Olympus E-3 Review Part 4: Live View

By Eamon Hickey

I said in an earlier post that Live View is a no-brainer and promised to expand on that theme a bit. Live View is not new at all, of course—video cameras and digital point-and-shoots have had it for years—but it has been greeted with a lot of scorn by many SLR users. That scorn notwithstanding, this is an oncoming tidal wave. The potential economic and photographic benefits of it are just too compelling, a fact clearly on the minds of the camera companies who have stuck Live View into most of the DSLRs introduced in the past 12–18 months, from entry-level to top pro model. I also think it's a tremendously interesting development, since the way a camera lets the photographer view the scene is arguably its most fundamental quality. I'm in agreement with those who think it's likely that forms of Live View, whether using LCDs or electronic viewfinders (or wireless iPods or whatever), will eventually be the dominant viewing mechanism at nearly all levels of photography.

Future wonders aside, the current form of Live View in most DSLRs is only sporadically useful, and the E-3 is not really an exception. As with nearly all current DSLRs that have the feature, the E-3 enables Live View by flipping the camera's mirror up and using the main sensor to feed a video image to the LCD, which necessitates a weird, and slow, mirror dance (for autofocus and metering) whenever you make an exposure. A significant shutter delay and LCD blackout results. The system works perfectly okay for static subjects, and for some things—notably macro photography of non-moving subjects, especially close to the ground—it can work a lot better than the regular optical viewfinder. You can quibble about the specific implementation of the E-3's Live View mode—the way you navigate the various displays and certain operating characteristics—but, overall, it works roughly as well as other versions of this form of Live View. And the camera's articulated LCD maximizes the number of positions and angles from which you can compose a picture in Live View mode, a definite plus (although at the cost of some added bulk for the LCD's mount and swivel joint).

I did some macro and still-life tests and was not surprised at all to find that the E-3's Live View works quite well for that kind of thing. It isn't necessary for such pictures, but it's helpful and therefore desirable. I also found it useful several times for general picture-taking—to angle the camera up against a wall at knee level for the shot of the wayward box that led off these posts, for example, or extended two feet out over the Hudson River to get a better angle on a paddleboat. These made somewhat better pictures than I could have taken if limited to the optical viewfinder. To me, in short, Live View is an obvious win, enabling some shots that weren't possible before and making others easier and more pleasant to accomplish, all at minor cost.

I also decided to see how far I could push the E-3's Live View, despite the shooting delays that are inherent to its form of the feature. One vague desire I've had kicking around in my head for awhile is to try to photograph, in some interesting way, the dogs of New York. While not as famous as their Parisian kin, New York's pooches are really a fascinating cohort—ubiquitous, wildly multifarious, winsome, jaunty, often hilarious. It occurred to me that Live View would make it easy to shoot ground-level full-face portraits of all sorts of dogs, big and small, as they made their way about the city. That, in turn, evolved into the idea that it might be fun to make and print digital contact sheets of the faces of every dog that passed a particular spot over a given time. The "contact sheet" you see here, a preliminary test of the notion, is a selection of the dogs that walked down a particular path near The Great Lawn in Central Park from 6-7pm one Thursday evening.

To shoot them, I sat cross-legged on the ground at the side of the path, with the E-3 and the 50–200mm SWD resting on a small belt pack in front of me. After I learned to continue panning correctly even when the LCD was blacked out during the mirror dance, my hit rate (i.e. shots in focus) was about 40–50%—better than I expected given that this form of Live View shouldn't really work well for shooting moving objects. Perhaps I should clarify that my hit rate was less than 50% with the smaller, quicker, younger dogs, and maybe a bit better than 50% with the larger, more temporally seasoned hounds. (You can see on my contact sheet that some of the shots are very crisp and others just a tad soft—the really out-of-focus ones were trashed.) Could I have lain prone on that path for an hour, eye to an optical viewfinder, without weirding people out? Maybe, but I wouldn't have. Life's too short. So I'm actually modestly bullish on the E-3's Live View for more than just static subjects. I don't think these dog portraits have turned out as charming as they were in my mind's eye, but if I decide to keep trying I'd be willing to spend some more time shooting this way with the E-3's Live View.

The project would go much better, however, if the E-3 had a second Live View mode that Olympus offered with the now-discontinued E-330. In addition to the mirror-up/main sensor Live View mode of the E-3, the E-330 could do Live View with the mirror down, using a secondary sensor in the viewfinder to feed the video image to the LCD. This was called "Mode A" on the E-330, and it allows the camera to work essentially as normal, eliminating the mirror dance and the delays that go along with it. The current Sony A300 and A350 use a similar concept. It's much better for shooting the general run of everyday life (like Live View in a point-and-shoot but with the other benefits of an SLR). I borrowed an E-330 from Olympus two winters ago to give DSLR Live View an extensive play. I used Mode A for both the shot of the crowd and flags at Rockefeller center, where I held the camera as high as I could reach, and the ice skating shot (done with the wonderful Olympus ZD 7–14mm ƒ/4 lens), where I panned with the skaters, holding the camera at waist level just on the inside edge of the fence at the skating rink in Bryant Park. I strongly hope that Olympus revives Mode A in one camera or another. (And good for Sony for their version of it.)

The secondary sensor method of Live View, at least as done by Olympus and Sony, does have some drawbacks, however, most notably smaller or dimmer optical viewfinders. To really make Live View work well in cameras with DSLR-level speed and performance, the camera companies will have to make main-sensor Live View work much better, with major improvements in the forms of autofocus and metering that work using the primary imaging sensor. But I have no doubt they are furiously developing such improvements right now. This is too important a technology for it to be otherwise. If I'm still taking pictures in fifteen years, I'm expecting to be happily rid of the complexity, expense, and especially the bulk of mirror/pentaprism assemblies and composing freely from multiple angles with a Live View LCD or electronic viewfinder. Today, in its current somewhat kludgy form, I'd rate Live View modestly desirable (especially with an articulated, or at least tilting, LCD)—a feature I'll look for but not yet a must-have.

______________________

Eamon

______________________

Olympus E-3 at Amazon U.S.
Olympus E-3 at B&H Photo

______________________

Olympus E-3 Review Part 1 (preface)
Olympus E-3 Review Part 2 (first impressions)
Olympus E-3 Review Part 3 (lenses and autofocus)
Olympus E-3 Review Part 4 (live view)
Olympus E-3 Review Part 5 (miscellanea)
Olympus E-3 Review Part 6 (conclusion)

Comments

[Robert Roaldi]

In a sense, the Sony R1 is exactly what Eamon is predicting cameras will look like in 15 years, except that the R1 skipped that whole mirror/prism thing and went straight to the permanent live view.

I have been using mine for a couple of years now and although I haven't made much use of the articulated LCD viewer, it's been really handy to have when I did need it. The more useful feature is the live histogram BEFORE taking the picture. That's when you really need it, after all. In fact, it's kind of addictive. I recently bought myself an Oly E-1 for fun and I love the feel of the camera but when using it, I always have this feeling that something is missing. Then I remember that getting the exposure correct is normally done this way and that the R1 is the exception.

It's like A/C in a car. You can live without it but it's somehow more difficult than it used to be.

[David]

Robert,

Yep, the Sony R1 had it right. I LOVE having the live histogram in the finder. Every digital camera should have this, period. Even though the R1's histogram is small and probably not totally accurate...you get to know it, my exposures were always dead on.

I miss it very much when using my dslr's..

I wish Sony would have taken the R1 a bit further in terms of processing speed and some manual focus streamlinng...it's a great camera and IMO it was a mistake for Sony to dump this camera without pushing the concept a bit further.

Articulated viewfinder...I use it all the time on the R1 and miss it on every other camera I own...frankly, the lack of live histogram and articulated viewfinders on the other cameras I own pisses me off to no end.

[Rich Sajdak]

I agree totally with Robert. I'm an old time film SLR shooter who transitioned to a Sony R1 when I went to digital (the lens alone was worth the price). I don't miss the mirror/prism at all.

[Tim]

`it's likely that forms of Live View, whether using LCDs or electronic viewfinders (or wireless iPods or whatever), will eventually be the dominant viewing mechanism at nearly all levels of photography.'

Or for the rest of us, there's always large-format with its gorgeous ground-glasses... and has been since the 1800s :)

Personally I do find it harder to get a decent shot using an LCD on the camera back at more than nose-length - aligning horizontal/verticals tends to be much further out of whack for me, compared to *either* a dSLR with conventional viewfinder or MF with a WLF. I expect it's down to stability as much as anything - you can't hold it as still at arms' length as when you can brace elbows. Such is life.

[David Bostedo]

I'm a little flustered by all the reticence I've read about Live View in DSLRs. The lack of good live view is one of the main reasons I haven't purchased one (sticking with my Canon S2).

It's nice to see some opinion here that embraces Live View (and tilting screens!). It certainly seems to me that an SLR could forego the whole mirror/second sensor problem simply by eliminating the optical finder. I, for one, would applaud that as an option.

[Eric Jeschke]

The only time I want to use a viewfinder is in bright sun. I find composing on an LCD much more pleasant, and puts my portrait subjects at much greater ease. And this after 13+ years of shooting with a film SLR.

That feature and size are the two reasons I prefer serious compacts to DSLRs. Go DP1! We need more cameras like this!

[Paul Mc Cann]

I have yet to see an electronic display that comes even close to a good pentaprism setup. (I use a D300). I had the original Minolta Dimage 7i which frankly was a fright.

While I would like an articulated screen for low level shots etc. using one for ordinary composition by holding it at arms length just screams 'Dork' to me.

[robert e]

I share the enthusiasm for an R-1 type camera (SLE?), but wouldn't it be that much better with interchangeable lenses? I would think development costs could be way less if a body were designed around an existing lens mount. I'd think too that Olympus, with 4/3's relatively short registration and with their long practice with live view, would be the likely innovator. (OK maybe the Leica M mount could be a more logical and more intriguing platform, but how likely is that to happen? Meanwhile, Olympus is almost there already.)

[Craig]

I initially dismissed the Sony R1 for two reasons: a) lack of funds; b) My K-Minolta Dimage A2 had everything I needed and wanted EXCEPT clean, high ISO performance from its 2/3" 8MP sensor.

Everything I read about the Sony R1 convinced me that if Sony would only drop their mediocre Electronic ViewFinder (EVF) and replace it with a high resolution EVF as good or better than the one used in the Dimage A2, I would likely abandon the bulkier, noisier, DSLRs that I use today.

In fact, I dug out the old KM Dimage A2 over the weekend and took it to one of Minnesota's better state parks (Jay Cooke, just south of Duluth). I enjoyed its: size, weight, control layouts (better than my Maxxum 5D or the Alpha 100), the live histogram and grid overlay on the EVF, how quiet it is to operate (no noisy mirror slapping), and that its 8MP 2/3" sensor gives me images almost as good as my 10MP DSLR as long as I don't require an ISO of any higher than 100.

I believe that Sony has everything technically it needs to produce a world-class "R2" with a 2.5 or 2.7" articulating LCD on the back of the camera, and a high resolution/fast refresh rate EVF. The super Zeiss optics, built-in image stabilization, all the resolution and low noise characteristics of a 12MP 1.5 crop CMOS sensor like the one used in the Sony A700 would give them a unique niche no longer handled by any of the other big manufacturers.

Even with a 24-120mm lens (longer would be nice but not necessary), I'd sign up immediately.

[David Bostedo]

Sorry to pick on you, Paul, but :

"I have yet to see an electronic display that comes even close to a good pentaprism setup."

Yes, the view through a good pentaprism is much better than current EVFs; But I would counter with "who cares"? EVFs are pretty good (either on screen or in an eye piece) and likely to get much better, and you wind up with the same shot (provided the EVF isn't so bad it affects how you compose and expose). Plus, is an EVF really any worse than a bad/small pentamirror viewfinder? The EVF doesn't actually affect handling, and can do some really nice things like boosting the image in low light, and zooming for critical focusing.

"While I would like an articulated screen for low level shots etc. using one for ordinary composition by holding it at arms length just screams 'Dork' to me."

Really? For most of my friends, that's the norm, and the dorks are the ones who carry the big camera with Nikon or Canon in yellow or white on the strap and who have to put them up to their eye. I have no idea how old you are, and I'm not all that young (31), but I wonder if it's a generational thing? My friends and I never owned cameras until digital came along, and they think I'm a bit of a dork for carrying anything larger than a pocket cam. I'd imagine that continues even more in younger people.

[Grant Kench]

Don't much care about live view. Have to say though that I love the dogs.
www.tasmaniaphotoart.blogspot.com

[Janne]

Live view is a good secondary or complementary system. There are a couple of drawbacks to it compared to optical finders that it will always have, however:

* LCD panel live view means holding the camera away from you. You get less stable shots than if you can brace the camera on your face.

* Live view means having a light source to see the screen. That means that both the camera and you - your face especially - lights up at night. And if it's really night, that will be instantly obvious to anyone (or any animal) nearby.

Both the above can be mitigated by having live view in the viewfinder of course. But:

* The viewfinder live view still needs a light source for the image to be visible. Lighting up your eye, ruining your night vision.

And of course:

* Live view can show you only the dynamic range of your sensor, compressed into the dynamic range of the display. You see only what the camera sees. Just like a benefit of rangefinder cameras is that you see outside the edges of the image to help you decide on composition, so does an optical finder allow you to see outside the limits of the camera dynamic range, allowing you to decide on exposure. And no, this discrepancy will not be solved by technology; there's some pretty good reasons it can't (we can't really do it either; we fudge it by changing our gain depending on the spot we focus on).

[Robin P]

An interesting polarisation of views about how we use our cameras (pun intended). My personal experience with LCD viewing (back panel and internal) has been very negative - gimme optics anytime.
Mike, would all this change the opinions you expressed in your wonderful viewfinder tutorial?
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/understanding-series/viewfinders.shtml

Cheers, Robin

[Max Dominic]

When rangefinders and SLRs were invented they were seen as brilliant because photographers weren't taking photos from their belly buttons anymore (as in box brownies etc) but from eye level, close to the face in a simmilar connected way to how we actually see the world infront of us. this is not possible with live view, you have to hold the camera away from your eye for it to work. This advance in camera technology is now being turned back on itself.

Liveview should always remain an option in SLR cameras.

[Robert Roaldi]

While I like to have the flexibility of using an articulated LCD viewer when the need arises (framing above the head or when I don't feel like crouching down), I normally hold the R1 up to my face and use it like an SLR. Ninety percent of the time, this is perfectly fine for composition. Occasionally I miss some distracting object that ruins the shot because it was in a dark corner of the frame that did not show up well in the eye-level display. I suspect that I would have seen some of those using an SLR with good viewfinder.

The articulated LCD and eye-level finder in the R1 are not very good for tracking birds or race cars because the refresh rate is too slow. Videocams manage to accomplish this just fine so maybe it's something that could be solved, if someone wanted to solve it.

I also have a small digicam with no optical viewfinder that requires me to hold the thing out at arm's length. I detest this. One, it means I really need to have my reading glasses with me all the time, but I don't, so I have a high number of pics with crooked horizons, bad composition with little details sneaking into the frame that I didn't see on the LCD, even when I remember the glasses. Actually, it's a lot like shooting with film because I don't really know what I have until I look at the pics later on the computer screen. It's handy because it's small but so was my Oly Stylis Epic and it had a viewfinder. Also, the LCD viewing screen on the little p&s is not articulated so it's almost like having the worst of both worlds.

But like I said in the earlier post, seeing the histogram before taking the picture is the best feature of the R1.

[Colin Work]

I have Live View on my Canon 1D3 and find it pretty useless. Why? Because for reasons unknown Canon did not articulate the LCD screen (and is not as if size and weight is an issue on a 1D).

While (in my opinion anyway) live view is no substitute for the viewfinder, Eammon demonstrates exactly why live view has a place - it extends the capabilities of the camera. I often have a need to hold the camera over my head for a shot - an articulated liveview is just the ticket for such situations. Why Canon bothered to add this feature and not provide the means to fully exploit it is beyond me.

Cheers

Colin

[Jay Moynihan]

Most of my experience is with pentaprisms and ground glass. But I really came to like the EVF and flip up screen on my Fuji s9100 "bridge" camera.

Seeing the effect of the adjustments you make, in real time, was actually really useful, and kind of magical for an old dog like me.

I put one of those pop-out shades by Delikin on my A570 is and F20, so I coud use the LCD's like viewfinders.

While I do like my DSLR, I would love to have a s9100-like camera with at least a dslr-like sensor, and high quality EVF and flip up LCD.

I still regret not getting the Sony R1.

[Bryan C]

My 40D has live view (but, alas, no articulating display). I frankly didn't even care about the feature when I bought the camera but I've come to find it useful. It's handy when using manual focus lenses and for getting awkward angles (within the constraints of the fixed LCD). I can see the appeal. Personally I enjoy using an eye-level finder and don't expect that I'd be happy with an EVF-only SLR-type camera.

[Chris Gibbs - Alaska]

That articulating LCD screen on the E3 is VERY NICE! Just turn the thing around so you've got an old fashioned *plain black camera back* and get on with the task of taking pictures!

Cheers,
Chris