[Ash]

What crappy OVF anyway?
What low requirements for OVF?
Is the whole collection of Pentax dSLR cameras thus far so deplorable for their pentaprism VFs?
If for some reason you cannot get the results you are after with a dSLR because you believe the OVF gets in the way of showing you what you want to capture, then I wager to think the MILC with its EVF will given you no better results nor make you any better a photographer.

We would still be doing that. Only then we would have a much better guess at what the output will be during shooting

QED
Guessing is not what good photography is about.

[wisent]

Like the dark and blurry spotmatic OVF?

... crappy OVF ...

... low requirements for the OVF ...



I think this has more to do with the fear of K-mount abandoning then objective discussion about the improved viewfinders.

You're doing it over and over again. At least make clear, that this is your personal feeling about OVFs, which is in no way a generally accepted opinion.
I don't know, why you don't get it that an EVF is no improvement over an OVF for some of us here. It has nothing to do with the existence or non-existence of the K-mount. You are entitled to like EVFs better, I have no problem with that, but please stop talking like your feelings/taste would be the universal truth.

And indeed, we probably should discuss this matter in an dedicated thread.

[Kunzite]

Clavius, you are imagining things.
I have high standards regarding viewfinders in general, this is why the best APS-C ones are barely adequate, current EVFs are useless and I would be willing to spend some money on a "full frame" camera (because I can't buy a 645D, not that's the best reflex viewfinder). Of course, it's also about personal preferences, some people could not care about what I dislike on EVFs.

I see no point in viewing a low quality approximation of what the embedded JPEG would look like on a calibrated monitor, when:
- I would change that (process the RAW file) anyway, according to what I saw with my own eyes, and how I want it to look
- I have the back LCD anyway, for adjusting WB and other things.

[JinDesu]

Not sure how good the NEX7's EVF is, but I didn't enjoy trying that EVF. I think the A77 that I used was more enjoyable, but I'll have to go play with them.

My complaints from using the NEX7's EVF was that the refresh rate was slow, it was jerky/chopping on motion, and it didn't look "real".

If someone can suggest a good EVF to look through, I'll go try one.

[Emacs]

Incongruent analogy. There is no calculation in visualising a photograph; this is achieved best by experience and 'learning to see', neither of which EVF (or any other piece of equipment for that matter) can replace. You're implying that past and current dSLR photographers are somehow missing out on something; this secret ingredient in their gear will produce their work faster or better. It won't.

In my experience, it does help a lot (EVF). Moreover, it taught me to see light. So, it's obviously the case of really useful technology: it makes work easier for photographer. OVF is past, sorry OVF supporters.

[Rondec]

I guess it is what you are used to. An EVF has some relationship to a final photo, but it certainly doesn't look exactly like it. As to seeing light, I can see it fine without a camera, even. When doing photography, if it is too dark to see much through an EVF, your photos probably won't turn out much anyway.

[Laurentiu Cristofor]

- aren't yet at real-time feedback, which is important for fast action photography

What are the facts supporting this statement? Experience with the laggy Live View in Pentax cameras?

The E-M5 EVF can work at a 120fps refresh rate. I use it at 60fps, because that is good enough for me. The sensor information is actually processed at 240fps.

Is the idea of technology to allow us to get lazy/complacent with our technique?

Technology has always been about allowing people to do things with devices instead of acquiring skills and doing heavy work.

Would an EVF really make a big difference in your productivity?

Yes, it did. Big indeed. No more guesswork about focus, exposure, or DOF appearance.

Because when I look through the OVF of my MZ-S I can't see any blurring, but I see a very clear and bright image of what's in front of my lens.

Now try the same with a K-5. Or even better, with a K-x.

You don't make sense, why have such high standards for EVF but such low requirements for the OVF? What's behind that?

Lack of intellectual honesty? Confirmation bias? Who knows, but it sure is interesting to watch what's coming next.

[Ash]

it's obviously the case of really useful technology: it makes work easier for photographer.

Yes, in a couple of ways, which not every photographer rates. And as you attest, it may make certain work a little easier, but doesn't change the fundamentals of good photography, which OVF is no hinderance to.
What makes OVF 'past'? You might consider EVF 'helping' you a lot, but what (above what an OVF can help you with)?
Mechanical cars won't be 'past' until we can invent teleportation, and make that widely available. Looking into a VF is a means to an end (framing and exposing for a photograph) - if EVF works for a photogarpher, great; that doesn't make OVF obsolete.

[Clavius]

Yes, in a couple of ways, which not every photographer rates. And as you attest, it may make certain work a little easier, but doesn't change the fundamentals of good photography, which OVF is no hinderance to.
What makes OVF 'past'? You might consider EVF 'helping' you a lot, but what (above what an OVF can help you with)?
Mechanical cars won't be 'past' until we can invent teleportation, and make that widely available. Looking into a VF is a means to an end (framing and exposing for a photograph) - if EVF works for a photogarpher, great; that doesn't make OVF obsolete.

I like the comparison to cars. We can use that: The car didn't make the horse obsolete either, but it sure is a lot better in 99% of the situations. And yes, horses still have their uses, even in transportation in certain types of terrain.

In the same way the EVF will replace the OVF. The OVF will not become obsolete, because it will still have it's advantages in a small number situations. It will become a very expensive feature for very specialistic use. For example, maybe sports photography.

Honestly, the OVF is a relic from the film era, which we had to rely upon because we didn't have anything better yet. But seeing the EVF's of some recent cameras convinced me that they are now better.

[Kunzite]

Lack of intellectual honesty? Confirmation bias? Who knows, but it sure is interesting to watch what's coming next.

If one of us is guilty of such things, it isn't me. But I'd rather not make our difference in preferences a personal issue.

Clavius, that "relic" is the most sold, by far, viewfinder system on ILCs. If horse carriages don't outsell cars, I'd say your analogy is not entirely valid
By the way, I also saw EVFs on current and next generation cameras; I still want a high quality OVF.

[audiobomber]

Blah blah, I looked through the EVF of a Sony NEX7 and a current m4/3 Panasonic, and they were crap compared to an OVF. I felt completely disconnected from the scene, and everything looked like a cartoon. I would be willing to accept this on a casual camera, but not on my DSLR. Mr. Kitazawa said it; MILC is for less serious use.

[Ash]

What are the facts supporting this statement? Experience with the laggy Live View in Pentax cameras?

The E-M5 EVF can work at a 120fps refresh rate. I use it at 60fps, because that is good enough for me. The sensor information is actually processed at 240fps.

240fps is pretty close to being perceptually close to reality. I've since tried the OM-D, and whilst a fine little construction, I can appreciate how it is not for everyone.

Technology has always been about allowing people to do things with devices instead of acquiring skills and doing heavy work.

I wonder if that's the same expectation for doctors, nurses and laboratory workers - develop gadgets and machines to do the work instead of acquiring the necessary analytic and technical skills to master their vocation. Whilst photography is no life-or-death craft, your statement assumes technical and experiential skill of the photographer can take a back seat to more sophisticated gear which will do the thinking for them.
Good luck with that.
There's an intuitive aspect to the creation of a work of photographic art, just as there is to the diagnostic and practical skills of a good health care worker. Letting smarter machines to do the analytic work for the practitioner leaves little room for human intuition, which has proven invaluable (as fallible as it can be).

Yes, it did. Big indeed. No more guesswork about focus, exposure, or DOF appearance.

Again, experiential learning of the craft no longer needs guess work - all exposure settings are calculated based on knowledge and desired personal effect.
Saying that an EVF greatly improves productivity says more about the photographer than it does about the camera (this forum has a long history of discussions and debates on whether the gear makes the photographer)

Now try the same with a K-5. Or even better, with a K-x.

I don't get it. Pentax OVFs have been just fine to date. Professionals use the K-5, K-7, K20D, K10D and have had no problems getting the results they needed with them through the so terrible OVFs.
Even the K-x and K-r VFs are fine to compose and shoot through. I can't see the difficulty you claim there is with APS-C VFs. The APS-C matte display may not be as big and bright as an old FF VF, but it sure isn't blurry to my eyes, and I've had no issues with critical focusing.

Lack of intellectual honesty? Confirmation bias? Who knows, but it sure is interesting to watch what's coming next.

You hardly need either of these to know or confirm the virtue of a piece of equipment that has served many a photographer, even at the professional level, very well in getting the images that sell and please others. What we don't seem to have a shortage of is the same naysaying that ostentatiously critical members here have been vocalising from day 1.

[Ash]

The car didn't make the horse obsolete either, but it sure is a lot better in 99% of the situations. And yes, horses still have their uses, even in transportation in certain types of terrain

That's not the analogy I used, and as Kunzite points out, your version is far from being comparable or valid. The OVF technology has allowed quite accurate depiction of the scene being captured. It is hardly an archaic piece of equipment that EVF suddenly revolutionises.

I looked through the EVF of a Sony NEX7 and a current m4/3 Panasonic, and they were crap compared to an OVF

I also saw EVFs on current and next generation cameras; I still want a high quality OVF.

I can relate to both of these, and I've been criticised on this forum before for being 'old school' or unable to 'get with the times'. Hardly the case when I work closely with and embrace medical technology, telecommunication and smartphone advances as well as computer developments. And I'm in my 30s. And I still prefer a good OVF (a FF one at that!).

I would be willing to accept this on a casual camera, but not on my DSLR. Mr. Kitazawa said it; MILC is for less serious use.

+1, and it will take some time for the EVF to be widely accepted enough to permeate through the professional camera models.

[Rondec]

There is an awful lot of hyperbole going on here. Really, OVFs are good, if pentaprism and 100 percent. An EVF is like a picture of a picture. I can get used to it and it has its own strengths, but it does feel pretty weird to me, since I am used to decent OVFs.

[Ash]

There is an awful lot of hyperbole going on here. Really, OVFs are good, if pentaprism and 100 percent. An EVF is like a picture of a picture. I can get used to it and it has its own strengths, but it does feel pretty weird to me, since I am used to decent OVFs

I started the thread to tease out the thinking behind the EVF hype, and as many SLR users have been in the past, they are generally pleased with what a good OVF offers them in framing and composing an image. If there is any practical advantage in an EVF, it is hard to appreciate, since I can't think of a photograph that cannot be taken with a good OVF that can be taken with an EVF.