[SideRaptor]

As noted above, the same as on any other camera where bracing against the face to steady the camera is desirable. Holding the camera at arms length to take the shot is OK for iPhone or snapshots, but not particularly great otherwise.

There is also the matter of shooting in bright light where you can't see the LCD display or shooting in a club setting or performance where the brightness of the LCD is a distraction to other people present.

In general, the need could be satisfied (at least for primes) with a series of auxiliary finders and Pentax does sell an auxiliary optical viewfinder for the "Q7" that works with the normal lens for that camera. It might also be possible to re-purpose auxiliary finders from other makers.


Steve


(...shoots a lot with rangefinder film cameras...well acquainted with non-ttl finders...)

Yeah, I'm kind of an idiot. I have a rangefinder, but for some reason when people say viewfinder I always think TTL.

---

Last edited by SideRaptor; 09-23-2013 at 04:55 AM.

[JPT]

I just thought I would make this point because Pentax does not have optical viewfinders in their mirrorless cameras - including compact.

One thing I like about the DSLR is the "through the lens" view. As far as I'm concerned its the only way to view and frame a picture properly. Now with the advent of video in most cameras, I've discovered that the optical viewfinder is even more essential. Again, in order to keep the subject in the frame and properly focused, the viewfinder is needed WHILE shooting - stills or video.

Hopefully, Pentax will add optical viewfinders to the next GR or MX.

If you are happy with an OVF which is offset from the lens, Ricoh sells a nice one to attach to the GR's hotshot and I think it still works out cheaper than the Fuji X100s, so that's an option. As an aside, I tried out a film GR a couple of months ago and was shocked at how small and tunnel-like the built-in OVF was on those cameras - totally unacceptable to me. I think they would have had to make the GR significantly bigger (like the X100s) to fit in a worthwhile OVF, so I think their decision to make it optional was a good one.

Personally, when I had a GRD, I didn't find the lack of a viewfinder too much of a bother because once I got used to the 28mm field of view, I could kind of "see" the frame before I brought the camera up to shoot. I feel a bit differently with physically large zooms and I prefer to have a viewfinder of some kind. Actually, I don't see why Pentax didn't offer an EVF accessory for the K-01 and Q, because it would have given it wider appeal and been another pricy accessory they could have sold.

The latency issue with EVFs and LCD screens is currently an issue, but I expect it will be solved by faster sensor read out, processors and better screens. By "solve", I mean they will exceed the limits our own perception pretty soon, so cease to be a problem. Another example of this is touch screens on phones and tablets that used to be incapable of keeping up with your finger movements, but now they can. There must still be some lag on those screens, but it is no longer a bother to users. So I feel that what Fuji is offering is a complicated and expensive solution and only an interim solution until EVFs are able to give us everything we want.

[k5astro]

Interesting options JPT. I'd be willing to attach an OVF for video but not in general. I like the camera to be an integrated solution as far as still photography goes. I'll check it out though.

[Emacs]

just as true optical viewfinders work well in still recording devices..

OVF doesn't work well in still recording: framing is questionable, espeically with SR mechanics, focus precision control is highly questionable as well, absolutely no way to estimate exposure time.
On the contrary, EVF is free from these disadvantages: framing is perfect, focus control is perfect and even more so with advancements in focus assisting software algorithms (better and better peaking, defocus estimation, etc), and you see what the sensor sees, so you can set up exposure time what suits best your task at the place, without the need to review taken image.

[Kunzite]

That's the theory mirrorless fans is presenting to us; but how are things in practice?
Pentax is AFAIK using SR to increase the precision of viewfinder alignment (or at least to reduce the cost of aligning a 100% viewfinder).
OTOH, with EVFs there's the viewfinder lag, which could hinder many things including the "perfect" framing; because you're framing something that happened awhile ago. And for that "perfect focus control", you have to zoom in.
I'm also challenging the idea that an EVF is WYSIWYG; it isn't. What you see is a hastily processed JPEG, most likely not with the best settings, displayed on a low resolution uncalibrated miniature screen.

IMHO the "best" camera is one which combines the advantages of both technologies, i.e. a DSLR with a high quality OVF and live view on the back LCD. Of course, there's no hard rule which says everyone should use this "best" camera.

[k5astro]

Yes, OVFs and EVFs both have there advantages. I use the EVF or LiveView for architecture and astrophotography, things that permit time to set up. Otherwise, I need and use the OVF.