DLSR what you see is what you get.
But I'm probably not the best person to ask since I'm about ready to jump to a Fuji X system and don't find myself needing a complicated camera anymore. But I LOVE EVF.
I would just say that an EVF offers a lot of great tricks that could help. I have not experienced a moment where I missed an optical viewfinder but that's just me. I totally understand some people not seeing it as an advantage if they don't have a need for the new tricks.
For me, the absolute winning bonus of the EVF on my Z7 is due to my need for reading glasses to review the image on the back LCD of my D850. Without removing the camera from my eye, I can do a quick check on the shot image. No need for glasses, and no issues with sunlight glare on the LCD.
In fact, going back to the D850, I catch myself trying to do an image preview in the viewfinder. Doh.
I had something similar when I went from my Sony A7RII to my Canon 1DX Mark II. I kept trying to flip open the lcd on the Canon
I can't exist without a flip-LCD! Well, exaggerating a tad but you get my drift. Beats trying to squash yourself into the floor to get that low level shot you desire so badly.
I totally get you. I have to now back my camera into a corner and then wing it without seeing the composition.
Rob, having the ability of playing back images in the EVF is huge for us who wear reading glasses.
For me the reasons are, histogram on screen, rule of thirds grid, level meter, live exposure preview and even styles/film simulations if you use them, the ability to use focus peaking to get the image super sharp, and the general ability to customise the screen to show all info you require.
Oh and the EVF on the X-T2 is huge
Had the X-T2, sold it when I retired as Fuji X ambassador ;)
The Z7 is a huge step up from the X-T2, which was good.
All great reasons.
I thought I’d mention, I did a shoot after writing this article using both an OVF and EVF. I found using the OVF, that I was far more in the moment, somehow everything felt bigger and closer. That said, I used my dodgy 24mm which meant going to only EVF.
I use both, I don't think one is better than the other. They both have their pluses and minuses. I just roll with the tools at hand.
I’m the same - makes a good case to continue production of the SLR. It’s nice to have the OVF as an option
Same - I jump back and forth between OVF and EVF and it's just fine. The only time I ever notice is if I pick up one of my super-retro mirrorless cameras like the Panasonic G1, but anything 2014-ish or newer is pretty good.
I've been negative towards EVFs for a long time, as I adore the idea of looking through the lens, but recent developments in EVFs do show a lot of benefits - and I can understand why people prefer it. Give me a hybrid!
In the latest newsletter from Canon, you'll read the following paragraph: "With the EOS R, you can set the [electronic] viewfinder to black and white, which to me is a total game-changer," says Canon Ambassador and self-made professional photographer Helen Bartlett.
And that is something I'd really like to try out, and something that I didn't think about before.
For sure, I hadn’t thought of that, but I imagine if you do a lot of black and white, something like this will help you see scenes you could have previously overlooked.
Well.. With EVF you ARE looking through the lens it's just as the sensor looks through it and not reflected up through a prism. I bought into it since it take makes finding the right global exposure super easy without having to take the camera away from my eye.
Sony has had the Black and White EVF option for a while.
"With EVF you ARE looking through the lens"
Sure, that's the effect, but it's not the same.
I hear ya
The newer EVFs are great. I have a camera with one, and I love using it.
Personally, I haven't shot with any of the latest EVFs but the previous generation still was making me a bit queasy and the lag drove me insane. The features are phenomenal, as soon as I can look through an EVF and not get nauseous, I'm sold. (Though, I also need to be sold on swapping out thousands of dollars in Nikon glass ;) )
why swap the glass? just use the FTZ Adapter?!
Based on how things are, right now, Id change brands if I was going to move to an EVF
curious to read where you would switch to. I still have the feeling that if you look BESIDES spec sheets that the Nikon Zs are excellent cameras with way higher usability / more fun than the Sonys.
A switch is always super expensive and I have the feeling that the benefits you might get are marginal but the cost is so high.
Personally, at this moment, I'd probably go with Sony due to the AF features alone but I'd evaluate at the time by doing a bunch of renting first to see which system I like best.
it is for sure a good idea to be renting different systems to see if you like it or not. I have heard of quite some people who were dissatisfied with the Sonys regarding usability. Also Nikon is catching up in terms of AF. Soon the Zs will have Eye-AF as well.
My Fuji x100t has both evf and optical rangefinder, I don’t understand why we can’t have both. On a nice day I like optical to save batteries, at night or events in bad light I want an evf. Why do we need to make the camera smaller and remove the mirrors?
As much as I understand the whole amazing features of EVF, it will never convince me that looking at the monitor, no matter how good its resolution is, better than looking through the view-finder. (also EVF sucks in studio work, but I havent tried the newest Z line or S1R yet, hopefuly they will be more bearable. and if so I will probably have em as sub cameras, but only as a sub)
I know, the argument is close to stupid argument of film vs digital..., but monitor vs window? Maybe its just me - but I cant take portraits of a person "seriously" looking through EVF. Though EVF maybe a life saver in complicated situations with manual lenses... still for me its a recent problem - bigger sensors - makes out-of-focus pictures more apparent. But sharp does not always equals better.
with OVF I am able to do anything... I "know" how to expose. I "know" how camera behaves. EVF makes me lazy, like google does :) - all the answers are there, no time to learn for yourself. You know what I mean?
I can "see" in BW if I need to :) - thats why I am a photographer. OVF makes me present, at the moment. With EVF I am all about calculation, "design", "professionalism" - which is boring, for me at least.
I dont know if it makes any sense to you guys.
I cannot agree more.
And I have a really strange feeling about the 1st bullet point of this article.
I did not know dSLR were offering binocular vision through one eye + one lense system. Really amazing how advanced technology we had for many years and puzzled why 'LCD' or flat technology is getting praised !!!
Joke apart, for me point 1 & 2 are nowhere any valid point to praise EVF versus OVF as they are both excuses to shell out tons of cash to change a dSLR system for a mirrorless and its native set of lenses.
3rd point about the more accurate AF, I still have to find any interest into ultra shallow portrait where the model has one eye in focus but not the second one. And if you are closing near f/4 or f/5.6 your 105 or 135mm, I never had any AF reliability with recent serious dSLR cameras. But go figure, I guess I am already too old for making anything in focus without the latest gear available...
As already told, I would like an hybrid viewfinder, OVF for everything usual and EVF for really low light work or manual focus lens usage. All the joke about the 'real exposure' or live histogram are lousy arguments => real exposure but below 5EV shadow recovery capability is a sensor failure, seriously ?
I did not had the chance too look into Pana S1 EVF, but I think we are getting more serious with them than the experience I had with SONY A7 and A7r2, with their ugly non native panel resolution video streams and still too slow refresh rates
Makes perfect sense. As a studio photographer, the OVF is still king.
I switched to EVF when I switched from Canon to Sony Mirrorless. The entire experience was so different that the EVF seemed a small factor then. Today, I can't imagine being without it.
Neither the OVF or the EVF is capable of giving true three dimensions since you only use one eye it is a single point of reference add that the minor is as flat as the EVF as well. But we have seen prints that look almost three dimensional when we know they technically can't be. In full disclosure, I don't have stereo vision, so technically I can't see in 3D, nonetheless - I get the perception of 3D.
Keith, pretty much my same experience!
This why I love my EOS R. The AF is super accurate. As an architectural photographer I love being able to preview the ambient exposure to check composition(as you noted) and also to see where I need to add light or make a compensating exposure.