DSLRs are dead ... long live "3rd gen cameras" ?

[Kym]

Mainstream film is dead, now DSLRs are going to be dead, and we now have "3rd generation" (EVIL, Mirror-less etc) cameras.
Well according to Trey Ratcliff that is what will happen next.

http://www.1001noisycameras.com/2012/01/trey-ratcliff-proclaims-the-upcoming-death-of-dslrs.html
http://www.stuckincustoms.com/2012/01/04/dslrs-are-a-dying-breed-3rd-gen-cameras-are-the-future

My take is that until
a) "3rd generation" sensors goto 35mm or bigger
b) The range of quality glass to suit "3rd generation" cameras is available
DSLRs wont have much to worry about.

The cost of changing system is high, so the change over will take some years, but I think in 10 years time DSLRs won't be the ant's pants.

Let the rumours and speculations be posted in this thread :efelant:

[ameerat42]

As usual, such announcements are painfully hyperbolic; full of "eureka!" and "I-see-the-light-ery", not to mention generalisations, and "I-said-it-firsts".
I agree with your points, Kym, though I HAPE mirror boxes in digital cameras. (Sure, they were once the go, but I have never been happy with the slappery of a mirror.)

So far I have not bought (and even worse, not even been given) a DSLR, predominantly because of their bare-faced bulkiness. (Boy, if I want bulk I have the RB67 to lug about!)

Well, here's to the advent of EVIL (as an acronym, of course).
:beer_mug:m.

[Wayne]

I think that EVIL camera systems will evolve quickly, because to the mainstream user, and courtesy of marketers, the average joe will think they can get DSLR quality and features in smaller, cheaper, lighter systems.
The problem here is that we know it isn't true..yet.
All of the things Kym mentioned I agree with, but I will add that EVILS tend to be menu or GUI based for changing settings etc and that is part of their reason for being compact, but when a DSLR can change shutter speed, aperture, ISO, focus and metering modes with the single press of a button in many cases, they are far more suited to serious shooters, particularly those shooting sports or fast paced things like weddings, fashion, in addition the DSLR can shoot many frames/sec and some with large buffers, EVILS don't.

I think DSLR's are safe for a few years yet..

[etherial]

Yes DSLRs are safe for a few years, but I think the EVIL market will develop rapidly. I know I'm keeping an eye on them. The prospect of very high fps and a long lens in a smaller package is attractive, but until they can reach comparative performance in terms of focus speed and sensor performance to my 7D I won't be buying one. I reckon maybe 5 years.

[peterb666]

I think EVIL cameras will make huge inroads along with fixed mirror cameras and other technologies like electronic shutters.

I think the tradition dSLR will be with us for a long time but entry level dSLRs will largely be replaced by EVIL cameras. EVIL cameras will also bridge the premium market between dSLRs and premium rangefinders like the Leica M series.

I think all of this is good as it offers more choice.

[KLi]

I could never stand electronic viewfinders.

[mikec]

I completely agree Kym. I know Sony are getting up there with their latest NEX offerings, Fuji is also developing something (http://dancarrphotography.com/blog/2012/01/05/fujis-interchangeable-lens-camera-the-x-pro-1/) that looks quite promising.

Until glass and sensors can match DSLR offerings I won't bother switching but it'd be nice to have a more compact yet just as capable system.

[arthurking83]

I agree that the DSLR's days are basically numbered.
Complicated mechanics and fragile tolerances .. all add up to increase production costs, so the first real tech breakthrough that manufacturers find to replace the venerable mirror system, would be ideal for improving bottom line profitability.

The question is how long before this high quality electronic viewfinder technology overtakes optical superiority... not so much if
If you believe reports about the Sony A77, most reviewers praise the quality of the viewfinder system .. and this is in effect only a second generation, low order EVF.
One would expect higher quality for an EVF within the likes of a fully professional body.

I'd find that a slimmer body type would actually be counter intuitive(for me at least) .. in that removing the space where the mirror used to lie, and creating a slimmer body would make it more uncomfortable for me to hold the camera/lens combo.
The size of most pro camera's seem to fit the size of my hand perfectly, whereas I find smaller cameras(D90 sized) to be uncomfortable, as I have to hold the body more so with my fingertips, instead of naturally allowing it to rest in the palm of the hand.

[mikec]

I'd find that a slimmer body type would actually be counter intuitive(for me at least) .. in that removing the space where the mirror used to lie, and creating a slimmer body would make it more uncomfortable for me to hold the camera/lens combo.
The size of most pro camera's seem to fit the size of my hand perfectly, whereas I find smaller cameras(D90 sized) to be uncomfortable, as I have to hold the body more so with my fingertips, instead of naturally allowing it to rest in the palm of the hand.

I agree but surely if they were making a dedicated pro body they would ensure the ergonomics are still there otherwise it would be a flop since it is one of the many things that make a pro body pro.

[etherial]

Leaves plenty of room for the extra battery power that will be needed and the other things we yearn for like wifi and GPS and SSD and.....

[beau]

I've heard rumours that Sony is quite advanced at putting together a pro body with the Alpha77 viewfinder technology. Complete with 25-odd MP full frame sensor that will use it's current range of full frame Zeiss lenses. Might explain why they haven't been forthcoming with an update of the 900 body which is now a few years old.

No idea how true it is, but it makes sense, as they see this new viewfinder as their next big thing.

[Steve Axford]

Who cares what technology is dominant. A photographer will always go for the system that takes the best photos, most easily, at a reasonable price.

[peterb666]

Who cares what technology is dominant. A photographer will always go for the system that takes the best photos, most easily, at a reasonable price.

That doesn't explain why Canon and Nikon dominate the dSLR market. :rolleyes:

[Xenedis]

As I see it, there are numerous camera markets out there, some of which are still evolving.

Perhaps the compact, EVIL camera will appeal more to the mainstream point-and-shooter, who simply wants decent images from a device which isn't too cumbersome to carry everywhere. Of course, the iPhone provides that for a lot of people, in a device which people are carrying anyway. That makes it perfect for snapshots.

I think advanced amateurs and professionals will always want something with a bigger sensor and a wide choice in lenses and peripherals, not to mention manual controls.

Bigger sensors generally mean better image quality, and until EVIL cameras can achieve sensor sizes and the low noise levels of cameras like the EOS 5D Mark II, full-frame and APS-H DSLRs will dominate those markets.

Digital medium-format systems are still horrendously expensive, which puts them out of mainstream reach for advanced amateurs and indeed many professionals.

For my own photography, I cannot say I'm particularly concerned by, or even interested in, developments in photographic equipment.

I have more than enough to do what I need and want to do, and I'd rather be out there using the gear than reading and talking about it.

[sunny6teen]

I'm still waiting for video to kill the radio star

[arthurking83]

Who cares what technology is dominant. A photographer will always go for the system that takes the best photos, most easily, at a reasonable price.

I'm not sure that (at the moment) anyone really cares which technology is dominant.
(anyone with an objective view on the subject won't)
But there is going to be a day when people may have to concern themselves about it.

it's obvious that there are many that simply refuse to allow the advancement in technology to take it course, and see digital vf technology as an unnecessary EVIL(pun intended :p)
What is almost inevitable is that digital vf's will replace optical vf's as this hardware will become cheaper for manufacturers to produce.

The A77 has shown that with digital vf technology, the vf experience can be enhanced in ways that the optical tech could never achieve(effectively) .. that is size and magnification of the vf .. apart from some of the neat tricks it also allows for.
As the tech evolves, more advantages in the technology will become evident as improvements are made and refinements are tuned in.

So to extrapolate this idea further and to predict a likely future scenario, I'm sure that it's only a matter of time when all DSLR's will become EVIL.
But if it gets to the point where all new DSLR's are made with digital viewfinders and there is no option to go with an optical viewfinder, OVF diehards will become displaced, and will not have any option for a camera upgrade path at this point in the future.

Note that I agree with your comments and this is not a rebuttal.

Just a reminder that not all photographers will always go for the system that takes better photos irrespective of the technology used.

Many still refuse to believe that digital imagery is superior to film, and will cling to this belief no matter what.
My belief is that there are always photographers out there that will endure all the negative aspects of of their favoured system, irrespective of the advantages that the new system will provide.


Xenedis: It's only a matter of time before you will find an option for an EVIL full frame camera of some sort.


I still believe that while the advantages of the digital viewfinder don't outweigh the disadvantages the technology introduces(dynamic range and contrast), once this hurdle is fully overcome I personally can't wait to use one for the advantages it will bring.

My current curiosity only extends to how well the A77's EVF works compared to my current camera. And only then, as a guide as to how long into the future I may have to wait for one from Nikon.

Something of note that has not really been discussed much in any of the D4 threads across all the forums I've read on the device, is that of the new review screen's capability.
Nikon are not only claiming a bigger 3.2"(vs 3.0") but an upgraded colour gamut capability, which is close to sRGB!
Firstly, this implies that all other screens aren't close to sRGB capable, and that this specific feature is unique to the D4.
As I've never seen any mention of a review screen's colour gamut capability from any manufacturer, is this the beginning of higher specced rear review screens?
And if so, how does this technology translate to electronic viewfinder technology as well.

[Xenedis]

Xenedis: It's only a matter of time before you will find an option for an EVIL full frame camera of some sort.

It's possible that EVIL cameras with 35mm or larger sensors will eventually exist.

Personally, though, I like looking through my lenses rather than using an electronic viewfinder.

My camera actually has an electronic viewfinder, but I seldom use it.

[lucky phil]

Grab/loan a fuji X100 and take walk. Fuji changed the game without realising it, things are changing fast. It's a great time for photography.

[arthurking83]

Never used one, but from what I understand of it, the evf of the current mirrorless cameras are nothing special, and this is where most folks extrapolate current tech as the future for the technology!

This is the kind of technology that will not stagnate, and my theory is that Canon and Nikon at least, not to mention Pentax(that I can think of off the top of my head) won't implement them in their upper end cameras, unless there are no disadvantages in the system!

Someone commented that Sony is or has been developing a higher quality system for their higher end full frame DSLR's, which would make perfectly good sense to do so.

That is, once the tech exists to at least equal an OVF, they'll implement EVFs into their cameras.

This is why I'm curious to look for myself through an A77. The level of detail in this camera is twice that in the other EVIL cameras.

The lil Fuji sounds great, but the design of the optical system has some serious limitations.

What's going to be hard is to convince the DSLR crew that there is a need to replace the mirror, matte screens and pentaprisms in the current designs, with a purely electronic system, which removes a lot of complexity in current designs and margins for error in performance.

For critical focus, I use Lv mode almost exclusively, which is a necessity at 3-10x magnification and simply more accurate all of the time at standard macro magnifications.
Manually focusing via the viewfinder can be a hit an miss affair. Not a problem when you're doing static work, just annoying.

Having a nice little Rollei 35, which has the same 'rangefinder' viewfinder setup as the Fuji X100 .. well I'm not a big fan of the parallax errors inherent in the system.

The difference between the old generation of EVFs compared to Sony's (new gen) EVF in the A77, is that the old tech is LCD based and only 1.4Mp resolution, the A77 uses OLED technology and 2.4Mp.
Common sense would dictate that the A77's EVF is going to produce a much higher quality image.

I have to admit that I'm a bit of a nut for great viewfinder experience and functionality.
Not that I'm a pro or anything, but I wasted more than $100 on a katzeye focusing screen, because I needed it 'now'. That was pre AU to US dollar parity, and it cost me nearly $100 more than had I waited a few more months for the dollar to reach parity and even surpass it.
Doesn't bother me one bit, as I'd do it again for my next camera if it doesn't have a more configurable viewfinder.

The difference is both remarkable and vivid, especially for when using manual lenses.
I'd recommend one for anyone that wants a nice viewfinder to use, rather than the dull lifeless experience the manufacturers produce as standard.
What you see through your standard manufacturer's viewfinder is nothing more than using the equivalent of a kit lens set to a focal length where it reaches it's f/5.6 aperture setting!

Hopefully the manufacturers can re produce this type of experience(the katzeeye, not the standard version) with some sort of electronic blurring trickery as well, if they set on a course of using them in the future.

[Bennymiata]

I played with a Sony A77, and I have to say that it feels very unbalanced with a biggish lens on it.
As a magazine said, it feels like holding a big lens with the body being nothing more than a big shutter button.

If you have a large sensor, you need larger lenses, and mounting these on small bodies not only looks out of place, but feels weird and unblanced too.
I'm not against new technology, but I think that SLRs will still be around for many, many years to come and that EVILS are just another (and expensive) stepping stone towards an SLR.

For the cost of most of the better EVILS, you can buy a reasonable DSLR anyway, and have a much wider choice of lenses and accessories and a more ergonomic platform to work from anyway.

[sunny6teen]

photographers are fickle lot though. everyone complains about the camera's excessive weight whilst simultaneously deriding lightweight low-end slr's because they feel like a toy in their hands.
I doubt weight will sway many in the pro market.

the other issue is changing a lens system to accomodate the evils. it would have to be something pretty amazing for everyone to change lens systems.
journalists and sports shooters used to favour nikons up to about 1990ish when canon developed a faster and more reliable autofocus. nikon were slow to respond and everyone switched to canon. nikon eventually caught up but no one could be bothered switching back. canon dominated that market ever since. not because it was better but just because everyone already had a collection of canon glass.
my point is...how keen would nikon/canon etc be to adopt cameras with a new lens system unless it does something great. is there a risk of losing current clientele that are locked in to your brand.

[TOM]

EVF's have come a long way in the last couple of years. Handled an X100 for the first time last week, and the VF on that looks better than that of my D3 with 1.4 glass on it*. Still no match for a nice optical finder on a rangefinder, but pretty close. Can't wait to see the new X-Pro 1.

*admittedly this was outside at noon, may be a different story in low light.

[Steve Axford]

I can see one big advantage of EVFs and that is video. Currently you can't use the viewfinder for video and that is a disadvantage, particularly in bright light.

[zollo]

i think trey ratcliffe is dead wrong.

[farmer_rob]

People have been complaining about the mirrors in SLR cameras since they first came out. However, they are the best compromise, and have yet to be killed off in 50+ years.

I don't think there will ever be the "ultimate" camera. The needs of photographers vary too widely, and people do not want to pay for features they never use. What I think will happen is increasing fragmentation of the market, with specific camera types filling niche roles even more. The DSLR may be one of those niches. (by numbers, it is a niche already compared to camera phones and P&S cameras)

Me - I want to see how the picture is framed - not interpreted through EVF electronics, and so I am willing to deal with the flaws of the mirror. I suspect that there will continue to be manufacturers who will market to my niche.

Other photographer's mileage will vary. As it should. Diversity of interest keeps everything interesting.

Regards,
Rob

[arthurking83]

I've always been a vocal proponent of the EVF.
Mirrors are great, they can be quite good when done properly, but are generally cumbersome and ultimately slow(er) than a non mirrored camera.

DPR don't seem to give the EVF of the XPro1 a good wrap, and it makes sense.. it's quite a low res implementation compared to the likes of the current Sony versions.

There is a manual focus switch on the front of the camera's body that decouples the focus system entirely too.

I think that ultimately an EVF will eventually better the ability of the mirrored system, so an almost perfect camera will eventually come to the fore.
That camera is probably a while off yet tho!

[TOM]

I could be wrong on this, never played with one, but my understanding of the x-pro is that the optical finder is with the digital overlay is the standard for the camera, and you might say that "it also has an EVF".

[Bennymiata]

The only "perect"camera is our eye, and aren't we all supposed to have a "photographic" memory?

Mind you, some of us don't have any film! :D

[arthurking83]

Of course I've never played with one either .. but that's the way I'm reading it too.
It has both an optical vf with overlays and some interesting auto magnification system built in, and an EVF too.
It's the EVF that DPR's reviewer was a little disappointed with.

If you want framing accuracy the optical vf will probably be a bit disappointing with it's guide lines and approximately 90% frame coverage!
I doubt that this type of vf is going to be as good as a D3's vf tho!
Of course I'd have to actually try an XPro1 to see this for myself, but my experience with the Rollei aren't favourable. There's no point in having a nice bright vf is it's only a rough guide as to what you're about to shoot.
I remember the D3 pretty well, and it's nice bright vf .. D300 is close to 100%(I think 99.5%) and that occasional errant twig/branch/fence post used to infuriate me.
Of the two vf types, I'd take the D3 any day.

One thing I'm curious about is why they'd disable raw shooting at ISO100 and from 12800 and up? :confused013
At higher ISO I can (partially)understand where there'd be a need to process the noise out of the the image so it's kept to the jpg format to appear as a low noise high quality image.
Makes sense, but a stupid decision!

..... but at ISO100? :scrtch:

[TOM]

Framing accuracy can be important in certain circumstances, I just favour discreetness and the other advantages that go with mirror less cameras and standardl lenses.

I would be disappointed if the viewfinder isn't as good as a D3 with a 1.4 lens on. I've seen a review where the shooter had said it was somewhere between an SLR (can't remember whether he mentioned a model) and a Leica M.

BTW, Rolleis are a PIA to frame close up, much worse, in my experience than a rangefinder.

[arthurking83]

.....

BTW, Rolleis are a PIA to frame close up, much worse, in my experience than a rangefinder.

My Rollei is the small 35 model .. not a TLR(but I want one of them too!)

I'd be worried about using the XPro1 in optical vf mode and manual focus. Trying to focus without the ability to see what's coming in through the lens would be a right ol PITA ... Rollei 35 style.

[TOM]

I can see from the videos that the X-Pro is horrible to manual focus, no matter what viewfinder is used. The throw is just too long. For manual focus work, there's no substitute for a rangefinder......yet.

[peterb666]

Modern DSLRs suck immensely for manual focus too. No split prisms or micro prism focus screens and the exceedingly short rotation of most AF lens focus rings is bad news. Many lenses now have no focus scale or hard stops.

Sent from my GT-I9100 using Tapatalk

[Chris C]

I'm still waiting for video to kill the radio star

:)

Yes, things don't seem to die these days they just "lose market share". Somewhere people are still making harpsichords, despite the fact that the pianos that 'killed' them are themselves now being thrashed by sales of electronic keyboards. Vinyl "albums" are still being pressed and eagerly collected, etc, etc.

Who's to say that EVILs won't be swamped by something like this anyway?.... Lytro's new camera (http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/news/2011/10/lytros-new-light-field-camera-lets-you-focus-after-you-take-a-picture.ars).

Cheers,

Chris

Who is reputedly losing market share in 'Life' and expecting to be eventually amalgamated into either Alleged Afterlife Inc or Infinite Nothingness Co at some unspecified future date.

[swifty]

Speaking of EVFs and removing the mirror, I always wondered why these aren't a revolution in medium format. All the activity seems concentrated in the compact class (which is fine as I guess that's the mass market).

But imagine medium format bodies without mirrors the thickness of FF/FX DSLRs or less, and über EVFs with multiple megapixels, high density, fast refresh and more, that make smartphone displays look dated.

Of course the registration distance will render existing MF lens useless but lightweight adapters would restore their functionality.
With adapters you can stick 135 format tilt-shift lens onto this baby and use the full image circle of such a lens for once.

[ving]

they are the future, we can either move forward or get left behind.... theres nothing else to it :p

[arthurking83]

OK.. curiosity got the better of me, so I dragged the kids for a day out today and I ended up at a place where I could see this future for myself.

Kids were screaming and kicking with complaints of 'boring', but with the appropriate bribery they managed to survive.
In the end we had to come up with a compromise, so I only managed about 10mins of playing with a Sony A77 today.

I have to say after reading the DPR review I was expecting a lot more from the Sony's EVF.

In a word, quite terrible. With the A77 as the current leader in EVF technology(as reported by DPR), they still have a very long way to go before they can replace, or even supplement a proper OVF in a good camera such as Dxxx's and xD's from the big guys.
I suppose if they were to replace an OVF in the likes of a D5000, or similar low end pentamirror vf type camera then I could see the benefit of their use.

Big problem was the massive contrast level.
The image through the OVF was akin to a 100% contrast and saturation boost on the average image. Completely unrealistic. Because I had limited time to fiddle around, the salesman also didn't know how to reconfigure the settings, I can only assume that there is no adjustment for contrast level for the EVF(there was nothing obvious or readily at hand to do so).
Considering the working of an LCD screen, there would be a need on occasion to be able to quickly and easily adjust the level of contrast in the EVF(or any electronic screen).
With an OVF, you eyes a basically doing the adjusting, so this was a major negative point.
But the contrast and saturation level set into this particular A77 was massively wrong anyhow. Not impressed at all by it.

The other issue was when panning. If you pan, things turn into an electronic blur(as opposed to a natural visual blur as you see with the naked eye).
It just looked artificial when compared to any OVF. I suspect that this aspect of an EVF is easily fixed with an LCD panel with high refresh rates.
I dunno what the refresh rate of A77s EVF LCD screen actually is, but I reckon it needs to be tripled to give a more stable image.
That aspect wasn't as annoying as the contrast/saturation issue, and whether there is in fact a quick and easy way to adjust for it.

FWIW, the lens on the A77 for my brief play was a 17-50/2.8 type of 'pro lens' focused very fast and accurately and I doubt that the lens wasn't to the EVF issue in any way(just in case).
Impressed with the lens tho. No card in the camera, but going by the images on the review screen, they looked very nice.

One element of the EVF was the apparent DOF. It looked quite well done. I wasn't expecting to see a shallow DOF for some reason, and I suppose there should be no reason not to expect there to be, but with the f/2.8 lens mounted there was a nice apparent separation as you would expect to see.
It looked better than you normally see with a standard camera matte screen(which all seem to be ground to what amounts to a DOF with a f/5.6 aperture value).

If it was a choice between this EVF("currently the best") or a 'D300 optical type vf', you'd take the D300 vf any day.. by a big margin.
(you can substitute the term 'D300 optical vf' with that on a K5 or 7D or whatever semi pro type camera).

If the comparison was made with a D5100 type small dinky darker(in low light) vf, then you'd probably think again in favour of the EVF.

I'm sure there's a way to adjust the contrast and saturation, and then most of the negatives would be less of an issue.

So OVFs are still safe for a while yet, unless someone comes up with an EVF that's three times as good as the A77's.

[Lance B]

I looked at a Sony A77 a few months back when a friend was looking at getting a camera. I agree with Arthur, in a word, Terrible!

My friend ended up getting a Nikon D5100, but now he has the photography bug, he says he will buy my D7000 when I sell it. :)

[kaiser]

Modern DSLRs suck immensely for manual focus too. No split prisms or micro prism focus screens and the exceedingly short rotation of most AF lens focus rings is bad news. Many lenses now have no focus scale or hard stops.

Sent from my GT-I9100 using Tapatalk

An aftermarket screen helps, but does not completely negate this issue. I've been pretty damm happy with how my Nikon Ais lenses are holding up to the modern sensors - and theyre cheap and readily available.

[mpb]

Interesting observations from Arthur and Lance after a play with the Sony A77. I have had mine for six months and must say I find the EVF very good and the benefits of far out way the drawbacks.

Is it perfect? Of course not. Terrible, definitely not.

Manual focus is a breeze with focus peeking and highlighting of the areas in focus. I found it almost impossible to manually focus a DSLR.

The ability to see the results of changes to settings in the viewfinder as you make them is great. I can set the exposure base on what I see rather than looking at the meter. Changes to white balance, ISO, etc show up as you make them.

I was sceptical of EVF's prior to getting the A77 but now would not go back.

[arthurking83]

Is there a way to increase/decrease saturation contrast and brightness on the EVF.

Most DSLRs only have a brightness adjustment for the rear review LCD screen.
For a more critical aspect of photography in such a camera where the viewfinder is quite important, these adjustments are quite important.
Less so on a review screen tho .. brightness is probably as much as is required.

I have to say too, that most DSLRs do have average viewfinder screens, but I've been used to the KatzEye screen now for a while and it's much better than most DSLRs and definitely better than the A77s EVF.

I agree about the benefits they offer tho.
It's just that the actual view it gives of the scene is not as good as I expected it to be.

[mpb]

The brightness of the EVF can be adjusted by a simple setting.

What you see in the viewfinder is also affected by the camera settings.

As mentioned previously, many settings affect what you see in the viewfinder. The A77 has 13 creative styles in the menu which can be automatically applied to your shots. These range from natural, vivid etc through to sepia and black and white.

Each can also be tweaked, so even if it is on natural (ie no creative style) you can still adjust sharpness, contrast and saturation. All the creative styles and adjustments show up in the EVF.

Essentially what you are seeing in the viewfinder is how the camera will render the jpeg image.

It is therefore possible to adjust what is shown in the EVF (shapness, contrast and saturation) as well has how you want the camera to treat the jpeg conversion.

I also like the fact you get 100% coverage

[arthurking83]

The brightness of the EVF can be adjusted by a simple setting.

What you see in the viewfinder is also affected by the camera settings.

As mentioned previously, many settings affect what you see in the viewfinder. The A77 has 13 creative styles in the menu which can be automatically applied to your shots. These range from natural, vivid etc through to sepia and black and white.

Each can also be tweaked, so even if it is on natural (ie no creative style) you can still adjust sharpness, contrast and saturation. All the creative styles and adjustments show up in the EVF.

.....

AHA! of course! stupid me .. should have thought of that.

D300's liveview works in a similar way, and changes the look of the review screen's image when you alter picture control settings. It's harder to see this using Lv mode on a D300 as when you want make a change to a picture control setting Lv mode switches off and you have to re enable it again with the new picture control setting. That is, you can't see the difference in real time.
You can tho when changing WB, so I now feel silly in not thinking of using the in camera picture style settings! :oops:

The camera was the demo model and I'd say that many prospective customers were fiddling about with all manner of picture style settings.

The image I saw must have been maxed out in both contrast and saturation .. it truly looked horrible!

Now it makes sense.

If I get the time again, I'll get back to a store to have another look.
That was the single most annoying aspect of the EVF .. all other issues were minor, and could be forgiven if the advantages that EVFs have to offer worked well.

I still think that the refresh rate of the tiny screen should be faster for a more natural panning effect.

thanks for the extra info.

[Bennymiata]

My father has a Sony DSLR with an EVF, and he hates it, even after using it for a year or so.
As he has FAPS and FLAPS after his name, he does know a thing or 2 about photography, but he has a thing about using his old Minolta lenses and even though he admits he likes my Canon better than his Sony he still won't go over to the dark side.

Somehow, I can't see much reason for a DSLR to have an EVF over an OVF, but that's just me.
i could see a good reason to be able to have an EVF overlay over the OVF however, and wonder why none of the DSLR's have this feature, especially for use in low light.

[arthurking83]

......

Somehow, I can't see much reason for a DSLR to have an EVF over an OVF, but that's just me.
I could see a good reason to be able to have an EVF overlay over the OVF however, and wonder why none of the DSLR's have this feature, especially for use in low light.

I suppose many years ago, someone also said the something similar about replacing a strip of emulsion with a fancy digital sensor with very limited and dubious quality.
Really! ... why would you bother? ;)

Now look at where we've all ended up in terms of getting the image formed onto a material capable of capturing the image.

I see every reason to replace the limitations of the OVF with a more feature rich electronic version, but only when the technology behind it all is better than the older tech.