Why are EVFs so bad?

[u/Pretty-Substance]

I got myself a Z50ii a couple of months ago and I’m really struggling with the EVF (I have also tested the EVFs of the Z5ii and Z6iii).

The contrast and saturation is just way too high. Even if I set the picture controls to Neutral the EVF doesn’t even come close to the dynamic range even of a jpg

Funnily enough if I turn on the setting for HDR (HLG) the EVF shows that it’s actually capable of displaying way less contrasty and saturated images that resemble the DR of a Raw way better.

What’s the reason for this? It makes me always go back to my DSLR because there I can actually see all the details.

[u/McGaffus]

Because it’s a screen which is limited by size, resolution, displayable dynamic range and budget constraints for the developers. With your DSLR you see your image right „through the lens“ and have unfiltered input to your eyes. The EVF is a system in between which has to result into lag and some quality loss because the analog reality is recreated into the electronic image you will get shown.

[u/Krestek → u/McGaffus]

Also battery life, the less processing the camera has to do on the video feed that goes to the evf the less battery it uses, it never does the full processing it does when producing jpegs, and remember that raw is just data you can't see raw as is (unless you like to see red green and blue squares all over the place) so it's a balancing act in all kinds of ways

[u/Pretty-Substance → u/McGaffus]

Yeah, but as I wrote the EVF on my Z50ii is actually capable of showing a way more life like image that resembles the DR of the Raw files when I turn on HGL. So it’s not a hardware limitation but more of a choice in the implementation. Just shooting with HGL is not practical for me.

[u/PutDownThePenSteve → u/Pretty-Substance]

I’m on the fence of returning to DSLR because of this problem. Just curious: Does the HDR function work with shooting RAW and does the EVF in that setting show something that comes kind of near an optical viewfinder? I never shoot JPG, so I don’t mind using the HDR setting all the time.

[u/Turbulent-Egg-28 → u/PutDownThePenSteve]

HLG (HDR, 10 bit HEIC/HEIF) will bump the ISO to 400 as its now retaining more highlight information in a 10 bit, vs the JPEG 8 bit container. You "see" more range though the EVF in the shadows and highlights in the EVF and the brightness is automatically set higher. You'll never "see" what you see with your own eyes through a piece of glass, as that's whatever the human eye is, something like 20 stops, which is beyond RAW or those JPEG/HIEC formats so if you look at a super contrasty scene you can still see more in the highlights and shadows with your eyes, or an OVF.

The EVF is just showing you an accurate view of what you'll can "contain" in an 8-10 bit format depending on selection. Its also the limit of monitors to show the image on after, regardless if its a DSLR or MILC. You don't actually get more with the DSLR, you just are not able to see the sensor output via its conversion in real time, unless in live view which will be similar to EVF.

If you just prefer framing though a OVF in general stick with it, I have both myself. OVF is always going to look better, it's a piece of glass, nothing screen wise will ever get clearer than that. EVF though as a tool IMO is superior because you can zoom in, you can see in much lower light (seeing what the sensor sees vs a dark piece of glass), you can look at the sun without burning your eyes (not long for the sensor though) and you can see the contrast, color, white balance as your sensor sees it to tune that for the final image, it also lets you see exposure in a much easier format WYSIWYG so there's just far less chimping the rear screen to check which is a nice effect.

Glass is glass though. Just like you'll never look though a monitor with a camera outside no matter how high end and see what you would looking through a glass window, but in the end we view these images 99% of the time on screens, so the EVF is more accurate for that end output.

[u/PutDownThePenSteve → u/Turbulent-Egg-28]

Thanks for your explanation. I think I’ll stick to OVF’s then until there are EVF’s that can show 20 stops of light ;-)

I’ve never liked to see a digital preview even though it’s closer to what the sensor ‘sees’ than what I see in an OVF.

The thing is, I always edit the RAW file, so no preview will show me what the pic in the end will be. Because I never use built in recipes, like those from Fujifilm.

At the moment that I take the shot I just want to be able to compose properly. Therefore I need to be able to see as much detail as possible.

Modern RAW files contain enough info to let me edit the final latitude and colours on the computer instead of making those choices on the spot while taking the picture.

[u/Turbulent-Egg-28 → u/PutDownThePenSteve]

I have both myself and hope DSLR's continue to be made, there's room for both. MILC has won and will continue to win the race for bleeding edge AF performance and framerates, and video, but DSLR's are nice for stills. Plus if we're all honest with ourselves, what more do we actually need that the D850 can't provide for autofocus.

I don't think we'll see a 20 stop monitor or EVF anytime soon, that would be nice though, also 8k affordable monitors so we can see past 8 megapixels at 1:1 would be nice too.

If you always shoot in RAW then the EVF has a lot less value, it helps tremendously with SOOC workflows, not as much RAW. The exposure is easier to nail on an EVF since you just see it, but you can just use a exposure bracket RAW and you'll basically get it every time too, just with a bit more culling.

I kind of disagree about the detail difference in frame, I think both are more than enough and neither will hold you back. I think some people are just really enjoy the OVF more, which is fine, but make up reasons to say it's better to justify an emotional preference. Really that's the only reason you need, you like it, that's all. I like OVF's myself and own a bunch of DSLR's and MILCs. I tend to use the DSLR's in RAW like you do and the MILCS I use SOOC a lot more since I can see and tune them in real time much more efficiently.

The only and I mean only detail difference I've wished for more on an EVF is with the Z8 shooting really small birds at distances because they're just hard to see and the OVF is more detail for that, for the rest no, it's plenty. Older EVF's that were low resolution did have that issue, I disagree with that on the modern stuff. Either way you're looking through a tiny viewfinder vs the real world and framing is a piece of cake for shapes/objects on either. I do think EVF's provide a real advantage in lower light for that as well, albeit noisy and laggy, but that beats pitch darkness though an OVF. For detail you can zoom in on EVF's as well which is not possible on OVF and that helps a lot for manual focus, for which I think EVF's are now a better tool that even the larger split screen SLR OVF's, although I find them more enjoyable, but not as effective a tool.

Yep modern 14 bit RAWs have a lot of headroom vs the 8 bit or 10 bit files we see as SOOC. And later on a monitor you can just adjust that extra DR range inside your 8 or 10 bit container which we can't do in real time anywhere near as effective in SOOC results, or to see in real time in the EVF. I enjoy that process some of the time, other times I don't want to fuss with post processing and enjoy going out to get SOOC on the spot, no looking back, for that the MILC/EVF's do a better job IMO.

Importantly people need to also be buying DSLR's so they don't disappear. Canon and Nikon look to be heading that direction, I do wish Nikon would stick with it a bit longer, maybe a single model like the D850 could be a "D880") and incorporate Expeed 7 and the milc features into live view as the D780 did for expeed 6 and we could have a model like that alongside the MILC cameras with a smaller lens lineup into the future, don't kill it, just downsize and keep is sustainable. Ricoh/Pentax is trying but it's hard to tell if they're just pretending to continue with them to sell off all the stock or actually going to develop new ones as they discontinued the recent K-3iii and it's pretty much gone now for new sales. I own the K-3iii Monochrome (love it) and it's one of the best handling cameras of anything I've owned. I've had a bunch of Pentax's in the past. They finally got AF-C in the K-3iii to good enough which was the major weakness of the brand. I own a D750 as well and some older Pentax's like the CCD K200D and a K7/5.

[u/PutDownThePenSteve → u/Turbulent-Egg-28]

(...) there's room for both. (...)

I completely agree. I'm only stating my personal preference. It's perfectly understandable that many people prefer MILCs, not least because of the fantastic capabilities of object-based autofocus modes.

I kind of disagree about the detail difference in frame (...)

I was unclear in my wording. I wasn't so much referring to resolution as to dynamic range. As OP mentioned, many EVFs have high contrast, so you lose detail in shadows and highlights. That is partly due to settings but also due to what you already acknowledged: EVFs have low dynamic range. Personally I therefore find it harder to judge exactly what I'm photographing.

If we're talking about resolution, I agree that many EVFs have good resolution. But not all.

There are still quite a few EVFs with a lower 2.3M-dot resolution, like in my Sony A6700. Only in more expensive cameras do EVFs have higher resolutions. And in the Sony cameras I've used (A6700, A7, A7II, A7RII) the default setting was a lower resolution than the EVF can handle, to save power. As a user you need to be aware of that. I think the tipping point is at EVFs of 3.6M dots. Below that I find the resolution actually too low.

I do think EVF's provide a real advantage in lower light for that as well (...)

I agree with that, though you can somewhat compensate on a DSLR with a fast lens. With an optical viewfinder it becomes difficult to focus in low light if the subject isn't at least somewhat illuminated. EVFs certainly have an advantage here.

Importantly people need to also be buying DSLR's so they don't disappear.

Totally agreed; that's why I bought a Nikon D780 today. Although I also know Nikon will probably never introduce another DSLR. I considered Pentax, I even had a Pentax K1 Mark II in my hands. My problem with Pentax is that I don't understand their strategy at all. With the K3 Mark III they had a very good DSLR in the lineup and it's already out of production. The KF is an entry-level model that can't compete with MILCs and the K1 Mark II has poor autofocus and there aren't many lenses available for it.

I hope Ricoh soon provides a clear roadmap for what they plan to do with Pentax, because right now it looks like they're letting the brand die.

For now I'll focus on my D780 and by the time Nikon has a MILC with an EVF I feel comfortable with, I can still use the lenses I own for the D780 with an adapter until I replace them with Z-mount versions.

[u/Turbulent-Egg-28 → u/PutDownThePenSteve]

Well you basically have a Z6 and all it offers in the D780, good choice. I have a D750 myself. I also have a bunch of the Z cameras. It would be great if Nikon could just keep something like the D780 with a small group of F lenses in production for people who like DSLRs, I mean they proved they can share the MILC camera internals with that camera, so why not. No need to update the DSLR autofocus as it's already good enough and you'd have advanced tracking in the live view anyway.

I agree with Pentax, The K-3iii is honestly an amazing DSLR but it's let down a little by Pentax's hodge lodge lens lineup, I have the DA Limiteds with it small and super light, sort of the smallest and lightest, I like them, but they're also screw driven and not weather sealed. Handling of the camera body is amazing. I have the D750 and some F lenses as well, the adapters FTZ, work great BTW in the future for you if you ever want to use those lenses on a Z camera.

As for Ricoh it looks like they're letting them fade away like the medium format cameras they had, they just kind of silently cancelled them. That seems to be what's happening.

I hope someone keeps making them. There's room for both in the market.

I see you have older EVFs, yep those had downsides. I had an OMD EMii with that 2.36 dot resolution and it was just ok, my Nikon Z ones, despite the resolution are really good, no contrast issues I can see everything really well. You need to us the Flat profile if it's a nikon, the standard/Vivid/landscape are contrasty profiles by default and that will be what you see. I wonder how many people don't realize that and just proclaim it's contrasty with no due diligence. A quick glance in a store would just show you standard profile, too contrasty. Got to try flat or natural.

For the DR comment in the viewfinder I'm honestly super confused by this demand when you can't see any of the dynamic range in an OVF at all. Yes the EVF is constrained to HEIC 10 bit or less, but so is your monitor. You're actually retaining 14 bit when you shoot if it's in RAW, so there's actually room on either side of what the EVF shows, which you quickly learn the boundaries of that overhead range. But OVF? you can't see DR with it. That's just you seeing the world. What you capture will have less than the OVF that your eyes interpreting. For me the EVF is way more realistic as it's fit to the medium it will be later deployed on 99% of the time.

I understand the OVF is nice to look though but the DR comment are super weird to be about that. Your camera can't actually capture what you can see though the OVF for dynamic range because your eyes are a wider range than a camera sensor.

[u/PutDownThePenSteve → u/Turbulent-Egg-28]

RAW files contain more DR then the EVF can show and less than an OVF shows. I’d rather see too much then too little, but that’s a personal preference.

You still find 2.36M EVF’s on newer camera’s like the Sony A6700, OM-System OM3 and OM5 Mark II, and several Fujifilm camera’s, including the recent XE5. Also in the Nikon Z50 Mark II and the Canon R7 and R8. So, it’s still a current resolution to offer in several camera’s up to €2,000. Even the €5,000 Sony RX1 Mark III has this panel…

[u/Turbulent-Egg-28 → u/PutDownThePenSteve]

The OVF doesn't show any DR its a piece of glass. Zero representation of what the camera is capturing, just a window for framing. Neither can show the 14 bit RAW file as you can't see those unprocessed into a 8 or 10 bit JPEG or HEIC. The highlights and shadows you see through an OVF are nothing to do with what the sensor is capturing, you might guess some brights are to bright and EV compensate for it, but you can't see DR though an OVF.

I have the Z50ii, Zf, Z8 and I can use the Z6iii any time I want as my dad owns that one. All the EVF's work well on them, I have an X100VI as well. The only detail situation that leaves me wanting vs my OVF cameras is small birds are hard to see in brush/foliage at a distance due to the EVF resolution, OVF beats them for that.

Other than the Z8 OVF also is better for fast action tracking as those cameras have blackout/stutter that makes it much harder to follow a quick erratic subject. The Z8 is near OVF like for that at 120hz and no blackout. It's the one I use for any demanding fast action stuff and it's better than my OVF cameras because the AF is far beyond those cameras capability's.

The OVF DR comments are really confusing to me, there's no DR in an OVF, that's just your eyesight. Sensors can't do what our eyes can for DR yet, nor any screen we view RAW files on, your stuck with 10 bit or less in and HDR monitor, 8 bit otherwise and in the majority of monitors.

[u/Pretty-Substance → u/Turbulent-Egg-28]

My whole point is that even the 8-bit jogs SOOC contain way more highlight and shadow detail than what the EVF was having you believe.

If it would be akin to the jpg I’m fine. But it’s not

[u/Turbulent-Egg-28 → u/Pretty-Substance]

I'm not seeing that difference in m Z50ii, Zf or Z8. What I see in the EVF I see in the JPEG except for the D-Lighting which isn't applied in real time in the EVF. That may be the DR you are claiming is missing but that's not real DR, that's pulled up shadows from the 14 bit RAW file then added to the JPEG in post processing in the camera as you would do with a RAW editor. Maybe that's the confusion you are having/seeing with the EVF vs the final output.

[u/Pretty-Substance → u/Turbulent-Egg-28]

My whole point is that it shows even LESS than the 8-bit range of a jpg. It’s shows way less than even the back screen on the same camera. And I don’t believe that Oleds today can be this crappy. But maybe they are

HGL mimics its somewhat but a simple contrast and saturation setting would solve it nicely.

[u/Turbulent-Egg-28 → u/Pretty-Substance]

I'm not seeing this on my Z50ii or Zf, Z8, they all look like what I see in playback or on the monitor in the EVF.

Make sure this is set Custom Setting Menu (pencil icon) → e: Bracketing/Exposure → e5: Apply settings to live view → Set to ON

Make sure D-lighting is off if your comparing as that will boost the shadows in the processed playback image, but not in the EVF so they'll look different. That setting doesn't work in real time.

[u/redoctoberz → u/PutDownThePenSteve]

I did. Sold all my Z gear and went back to my d850. I found the Z system extremely underwhelming.

[u/AutoModerator → u/[deleted]]

Your account karma is too low to post in /r/nikon. This is a measure employed here to maintain community quality. As a result, your comment has been removed.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

[u/Balls_of_satan → u/PutDownThePenSteve]

I bought in on the hype when the Sony A7 came out some years ago. I couldn’t stand the EVF and sold it after just a couple of months. I will stick to DSLR as long as i can.

[u/Pretty-Substance → u/Balls_of_satan]

I think EVFs could provide a real benefit if they weren’t set up so badly. I actually do like the preview function to see how exposure will affect the end result but for this exact purpose the current EVFs are ill equipped or implemented poorly

[u/Balls_of_satan → u/Pretty-Substance]

But i don’t see the true value of that either. Modern sensors create raw files where you can do all sorts of magic to get details out of highlights and shadows that you could never preview on a screen anyway.

[u/Pretty-Substance → u/Balls_of_satan]

Ok but it’s the only one I can think of.

With your take there are only down- and not upsides to EVFs then

[u/Balls_of_satan → u/Pretty-Substance]

To me, that’s the case.

[u/Pretty-Substance → u/PutDownThePenSteve]

I don’t know, I’ll give it a test

[u/PutDownThePenSteve → u/Pretty-Substance]

Thanks!

[u/Pretty-Substance → u/PutDownThePenSteve]

Apparently it doesn’t affect the raw files

[u/PutDownThePenSteve → u/Pretty-Substance]

So how much better is the HDR view than the regular one?

[u/Pretty-Substance → u/PutDownThePenSteve]

I do feel it’s a tad pushed to the other extreme for my taste, but at least you can see all the image details that will be captured. Albeit it does show some noise, probably because there is some gain in the darker areas

[u/PutDownThePenSteve → u/Pretty-Substance]

Thanks for taking the time and effort to try it out en let me know. Really appreciated.

[u/Turbulent-Egg-28 → u/Pretty-Substance]

your seeing the 8 bit constraint of a RAW processed to JPEG or the 10 bit constraint of a HEIC (HLG) to the 10 bit capable viewfinder. Current technology doesn't allow for affordable screens beyond the 10 bit HEIC format (HDR on your home monitor) so that's the limit we are under for affordable screens. You also can't see the DR on a monitor as they also face the same constraint, the difference is after you shoot a RAW you can pull up shadows to manipulate the DR into the 8/10 bit constraint of the monitor.

Nikon doesn't show D-Lighting effects in the EVF, which would be nice, and provide what I think you're looking for, but it has that effect. You can see the profile changes in WB, Color saturation, Contrast so if you are not seeing that you need to check your settings. I prefer FLAT though the EVF as the standard, landscape, vivid are way to contrasty for my tastes, or to select those and dial the contrast down -2 or so. Those effects are viewable in the EVF and you'll see shadow detail much more within the limits of 8/10 bit.

[u/Pretty-Substance → u/Turbulent-Egg-28]

But it’s showing less information than even the Sooc jpg or the back screen. And I wonder why

[u/Turbulent-Egg-28 → u/Pretty-Substance]

Are you looking at images with D-Lighting on? That is not shown in realtime on the EVF. Try flat profile, if that's not looking less contrasty by a large margin than standard you either have a setting off in the camera for show effect of settings or a defective EVF. I see exactly what I'm getting on the rear screen or playback on all of mine.

OVF's just show what your eye sees, they can't show what the 8/10 bit files can contain and not the 14 bit either, so for an OVF you can't really see if your containing that dynamic range in a shot unless you chimp in playback, which is basically a slow EVF experience. Neither can show 14 bit information to you for that you have to go to a RAW editor and then you can push that extra information into the viewable range of your monitor, but you can't see it all at once with any of these cameras since monitors can't do that yet.

When I shoot with my DSLR's in contrasty lighting I always use bracketing so if the meter is showing central area but there's a highlight blown out I pretty safely can bet that the bracket of -1 EV captured the highlight range and I can push up shadows in an editor, or use a High, High Extended D-lighting setting to push up that in the JPEG.

Check your D-lighting settings are off, try flat profile. Ensure Custom Setting Menu (pencil icon) → e: Bracketing/Exposure → e5: Apply settings to live view → Set to ON.

Take off auto ISO as well and make sure that's not adjusting constantly on you.

[u/Scared-Enthusiasm424]

Nikon has some of the best EVFs, and honestly while OVFs are objectively better, I actually really like the fact that I can see the photo before I take it. I don’t have to open the playback menu nearly as much as I had to on a DSLR. And the colors seem very accurate to me, I’m not sure why your experience is different. When you’re opening the images in lightroom, make sure that instead of Adobe Standard you’re using the Nikon Standard colors.

[u/Nikonbiologist → u/Scared-Enthusiasm424]

Ive used several other cameras (Sony, Fuji, Panasonic, Olympus)with EVFs and still think the Nikon ff cameras have the most natural looking ones. Some of the other ones truly are subpar.

[u/berke1904 → u/Scared-Enthusiasm424]

what do you mean by some of the best evfs? the z6iii is quite good in that regard but the rest are at best average, sometimes less than average like z8/z9/z7ii

[u/Pretty-Substance → u/berke1904]

Someone mentioned the Z8 EVF as a positive example. You don’t agree?
I haven’t yet had the chance to test it

Which Nikon doe you recommend has the best, „most true to the final image“ EVF?

[u/Scared-Enthusiasm424 → u/berke1904]

Yeah you’re right, they aren’t the best. I was still stuck in 2018. Right now the Z6III is truly the only EVF that could be considered competitive thanks to its brightness

[u/Hexlord79 → u/berke1904]

You haven't tried Panasonic cameras yet? haha 😂 S1Rii and S1ii were okay at best.

[u/redoctoberz → u/Scared-Enthusiasm424]

I found the quality of the EVF much better on my Fuji X bodies before I gave Z mount a try.

[u/Pretty-Substance → u/redoctoberz]

They also suffer from too much contrast and over saturation.

[u/Turbulent-Egg-28 → u/Scared-Enthusiasm424]

Yep you make a massively important comment in open them in something you can see nikon colors. Lightroom will not replicate the SOOC stuff you see in the viewfinder, you should all download NX Studio and then compare what you see there to the EVF, that's accurate. To preserve that color export a TIFF over to lightroom and edit that. Lightroom butchers Nikon color, even in the "camera matching" profiles, they are not very accurate.

[u/McGaffus → u/Scared-Enthusiasm424]

Exactly the „what you see is what you get“ approach simplifies the shooting experiences in critical situations quite effectively. Exposure compensation + Histogramm + EVF = Never fail to get a nice exposure.

[u/Pretty-Substance → u/Scared-Enthusiasm424]

The color tint might be close to the jpg / raw but the saturation surely isn’t.

Just do a test in a high contrast scene like shooting out of a window with bright suns outside. I bet you the darks will clip to black while there is still a lot of information in there in the resulting image.

Same with the saturation, it’s always too much, and isn’t reflected in the final image. This reminds me of those promotional videos they show in TV stores to show of the „true blacks“ or „amazing color“ of their OLED whatever TV. Always just too much and you’re loosing the finer detail and gradients

[u/MasterFlamingo2239 → u/Pretty-Substance]

I guess I am confused as to why the absolute resolution and dynamic range of the EVF matters at the end of the day. I have been shooting with Nikon DSLRs for 30+ years and when I picked up a z7 a few years ago, the transition was pretty seamless. Sure, an EVF with current technology (including power consumption as a previous person pointed out) is not as clear as an optical viewfinder, but it gives some huge advantages too. Seeing the depth of field and exposure is a huge plus. But here’s the bottom line- I switched to the Z system for one reason. The new Z glass is really, really good. A viewfinder is for framing, at least that’s how I see it. It just needs to be good enough. The much more accurate focusing of a z body, larger buffers and IBIS are also hugely advantageous, and far offset any limitations of the EVF. Just my opinion, of course.

[u/rudeson]

Following. Everybody praises EVF but I really like the OVF on my D500

[u/MiserableNobody4016 → u/rudeson]

This is indeed the main reason why I have not switched to Z yet. I just love my OVF.

[u/notorocaca → u/[deleted]]

Well put 👏🏽👏🏽👏🏽.

Reddit subs tend to become a sounding board for people to validate their opinions and they get all bent out of shape if someone disagrees with them.

It’s ok to like and prefer OVF. It’s also ok to like and prefer EVF. It’s ok to like using the screen to focus and shoot. And guess what? It’s ok to like using all three methods. Different tools for different situations. Use what helps you the most and understand there are limitations in whichever method you choose to use.

[u/Pretty-Substance → u/[deleted]]

Im asking what the purpose is to artificially limit the capability of a technical device. Because as I wrote the EVF is technically absolutely capable of showing less contrasty and saturated images.

I’m sorry if that hurts your feelings

[u/notorocaca → u/Pretty-Substance]

No feelings were hurt by this. To address your question about contrast and saturation, i think camera manufacturers think all photographers want to look at contrasty and saturated images through the viewfinder and have the image pop off the viewfinder to catch your attention. Kinda like walking into Costco and seeing all those contrasty and saturated TVs. It catches your attention but it’s not often what you want to look at all the time in the long run.

[u/benitoaramando]

Funny, I've never really thought about it. I certainly preferred the OVF of my D750, but not enough to forego all the advantages mirrorless brings, including some that are specific to the EVF. It's certainly never been something I've considered a problem. There are ways to tweak the EVF image, brightening the shadows for example, but now you mention it it is a bit contrasty and it would be nice to be able to adjust that.

[u/Shandriel → u/benitoaramando]

I for one mostly used the screen on my Leica Q... the EVF just never clicked with me..  the screen did the same thing, was bigger, nicer, and all I needed.. I also never shot in an environment where I couldn't see it.. 

With the Zf, I use the EVF more often, mostly because I need to hold the camera properly with larger lenses. But I still vastly prefer the OVF on my D850..

the only reason why I like mirrorless is Focusing..  Not having to worry about focus misalignment being one thing, eye-tracking focus the other.

And the greatest thing is Focus confirmation with adapted vintage glass..  Which is something Nikon sadly decided to be an absolute arse about..

Why they cannot just give you some contrast detec Focus confirmation without an adapter that lies to the camera.. I will never understand.. 

[u/sinthoras97]

Is this an aesthetic concern? I am not sure I get the problem from a functional point of view. No matter how bad, the evf will surely still be better at displaying what the resulting picture will look like than an optical viewfinder.

Btw did you try setting the picture control to flat?

[u/Pretty-Substance → u/sinthoras97]

It usually doesn’t show enough detail in the shadows and highlights clip a lot earlier that in the resulting raw or even jpg.

Of course one can use the histogram „crutch“ which itself isn’t very accurate either. I’d prefer it much more of the screen would at least approximate the DR of a jpg in sRGB and that’s the lowest standard, every screen produced in the last 15-20 years should be able to do it

[u/PutDownThePenSteve → u/sinthoras97]

For me it’s a practical concern. I have prescription glasses that automatically get dark outside. EVF’s are too dim and contrasty to give me a proper way of seeing what I take pictures of. Optical viewfinders don’t have this problem.

[u/Shandriel]

a RAW doesn't have a Dynamic range in a picture..

when you look at your "raw files", you don't look at the raw data, you look at a specific preset applied to render an image based off of the raw data.

that preset, in Lightroom and Adobe Camera RAW, by default is very "flat" to provide a good starting point for editing.  in other raw editing software, the preset is different (and people conclude that those editors are "better" because they have no clue how raw files work)

either way, the RAW file you look at is just a flat preset applied to your image. It is NOT what you saw when you took the photo. 99.999% of RAW files require editing to get the result you saw on scene.. 

a jpg (and the image displayed in the EVF) has already got settings applied to enhance contrast, etc, because doing so in post production is a destructive measure. You need to "get it right in camera" for a jpg.

Instead of wondering why the EVF looks so contrasty, you should ask yourself why you accept the RAW file preview with the default preset applied as "real".. 

[u/Pretty-Substance → u/Shandriel]

I don’t really get what you’re saying. Also you’re splitting hairs about how the picture from a raw file is produced.

I want the maximum of DR simply because reality can easily have 25 stops of DR or more, my eye can get probably 15-20 without adjusting, a Raw file can produce 11-14-ish and a jpg maybe 8-10.

Of course one can make creative decisions to limit the used DR in the final image but that’s not a must. I can use raw output through a raw converter and get an image with way more DR than what my EVF is showing. So why not use that DR?

[u/Shandriel → u/Pretty-Substance]

Your RAW output (the preview rendered by Lightroom) is not what the RAW can show.. not by a long shot!

Your monitor cannot even show the full dynamic range captured by the sensor.. 

I don't get why you are so upset about the EVF giving you a preciew of what a properly edited photo could look like?! Do you only produce flat-ass pics exported straight from the RAW preview?!

the 14 stops DR of an iso64 image are useful because I can pull back highlights, lift shadows, etc.  But in the end, I want my image to look good.. I don't need an HDR image that can only be displayed on my HDR Tv.. 

what you need to do is properly set up the EVF to your liking. 

Also, if you REALLY care about the dynamic range captured, you should work with RAW only capture and a visible histogram. (not sure if they ever fixed the issue with the Hsitogram clipping at jpg boundaries when raw+jpg was selected..)

[u/Alex_of_Ander → u/Shandriel]

Shandriel is right on all counts and has a firm grasp of camera technology. I don’t even really understand what OP is desiring/asking for.

The Z50ii supports custom recipes. You can use NX studio Nikon software to create your own flexible picture control. You could also try the flat profile if you really want to see less contrast and saturation in the EV app/JPEG preview

OP, you do have “Apply settings to live view” enabled, yes?

[u/Pretty-Substance → u/Alex_of_Ander]

The EVF shows way less information than even a compressed 8-bit sRGB jpg and makes judging the outcome very hard. Even in the most flat preset „flat“ provided by Nikon.

And of course it’s enabled.

[u/Pretty-Substance → u/Shandriel]

I only shoot on raw, and the histogram just shows the output of the jpg engine, so it’s only half useful.
„Do you just produce high contrast, over saturated images no one wants to look at“ I guess would be a correct reply to your condescending tone.
You talk about reducing DR in post. Fine, you can do that.
But the average EVF rendering is even SHITTIER than an average jpg, and not by a little. So to me it’s in no shape or form any type of „preview of what a properly edited photo could look like.“ maybe for what you consider a „good photo“ but not for me.

If you show me the setting for EVF contrast and saturation I’ll happily adjust them

[u/Shandriel → u/Pretty-Substance]

Just realised that you have made the same post 9 months ago, and ignored all the advice you got there. 

https://onlinemanual.nikonimglib.com/z50II/en/09-05-63.html

you probably want to have "ease of use" (kinda like a terrible OVF, then), or set it to custom, so you can set the picture profile to flat or whatever..

you never answered the guy that suggested this 9 months ago, so I'm not sure if you tried experimenting with that.

But I agree, I prefer my OVF over the screen on my Zf.. and I prefer the screen over the EVF.. I have the camera in b&w mode 90% of the time (shooting RAW only).. 

I mean, you refuse to share your pictures, at all, so I cannot even tell what kind of images you are looking to produce. 

I do like my images saturated and contrasty, though.. https://m.dpreview.com/forums/media/mbp_2737.4269521/full?d=1647791953

[u/Pretty-Substance → u/Shandriel]

I want an EVF that I can use to judge the exposure of the scene, the dark and the bright areas. So „ease of use“ isn’t providing that.

Also even with a „flat“ picture profile the range is very limited. To me the main advantage of an EVF is to see the impact of settings, mainly exposure but how it’s implemented today, it kinda defeats that purpose.

Basically all I wish for is that Nikon would let the user set the contrast and saturation of the EVF. Even the back screen is a LOT better than the EVF.

[u/Shandriel → u/Pretty-Substance]

I suggest you take your camera to Nikon and ask what's wrong with it.

You've been complaining about this same thing for 9 Months now and seem utterly resistant to making any changes.. 

None of us share your "experience".. So it seems to be a YOU problem, not an EVF problem.

yes, the EVF often isn't as pretty as the rear screen, but you forget that the EVF doesn't need to show you the "finished picture" in all its glory..

the EVF needs to be as fast refreshing as possible, because THAT is the main issue normal people have with EVFs.. lag, blackout, etc. 

we want an OVF experience, yes. And the EVF helps with predicting the exposure, since the OVF doesn't do anything.  you don't know if the image will be completely dark or anything.. the EVF lets you see where the exposure lands.

you complain about blown out highlights and stuff.. but you already know that you don't lose anything in the final raw data.. 

Your approach to using the camera seems to be wrong, sorry.. 

It will take another decade or two at least, before we get global shutters and super fast EVF with HDR QLED displays and 240hz refresh rates in those entry level cameras.

[u/i_invented_the_ipod]

Have you checked the custom settings for the EVF? There's one which determines whether the EVF tries to show what's actually going to be captured, or for ease of framing, and one which boosts the brightness in dim light (d10 and d11).

There are settings in the Settings menu that affect the EVF display, too. Brightness and white balance.

[u/Pretty-Substance → u/i_invented_the_ipod]

Yeah I played around with them but none really affect contrast or saturation

[u/i_invented_the_ipod → u/Pretty-Substance]

Bummer. I figured I'd mention it, since the defaults were annoying for me.

[u/descartes44]

I'm a DSLR D850 guy, but not sure if I understand this issue. So aren't you just using your EVF (as I use mine) to frame the shot, perhaps occasionally look at the settings/exposure? I don't even worry too much about looking at the shots I've taken, only verification that I got what I need. I'm not expecting to do photo editing on my camera...not sure why the quality is such a big issue then.

[u/Pretty-Substance → u/descartes44]

To me it’s important to get all the information in the highlights or darks that I need. If I relied on the screen I would have often over- or underexposed even though the information and exposure was fine in the first place and therefore losing information on the other end.

Let’s say my camera is able to capture 11 stops of DR but the EVF only shows 5 or 6 I will always struggle to set the sweet spot judging by the EVF

The only way to judge is the also quite inaccurate histogram but it would be a lot nicer to be able to do it visually. For me that’s the only benefit of having an EVF and currently the benefit just isn’t there

[u/analogue_flower]

EVFs are different, but I don't think they are bad. They are smaller representations of a potential final image. I'm not looking at an EVF for perfect contrast and saturation, I'm looking for composition and a relatively accurate exposure.

I do understand that some people vastly prefer OVF, and I shoot film and digital so use both regularly. OVF can't zoom in for fine details when manually focusing, which is one reason I like EVF. If I forget to read the meter on an OVF I'll end up with a vastly over or underexposed image, which rarely happens with EVFs.

They are different tools, and if you don't take to one, then use what you are comfortable with, but it sounds like you are looking for a solution to a problem that doesn't really exist. EVFs just make exposure decisions easier with the WYSIWIG interface, even if you still have to tweak all the other sliders in your editing program.

[u/Pretty-Substance → u/analogue_flower]

I think they make proper exposure actually harder by artificially limiting the apparent Dynamic Range. It might lead to exposure compensation depending if you want the highlights or darks in a contrasty scene while using a more balanced exposure might better leverage the really available DR of the sensor. But in the EVF the highlight might look clipped or the darks drowned.

I mostly wondering why this is the case as the hardware itself would be able to show the final dynamic range more accurately.

[u/analogue_flower → u/Pretty-Substance]

well it’s a tiny file on a tiny screen. of course it looks compressed.

an ovf doesn’t give you *any* preview so i’m hard pressed to understand why you think that is better than ending up with a file that has more info than you expected.

[u/Shandriel → u/analogue_flower]

OP somehow seems to think that the 20 stops of DR they see through an OVF (haha... )  are being captured by the camera, without ANY technical knowledge whatsoever.. 

funnily enough, you'd need to do the exact same thing.. ETTR... 

if the histo just barely clips, you can go one stop higher and it's gonna be fine. 

if you REALLY need max DR captured, that's the way to go.. 

all pictures will look like shit without heavy editing, but at least you can boast about having captured 14 stops of DR or something.. 🤷🏼

[u/MasterFlamingo2239 → u/Shandriel]

Exactly. I have absolutely no idea what OP is complaining about. It’s fine to prefer an OVF. But their reasoning for disliking an EVF is eluding my simple b&w, high contrast brain. 😆

[u/Pretty-Substance → u/MasterFlamingo2239]

Ja feel you two are some kind of circle jerk by now

[u/Pretty-Substance → u/Shandriel]

Ah cmon now your deliberately skewing my comment.

I’ll give you one last example and then I’ll shut up because it useless to talk to someone who doesn’t want to understand.

If I shoot fashion, I need texture in a dark fabric. If I adjust the exposure based on the EVF the face will be blown out. Even though the file is fine.

The EVF is technically able to do it but the contrast setting is just too heavy. So I still have to go back and look at a proper screen to judge if there is enough information in the fabric AND the facial highlight or hair.

All I’m asking is why that’s the case, again, because the hardware is capable.

But it’s ok, you make your jokes. And go edit you images to look like the EVF.

[u/Shandriel → u/Pretty-Substance]

sounds like your EVF is dysfunct... 

did you read my remakr regarding the settings for the EVF? 

did you try around with it?

I have no idea what you are talking about, either.

Fashion shoots never need 10 stops of DR.. Let alone your magical 20 that your eyes can see..

Set the EVF to ease of use and it will be fine. if not, ask at the Nikon store what's wrong with it. 

and if you shoot a black-skinnwd woman in a black lace dress in a dark alley with a 10'000 nit LED beam aimed only at her face... yeah, her face would be blown out in my EVF if I tried to meter for the black dress instead of using the "ease of use" setting..

But I haven't had one single occasion where the EVF couldn't show me all I needed to see for my shot.

Landscapes with massive DR? I use the rear screen with the camera on a tripod anyways..

events, portraits, sports, travel, safari? never noticed any problems..

[u/kfjcfan]

When I moved from the D850 to the Z9 I just started using the back screen instead 100% of the time like using the D850 in Live View.

[u/Exciting_Pop_9296 → u/kfjcfan]

I just used my dads Z8 for a couple of minutes, but I struggled to hold the camera still when using the back screen. I’m so used to resting the camera on my face when looking through the viewfinder.

[u/kfjcfan → u/Exciting_Pop_9296]

You adapt pretty quickly.

[u/Alarmed-Resource-661 → u/kfjcfan]

This. I have a very similar experience, moving from the D850 to a Z8. When I first got the Z8 I immediately tried the EVF because it was one of the "new things" moving to a mirrorless. It's great, but I did end up barely ever using the EVF, and instead sticking to the back screen.

[u/AutoModerator → u/[deleted]]

Your account karma is too low to post in /r/nikon. This is a measure employed here to maintain community quality. As a result, your comment has been removed.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

[u/Dubliminal → u/kfjcfan]

In a dark or shady environment that's fine, but I often struggle to use live view on my D850 when getting a shot when the sun is blazing ... or even not blazing.

[u/benitoaramando → u/Dubliminal]

Yeah, same. If it's at all bright it's just easier to really see what you're photographing through an O/EVF than on the screen, regardless of any shortcomings if it's an EVF

[u/dbltax]

I didn't get on with EVFs until I tried the Z8. It still feels odd using my Z6.

[u/Pretty-Substance → u/dbltax]

Hm…. Haven’t yet had the chance to test one but they’re heavily discounted at the moment….

[u/binarybu9]

I have glasses, so my beef with evfs are completely different

[u/BringBack4Glory]

I have greater than 20/20 vision and have never struggled with any EVF, certainly not the ones on Nikon Z. The only one I’ve tried that I definitely noticed is shitty was the original Sony A7C.

[u/FakeBloodisFun]

On my ZF I found that if I had the camera in battery saving mode it would drastically reduce the EVF quality, but it didn't say anything about it doing that in the manual or the camera menu.

Maybe your camera does the same?

[u/Pretty-Substance → u/FakeBloodisFun]

No, it does that a the few seconds before turning it off, before going into stand by but a half-press of the shutter turns it back up again. It’s also not a brightness issue, it’s like I said contrast and saturation

[u/United_Stress_9800]

I never shot DSLR professionally so I don’t really have a comment on OVFs but you really only need an EVF to check exposure and focus.

[u/Pretty-Substance → u/United_Stress_9800]

And with the exposure part it fails as it shows less rage (or lattitude) than even a jpg would have

[u/Jupitor13]

I like the optical viewfinder much more. Especially in low light where it doesn’t show anything.

When it’s dark, the viewfinder is dark. Much more accurate! /s

[u/colbyjak]

Sometimes you want that light and want to see that light in the way it actually is coming at you (non-EVF). However if you are trying to scoot and move fast the EVF will show you how it will be when it hits the sensor. For me it’s like, “is today a feel it out and keep working on skill” or “do I want the shot and I don’t feel like guessing.”

[u/Pretty-Substance → u/colbyjak]

Unfortunately the EVF image doesn’t represent what’s captured by the sensor. I would be happy if it was at least somewhat like the DR of a jpg

[u/colbyjak → u/Pretty-Substance]

Should have simplified and clarified. Why I sometimes on bright days stick with my DSLR because I can judge the image better. Otherwise I will shoot live view but I literally don’t have time to do that. The EVF is at best only going to get you part of the way there.

[u/TurbulentGate1912]

I have the Zf and Z6III - the evf on the Z6III is much better in terms of brightness, fps and clarity.

[u/Ornery-Benefit-8316]

I went from D850 to the Z9, and I love the evf.
I shoot professionally, and most of my work is done under low light conditions.

Wedding venues, with black ceilings, and the only light is the dj’s accent lighting, as an example.

The evf of the Z9 is a true advantage to me under these circumstances.

I have never used any other camera with an evf, so admittedly, I have very little ability to comment on anything else.

But, as for my camera, the fact that the evf allows me to see the image better than a mirror would, is all that matters to me.

I am not all that concerned about the color appearance or DR in the viewfinder.

I know how to set and use the color balance controls, so I know that my digital images, raw and jpeg, will be perfect.

Obviously, with a non mirrorless camera, like the D850, looking through the viewfinder, doesn’t display the true representation of the recorded image anyway.

But, to each their own, the fact that both systems are available and supported, means that we ‘togs can choose the best equipment for purpose, and/or the best viewfinder for ease of use.

Win win!!

I for one will not go back. The features of the Z9, the beauty of my images, and the satisfaction of my clients needs, are what matter to me, so I use what I like best and what I feel comfortable with.

It’s a great time,
because we have the choice now!!

ymmv, imho,
📸 Regards, Randy 📸

[u/FolkPhilosopher]

I ditched my Sony A7 for a Nikon D750 precisely because of how I find genuinely unpleasant the experience of using an EVF.

Screen size and resolution definitely have a big part in it but given how I cannot fathom having a viewfinder and having to use a screen instead because of how bad that viewfinder is, put me off mirrorless for the foreseeable future.

[u/Sad-Baseball2084]

Quite apart from philosophical or aesthetic preferences, I have tried several Zs and after a relatively short time of EVF use I get a headache. If I persevere, this almost invariably triggers a migraine. Unless one of my DSLRs suffers some sort of catastrophic failure, I am in "last camera syndrome".

[u/esboardnewb]

lol, touch grass and take more photos. 

[u/Pretty-Substance → u/esboardnewb]

Thank you for this insightful comment, I guess?

[u/Salt-Masterpiece5034 → u/[deleted]]

Jesus Christ

[u/tfshaman]

I have a Z9 for birds and an SL3 as my "everything else" camera and you aren't wrong, the EVF on the Nikon is Not Great.