Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
01-18-2013, 03:06 PM   #151
Pentaxian




Join Date: Nov 2011
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 4,309
EVF on the camera is so last year:

Olympus patent of finder of glasses type??????????So-net???

01-18-2013, 04:57 PM   #152
Pentaxian




Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Romania
Posts: 15,132
"Consumers don't know what they want.", and because of that we shouldn't bother asking PF people? But why can't we apply the same logic to MILC fans? Aren't they also consumers, and thus not knowing what they want?

QuoteOriginally posted by Laurentiu Cristofor Quote
Kunzite, you don't understand what ad hominem means. An ad hominem argument takes place when you make a valid argument and the other party ignores it and instead picks on a trait of yours (physical or personal) to attack you instead of your argument.
Like invalidating my pro-OVF arguments because I'm "emotional", "afraid of no more new K-mount lenses being marketed"?

I'd suggest you should stop right there with abusing Wikipedia, and finding excuses for your lack of arguments supporting the silly idea that we all should love EVFs; a better effort would be put in realizing your biased preference towards EVFs is just that, and nobody have to follow.

By the way, I know what "intellectual honesty" is and consider your remark out of the line; like Clavius' claims that we are emotional, "making an open and honest discussion impossible". Is this how both of you likes to discuss, or is it that you don't want to discuss but enforce your ideas?
01-18-2013, 05:46 PM   #153
Veteran Member
mrNewt's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: ON, RH
Posts: 2,181
QuoteOriginally posted by Laurentiu Cristofor Quote
... It's spelled "keen", not "kin". And he's not keen on that idea - you are - you're doing a loaded question and a strawman argument at the same time. Not nice ...
Regarding the spelling mistake ... what would I do without you?
Thank you for teaching me so much! Now, I can sleep at night ...

As for the second part, no idea how you come up to that conclusion ... but I'll leave it at that since there is no point to argue on semantics. In the end each person can interpret things differently, I guess.

I asked the question based on how he defends his position. EVF this, EVF that. I can only guess that he is assuming that our opinion is not based on experience as well. Yes, I have played with old and modern EVFs and yes, I know how good they are for me. And contrary to what Apple might of said, I DO KNOW what I want, based on what is being offered.

From what I see, my point of view and how I perceived the discussions until now, there are basically 2 arguments and 1 confusion ...

First argument, is that you cannot compose (in low light conditions) with an OVF just as well and just as fast with an EVF. That is false and history and thousands of photographers that used OVFs can prove this, time and time again in all kind of situations. True now, some can do better or faster than others ...
I am even willing to have a meet and prove that I can do it without a problem. From P&S film with tiny window to modern DSLR.

As for the second argument you guys are saying that we are opposing "the new" and we are bound to use what we are used with and so on ...
I don't know about the others, but I am very opened to new technology ideas and I am more than welcome to embrace the change ... as long the new is better than the old, for me!
The fact that some of us still prefers OVF over the EVF doesn't mean that we are opposed to technology and new innovations.
Is just that basically, right now, today, this year (not a "presumably feature" - I know, hard to digest that one), an OVF is still a better tool basically ... for us at least.
Except the the fact that an EVF makes your image brighter in low light conditions and that it allows to have cameras without mirrors ... I see no other benefits.

And for the confusion ... while an LCD screen might be an essence quite similar with an EVF, you do not look at both in the same way ... nor do both have the same quality (as of today). So for me, and LCD screen and EVF are 2 different things. I'd rather use an LCD screen than an EVF.

You look at the LCD screen at a bigger distance (arms-length) and that is more easier and pleasing to the eye. Is harder if not impossible to notice the pixels. Image appears smooth with clean straight lines (on a good LCD screen).
You look trough the EVF at a screen with artificial light mm away from your eye. I don't know about others, but personally, after a while my eyes are getting tired because of the light and because I can clearly see those damn pixels. Image is pix-elated and the closer a screen is to the eye, the better you see the pixels - at least this is true for me.

So, as a conclusion, based on my experience, as of today, in this order, I prefer: OVF, LCD screen and lastly, EVF.

That being said, all 3 offers a way to compose, focus and take your picture .
Whatever works for you, use it!!!

However, stop assuming that if you cannot get good results with one of them, doesn't mean that others cannot and thus, what you like and use is the ultimate thing.
From my point of view, let them all be on the market, don't close your options and use whatever suits you best!

Now I didn't spelled checked this ... so if I did any mistakes, I apologize so please, do refrain from being a "Grammar Nazi" cus is just such a weak come back ...
Thanks!


Last edited by Bramela; 01-20-2013 at 10:27 PM.
01-18-2013, 08:41 PM   #154
Veteran Member
audiobomber's Avatar

Join Date: May 2008
Location: Sudbury, Ontario
Photos: Albums
Posts: 6,806
QuoteOriginally posted by Laurentiu Cristofor Quote
(1) EVF resolution is not the important aspect - refresh rate and smoothness of processing are more important. This applies to LCDs too.
(2) I don't put much value on what dpreview says - I look at their samples and read their technical descriptions, but my conclusions have differed from theirs (even though they were based on *their* data) too many times for me to take them seriously anymore.
1. I tried a NEX7 and the EVF was not detailed enough. No way the Olympus with half the resolution would win me over.

2. I put far more value in what DPR says than what you say. You're on here every day slagging on Pentax. You have zero credibility IMO.

01-19-2013, 12:28 AM   #155
Banned




Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: WA
Photos: Albums
Posts: 3,055
QuoteOriginally posted by Kunzite Quote
Is this how both of you likes to discuss, or is it that you don't want to discuss but enforce your ideas?
Alex, I am sorry to let you know, but our discussion has stopped over a week ago. I realized that you don't even read my posts before replying to them, so what's the point?

Here's an example. At one point, I said:

QuoteOriginally posted by Laurentiu Cristofor Quote
Well, 24fps (much less than even the default 60fps rate of the E-M5) is what is used for movies and nobody is complaining about the action being choppy. All I hear is how "realistic" movies are these days.
And in your hurry to disagree, your reply was:

QuoteOriginally posted by Kunzite Quote
Guess what - I complained quite recently about this (the image was not choppy, but blurry). And I wasn't the only one who saw the same thing...
Huh? You complained about the image being choppy and blurry in movies? Maybe you should give up on those bootlegs.

Anyway, for someone that replies each day, I find it amazing that it took you over a week to find my remark about intellectual honesty out of line. BTW, intellectual honesty was just a hypothesis, not an accusation. What I said was:

QuoteOriginally posted by Laurentiu Cristofor Quote
Lack of intellectual honesty? Confirmation bias? Who knows, but it sure is interesting to watch what's coming next.
So, no, we cannot discuss something. I tried. You didn't. Good bye now.
01-19-2013, 12:56 AM   #156
Banned




Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: WA
Photos: Albums
Posts: 3,055
QuoteOriginally posted by audiobomber Quote
1. I tried a NEX7 and the EVF was not detailed enough.
Enough for what?

QuoteOriginally posted by audiobomber Quote
No way the Olympus with half the resolution would win me over.
No way you'll figure it out without trying it either.

QuoteOriginally posted by audiobomber Quote
2. I put far more value in what DPR says than what you say.
Oh, well, what can I say? I stopped believing dpreview since they criticized the K10D for producing images "not as crisp as we would like".

QuoteOriginally posted by audiobomber Quote
You're on here every day slagging on Pentax.
I am just stating the obvious, like dpreview does:

QuoteQuote:
The K-5 is a no-brainer upgrade from a K-x or earlier Pentax DSLR, but obviously, for users of other systems it is harder to justify, and price is only part of the reason for that. Importantly, Pentax has some way to go before it can market a system as complete as those offered by Canon and Nikon.
QuoteOriginally posted by audiobomber Quote
You have zero credibility IMO.
Worry about yours and I'll worry about mine. OK?
01-19-2013, 01:48 AM   #157
Banned




Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: WA
Photos: Albums
Posts: 3,055
QuoteOriginally posted by mrNewt Quote
I asked the question based on how he defends his position. EVF this, EVF that.
I think you misunderstand where Clavius and I are coming from with our arguments. Our arguments are primarily about why, in time (years, not decades), EVFs will replace OVFs except in some niche markets.

If you prefer OVFs today, that is fine. If you will prefer them tomorrow too, that is fine as well. I have little interest in changing your preference for OVFs (or that of anyone else). I do not mind if you will use OVFs for the rest of your life.

The only question is - do you really expect the majority of high end cameras to use OVFs by the end of this decade? Note that this does not have anything to do with our individual preferences - it is about where technology will go.

And the arguments for OVFs being displaced are simply based on history and obvious trends:

- the SLR OVF displaced the rangefinder OVF not because of its clarity, but because of other practical reasons (TTL, framing, manual focus aid at close/large distances), some of which were further dropped during the transition to digital (manual focus help). The result is that rangefinders are a niche market now with only one digital player
- OVFs had already been displaced in the P&S market - high end P&S models would use EVFs and low end ones would not have a VF at all
- in less than 5 years, MILCs gained half the market share of ILCs in Japan and a sizeable segment of market elsewhere
- both SLRs and rangefinders are now incorporating features that effectively allows them to be used as MILCs. The implementation is still flawed in some models, but the result is a migration towards MILC features.

People have been talking about this for years now, it's not news to anyone that pays attention to technology and how it changes. Here's a snippet from Klaus of photozone, from 2010:

Back then there wasn't even a hint of a MILC coming from Canon. Now it's here. And it even sells pretty well despite only offering two lenses. Wait a couple more years and this won't even be a topic worth bringing about. You can still like OVFs, but you'll find fewer and fewer manufacturers that offer them and SLRs will become a premium item because of this.

Do you realize there are only 4 SLR manufacturers left in the world (not counting niche MF cameras)? Canon, Nikon, Ricoh/Pentax, and Sigma - and I mention Sigma just for completeness, not because they matter much in this area. Everyone else bailed out already - Olympus, Sony, and Samsung no longer make SLRs. Canon and Nikon are having a boatload of users and have a problem getting out and telling them that they should adopt a new line of cameras, but Ricoh/Pentax and Sigma have no such excuse.

01-19-2013, 02:35 AM   #158
Pentaxian




Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Romania
Posts: 15,132
QuoteOriginally posted by mrNewt Quote
You look trough the EVF at a screen with artificial light mm away from your eye. I don't know about others, but personally, after a while my eyes are getting tired because of the light and because I can clearly see those damn pixels. Image is pix-elated and the closer a screen is to the eye, the better you see the pixels - at least this is true for me.
This is also true for me, and I'm including the OM-D's viewfinder here which IMO looks awful. But if it works for others, I won't tell them they're wrong.

Laurentiu, the discussion is in fact pointless because you and Clavius decided your way is right, and ours is wrong. Don't be so hasty in pushing the blame on us!
Bootlegs? How about a 24 fps IMAX? Panning would "break" the image sometimes, resulting in a blurry mess (difficult to watch). You're trying to ridicule my personal experience, yet A. I wasn't the only one to find it annoying, and B. my reply is addressing specifically your claim, this being apparent from the text you quoted (yet you talk about how I'm not reading!).

Obviously, I found your remarks out of line from the moment I read them; but I don't want to start a personal fight so I didn't respond in the same manner. I stated this in my reply, only 3 posts below yours. Your ill intent is obvious; but I don't have to follow.

Regarding the non-personal comments from your last post:
- the SLR is not limited compared with a MILC, as the rangefinders were, compared to a SLR; SLR and MILCs would do the same things, just in a different way.
The exception is filming, where the SLR viewfinder is useless.
- P&S OVFs are completely different things, they were so inferior and added cost to small margin products it's no wonder they're disappearing. No analogy can be made with the optical TTL reflex viewfinder found in SLRs.
- the DSLR market is several time larger, and growing. There is room for both technologies, no need for one to kill and replace the other.
- indeed, modern DSLRs also incorporates many of the MILC's advantages. It's good to have both options, don't you think?

7 years is a long time; but I'd guess the DSLRs will still have a strong presence, while not dominating the market like now.
01-19-2013, 07:56 AM   #159
Veteran Member
mrNewt's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: ON, RH
Posts: 2,181
QuoteOriginally posted by Laurentiu Cristofor Quote
do you really expect the majority of high end cameras to use OVFs by the end of this decade?
No, I do not expect that. I expect the market to progress to whatever the majority of the public prefers the most and whatever will be better then.
But what the future will bring ... is nothing but guesses and I prefer not to do that.

Everything I said is based on now, today, tomorrow ... not what maybe years from now we MIGHT have.
I have no problem working with any type of the camera. If you like something, I believe you adjust to it and work around its shortcomings or problems.

I have at least 5 rangefinders at home that I still use from time to time, I have a TTL camera as well that I use, I used OVF, I used EVF. I do not have the tunnel vision. I am open to new things. But right now, new is not better for me ... that is all ...
01-19-2013, 09:58 AM   #160
Banned




Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: WA
Photos: Albums
Posts: 3,055
QuoteOriginally posted by mrNewt Quote
No, I do not expect that. I expect the market to progress to whatever the majority of the public prefers the most and whatever will be better then.
But what the future will bring ... is nothing but guesses and I prefer not to do that.

Everything I said is based on now, today, tomorrow ... not what maybe years from now we MIGHT have.
I have no problem working with any type of the camera. If you like something, I believe you adjust to it and work around its shortcomings or problems.

I have at least 5 rangefinders at home that I still use from time to time, I have a TTL camera as well that I use, I used OVF, I used EVF. I do not have the tunnel vision. I am open to new things. But right now, new is not better for me ... that is all ...
See, that was easy. Perhaps if this thread was not titled so aggressively as if pitting two fighters against each other, we would have reached an easier understanding of the fact that some are talking about the trends they see and others about what they prefer to use today.
01-19-2013, 01:17 PM - 1 Like   #161
Ash
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter
Ash's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Toowoomba, Queensland
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 23,920
Original Poster
Laurentiu, this thread is not titled aggressively. You have chosen to view it as a 'challenge' to win people over with your opinion. So now we can desist with the personal remarks and get back to the roundabout argument over the virtues of each. Some, as you and Clavius, see EVF as the way of the future - it permits focus peaking, 'TTC' (through the camera) review of a scene in almost real time (this will surely improve with the technology) and 'improved' night vision (but at the cost of a slow/grainier image). OVF is TTL and as such, you and Clavius have argued that this is so 'old school' and doesn't allow for CDAF and it hard to compose in the dark. The point over the EVF not being good enough for a user does not need justification. if the photographer doesn't like it, he/she will not use it. I answered the 24fps 'realness' argument and your response did not acknowledge the direction of motion picture technology ('what is recorded at 600Hz anyway?' was your answer). If 100, 200, 600Hz were so irrelevant as refresh rates, why would TV technology be implemting them? Go to an electronics store and stand side by side with a Samsung 600Hz screen and a standard 50Hz screen and judge the difference for yourself.

Proponents of each have played all their cards and now it's a slugging match to see who can win by brute force. I started the thread such that this discussion would stay here rather than spill over into the FF or MX-1 threads. At least this thread has done that, if nothing else. But it *still* comes down to the fact that each photographer has a preference, and that preference will be guiding sales as well as market demand. Steve Jobs worked Apple into the company that it is by innovating products that challenged how we think information should be stored and processed. Doing away with floppy drives and now even CD/DVD recorders have been steps that were initially frowned upon and later appreciated. The same argument has been brought over how EVF technology will do this to the OVF. I don't believe this is an accurate picture of the scenario, since OVF technology in itself can be advanced to much greater levels and has advantages over EVF that aren't made obsolete by EVF. Notwithstanding dSLRs having LV capability, using EVF technology to better the cameras, EVF could be seen as a complement rather than a replacement of an already good and practical system in the OVF.

Last edited by Ash; 01-19-2013 at 10:18 PM.
01-19-2013, 01:25 PM   #162
Veteran Member
audiobomber's Avatar

Join Date: May 2008
Location: Sudbury, Ontario
Photos: Albums
Posts: 6,806
QuoteOriginally posted by Ash Quote
'TTC' (through the camera)
TTC, that's very good. Did you make that up? I haven't heard it before.
01-19-2013, 04:00 PM   #163
Ash
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter
Ash's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Toowoomba, Queensland
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 23,920
Original Poster
Yes. Just a thought I had about how we view through EVFs.
01-19-2013, 07:30 PM   #164
Veteran Member
audiobomber's Avatar

Join Date: May 2008
Location: Sudbury, Ontario
Photos: Albums
Posts: 6,806
QuoteOriginally posted by Ash Quote
Yes. Just a thought I had about how we view through EVFs.
You should patent it. I Liked that post.
01-19-2013, 10:59 PM   #165
Ash
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter
Ash's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Toowoomba, Queensland
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 23,920
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by audiobomber Quote
You should patent it. I Liked that post.
I'd have to involved in its development to patent the term. I'm happy to have coined it as another TLA (three letter acronym) for the forum.

Or perhaps it should more accurately be TTS (through the sensor)?
Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
crappy, evf, home, ovf, photo industry, photography, pros and cons, screen, viewfinders
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
K-5 IIs -- The Pros and Cons of Omitting an AA-Filter Class A Pentax DSLR Discussion 114 12-18-2012 10:22 PM
From K20D to 645D, Pros and Cons. Reportage Pentax DSLR Discussion 12 11-10-2010 03:13 PM
Decision: Pentax K10D, K20D, or K7? Pros and cons? Lulerfly Pentax DSLR Discussion 32 11-04-2010 09:14 AM
Limited edition prints - pros and cons? Wombat Photographic Industry and Professionals 5 07-30-2009 04:09 PM
Pros and cons of the Pentax KM/2000 lesmore49 Pentax DSLR Discussion 109 05-01-2009 11:51 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 05:31 AM. | See also: NikonForums.com, CanonForums.com part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top