Alec, before I block your comments again, and this time definitely not only one month, I just reply to your stupid celebration of OVFs which come either at the disadvantage of being not precise enough for teles longer than 135 mm (I mean, the real optical viewfinders a the one in a Leica M) and the other disadvantages of shutter lag due to mirror movement (as in all DSLRs) and indirect focusing and metering the exposure. Another disadvantage: Some users get blind to that disadvanteges, maybe theyâve just looked to often into the sunlight through their OVFs?
You simply sound like someone, whose experience with EVFs are limited to old and bad models. Not my problem. And calling me naĂŻve simply returns back to the sender.
Well, Alec, thatâs actually a good point, I guess I would buy this version because of its better possibilities to tune perspective issues which iis sometioimes tricky. But again, thereâs a very high risc for support efforts for DXO because of complaining customers, lacking photographic discipline and expecting a tool to compensate the impossdileâŚ
Regarding your viewfinder arguments which I share: (do not want to step into your private warfare with @JoJu though):
I use different technics e.g. for portraiture with a (D)SLR, one eye through the finder and the other open to see evtl. eyes twinkling during the shot, an electronic viewfinder of e.g. the one in my G5XII simply can not reliably do that. But it is good for travel in sunlight, better than a display. But basically, I am used to see the world through the finder as it is and not as the camera thinks Iâd like to see it⌠I would never buy a professional EVF cam for my personal needs. But I clearly see the need of some others e.g. sports/action.
Never say never! Itâs clear that the day of the DSLR, for good or for ill, is over. Over the next few years it will become more and more difficult to find a new copy of a current DSLR body, much less a new model. At the same time, EVFs are continually improving. In a few years you might change your mind.
I could care less. One less misguided, arrogant and rude German in my life would only be a blessing.
The EVF in the Nikon Z6 was considered state of the art and is roughly the same viewfinder which went into the new Nikon Z9.
OVFâs rock for sports. There is no lag. Speed of light. Too bad for you if you donât like physics and prefer staring at laggy TV screens instead of live action.
Hi,
Maybe you didnât try a good evf.
Z6 is considered state of the art⌠by Nikon maybe ? It is only 60 i/sâŚwhich i can confirm is not good for action.
Evf offers a lot more than ovf, but i will not say it is better, it is different.
As for me my 120i/s evf, my 30 i/s bursts that allow focus stacking, all sorts of pilings to reduce noise, increase definition, make disappear unwanted tourists on pictures,⌠the wysiwyg evf, the focus peaking,⌠give me interesting features and i wonât go back to ovf.
Iâm not going to turn into a Sony-mbecile buying the same camera over and over again every 1.5 years hoping that finally Sony isnât just screwing us over with a flash-in-the-pan feature of the day while leaving horrid rolling shutter on the sensor for a decade (just one example).
You know whatâs great about OVF? The one on the D4 is just as good the one on the D6. And there are no technical issues with any of them. You just have to be a capable enough photographer to be able to set up your camera with the right settings for the photographic challenge in front of you as there is no real time chimping.
This whole mirrorless camera mania reminds me of the people who are keen on automatic transmission in cars. Mostly because they couldnât be bothered to learn how to drive. The only issue is the mirrorless camera crowd sound like medieval religious mobs hunting for witches.
For the next 100 years most of the greatest images in photography will have been taken with an optical viewfinder. It will be that long before mirrorless photographers catch up (if ever) with optical viewfinder photographers. You have work cut out for you, so why donât you get to it instead of complaining about people getting many years of use out of great cameras instead of trading their obsolete trinket MILC in every year and a half.
Speaking of which â a sensible photographers spends his/her money on lenses not bodies.
Waou you take every opportunity to be polemic
Relax man !!
And if you think you have the only truth and that people canât express different opinions, then go and see a doctor
With your reasoning man will not have invented the wheel⌠and you shouldnât have switched to digital cameras !!
So ridiculous arguments you provide.
For Sony i donât know what you are referring to, i donât use Sonys.
I see now that your contribution was not entirely in the same tone as some of the people who came before you. My apologies. Frankly, I do use an EVF when shooting with vintage lenses (Nikon Z6) and like it for those purposes. Just donât like EVF at all for sports. Iâm neutral about most other situations (can shoot either but like the direct contact with the subject most of the time with OVF but if light is difficult EVF gives photographer a leg up on how settings are effecting captured light).
Everyone is entitled to their opinions of course and nothing wrong with different perspectives. People should be able to exchange viewpoints without rancour.
Hi all, can we ask please refrain from all the personal insults flying around. This forum is for constructive discussions and for helping eachother. Letâs be respectful to otherâs opinions and make these forums a pleasant experience for all.
Please look at the post to which I was initially responding. Please look at my recent post to @Man
Your tone sounds eerily similar to theirs. You just take the opposite position.
I just tire of empty-handed magazine readers banging on the empty pots of ânew is betterâ. Not always. In this case, both systems have their strengths. New/automated does not always improve on what came before.*
I donât know why are talking about viewfinders anyway. This thread was supposed to be about Panorama Stitching until it was derailed.
My apologies for my own subsequent role in encouraging the thread to wander off-topic.
*This is particularly true for example with bicycles. Bicycles shifted very well from the 1980âs with thumbshifters and gear systems were very durable with a standard 18-gear set up (3 x 6). This did not generate enough revenue for Shimano so every three year we face a new shifting system, each worse and less reliable and more finicky than the next. Gearing is now standardised on 20 (2 x 10) or 27 (3 x 9) with paper thin hubs which wear out in a quarter as many kilometers. Gearing really should have stopped at 21 or 24. Going any higher compromises the integrity of the system. Good luck buying even an 8 gear hub (I can get them but with difficulty and not the best quality). Shimano is a near-monopolist supplier and has pushed the market from what is durable and reliable and inexpensive to fragile and expensive. Just a very concrete and specific example of how new is not always better.
Just a thought, is âPanoramaâ not a just a word to bring people to the point what we want?
âstitchingâ
plaine stitching and stacking possibilityâs?
I have posted before Silkypix v10 has a multi form of use of stacking.
no panorama yet, but that could be also in multi form.
side by side, on pile stacked, and both just plain enlarging.
in this same road would be âreplacementâ of parts (two images of nearly the same and cut at a place and then swap one part to the other side to stich.
(Not that i want Pl to be a child of Photoshop)
Viewpoint V4 would be a nice fase to implement this.
Be carefull, this kind of tool must be COMPLETE to be usefull.
It MUST have possibility to make cleanup manually, so it needs to keep complete stack before validating the process.
An automated tool like this without manual control would certainly be more a toy than a professional tool.
I think that that the key is.
Then you have to box mark areaâs and have the opertunity to select the layer for that boxed area to have the main pixel delivery. (every photo is one layer)
Same is initial lineup, you have go have opertunity making pinpoints which are important to get good alignment. Areaâs of importance so to speak.
In stitching perspective correction automatisation.
Beating the dead horse. . . again.
I bought DxO Photolab Pro and have been using it all this time. HOWEVER, I still would like to see the entire panoramic âthingâ included in a major upgrade, at which time I would spend the money for it. As I had mentioned in another post or three, I hate subscription software and that is why I went with DxO, and DxO also needs to give me a reason to pop my retirement $$$ for upgrades. I may do it if I read enough reviews that simply rave about how I can live without the latest release, but so far I am doing just fine, and as I indicated the only other justification that DxO themselves give me is panoramic/stitching.
I have just recently moved to Hugin Panorama stitching software and I am extremely happy with the results. Simply setup Export to Application and all photos selected for the panorama will be developed and sent to Hugin. Make sure you export optical corrections only and export as 16-bit tiff files.
In C1 is an option for panoramic stitching. The results are DNG files of roughly 2 1/2âŚ3Ă the size of the included RAWs as finsihed exports. So, very probably the pano is made by conversion RAW to TIF.
I donât see a real benefit in having this conversion onboard of the RAW converter, if I need to change curves, colours and other stuff, I still have to go back to the originals. Also, the conversion ocassionally shows some geometrical phenomena a dedicated pano software is able to handle well - and C1âs pano module is not. Hugin has a long experience and can also handle/export spherical panos, I believe?
@OldSubSailor Instead of waiting for a maybe never happening pano-module in PL, I suggest to buy a lifelong license for Affinity Photo instead, an affordable image editor with more than only pano abilities.
Itâs nice for a first throw (the onboard pano-conversion), but the results in Affinity Photo are equally good or better, so I would not make it a deal breaker against the RAW-converter
Hi Joachim,
Well, I do I indeed have the license for Affinity Photo (again hating subscription software so I went with them) and to be honest it does an ok job of stitching. PTGui is better but complicated.