Optical viewfinder vs. LCD

[tursiops]

I shot m43 mirrorless for several years just using the LCD on the back.

Then I got a Sony FF mirrorless and shot it that way for a few months.

Then I got a 45 degree VF for the Sony setup and I really like it. And, so far, I've only shot it for WA.

I can see the info on the display better with the VF and its magnification versus how well I could see it on the LCD.

Also, for WA of big fish (e.g. sharks), it's easier to use the 45 and get an upward shot angle. Especially if I'm on the bottom or near it.

Also, if you have old man eyes, like I do, you can adjust the diopter on the camera's VF so that you can easily read the display when looking through the VF - when trying to read the info on the LCD might not be easy at all.

It's not ALL roses, though. There are some times when I think "this would be easier if I was just using the LCD". But, it's an either-or choice. With the 45VF mounted, it blocks my view of a good chunk of the LCD. And, to make it all work, I have to set the camera menu to keep the electronic VF turned on, which turns off the LCD. So, to switch back and forth, I would have to change the camera setting each time.

I have never really attempted to shoot macro. I'm surprised so many people are saying the VF is preferable for that. I would have thought using the LCD would work better because you could keep the camera at arm's length - so you physically don't have to get as close to the subject. So, less chance of scaring it off.

Most real macro doesn't seem to scare, except maybe pygmy seahorses, who don't like the additional light, but the lens and you don't bother them. The BIGGEST reason for the viewfinder is to allow the best possible focus, which is really critical for macro.

 

[OTF]

I love viewfinders on land, but don't like them underwater. In my experience it works much better to use the screen (and therefor a mirrorless camera) underwater. It's hard enough to see anything to begin with given visibility, a mask restricting vision, and refraction. I'm often contorted above the camera fighting surge and trying not to disturb the benthic life in a position that precludes fully seeing the back of the housing, let alone getting my face near a viewfinder. I'd actually love to have a pivoting screen underwater (something I find gimmicky and mostly useless on land).

 

[WS007]

I shot m43 mirrorless for several years just using the LCD on the back.

Then I got a Sony FF mirrorless and shot it that way for a few months.

Then I got a 45 degree VF for the Sony setup and I really like it. And, so far, I've only shot it for WA.

I can see the info on the display better with the VF and its magnification versus how well I could see it on the LCD.

Also, for WA of big fish (e.g. sharks), it's easier to use the 45 and get an upward shot angle. Especially if I'm on the bottom or near it.

Also, if you have old man eyes, like I do, you can adjust the diopter on the camera's VF so that you can easily read the display when looking through the VF - when trying to read the info on the LCD might not be easy at all.

It's not ALL roses, though. There are some times when I think "this would be easier if I was just using the LCD". But, it's an either-or choice. With the 45VF mounted, it blocks my view of a good chunk of the LCD. And, to make it all work, I have to set the camera menu to keep the electronic VF turned on, which turns off the LCD. So, to switch back and forth, I would have to change the camera setting each time.

I have never really attempted to shoot macro. I'm surprised so many people are saying the VF is preferable for that. I would have thought using the LCD would work better because you could keep the camera at arm's length - so you physically don't have to get as close to the subject. So, less chance of scaring it off.

Your comment is interesting Stuart. Maybe I never invested enough efforts to become familiar with the 45° viewfinder for WA. I will give it more trials in the future, since you recommend it so persuasive...

I can assure you that starting with the first dive with 45° viewfinder, the convenience was clear to me: Totally relaxed, when framing some macro with an angle from below: When framing at a similar angle with back LCD, I have to duck and bend myself deep, stressing my neck muscles (I am also an old man, 64 yr's ).
Of course the preferences will be personal and individually different, but many agree that they like the 45° viewfinder for macro...


Wolfgang

 

[dhaas]

A few more thoughts........

Using an LCD on any camera is also dependent on your housing back. Some have the LCD shaded pretty well while other housings don't. This will affect how bright the LCD appears for framing easily.

Surprisingly many lower budget like the Fantasea housings (yes, I'm a dealer and user) come with a really nice rubber pop on BLACK shade. It's wider at the TOP than the bottom and really is great to frame with, in my case the Canon G7X II's compact camera.

Most SLR housings don't have a decent shade. That said, as in my previous post I've successfully used the LCD for shooting a Ikelite Canon SL1 and previous full sized SLR housings with the LCD.

As to swimming and positioning the housing to frame with a LCD here's some thoughts to ponder.

There was a book in my dive book library I loaned to someone and was never returned Titled "Wake of the Whale" it chronicled National Geographic photographer Bill Curtsinger diving with yet to become famous UW photographers Chris Newbert off Hawaii and Chuck Nicklin in Patagonia.

This was before Chris Newbert blew up the UW imaging world with his incredible coffee table book "Within a Rainbowed Sea". You can check out details about both these books on Amazon.

Folks, this was also the days of FILM having only 36 chances to capture underwater pictures before having to open your housing and reload film

The chapters describing being offshore all day in a small 17' Boston Whaler with Chris Newbert free diving with whales or whatever else appeared had some insights I recall to this day......

The author of the book, Kenneth Brower (son of famous naturalist and environmentalist David Brower) describes tasking Curtsinger how he gets his photos in a 3 dimensional environment like the ocean, especially over deep bottomless blue of Hawaii.

Curtsinger says something like his: "I don't know, the housing is like ball I hold steady composing my shots."

He states he swims "around" his housing being a gimbal like cinematographers use to position a camera framing shots.

Curtsinger, Newbert and Nicklen were shooting all ambient light, no strobes as swimming for hours per day.

To this day I delight in rotating around my housing getting into position to frame what I hope will be a nice capture

At 67 I'm not as flexible as years gone by but this old dog is still in the hunt !!! LOL....

Get out there and enjoy yourself. It's definitely worth it

David Haas
Haas Photography Inc.

 

[stuartv]

Most real macro doesn't seem to scare, except maybe pygmy seahorses, who don't like the additional light, but the lens and you don't bother them. The BIGGEST reason for the viewfinder is to allow the best possible focus, which is really critical for macro.

I get ya'. That makes sense. My first thought, when I think of macro, is the times I have tried to get a photo of a Jawfish with a mouthful of eggs. Those scare easily. But, I guess things like Nudis probably don't exactly run away when you swim up... LOL

 

[tursiops]

I get ya'. That makes sense. My first thought, when I think of macro, is the times I have tried to get a photo of a Jawfish with a mouthful of eggs. Those scare easily. But, I guess things like Nudis probably don't exactly run away when you swim up... LOL

Yeah, the jawfish eggs are one of the hardest. My only successful picture used a telephoto!

 

[stuartv]

Yeah, the jawfish eggs are one of the hardest. My only successful picture used a telephoto!

I got one. Sorta. If I had any kind of reasonable lens for small subjects, it would have been fantastic, I think. Instead, I had my WA setup on, so it was a full 130 degree FOV. Thanks to having 61MP, after a lot of cropping you can totally tell that it's a jawfish with its mouth open. But, you have to take my word for it that its mouth is full of eggs.

I was SO disappointed I didn't have the right lens setup for that photo!

That was when I was still using the LCD screen on the back, too. I imagine that I got the camera a lot closer to the jawfish than I could have if I had had to stick my mask right up against the VF. Even then I had to hang around for probably 10 minutes, laying on the bottom, as still as possible (and on my CCR), to even get that good of a shot.