Can an EVF shooter go OVF?
I hope this doesn't seem like a strange or ultra-novice question, though I'm definitely still more toward novice on the photography spectrum. I've just started digging further into photography since the start of the pandemic, and previous to that (and currently), I use a Fujifilm X-T1 that I have at work. It's really the camera I've been learning on, and I do like it a lot. Now, my own personal camera is the Fuji X100F. Anyway, all this is to say, I've been using an EVF for all of my time shooting (even though the X100F has the hybrid viewfinder), and now find myself tempted by cameras like the Canon 5D and various Pentax models, based on this forum and beyond. All this rambling is to ask, does anyone have an opinion, or advice, about whether being so used to the EVF now, I would find an OVF challenging or weird? (The answer is probably just to start using the OVF on my X100F, but, curious about other thoughts or advice.) Thanks!
This is a tough question for me to answer because as an OVF shooter, always and forever I've tried to make the transition to an EVF and I always find it to be a couple of things that I don't like, such as being way too populated or way too slow, the overall feel to me has been clunky (but I also don't have top-end mirrorless money). So I've never been able to properly make the transition. My father has been the same way, he's tried on several occasions to switch from Canon to Sony and it's always not gone his way, while he really likes the specs and strengths of Sony the screen and EVF combo make shooting for him, joyless.
For Canon, if you really like the mirrorless EVF experience but SLR form-factor you could try one of the R series cameras (even I enjoy shooting on the R6, I just can't really spend the money). As far as Pentax, most of their OVFs are really lack-luster and the only OVFs that would measure up to a mirrorless would likely be the K-3 III and the K-1/K-1 II. My K-3 II has a similar OVF to that of some of my high-end 90s film cameras.
This is a really long-winded way of saying, if you have the money you can find the OVF that will match your lifestyle. I'd really highly recommend hitting up a camera store where they allow testing of the floor models and testing a few out. Maybe the 5D IV, R6, Pentax K-1, and K-3 III.
This certainly is an interesting question!
I've shot quite a bit with both types. Honestly, I probably enjoy shooting with an optical viewfinder better. I think it can also help develop a better judgement of exposure as you won't be relying on a preview to dial in exposure. This was the main thing it did for me by forcing me to pay closer attention to lighting and exposure.
I imagine that switching your x100 over to OVF would feel weird for a little bit, but you would quickly get a feel for what the strengths/weaknesses are.
I don't notice any difference for the major part in switching between viewfinders, if anything it makes you learn to meter and expose better, since you just can't hit the comp dial to see the image preview. The only time I prefer an EVF is for focus peaking with adapted film lenses, or just wanting to see what the end photo result will be with a preset color profile. To reiterate what Beau said.
The biggest thing I'd look for, is finding a good bright wide OVF. A lot of low entry level DSLRs will either have darker or smaller viewfinder that can be annoying, especially for Macro or low light situations.
I switch between EVF of mirrorless and OVF of film all the time, and it's not really a problem, once I realized what I was in for. After learning how to expose, not having the exposure be visible in the VF wasn't a problem!
I was actually thinking about this the other day shooting through an OVF. The perk of seeing your exposure in the EVF is a real one, and is actually pretty cool. You can implement some interesting techniques into your photography with that.
On the other hand, the OVF offers its own perk - you see what your eye sees. As I was looking through the OVF I was reminded that your eyes see things very different from the sensor. Your eyes have a high dynamic range, if that's the right word, pulling down the highlights and bringing up the shadows. I was seeing a backlit subject perfectly while also retaining details in the highlights, but the camera could only capture either or (without stacking or editing of course). This is of course confusing to someone who has only shot with a phone where what you see is what you get, but I think it offers its own advantages in some scenarios.
Like with wildlife I can see my subjects clearly regardless of my exposure settings. In crazy backlit landscapes I see what I saw before my eye went up the camera - the ovf just helps with framing - and that helps me envision the shot how I want it after final processing and not just how it looks in-camera.
Okay, maybe that doesn't matter as much as I say. To be honest, I use both just fine. Even early poor EVFs are okay - sure they're not as clear and nice as an OVF, but they get the job done. Whatever works for you and you like. Just think it's interesting both have some unique advantages.
Thanks for all the really thoughtful responses. I think it's time for me to at least try using the OVF on my X100F sometimes, and then consider another camera (something fun and cheap, like maybe that 5D "classic") with only an OVF and see if all this reading, learning, and shooting has done any good toward teaching an EVF dog some OVF tricks. I bet it has, and it would be an interesting challenge. Either way, it's all about creativity and fun for me, and I find these conversations fun and helpful, so, thanks!
