External monitor for photography?

[Nicool 30]

Hi all,

Curious to know if anyone is using an external monitor for photography, on a mirrorless camera?

I know they are popular with videographers, and nowadays many cameras are capable of both, but I am asking from a photographic perspective.

 

Aside from the obvious disadvantages (bulkier setup, extra cost) I wonder if the below could be advantages, but I haven't tried so really don't know:

1/ Do external monitors help with the camera's battery life? You wouldn't be using the viewfinder nor built-in LCD screen, so hopefully that helps? Yet the camera has to power a continuous video feed to the external monitor, so I wonder.

2/ Are they a proper replacement for a 45 degree optical viewfinder (when it comes to readability in bright ambient light)? I've seen some external monitors coming with shades, thinking that helps.

3/ Better rendering of contrasted scenes than the EVF? EVFs have progressed a lot but I have heard even recent models would struggle to display properly when shooting into the sun (the reef would look black). External monitors are bigger, so I suppose, less of a challenge to design that tiny EVFs, perhaps they handle contrast better?

 

Just curious 

Nicolas

[Isaac Szabo 98]

I’ve been using an external monitor for photography for the past year. For me the big advantage is being able to put the camera in low or awkward positions that give a good angle on the subject but where it would be difficult to get your eye down to a viewfinder. I also feel like I can judge composition better on a large screen than through a viewfinder. And yes, I believe it extends the camera’s battery life since the camera doesn’t have to power a LCD/EVF.

However, there are some downsides too. For me the most significant is sometimes having difficulty seeing the monitor in bright sunlight. I have a shade around it, but maybe it’s not big enough (I’m going to try 3D printing a bigger one). However, I’m shooting in shallow freshwater streams, so that probably wouldn’t be as much of an issue with the reduced sunlight at diving depths. Another downside is that I feel like it is better suited for wide angle than macro. When shooting macro, I feel like I’m a little slower at acquiring the subject in the frame and keeping up with the subject’s movements than I was with a viewfinder.

So for myself after using one for a year I think I generally prefer it for wide angle work (especially if I’m able to fix the sunlight/shade issue) but might sometimes go back to using a 45 viewfinder for macro work.

[ChrisRoss 150]

I think the answer to some extent depends on your eyesight.  Your 45° viewfinder has diopter adjustment  and it's relatively easy to see detail on your images.  If your closeup vision is not the best seeing fine details on the monitor might be a problem - most likely to be an issue with macro photography where you are trying to get the focus just right.

[gregfish 1]

Hello,  I've always used an external monitor if I can.  To me, the lager the image that I can see, the better I'm able to make decisions whether I'm shooting stills or video.  I'm using a Nauticam housing with a Sony A7SII in addition to a Nauticam housing with a SmallHD Super Bright monitor.  The batteries are separate as I believe all external monitors are. 

Yes, it is a more bulky rig, but most of the time it's not an issue.  When I'm using my Sea & Sea 12mm Fisheye lens I certainly omit the  additional external monitor.  That's my "sweet" set-up. 

When shooting video, the monitor is a necessity because the U/W monitor feeds the video output cable to the surface for the client/director to see what's being shot.

Once you begin to use the external monitor you'll always try to use it.  Try it.

 

Best Wishes,   Greg

Greg

 

 

[Nicool 30]

Thanks all three, very insightful.

Makes me curious to try one at some point, though I wouldn't want to take it on/off when switching from macro to WA, as I always prefer to minimize gear manipulation between dives