Steve's Digicams Forums

Steve's Digicams Forums (
-   Olympus Micro Four Thirds (
-   -   VF-2 vs VF-3? (

James Emory Dec 2, 2011 12:14 PM

VF-2 vs VF-3?
Wondering what the difference is besides price. All I seem to come up with is that it is smaller than the VF-2 and the magnification is 1.0 vs the 1.5 in the VF-2.

Greg Chappell Dec 2, 2011 12:33 PM

Somewhat lower magnification on the negative side of the VF-3, but on the positive side it has a locking mechanism for more secure fitting it to the body.

I can see from just looking at the two the VF-3 has a squared eyepiece compared to the circular VF-2 opening. I only own the VF-2 and have not had a chance to personally see a VF-3 to know if the opening is the same size or not.

Regarding the locking mechanism of the VF-3, the VF-2 I have fits very securely in the shoe and is not going to just fall off, but I have seen some users complain about having lost VF-2's when they fell off when carrying the camera over their shoulder, especially when moving among crowds.

James Emory Dec 2, 2011 1:02 PM

Thank you.

boBBrennan Dec 2, 2011 2:22 PM

I recently tried a VF-3, it is quite good. The eyepiece is rectangular but is equally the size of the VF-2 and very bright, the locking feature is certainly a plus, on the downside the VF-3 is available only in the silver color..... should one (me) like it in black then this is a negative. The diopter dial is large and convenient to rotate, it is located on a side of the VF-3.

The VF-3 is IMO totally adequate.... the physical size and shape fits nicely to the P3, it would be a great accessory to any of the PEN cameras.

I own and use a VF-2.........

James Emory Dec 2, 2011 3:02 PM

Thanks Bob, that's the one I'll get. It will save me a few bucks over the VF-2.

Biro Dec 2, 2011 4:34 PM

James... while I agree the VF-3 is entirely adequate, technically it features lower resolution than the VF-2. The VF-3 has something on the order of 920,000 dots versus the 1.4 or 1.5 million dots of the VF-2. This is noticeable but certainly no deal-killer. The VF-3 is several orders of magnitude better than the optional, external EVF offered by Panasonic for the GF1. I have the VF-2 but if I could only have the VF-3, there'd be no problem. But, personally, I think the VF-3 should be a few more dollars less expensive than it currently is. Right now, there's about $40 difference between the two (street prices).

Greg Chappell Dec 2, 2011 4:56 PM

The last time I checked, the dog-of-an electronic finder Panasonic offers for GF-1, GF-2 and GF-3 users (LVF-1) is $146. B&H has the black VF-2 at $215, which is quite a bit less than what I paid when it first came out. I think it was something like $279.

At $180, the VF-3 is around $100 less than the VF-2 was when brand-new, so that price is probably about right since it's still a pretty new product. I would imagine over time it may drop in price in somewhat in the same manner as the VF-2 has, but the VF-2 has been available for quite a bit of time now. Based on what Panasonic charges for their very low resolution LVF-1, and it has never dropped in price, the VF-3 is a bargain.

folob Dec 2, 2011 7:32 PM

I just got the VF-3 ... Stay tunes for my review.

shoturtle Dec 2, 2011 9:50 PM

They are both good EVF. But for the extra mag and res, makes it work a little better for MF lens users especially for Macro. But next to that when every I play with the VF-3. It was worked just was well as my VF-2 with AF lenses. I like the larger slightly larger eye piece of the VF-2. That is just personal preference as someone who shoots with glasses.

James Emory Dec 3, 2011 9:58 AM

Now you got me thinking...maybe the VF-2 would be a better choice for 40 bucks more especially since I have a black PL-2 and the VF-3 only comes in silver.

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 1:31 AM.