Kathy49 wrote:.

Could someone please tell me what the difference is here? I just wanta viewfinder that will show me the picture exactly as it will lookfor me when I print it. any pros or cons on these? I was looking at aPanasonic and they have electronic. thanks..

As I understand it... (Again, I'm new to photo, and didn't try much cameras.).

Really good optical viewfinders are only possible with DSLRs. But DSLRs are expensive and heavy. Also optical viewfinder can't show you how camera processes, say, white balance for that shot. You can't use both LCD and viewfinder, because of the way DSLR work..

Electronic viewfinders are LCD displays made to look like traditional viewfinder. That means there aren't as much clarity as with optical, but you see what camera's going to do with sensor output..

Simple viewfinders (nether DSLR-style nor electronic) don't show exsactly what you would see in the final picture, that error increases with range. This may or may not be important for you, depending on types of shots you take, and exsact construction of viewfinder..

And LCD-only (no viewfinder) you get what you see with those too, but many find they are not always as convinient as "real" ones...

The need for the viewfinder, whether optical or electronic, is because the LCD monitor is very difficult to use in a variety of lighting conditions. In bright sunlight the LCD can seem very dim and difficult to view, and in dim conditions the image will appear to be brighter than the recorded image..

There are two main types of optical viewfinder, those that use the image through the lens (TTL) and those that use separate optics (much like the telescopic sight on a rifle)..

Electronic viewfinders take the same image that appears on the rear LCD monitor and transmit it to a smaller, eyelevel finder this being shielded by your eye from external light offers a better idea of how the final image will appear than the rear LCD..

The TTL optical viewfinders of dSLRs are generally recognized to be the best. The quality of EVF depends much on their resolution and lag. In some EVFs the lag between what the camera sees and when it appears in the viewfinder can be noticeable..

Unless you are looking at dSLRs, you don't have the choice of a TTL optical viewfinder. Generally with non-dSLR cameras, people seem to use the rear LCD screen for most shooting, and the viewfinder only in bright conditions. Whether you prefer EVF over optical seems to be a personal preference. It is best to find a retailer nearby and try the two systems out..

Brian A...

Normal nomenclature usually defines an optical viewfinder as one with it's own lens system. It is usually used in small cameras. DSLR viewfinders are optical rather than electronic but you usually see them referred to as SLR viewfinders. That indicates the view is coming through the main camera lens rather than from a separate lens system..

Electronic viewfinders are usually used in longer zoom cameras where it is difficult to make a separate viewfinder lens system with that much zoom range. Canon makes a 6X optical zoom for their A series and I think that is about as long a zoom range as you will find on an optical viewfinder..

Limiting to non-DSLR cameras, you get a nicer view with most optical viewfinders but they usually dont show the full photo area. If you crop tight with the zoom it usually works out fine. But being a separate lens system they dont tell you anything about what the camera is seeing. So if the camera is out of focus for instance the optical viewfinder will still look fine..

Optical finders also have parallax problems if you are shooting something close to the camera. Both the optical finder and camera lens are looking straight out, so they arent looking at exactly the same thing when you are shooting something close. That is usually not a problem with the overlap in optical viewfinders..

Electronic viewfinders not only give you the image after it has been through the camera lens, but also after it has gone through the computer. You actually get more information about how the picture is going to come out with an EVF than with a DSLR viewfinder. Unfortunately EVFs arent nearly as sharp and clear as DSLR viewfinders. But if the picture looks right in an EVF it is usually going to be OK. You see not only the focus but also the exposure. So an EVF comes closest to your requirement to show me the picture exactly as it will look for me when I print it..

You usually dont have a choice. Large cameras come with EVFs and small ones with optical finders if you are lucky enough to get a viewfinder at all...

Remember too that the image you see in an optical viewfinder tells you nothing about how the picture will look. Get a camera with good reviews for exposure consistency and you'll be OK. On the Fuji 9100 (as big as a small DSLR - see back to the bridge link below) the EVF and histogram give a good indication of what the exposure will be like as you alter the settings.John.Please visit me at:http://www.pbase.com/johnfr/backtothebridgehttp://www.pbase.com/johnfr..

Kathy49 wrote:.

Could someone please tell me what the difference is here? I just wanta viewfinder that will show me the picture exactly as it will lookfor me when I print it. any pros or cons on these? I was looking at aPanasonic and they have electronic. thanks..

An electronic viewfinder is, essentially, a low-resolution computer display. So a camera can show you a lot of information on it that would be difficult or impossible to see on an optical viewfinder. Things like highlights / shadow warnings, a histogram, white balance preview, and a lot of other things..

Also, an electronic viewfinder shows edge-to-edge exactly what's going to be captured - most optical viewfinders crop the picture (some more, some less). Only the professional-grade DSLR cameras have optical viewfinders with 100% coverage..

OTH, optical viewfinders excel when you need to actually _see_ what's happening in front of the camera. For action photography, they don't have the time lag of the EVFs. For macro, they allow you to manually focus (though again, only the best-quality optical viewfinders work well for manual focusing)..

Boris..

Wow. Lot's of different opinions...this is a common "hot" button for some folks..

I disagree with slipe a bit. I think OVF refers to what a mechanical dSLR has...a mirror, a pentaprism or pentamirror to right the image, a focusing screen ("ground glass"), and an objective lens to focus on the screen. This is a TTL (through the lens) system. Some cameras have a secondary optical VF that is not TTL. Avoid this!.

The two good choices are OVF and EVF. Each bad points:.

EVF....

Big, heavy, image goes black when taking shots, noisy (mirror slap), shakes camera (mirror slap), expensive, most don't show 100% of frame, often has a small image, the associated phase AF has to be calibrated for some lenses, etc..

OVF....

Limited resolution, slow response (esp. in dim light), limits battery life, requires slow contrast AF, etc..

Each has good points too:.

EVF....

High resolution image, no delay, facilitates fast AF, etc..

OVF....

Can superimpose data over image, allows "live preview", quiet, vibration free, cheap, very precise AF (no calibration needed), etc..

As the above indicates, the choice of OVF vs EVF is a "system" choice, and affects LOTS of stuff. Also, there are big differences in both OVFs and EVFs; you have to check each camera to see how well the VF is implemented. Often some well meaning person lambasts one or the other, when in reality they have limited experience and knowledge. EVF technology has been getting better and unless this advisor has checked what's available NOW, they often are behind the curve..

There are virtually zero SLRs with EVF, so in that sense, the OVF/EVF choice means choosing between a dSLR and a prosumer (the "bridge" market is slim). I'm sure somebody will jump in and say that Olympus makes 3 models...dSLRs with "live preview". But they have OVFs, not EVFs! To use their "live preview" you have to use them like a little compact digicam, hold at arms length and squint in bright light..

At the moment, the best EVF camera has only a 1/1.6" sensor, which is about 7.4X smaller than a typical dSLR, so if you chose EVF, you'll also be making a choice for a small-sensor camera!.

Charlie DavisNikon 5700 & Sony R1CATS #25PAS Scribe @ http://www.here-ugo.com/PAS_List.htmHomePage: http://www.1derful.info'I brake for pixels...'..

I just want a viewfinder that will show me the picture exactly as it will lookfor me when I print it..

An EVF will come much closer to this requirement than will an OVF, for the reasons given by others in this thread..

However, "exactly" is too strong a word. What you see on the EVF is only an overall indication of what the printed image will look like..

The EVF is a low-resolution display, which is emitting light; a print is a high-resolution display which is reflecting light. They are completely different technologies, and so can't ever look exactly the same. Even for professionals, getting what one sees on a monitor to closely match what one gets on a print can be a challenge...

Oops. Yes, the headings for the list of pros and cons should be swapped..

These lists SHOULD read:.

The two good choices are OVF and EVF. Each bad points:.

OVF....

Big, heavy, image goes black when taking shots, noisy (mirror slap), shakes camera (mirror slap), expensive, most don't show 100% of frame, often has a small image, the associated phase AF has to be calibrated for some lenses, etc..

EVF....

Limited resolution, slow response (esp. in dim light), limits battery life, requires slow contrast AF, etc..

Each has good points too:.

OVF....

High resolution image, no delay, facilitates fast AF, etc..

EVF....

Can superimpose data over image, allows "live preview", quiet, vibration free, cheap, very precise AF (no calibration needed), etc..

Sorry about that..

Charlie DavisNikon 5700 & Sony R1CATS #25PAS Scribe @ http://www.here-ugo.com/PAS_List.htmHomePage: http://www.1derful.info'I brake for pixels...'..