In an era where electronic viewfinders have dominated most mirrorless cameras, it may seem old-fashioned to still use a DSLR camera with an optical viewfinder. Yet, as someone who has spent more than a decade behind the lens, constantly switching between mirrorless and DSLR, I still find myself drawn to the simplicity and authenticity of the optical viewfinder.
Unlike electronic viewfinders, which rely heavily on digital previews, the optical viewfinder offers a direct, unaltered view of the world, creating a seamless and natural shooting experience. This connection to the scene, free from digital distractions and unaffected by settings like white balance or exposure, is something I believe every photographer should experience. In this article, I’ll explain why the optical viewfinder remains my go-to choice even after a decade of experimenting with electronic viewfinders and why it deserves a place in your photography journey too.
A Seamless Shooting Experience with the Optical Viewfinder
One of the greatest advantages of using an optical viewfinder is its ability to deliver an entirely seamless and intuitive shooting experience. Unlike an electronic viewfinder, which relies on electronic panels to display a processed digital preview of your scene, the optical viewfinder offers a direct, unfiltered view of the world as seen through the lens. This means what you see through the optical viewfinder is precisely what your eyes naturally perceive, unaffected by settings such as white balance, exposure adjustments, or digital overlays, making it easy to focus purely on framing and composition.
This intuitive process mirrors the way we naturally see the world and helps photographers stay immersed in their environment while shooting. By looking directly at the scene without any digital interpretation, you can better anticipate movements, light changes, or fleeting moments, ensuring you stay connected with the action in front of you.
Good Visibility in Low Light and Challenging Conditions
One of the often-overlooked strengths of the optical viewfinder is its ability to provide clear visibility regardless of lighting conditions. Despite the constant improvements in electronic viewfinders over the years, I still personally struggle to see my subject in low light or under harsh tungsten lighting. This is because, in low-light situations, electronic viewfinders may introduce noise or lag as they amplify the scene preview digitally, making it harder to focus and compose with precision. The optical viewfinder, on the other hand, doesn’t require any digital processing as it simply lets in the available light, offering a clean and immediate view of the scene.
Additionally, under strong tungsten lighting or other high-contrast conditions, electronic viewfinders can sometimes distort color or overcompensate in brightness, leading to an unnatural representation of the scene. The optical viewfinder remains unaffected by these issues, allowing you to see the true color and light interplay in real time. This clarity helps you make accurate decisions about exposure, composition, and focus without second-guessing what the camera's screen is showing.
Independence and Battery Efficiency
Another significant advantage of the optical viewfinder is its ability to function independently of the camera's power, offering convenience and efficiency. Unlike an electronic viewfinder or LCD screen, which requires the camera to be powered on to display the scene digitally, the optical viewfinder allows you to compose and assess your shots at any time without switching on the camera. This independence makes it an invaluable tool for photographers who want to plan their shots meticulously or simply observe their surroundings without draining the camera’s battery.
Even when the camera is powered on, the optical viewfinder has minimal impact on battery usage, as it operates purely through an optical system rather than a digital display. This contrasts sharply with electronic viewfinders, which rely on continuous power to project a digital image and can quickly deplete the camera's battery, especially during extended shoots.
As an on-location commercial photographer, this battery efficiency can be a game-changer. When setting up complex shots that require hours of preparation for on-location product photography, having the ability to compose through the optical viewfinder without consuming much power is crucial, as we do not want to burn through battery after battery before capturing the final shot. Additionally, this benefit can be a lifesaver during outdoor shoots or travel assignments where access to charging options is limited, allowing you to focus on creativity without worrying about battery constraints.
Nostalgia and Reliability in Simplicity
Lastly, to me personally, the optical viewfinder is more than just a tool for composition. It’s a link to the roots of photography, evoking a sense of nostalgia in the way we create photographs, reminiscent of the film days. The tactile, analog nature of the optical viewfinder offers a timeless charm, reminding photographers of the simplicity and reliability of mechanical systems, making the optical viewfinder not just a functional choice but also a sentimental one with deep personal attachment.
Looking beyond its nostalgic value, the optical viewfinder’s design also inherently involves fewer electronic components compared to electronic viewfinders. This simplicity translates to a reduced risk of electronic malfunctions or failures, an important consideration for photographers who rely on their gear in extreme environments or long-term shooting conditions. With fewer circuits and displays to worry about, cameras with optical viewfinders tend to be more robust and less prone to the wear and tear associated with electronic systems, making them suitable for photographers who value longevity and low-maintenance gear.
Conclusion
The optical viewfinder represents a timeless blend of functionality, reliability, and emotional connection that I believe continues to resonate with photographers even in today’s digital era dominated by electronic viewfinders. From delivering a seamless shooting experience to excelling in challenging lighting conditions, conserving battery life, and offering unmatched simplicity, the optical viewfinder holds its ground as a valuable tool in modern photography. For those who cherish the tactile and authentic aspects of the craft, the optical viewfinder is more than a feature—it’s an irreplaceable companion that we will miss when it is phased out completely.
Do you think the optical viewfinder still has a place in a world increasingly dominated by electronic viewfinders, or is it time to fully embrace the shift to digital? Let me know your thoughts and experiences.
I've had this discussion on another site, with lovers of the older Viewfinders. When I first bought my mirrorless camera, it natively doesn't come with a viewfinder, and after a while, I understand why. Of course when I purchased it (Canon EOS M6 Mark II), I bought the extra viewfinder attachment. After many years of using the camera, I realized that I wasn't picking up my camera and putting it to my face anymore. I was relying much more on the rear-LCD screen... that I trusted more and more... and I learned how to use and compose from. I think the idea that you need to put the camera to your face is left over from a by-gone era. Then sometimes I'm shooting not with my finger on the camera, but with the camera up on a monopod, or tripod, and my finger is on my cellphone, that is blutooth'd to the camera... So the composition is on the LCD screen, but the trigger is somewhere else. So I get why you want 'Nostalgic roots', but technology is at your fingertips. Of course technology doesn't win you a great picture... During the Solar-Eclipse, I had my camera attached to my Surface, because I needed a bigger screen to make sure the manual-focus was correct. What I'm getting at here is, I don't think the Viewfinder provides any advantage over the LCD.
optical Viewfinder looks way better on day light ( hard light ) shots as with the current EVFS you get to see way more in the shadows than ANY evf that I have used. In those situations I tend to underexpose on purpose, something that makes the evf a guesswork a bit. That being said, I shoot on mirrorless only.
I notice this too George. There is a way to counter that as EVF is essentially the JPEG preview. So depending on the camera you use, you could tune the jpeg settings to lift up the shadow. But with that you may just risk compromising other factors. And its true having use the EVF, we tend to just expose for the highlights because of how our brain works again seeing blown out highlights in screens. but with OVF, we will see things how we normally see therefore subconsciously transfer the exposure to the way we shoot.
Thank you for the tip, I do that already Zhen! Looking forward to HDR, EVFS!
I believe its coming soon!
It looks like this to me. When I look through a viewfinder, I have the other eye closed. This means I block out the surroundings much more and am more focused on the image than when I use the screen at the back.
The second thing is that the analog viewfinder of a DSLR is much more comfortable, especially when I'm out and about at night, photographing the night sky or nightscapes, and my eyes have become completely accustomed to the darkness. I can see the image much more clearly through the viewfinder of the DSLR. The viewfinder or screen of my MSLR produces almost nothing but noise and I often can't see anything at all. In addition, the illumination of the digital viewfinder disturbs the eye, which is adapted to the dark.
100% agree and align with my experience.
I use tethered shooting style a lot on my commercial work but even then I will still try to compose first through the viewfinder (optical or electronic) and fine tune the composition using a geared head. I find it easier and faster as I could see everything clearly. Having use both type of viewfinder for over 15 years I understand both their advantage and disadvantages very well and do use them side by side in my practice. Its just deep inside I personally still am bias towards optical viewfinder
For my personal work I love the real-world view provided by my Leica M. For my professional work however, I prefer an EVF which lets me know if my exposure and composition are correct.
Work vs Hobby haha I used to be like you. Now I am the other way round. Using OVF for my work camera and EVF for fun hobby camera.
I completely agree with you. That's why I still use my Nikon DSLR. Especially when I'm out and about at night.
I switched my main camera back to DSLR after 7 years of using mirrorless as my main camera for work. Now i just use mirrorless as my hobby camera. As they are fun to play with just not as fun when it comes to work
--- "This is because, in low-light situations, electronic viewfinders may introduce noise or lag as they amplify the scene preview digitally, making it harder to focus and compose with precision."
In today, these types of complaints sounds like hyperbole. It just sounds like you are regurgitating how the first EVFs were almost two decades ago.
Back in 2012 when I was getting into photography and looking for my first camera, I hated OVFs. They are too damn dark.
Then, around 2016, my brother bought a Canon 5DS R and I was playing around with it. I hated the OVF. It's too damn dark.
Lastly, around 2021, my buddy lent me his Canon 60D (or maybe 6D) to second shoot with him on his wedding gig, I hated the OVF. It's too damn dark.
For me, I want things bright and clear. I want to be able evaluate the scene quickly and with the help of the histogram and zebras.
Each of us have our preference and used case. In your case EVF might just be the answer to your needs
Looks to me like you always wear sunglasses...
and have the brightness on the EVF set to max. 😉
Looks like you need to work on your deductive reasoning. I never wear sunglasses even when we're at the beach or desert. You know why? Because I want things bright and clear. XD
While EVFs still have their limitations, compared to the older generations of them, they have improved greatly to a point where they are fast enough and have enough dynamic range and a response curve that allows them handle manual exposure in most situations where a user may be shooting with the goal of post processing. Overall they have reached a point where the benefits outweigh the limitations.
Agree that they have improved across the years and in fact I am still using them as they grow. Its just a personal preference and habit I tend to fall back to OVF
I use both ( canon EOS 6D and EOS R). When I got my Eos R one of the first things I shot was a sunrise using a 70-200, I left it pointed at the sun , not a problem with the dslr, but it burned a small spot into the sensor of the R. Now I wait for the perfect moment, remove the lens cap and quickly replace it when I use the R for sunrises/sunsets. I’m not sure about this but when shooting nightscapes , I have more hot pixels on the mirrorless camera, maybe it is because the sensor is also working to feed the evf and gets hotter than on the DSLR.
I do love having the histogram in the EVF, but preserving the highlights makes the shadows hard to judge in high contrast situations. When doing high pace shooting like at events I love how easy it is to get a proper exposure with the EVF. I also hardly use the back screen (only when shooting ground level or high up) , always using the viewfinder to compose, I think it’s easier to spot distracting objects on the sides of the frame.
So in short, I love both the EVF and OVF and viewfinder above rear screen.
On the mechanic side of things, a DSLR has a lot more moving parts, I think they will fail more easily than electronics.
Yes, the EVF will be easy for you to look through the frame towards the sun but you may risk burning your sensor especially with a super telephoto lens, I have got a few friends experiencing the same thing. But with OVF, you may burn your eye haha so depending on application I do switch between OVF and EVF. And yes I do notice the hot pixels too when shooting night scene but they are negligible with the latest technology.
Looking at the bright side, DSLR is now cheaper to maintain and repair. Until there are no more parts or technicians available. but that is going to take probably 2 decades. Mirrorless is a hassle to repair. Even replacing a small part cost a bomb
There are a few rules about pointing any camera straight at the sun. Even a DSLR. If the sun is still too bright and not shaded by clouds, you always risk your sensor (or mirror). This is why everyone uses heavy filters up to a few seconds before and after totality. Also it is of course more dangerous for you eyes with a DSLR than using a mirrorless EVF or the LCD. I have even heard of guys having eye problems after getting an accidental Sun reflection from one of those Starlink Satellites, when using a long lens. Generally the closer the sun is to the ground, you 'may' be ok, as long as enough of the earth's atmosphere and/or clouds preventing the Sun from being blindingly bright. A decent rule of Thumb is... if your able to look that direction without too much squinting, than your probably ok. If your 'squinting' because of how bright it is, and you need Sun Glasses, than you start to judge if you need to start using different filters to protect your sensor. The longer the lens, the bigger the issue can become too.
There are cases where the aperture of the lens gets burn too not just the sensor or our eyes. Photographing the sun is really a risky task
For a DSLR the damage of sun exposure is harder to notice since the damage happens in areas that are not visible. though it takes more exposure to cause damage.
For example, when the OVF is used, part of the light is directed to the eyepiece, and part is directed using a pellicle mirror, down to the phase detect module, which is made of the same types of components as the CMOS sensor, only difference is that it is receiving around half of the light instead of 100% of it like with a mirrorless camera.
True! I am always wary when it comes to photographing directly to the sun. If I am squinting and struggling to see, what makes my camera bullet proof under the sun
I wonder if he's ever used a camera with a high-quality EVF? Honestly, in low light an EVF is far superior since it can brighten an image aiding composition. OVFs have no such ability.
What I noticed is the EVF/LCD is pretty good about showing you what the final picture will be in "Many Cases". But there are always exceptions to this... and the technology does keep improving, as cameras keep improving. But I think night-photography and long-exposures are where the EVF/LCD can fool you into thinking you have an OK shot, and you don't quite have the right settings yet. But of course it's far superior to what you have looking OVF.
I don't think we can rely on EVF/Live preview to judge the exposure of the image. Simply because its too dark for the sensor to gain enough sensitivity for the ambient light for the preview. Even if it does, the highlights of the scene will be so blown out to a point that is annoying or the darkest part of the scene will be so noisy that you could barely see any details. The best way for now is still to shoot and check your final image. Of course, as technology improves, this may be a back story soon. We shall wait until that day when it happens.
well I say, you don't know really how good your image is until you get it on your computer screen. The check you do on your LCD is only a guess... "oh, that looks pretty good" Then you get back home, and you come to find, that it's a "toss away".
Yes.. I would say on the field so far all my image exposure are guess work from experience. I shoot it in a way by judging how much information I want to recover and are they necessary to recover in post work. And just use the previews or viewfinders for things that I can control which is the subject placement, framing, and perspective control. That also means I am tossing away 80% of the frames I shoot when culling images at my computer.
Just review the image to check exposure. An OVF gives you no clue as to the exposure of the final image.
It overall depends on your goal and how you are using the camera. For example, if you have a good sense of the light levels and know what manual settings you generally need, then an OVF can be useful in showing you the light levels in the frame, where some EVs may be overly bright and not represent the scene fully, especially in cases where the light meter may be fooled, or not representative of the elements you find most important on the subject. Often it is close enough since even at higher ISOs, many cameras will capture enough dynamic range to correct most issues.
In those cases, seeing a true representation of the scene, will sometimes make it easier to make adjustments in those edge cases. Though those situations have become more and more rare, since mirrorless cameras have gotten exponentially better in metering the scene, and at least with higher end models, the EVF is well calibrated to a point where visible clipping in the EVF, often means that you have about 1.5 stops of recovery in the raw file, thus rather easy to adapt to in challenging situations.
Well said, and its totally a personal preference to prefer one over the other. I still am using both types of camera and using them for different use cases.
For such a specific use case, I could opt for live view in the camera that has OVF, that way I could have both options. While EVF is good, there are still limitations but if it works for you then thats great
What exactly are these limitations you speak of?
Try shooting into harsh lighting condition and see both shadow and highlights, often times you can only choose to see one or another.
I always, let me reiterate, ALWAYS use optical over electronic viewing. Even with my mirrorless cameras. The view is much better and, to me, more relìable.
Yes likewise
And how is it better. Please expand.
As for the reliability how can you say an optical viewfinder is more reliable? What form does this unreliability manifest itself in an electronic viewfinder? I would love to know as I along with many other photographers rely exclusively on EVFs. Should we be concerned?
Apparently, you can see old Zhen Siang Yang staring out his window of an evening as he prefers its authenticity to the digital non-reality of his TV.
Now, I’ve read some right old tosh over the years on this site, but old Zhen Siang Yang not only takes the biscuit but demolishes the whole packet.
When you see a reviewer writing
“ This independence makes it an invaluable tool for photographers who want to plan their shots meticulously or simply observe their surroundings without draining the camera’s battery.”
Draining the camera battery! More like scrapping the bottom of the barrel to find some excuse for his Luddite views.
I don’t know about old Zhen Siang Yang, but I tend to use my independence by just looking using my eyes, much better than having a camera in front of my face. I once more have to wonder what goes on in the minds of these reviewers who appear to suggest that all photography is done in the way that they do it. It’s not. This whole argument, in my view, is a totally meaningless non-argument that fails to understand and take into account the sheer diversity of photography. In the end, composing a shot is composing a shot with the only important element being the image produced. I wonder how Zhen Siang Yang, at the end of the day, can stand looking at the unreality of it all on his computer monitor?
He, of course, fails to mention the whole reason why camera design has moved away from one that requires a moving mirror flapping around inside the camera body for every shot, unless locked up.
Ask yourself what is the point of a viewfinder?
It’s to help compose the image and see exactly what the sensor will capture. Does the electronic viewfinder and articulating screen allow that? If you feel your grasp on reality slipping, one only has to raise or move one’s head to simply look.
There have always been and will always be people who bemoan the passing of ‘X’ and scoff at the ‘Y’ that has replaced it. They believe that somehow something ‘real and authentic’ has been lost. Just think about the whole analogue to digital question, film to sensor. This is simply just one of those situations where a pointless and meaningless debate has been created out of nothing.
Answer me this question, Zhen Siang Yang. If I were to show you a range of prints or images on a screen, could you tell which ones were taken using an optical viewfinder?
In the act of taking a photograph, are you seriously saying the image presented to your eye using an electronic viewfinder is so different from that of an optical that it impacts the quality of your taken image?
In the end, unless you print your images, that are after all, offer an unreality of paper covered in ink, you will be compelled to surrender authentic reality by viewing your images on a variety of screens.
I would say to any beginner or novice photographer, ignore this tosh and instead get to grips with the real difficulties that photography presents, as they are many. Photography is hard and fraught enough without engaging with this nonsense.
Hi Eric, thanks for taking the time to write such a long comment to state your point. First of all, this article is meant to be an opinion and not a review which means it’s a personal opinion. Not sure if you get that going through the article. And by personal opinion, I do not suggest that the way I shoot is the way to do it as highlighted by you once again as an argument.
You may be having a bad day there, I’m sorry if you really do but no one is trying to argue by stating opinions and preference and sharing it to the world. Everyone is invited to agree or disagree but no one is arguing here.
When mentioning about viewing the end result through my monitor, I’m doing it perfectly just as well. There’s nothing unreality about it. Again in this article, we’re discussing about the organic process of photographing.
“This is simply just one of those situations where a pointless and meaningless debate has been created out of nothing.” - May I suggest to “If you feel your grasp on reality slipping, one only has to raise or move one’s head to simply look.”
Lastly to answer your question, of course there will be no difference as it reflects the end results. The entire article only highlights the difference in the process of photographing. And no we also did not suggest it’ll affect the image quality. Though probably that has been planted in your head in the beginning when going through the article. You may also check my standpoint in the comment section where I highlighted hot pixels difference are minimal.
Just so you know, I have nothing against EVF, and half of my camera collection has EVF.
Yes, photography is hard enough by itself and trust me I learn everything from zero. Instead of viewing this entire article negatively. May I suggest to read it with an open mind. You may not find value in it but for someone else who is looking to find values or experiment with different photographic approach to find their style may find this useful.
Thanks for commenting Mr Eric
So what was it you were trying to say? Is it that you just enjoy looking through an optical viewfinder more?
More to the point what was your motivation in publishing your opinion and sharing it with the world ? If you have an opinion that you keep to yourself then fine. You decided however that the world should know about your opinion. In that situation you can’t go and complain when someone else challenges your opinion especially when you take the hump and go all sulky saying I’ve had a bad day. I’ve not had a bad day thanks, Instead I’m challenging your opinion. If you can’t take the heat man, stay out the kitchen. But that’s just my opinion.
well you don't have to get rough about it, I thought his overall point was really about "nostalgia", and it was the way he was used to doing it, and he didn't like to change to the newer tech.
To be honest, I adapted into the whole EVF thing a decade ago and only recently went back to the OVF. The purpose was simple, to experiment how the workflow changes affect my work. "Will convenience make me lazy?, etc etc." For now when given a choice I still work the old way. But I do constantly adapt the new way of shooting too, its just for a specific use case, I still prefer the old way. The old way process just helps me think and judge the condition better. And by sharing it out there, I hope people would get some value from it and for those who wish to get to the roots of photography, they can do just that. There are a lot more thoughts behind that I could barely cover in an article and hopefully do it in the future. It's just that people don't read it with an open mind and some just gets protective over the title.
If you pop your head over the parapet on a public forum and make some dubious pronouncement you have to prepared to accept what ever comes back. Never expect the world to agree with you for if you do you’ll be disappointed.
The whole argument that an optical viewfinder gives a more ‘authentic’ view of the world makes no sense. A photon is a photon. Is Zhen saying there is a difference in authenticity he can detect between the two sets of photons? The electronic viewfinders in the Sony cameras I use as far as I can make out offer a view of the world that is every bit as good as I see with my unaided eyes. To come out and state on a public forum there is some mythical difference between optical and electronic viewfinders that can impact the final photography is akin to no more than superstitious mumbo jumbo. I wonder if Zhen has a photography tin foil hat handy when taking photographs.
Some people at heart are superstitious and this to me speaks of no more than some deep seated superstition Zhen has that has manifested itself in some belief around viewfinders. A local saying from where I’m from says ; there is nothing stranger than folk. Having said that Zhen is not alone as we are all strange in our unique and varied ways.
I'm with you, i like tech (when I can afford it...). As said, I think you speak about him in a mean-tone... Remember there are people who still prefer to shoot film. Just like in music, there are people who still prefer to listen to turn-tables, and they will defend it too, saying the sound is warmer.. regardless of later devices or even digital reproductions ability to produce 'objectively' better sound. You mentioned 'Superstition', but that might be apart of it. The idea that some feel they can produce a good-enough picture or better picture without the latest tech is 'OK'. Like 'Luke', when he puts away the Targeting Computer.
Well, I still standby my opinion and encourage viewers to share their thoughts with an open mind. After all, photography skillsets can only grow through open discussions not argument. Why even read forums or article if you are not here to learn and share. But when it's a personal attack, I will not tolerate that and will stop responding.
Why I won't read any article about "Why I Still Prefer the Optical Viewfinder Over the Electronic Viewfinder"
1. electronic viewfinders give us more information, so they're OBJECTIVELY better tools (period)
2. that doesn't mean that someone can't WEIRDLY prefer an optical viewfinder, but then, some people like to pay a sweaty German woman to call them names.
I don't have to have someone EXPLAIN to me why they prefer a LESS EFFECTIVE TOOL. We all know people who pick bad tools exist. The best selling camera is a friggin Canon Rebel T7. Humans ON AVERAGE, aren't very smart.
If we spend our time listening to people who make bad decisions, explain their bad decisions, we have less time to spend listening to people who make GOOD decisions, explain those ;)
Haha, love the last paragraph.
Nothing related to photography but this got me thinking, how do we know if we are listening to people who make good decisions without knowing the bad decisions first. And if humans on average aren't very smart....
I wear glasses and I don't like holding the camera to my face so this is a nonstarter for me but at the same time I hope that camera manufacturers adopt displays with brightness and contrast comparable to smartphone vendors because I can NEVER see the LCD well in bright sunny conditions. Extremely annoying, especially for a $4k camera that should not compromise on any detail.