[Rondec]

In dimmer light, my KP works better with LCD than with OVF, but in truly dim light I usually have to hand-focus, which EVF also make easier.
Post Your Best KP Shots - Page 70 - PentaxForums.com


You may use whatever definition you choose. Usually the word "snap" is paired with "quick" - I spent fifteen minutes photographing that Model T, selecting perspective I was comfortable with. For over fifty years I have followed the motto "record my world today before tomorrow comes and everything changes", and this fits into my goals and intentions.

I don't mean the term snapshot to be demeaning. I use it to refer to photos of mine that, while important to me, probably aren't particularly meaningful to a broader audience. Most of the photos I take probably fall into that category, even if they take a lot of time to set up and capture.

As far as museum shots go, I used to take lots of photos of exhibits, but I never developed them or looked at them after taking taking them and so I tend to take more photos of my kids and family if I visit one.

[BigMackCam]

I personally have no interest in that feature - K-mount is enough for me - I personally would be perfectly happy with a K-mount camera with a hybrid viewfinder.

Right - and I think many folks who like the idea of that feature would agree. Heck, I'd love that too. But this supports my point that individual use cases are a significant factor in dictating what's "better" or "best"...

There's a not-inconsiderable "movement" of folks that like to shoot all sorts of glass that's intended for SLRs, rangefinders, cine cameras, enlargers, and all manner of other optical devices. One of my own interests is a subset of that - specifically Soviet glass for K-mount, M42, M39 SLR and L39 rangefinder, plus adapted glass from other Soviet cameras and optical instruments. It's easy to say that's a specialist application, and I guess it is to some extent, but there are many folks doing this. I've come to it relatively late on... it's not even a sub-culture any more, but quite a common practice and interest area...

So, for us weirdos, short registration distance can be an attractive feature, and a reason to shoot mirrorless even though our preferences for general shooting might favour a traditional DSLR, or better still one with a hybrid viewfinder...

In any case, I look forward to DSLRs with hybrid viewfinders. I'm not one for selling off my treasured gear, but I'd make an exception to fund a camera like that

[reh321]

As far as museum shots go, I used to take lots of photos of exhibits, but I never developed them or looked at them after taking taking them and so I tend to take more photos of my kids and family if I visit one.

I tend to do both. In 1999 we took our daughters, then 12 and 8, to the Henry Ford Museum and Greenfield Village - our younger daughter loved it, so we have made a number of trips there since then. One exhibit she particularly liked was the bicycle-built-for ten, so in 2007 I planted myself at a spot where I had a good view of both the bicycle and the associated "rubbing station" {which I knew would be irresistible to her}, and in due time I got the photo below {she is the one in blue shorts}. Incidentally, a few years later the exhibit disappeared, and I was able to use the column number '4P' visible in the photo to determine they had reconfigured that part of the museum, and it was now part of a new "theater".

added: This photo would be a great counter-example when someone claims "All photos have been taken" or "All you have to do is order a photo from the cloud". I am quite sure that there is no other photo like this; this was a special moment and it cannot be duplicated. My daughter, who was 16 when I took this photo, is approaching her 29th birthday now. This exhibit no longer exists.

[biz-engineer]

I would also be interested in photographing the interior of the Abraham Lincoln home, which is kept in perpetual near darkness to preserve the original materials as well as possible - and they absolutely forbid use of flash or tripods.

Forbidden tripods is a root of the problem [ I'd use a higher ISO and align/stack frames to reduce noise , some kind of what dynamic pixel shift does with the Pentax K1 II ]

---

Last edited by biz-engineer; 04-13-2019 at 05:13 PM.

[BigMackCam]

Forbidden tripods is a root of the problem.

[reh321]

Forbidden tripods is a root of the problem [ I'd use a higher ISO and align/stack frames to reduce noise , some kind of what dynamic pixel shift does with the Pentax K1 II ]

That may be great in theory - but many of these places have guides and/or docents - and they get to set the rules. It turns out that they are more interested in traffic flow than in my photographic activity; I can either work within their rules or do nothing at all, and the KP allows me to work within their rules.

[photoptimist]

We're getting into the "same old, same old" OVF vs EVF discussion, and it can't possibly be resolved - because we all have a different selection of use cases, different preferences, different tolerances, and different expectations. As such, there are no definitive right and wrong answers. All I know is what works for me, and depending on my use case on any given day, it might be a DSLR or mirrorless camera (occasionally it might even be a bridge camera, compact camera, or a phone). I can repeat the reasons for each choice that I've posted in these forums before, but it's quite immaterial. The fact is, whatever works best for folks, that's what they should shoot - and that's all the justification they need. I couldn't begin to suggest what others should use without colouring my suggestions with my own preferences, and I don't think anyone else can legitimately tell anyone what they should shoot, or whether their choices are right or wrong. Debating which is better / best and why is ultimately fruitless



Me too. I would be very excited about a camera that offered me a good OVF, with the choice of configurable electronic overlays (histogram, aspect ratio, focus peaking etc.) and the ability to switch to EVF when it might be a better option. Of course, I'd still need a short registration distance mirrorless camera to shoot lenses with a flange focal distance smaller than the hybrid viewfinder camera... but I'd probably use that mirrorless camera far less than I do today...

This thread once again proves that some people prefer EVFs and some people prefer OVFs. Both designs have their lovers, both have their haters.

Although it's only been tangentially mentioned on this thread, there's also the irresolvable debate on the "best" size for a camera body with DSLRs being too big for some and MILCs being too small for others.

All these anecdotes, debates, sales data simply reinforce the idea that both designs will persist in the marketplace.

Camera lenses may be seamlessly interchangeable for cameras, but VF technologies are not seamlessly interchangeable for photographers.

P.S. there's also the notion that Pentax could create a "digital LX" camera that has interchangeable OVF and EVF "prisms." Although not as functional as a true hybrid-VF, an interchangeable VF design would let Pentax offer many of the features of MILCs to EVF lovers and let photographers who see advantages to both designs pick the VF to suit their shooting conditions (e.g., EVF for silent shooting/chimping, OVF for optical composition, and even no-VF for low-profile street shooting or tethered studio work).

[monochrome]

P.S. there's also the notion that Pentax could create a "digital LX" camera that has interchangeable OVF and EVF "prisms." Although not as functional as a true hybrid-VF, an interchangeable VF design would let Pentax offer many of the features of MILCs to EVF lovers and let photographers who see advantages to both designs pick the VF to suit their shooting conditions (e.g., EVF for silent shooting/chimping, OVF for optical composition, and even no-VF for low-profile street shooting or tethered studio work).

This notion has always intrigued me, though I imagine the technology would be daunting. I can imagine a KP body with the large grip integrated, a larger battery in the grip cavity and the rear FX button having an assigned function (AEL - the LX didn’t have it). It seems likely though that a K-1 sized body would be necessary to fit everything inside.

[Rondec]

This thread once again proves that some people prefer EVFs and some people prefer OVFs. Both designs have their lovers, both have their haters.

Although it's only been tangentially mentioned on this thread, there's also the irresolvable debate on the "best" size for a camera body with DSLRs being too big for some and MILCs being too small for others.

All these anecdotes, debates, sales data simply reinforce the idea that both designs will persist in the marketplace.

Camera lenses may be seamlessly interchangeable for cameras, but VF technologies are not seamlessly interchangeable for photographers.

P.S. there's also the notion that Pentax could create a "digital LX" camera that has interchangeable OVF and EVF "prisms." Although not as functional as a true hybrid-VF, an interchangeable VF design would let Pentax offer many of the features of MILCs to EVF lovers and let photographers who see advantages to both designs pick the VF to suit their shooting conditions (e.g., EVF for silent shooting/chimping, OVF for optical composition, and even no-VF for low-profile street shooting or tethered studio work).

I wonder if Pentax came out with an EVF for their hot shoes of their SLRs, what percentage of people would actually be interested enough to purchase one over just making do with the a pentaprism OVF. From what I can tell, these sorts of items retail for around 200 dollars, but my guess is that, even for cameras without viewfinders, they probably actually sell pretty poorly. Most people, while they may want a particular style, are unwilling to pay extra for it.

[BigMackCam]

there's also the notion that Pentax could create a "digital LX" camera that has interchangeable OVF and EVF "prisms." Although not as functional as a true hybrid-VF, an interchangeable VF design would let Pentax offer many of the features of MILCs to EVF lovers and let photographers who see advantages to both designs pick the VF to suit their shooting conditions (e.g., EVF for silent shooting/chimping, OVF for optical composition, and even no-VF for low-profile street shooting or tethered studio work).

I'd definitely prefer a hybrid viewfinder, due to the considerable benefits of combining both aspects (e.g. live histogram overlay on optical view)... that said, an interchangeable optical / electronic viewfinder would give me the flexibility to configure the camera for each shoot's primary use case. I'd like that, no doubt about it...

[reh321]

I wonder if Pentax came out with an EVF for their hot shoes of their SLRs, what percentage of people would actually be interested enough to purchase one over just making do with the a pentaprism OVF. From what I can tell, these sorts of items retail for around 200 dollars, but my guess is that, even for cameras without viewfinders, they probably actually sell pretty poorly. Most people, while they may want a particular style, are unwilling to pay extra for it.

Wouldn't they also have to change the hot shoe to deliver the needed signals to the EVF??

[Rondec]

Wouldn't they also have to change the hot shoe to deliver the needed signals to the EVF??

Sure, but this thread is full of speculation. They'd have to do a lot of work to make the sort of hybrid viewfinder that photoptomist is talking about too. But would you spend, say 150 dollars, for one if Pentax offered it for your KP?

[ThorSanchez]

Sure, but this thread is full of speculation. They'd have to do a lot of work to make the sort of hybrid viewfinder that photoptomist is talking about too. But would you spend, say 150 dollars, for one if Pentax offered it for your KP?

I probably wouldn’t if they made one for my K-3ii despite seeing the advantages of EVFs. Add on bits like a hotshoe viewfinder are almost always a little kludgy. Not nearly as elegant as an integrated solution. One more thing to carry around. Unlikely to have the data transfer rates necessary to have really good frame rates and features of an integrated viewfinder. And $150 for a top notch EVF seems very optimistic.

[Rondec]

I probably wouldn’t if they made one for my K-3ii despite seeing the advantages of EVFs. Add on bits like a hotshoe viewfinder are almost always a little kludgy. Not nearly as elegant as an integrated solution. One more thing to carry around. Unlikely to have the data transfer rates necessary to have really good frame rates and features of an integrated viewfinder. And $150 for a top notch EVF seems very optimistic.

Well having a "top end" EVF for a Pentax camera seems unlikely as well. They aren't a tech company, don't have high volumes in sales and would be unlikely to have, say, an A9 level of EVF on any camera they would release. Much more likely, would be a two or three year old EVF with some significant lag, particularly in low light settings.

[normhead]

I'm really curious.

Lets say theoretically someone has all the advantages of an EVF.
They are walking beside me on the trail and we come across some birds willing to be photographed.


By the time you've raised the camera and fired off a few shots, how much time do these EVF viewfinders save you? How is the image better than the one I get? The problem I have with all this stuff, is I find the AF on my K-3 with the 55-300 very fast and in AV mode the camera does everything I want automatically, including focus really quickly on an eye if I choose to do so. So I'm not sure how some people's perception of easier translates into anything at all. Time saved, unlikely? Less stressful? I don't find photgraphy stressful. I higher keeper rate? Maybe, but I typically get the images I want so I'm not sure even that is a consideration.

I've not seen one image taken with an A9 where i said to myself, self, that must be an A9 image. I've yet stopped see an image that would tell my EVFs are anything but personal preference.

Search: Sony A9 | Flickr
Search: Pentax K-3 | Flickr

If both EVF and OVF are capable of taking pretty much the same images, the rest of the discussion is pointless. "It's easier with an EVF" is a very subjective opinion. If I don't have trouble with an OVF, it's just irrelevant. It's not smart to go fixing problems you don't have.

I had three seconds to get images of this bird before it flew. I basically turned on the camera, raised the camera, put it to my eye and fired off a 3 shots in burst, all 100% in focus and focus was next to immediate. So tell me, why do I need an EVF? Why would an EVF have been better. As you can tell, I'm extremely suspicious.

My conclusion would be, an EVF is just un-necessary technology. I don't buy stuff just because it's there, it has to provide me with an advantage somehow.