Which digital viewfinder campaign

The RightToColour campaign showcases the struggles of colour blind photographers while narrating true life experiences of a Assam-based photographer, Hizol Chodhury who wishes to see his photographs as the world sees them. The film highlights how Hizol has to rely on his team for colour correction and saturation of his work and the challenges he faces in the personal and professional life.

Like us on Facebook and follow us on Twitter. BrandWagon is now on Telegram. Click here to join our channel and stay updated with the latest brand news and updates. The company rolled out RightToColour campaign on Republic Day RightToColour is a digital led campaign which the company will amplify through their social media handles.

Dow 30 closes above for first time in years — Know how to invest in index stocks. Can Sony, Fujifilm and Panasonic match that? Sony showed great interest in our campaign and guaranteed to share this information with its product development team in Tokyo. However, it did warn us that it was too late to influence its latest lines which are set to release this year. Sony also stated that it does have an optical viewfinder accessory available for its NEX camera system.

Panasonic also said that it had shared our campaign with an appreciative research team in Japan. We were advised that the FZ, FZ45 and G-series cameras featured built-in electronic viewfinders, and an optional electronic viewfinder accessory could be used with the LX5 and certain G-series models.

Still, not only are these expensive options, they are complicated cameras that may not suit point-and-shoot users. However, this is still little help to those who need glasses to use the screens or find them an unnatural way to compose a shot.

We were eager to hear back from Fujifilm, as its recently-unveiled X model floored the camera press with a unique hybrid viewfinder, which acts as an optical or electronic viewfinder. If you want to read more about what Sony, Fujifilm and Panasonic had to say about our viewfinder campaign, you can check out their full responses here. Have any of these manufacturers managed to give a satisfactory response?

Do you think that improving LCD screen technology is good enough or should they concentrate on bringing viewfinders back to compact digital cameras? Our viewfinder campaign : which camera manufacturers' response was best? View Results. I bought the Nikon Coolpix because it and the Canon G12 were the only available new digital cameras with an optical viewfinder.

Unfortunately the viewfinder is next to useless and adding no real benefit whatsover. There is significant paralex error and no indication of correct focus displayed. Quite right Hari! Sony are being a bit disingenuous.

I have had 3 models of the Olympus SP series over the years because a they have a manual function b a zoom and c an electronic? I have now irreparably damaged my SPuz and now cannot find a direct replacement. I think the manufacturers are making a grave mistake phasing them out. Using a viewfinder reduces camera shake and you see exactly what you are getting! I need to be able to compose a shot accurately….

Sooo glad you are working on this issue. I would like something perfect for travelling please, manufacturers: small, not too expensive likely to get stolen, especially if it looks expensive , robust waterproof to 2 metres? Good news! Well, I am glad something is moving!

Not only the compact cameras, but also some bridge cameras do not have any viewfinder e. I mourn the loss of viewfinders, even a poor quality viewfinder is better than none at all. I take pictures at sea and on the ski slopes, a screen is often useless in these circumstances.

I would go so far as to say that I would prefer a camera with a viewfinder alone than one with a screen only. You seem to refer, and they do also, to the difficulty of seeing the screen in bright sun, which is a major concern, however I believe there are two other equally important issues.

Holding a camera steady is Photo Pulling in your arms steadies the camera as you peer through the viewfinder. If you wear reading glasses in order to see detail clearly, yup, most folks who are over forty you may not always have them handy. When you extend your arm to get the screen at a distance where it will be easy to view, your arm is likely to shake and blur the shot.

This has ruined more than one promising shot for me. By contrast, looking through the camera, one sees the image full-size and more detail is available. With an EVF, no matter how fast the camera is, the light has to enter the lens, hit the sensor, get processed, reduced, rendered, and THEN makes it to the eye.

Also, with motorsports there is a lot of panning, which can be difficult through an EVF. I've grown to love electronic viewfinders, but if I had to choose, I'd pick an optical viewfinder any day.

It's the combination of low blackout on higher-end cameras, how I'm easily able to follow subjects during bursts, and just the immediacy of seeing things as they happen that chiefly appeals to me. Whether I'm shooting sports, an event, a wedding or even just a dog playing fetch, the experience of using an optical viewfinder is just easier for me, and being able to clearly see a scene in really low light is invaluable.

There's a lot to be said for being able to preview your results with an electronic unit, but I still enjoy that brief 'moment of discovery' when I see an image on the back of the camera. Plus, a good optical viewfinder almost by definition goes along with a good phase-detect-only autofocus system, which I still prefer, despite the camera used in the above photo.

I am strongly, adamantly in favor of…both. I shoot differently depending on whether I'm using an electronic or optical viewfinder. With an EVF, I let the camera control more — I'm comfortable shooting in aperture or shutter priority and using exposure comp to adjust what I see in the viewfinder.

I experiment more with presets and creative modes because I can see the effects immediately, and I like an EVF with focus peaking if I'm focusing manually. I pay attention to what I'm doing with the camera and feel connected to the scene in a way I don't with an EVF. If I had to choose one, I'd choose an optical viewfinder because it feels more natural and immediate to me.

I like the 'being there' feeling of an optical viewfinder, but almost any camera with an EVF also allows for a easily legible level gauge, which is a must for me plus any camera that lets you put a level gauge in the EVF will also let you put a ton of other information in there as well.

I have a problem where I'm drawn to shots where a level horizon is critical, but I'm also useless at nailing a level shot without that gauge. So, dear readers, what do you prefer and why? Let us know in the comments, and happy shooting. I only shoot dance which tends to be a combination of fashion and sports so lots of fast lighting and lots of action. That, and most of the cameras that have them burn through batteries like candy and tend to get very hot with use.

Personally, the clarity of an OVF and the more natural feeling makes the experience more enjoyable, perhaps due to the inclusion, albeit at the expense of exposure.

So I'd rather an OVF with an accurate exposure system than an information overload EVF with a comparatively less repeatable exposure system. I expect OVFs will continue to become rarer as tech marches on. And no, I'm not some old Rhedodont kind of guy, who just hate everything modern, like Autofocus, in my portraits I use the AF to do the initial focus, and then I focus manually from there by rocking back and forth a bit, it coulden't be easier, nor more precise or faster But, if the image I see in the viewfinder is plastered with markings of what is sharp and blown highlights and whatnot, then I simply can't see for instance a person's minute facial expressions, so I can't know when to press the trigger to get the absolutely perfect portrait I used my xf with evf.

But I recently switched to ovf with my Fuji xv Absolutely prefer ovf, clearer scene, feel closer to what I am shooting It is really amazing the ovf experience in the Fuji xv. No matter how close an EVF gets to the quality and functionality of an OVF there will always be one thing that will make it inferior: it uses more battery power.

Maybe SONY will develop a reasonable sized solar panel that you can attach to your hat to alleviate this problem ;-. Now I have a level in the viewfinder and in Live View on my D and the Live View is easier to use than the optical one , but I can't help feeling it makes me a less disciplined shooter, and where there are no reference points I wonder how critical it really is for the most part it isn't in those situations.

I have found that the level in my D is not always accurate as I often take the reading on my tripod's level over it which is always accurate over the camera's level.

This is instructive to me about the value I put on using my OVF. Not just that it forces me to be more disciplined, but that the not always reliable tech can get in the way of the shooting experience and I think it ends up being a bit of a distraction. For pro work mostly portraits and weddings I use Canon 6D and 50mm 1. I'm not saying you cant replicate with an A7, but the battery life and speed of operation menus, autofocus snap, etc is not quite there on mirrorless.

Till then, Canon 6D for the win!! I am having more fun with the A7II and manual lenses than any other camera and lens combination I have tried so far, EVF playing a major part in helping me achieve focus with my vintage glass. Can't really get much better than that - the crop might throw you off a bit but that has nothing to do with the viewfinder. A good-sized OVF is preferable. With smaller camera, EVF is he way to go. I also prefer OVF with polarizers.

I have no strong preference for one or the other, generally. EVF is the only option to get pin point accuracy while manually focusing. You can't do that a 35mm viewfinder no matter how large it is. On the other hand, current EVFs clip highlights and shadows like there is no tomorrow under bright sunlight that it gets in the way of composing and setting exposure. And, NO, evf preview does not accurately present the exposure or white balance.

As the EVF can compress the dynamic range to the what sensor see, while OVF doesn't show you what is clipping and what not. Then you can always enable the wider DR modes that will override the sensor capabilities by doing realtime HDR, so you can actually see even more than the naked eye can with shades etc. You just hunted the focus and in experience growing you become very good at it. You must think EVFs are some perfectly calibrated professional devices.

Have you tried to compare EVF of your camera to its back display? Even those are different in color, contrast and brightness. And what's that nonsense about OVF clipping highlights because it doesn't tell you limitation of a camera sensor? Might as well blame your eye for that.

Finally no I am not talking about the level of focus precision where everything looks fine in your web-sized photos or back when nobody printed bigger than letter size. And clipping, your eye iris will close automatically when you look directly to the sun. It is hard fact that fighter pilots needs to fight all the time. It is same problem as many other that looks at the low angle sun direction and doesnt see anything in the shadows nor highlights but try to shade to see something.

It is the reason why hats has shades to see better even against bright lights because your eye clips it Oh, and I talk about A2 size prints Focusing wasn't a such problem. You got misses but not much. I didn't say that was a problem with specific cameras. None of the current EVFs are properly calibrated, period. I don't how I confused you into writing random human eye facts. I'm talking pixel level focus precision.

Whether you think it's important is another matter. Sometimes i miss the optical viewfinder. Especialy in low light. It's dificult to focus. But the Fuji viewfinder is not bad, so i have to deal with it. The only big problem of the EVF's is the battery use. I think we're missing the most important thing here; the need to have a love affair with your camera. Some years ago I bought a D on the basis of the specifications and reviews. It delivered the goods, but was just a tool for the job to me.

Last year I swapped it, together with a few lenses, sorry if some find this upsetting for a Fuji X-E2 with kit zoom and a 90mm portrait lens. This is a camera I love to use, I even like the retro look of it the last thing I would consider when weighing up specifications. Haven't read the other comments because I don't need to.

I'm quite old and used large format view cameras when I started out. Many shots require different acquisition apparatus. A rangefinder maybe, or an slr or dslr optical viewfinder, or even a lcd screen of some sort think electron microscope.

But the first imaging apparatus must always be your mind. And I think that is being lost. But sixty years later I still take photographs using my mind's eye. Oh, and upside down images on a view camera still beats all, at least for a shot where you can take your time composing. Because it sucks With an evf you get a better idea of what the camera settings will give you before you take your shot.

Since more OVFs do superimpose electronic info over the screen, we've almost got hybrid VFs these days. I would like to say that EVFs are my favorite, but not yet. Canon was recently asked when they would replace the OVFs in their high end and pro models, and their response was that someday, they would, but it's not there yet. Or Canon could do like Kodak when asked if they were going to make digital cameras They said that at the right time, they may have waited too long. A level gauge, really??

My d has one in the viewfinder, I can typically frame the shot without it. For me any viewfinder is better than none. Pentax K-7 was the first camera to offer the innovative electronic level gauge And all of the manufacturers, including your sacred Pentax, copied Minolta on autofocus so whats the point. As to OVF vs. EVF, no contest. Sure, it's a nifty little trick to see your exposure in the viewfinder, but fine tuning exposure in p-p is dead simple.

Everything I need to see is visible in the OVF, especially my subject. The EVF slide show is a fatal flaw for shooting action. Nice to hear that the a has made some headway.

Richard's comment about APS-C viewfinders applies to lower level models with their dark little pentamirrors. I especially love taking movies through a viewfinder. Take it outside in any oblique strong sunlight though and it's completely useless, and for that sole reason I prefer an OVF.

Nothing can beat large, bright OVF. Mirrorless fans praise EVF because they do not have other option. Using EVL is like using a condom- not because you like it for sure. That held true for my D and D90 too By today's standards it would have been laughable, but I fell in love with it. I could see actual exposure, and it made getting exactly what I wanted in my image much easier. I ended up going entirely mirrorless since, with both M43 and A7 bodies.

I find that looking through an OVF now feels like going back to stone knives and bearskins. With focus peaking, an EVF allows you to have your subject anywhere in the frame— even the edges or corners. I am learning that many lenses with "soft corners" really just have a curved focal plane— and getting a subject sharp in those corners is merely a matter of focusing properly.

Focus peaking is not that precise in my opinion. When trying it on the A7rii, without doing magnification in addition there is no way to precisely get the eye of a subject in focus. The highlighted contrasty edges stay highlighted for a fairly large turn of the the lens focus ring.