4 ms·
I have a good SLR, and looking through an electronic viewfinder is so poor in comparison (even on an expensive pro-sumer model) it's hard to describe. Our visua
by SandB0x 17y ago
I have a good SLR, and looking through an electronic viewfinder is so poor in comparison (even on an expensive pro-sumer model) it's hard to describe. Our visual system can cope with such a huge dynamic range that it makes little sense to neuter this ability while shooting.
An SLR is able to capture RAW data, which can be mapped to different jpeg/whatever images, so there's a big disadvantage in looking at a specific instance through the viewfinder.
In common situations the preview and default jpeg output is absolutely fine, but when you get to more challenging lighting you need to trust your eyes at the time, and the awesomeness of RAW later.
- Zak 17y agoYour first point makes sense to me, and meshes well with what other posters are saying. As for RAW, I don't see what that has to do with an SLR viewfinder versus digital live preview. A quick google search suggests that all EVIL type cameras support a RAW format.
- tel 17y agoHe's referring to the fact that whenever you display an image on an LCD you're losing an incredible amount of data about the the lighting and color. Data that the CCD actually does collect. The comment about RAW is saying that your eye, capturing through a mirror viewfinder, is aware of this level of detail. If you view it through the LCD you miss out. This is unimportant if you only use JPG, because that will be neutered similarly to the electronic viewfinder, but if you are shooting RAW then you're looking for something more subtle and need analog control.
- SandB0x 17y agoThanks, that's a good explanation. I need to work on my wording.