p.2 #1 · XT series Viewfinder, does it get better?
gdanmitchell wrote:
It is useful to avoid “spec chasing,” where any time that some camera has some specification that exceeds the level of some other camera, we decide that the lower-spec camera is somehow not good enough. But you really need to think of this in context — how does that difference stack up against other specifications in terms of real world performance?
I 100% agree with the spirit of your comment, but I don’t believe it’s applicable to EVFs. They’re weird because they’re interacting with one of the most adaptive parts of our neural system - our vision. What I mean is, getting used to the X-T5 finder is easy. But spend 5 minutes framing through a 5.7M @120Hz unit and going back is painful. It’s a feeling, it’s real, it gets into your head, and it doesn’t even involve thinking. It's like living in the US and loving croissants, and then returning home after a trip to Austria.
My advice to the OP: the X-T3 (and later) cameras have a satisfactory EVF, and it's a substantial upgrade to the X-T1. You'll be happy as long as you don't try anything better.
p.2 #2 · XT series Viewfinder, does it get better?
I've used pretty much all of those other "focus aids," including those built into various cameras, add-on magnifiers, and more. The "caveman method" works quite well — in fact, better in a lot of cases when dealing with complex cases.
You know, techniques like first focusing on a hyperlocal distance object, then scanning around the image at high magnification to check out details at various distances while holding down the DOF preview button, etc. Sometimes I'll use a TS system. Sometimes AF is the best choice.
And to save someone the trouble of writing, "you should just use focus blending..." when appraise I do that, too. There is/are a lot more than one way(s) to skin the focus cat.
p.2 #3 · XT series Viewfinder, does it get better?
There's more to it than resolution, I gave up on the Sonys I had, A7 and Nex 6, because those early EVFs were hopeless at image quality display, especially high brightness range subjects. A sunny day with deep shadows would give no detail in highlights or shadows, nothing wrong with the actual raw file image but the display was nowhere near WYSWYG. I went back to optical finders for a while, Nikon dslr and an Xpro2. The Xpro2 EVF is not so good by modern standards but it was better than those early Sonys. The Xt5 I have and for that matter my Xt3 are wonderful in comparison. I did look through a GFX100 at a photo show recently and that was even better, but I've not tried a Canon.
p.2 #4 · XT series Viewfinder, does it get better?
gdanmitchell wrote:
I've used pretty much all of those other "focus aids," including those built into various cameras, add-on magnifiers, and more. The "caveman method" works quite well — in fact, better in a lot of cases when dealing with complex cases.
You know, techniques like first focusing on a hyperlocal distance object, then scanning around the image at high magnification to check out details at various distances while holding down the DOF preview button, etc. Sometimes I'll use a TS system. Sometimes AF is the best choice.
And to save someone the trouble of writing, "you should just use focus blending..." when appraise I do that, too. There is/are a lot more than one way(s) to skin the focus cat....Show more →
No question that AF is great, use it most of the time. And focus aids are helpful. But I like to MF sometimes for various reasons and using an AF lens in manual mode is just not great. There's no reason that a modern AF lens couldn't be designed to MF as well as old lenses did before the AF age. Currently they don't and focus aids don't work well enough.
