Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
04-15-2019, 06:45 AM   #91
Site Supporter
Site Supporter




Join Date: Dec 2012
Photos: Albums
Posts: 822
QuoteOriginally posted by Rondec Quote
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.
So the answer to your previous question, from almost anyone, is no. Almost no one is going to spend money to turn a good DSLR into a poorly-performing mirrorless camera with an unwieldy add-on.

---------- Post added 04-15-19 at 10:03 AM ----------

QuoteOriginally posted by normhead Quote
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.
Isn't this the same argument with any additional features in a camera? Couldn't you argue that you probably could have gotten essentially the same photos (at least at reasonable viewing distances) with a K-10D and a screwdrive 55-300? Or a 10-year-old point and shoot?

If you want to you can make the argument that almost any new feature isn't worth it. We focus on EVFs here mostly because Pentax doesn't have any, therefore we don't really need them. If Pentax had really good EVFs but no shake reduction I'm sure we'd have long threads about how EVFs were almost indispensable while shake reduction is only useful in a few edge cases and would rarely help a real photographer get better shots.

04-15-2019, 07:19 AM   #92
Pentaxian
photoptimist's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2016
Photos: Albums
Posts: 3,124
QuoteOriginally posted by normhead Quote
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.
For me, the biggest contribution of an EVF wouldn't be in reducing the time it takes to get the shot, it would be in improving the keeper-rate. In particular it would help me catch silly little errors such as forgetting the meter was is spot mode, TAv is flashing "100" because the scene is too bright, or my nose has selected tungsten white balance. I really want a EVF (or hybrid-VF) so I don't have to chimp. A hybrid-VF would let me review the image I just took without taking the camera from my face.

Sure, an EVF is "un-necessary technology" but so is the LCD display on the back of the camera (film cameras didn't have them and that never stopped photographers!). For that matter, a curmudgeon would say that AF, AE, and AWB are all un-necessary technologies, too. No one can look at a set of images and pick out which ones were made with manual focus or auto-focus but that doesn't mean that photographers don't find AF to be very useful.

All these "un-necessary" technologies improve the photographic process by making it easier to concentrate on a subset of all the decisions a photographer must make (shutter time, aperture, ISO, focus, focal length, framing, composition, timing, etc.) while letting the camera handle other decisions or helping the photographer confirm the appropriateness of those decisions.
04-15-2019, 07:34 AM   #93
Pentaxian
Site Supporter
normhead's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Near Algonquin Park
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 31,941
QuoteOriginally posted by ThorSanchez Quote
Isn't this the same argument with any additional features in a camera? Couldn't you argue that you probably could have gotten essentially the same photos (at least at reasonable viewing distances) with a K-10D and a screwdrive 55-300? Or a 10-year-old point and shoot?
Nope, it's not. It's a completely new argument.

QuoteOriginally posted by ThorSanchez Quote
If you want to you can make the argument that almost any new feature isn't worth it. We focus on EVFs here mostly because Pentax doesn't have any, therefore we don't really need them. If Pentax had really good EVFs but no shake reduction I'm sure we'd have long threads about how EVFs were almost indispensable while shake reduction is only useful in a few edge cases and would rarely help a real photographer get better shots.
My argument is that I don't see a lot of improvement being possible.

Of the 95% of what I do, my Pentax gear is more than adequate and joy to work with, and I'm guessing of the 5% I can't do, 4% no camera can do. That leaves 1% for issues that might be addressed with an EVF or different system. IN the world of high tech marketing, the fact that something exists, you have to ask, is it marketing hype designed to differentiate, or is it something that actually works better. The question for each of us is, "how will it work for me?" For me, an EVF offers nothing. It offers distractions i'd rather let the camera handle, out of sight, out of mind so I'm just focussed on shooting. For me and shooters like me, a company has to come up with something that cuts into that last 5%, and it has to be more affordable than what I use now. Since my K-3 is over 5 years old, it doesn't cost me cent to use it. $1400 for 120,000 images getting close to a cent an image, it owes me nothing, if it died today it would still be a great purchase.

QuoteQuote:
If Pentax had really good EVFs but no shake reduction I'm sure we'd have long threads about how EVFs were almost indispensable while shake reduction is only useful in a few edge cases and would rarely help a real photographer get better shots.
Why? Shake reduction gets me images previously impossible.



Look at this image.
300mm lens, ƒ6.3 1/160s and 100 ISO.
No discernible noise because I exposed at 100 ISO, hand held 300mm at 1/160s, an impossible shot without the fast focusing 55-300 PLM and shake reduction.
How would have an EVF improved my chances?

---------- Post added 04-15-19 at 10:45 AM ----------

QuoteOriginally posted by photoptimist Quote
For me, the biggest contribution of an EVF wouldn't be in reducing the time it takes to get the shot, it would be in improving the keeper-rate. In particular it would help me catch silly little errors such as forgetting the meter was is spot mode, TAv is flashing "100" because the scene is too bright, or my nose has selected tungsten white balance. I really want a EVF (or hybrid-VF) so I don't have to chimp. A hybrid-VF would let me review the image I just took without taking the camera from my face.
I have my XG-1 a very basic EVF with all those things... I don't find them useful. My DSLR experience is better. OF course an XG-1 is a very clunky camera, but nevertheless, it's not like I don't have the opportunity to try those things. You do realize camera settings etc are displayed under the image in a OVF don't you?

QuoteOriginally posted by photoptimist Quote
Sure, an EVF is "un-necessary technology" but so is the LCD display on the back of the camera (film cameras didn't have them and that never stopped photographers!). For that matter, a curmudgeon would say that AF, AE, and AWB are all un-necessary technologies, too. No one can look at a set of images and pick out which ones were made with manual focus or auto-focus but that doesn't mean that photographers don't find AF to be very useful.
The difference being the EVF replaces the OVF. You have to give up something to get it. The LCD back display AF, AE and AWB, you can use them or turn them off. They didn't replace an existing feature they augmented it, without taking away the ability to use them if you want to manually focus your lens, use a spot meter, and white balance in post. If you want to shoot like 1965 you can.

QuoteOriginally posted by photoptimist Quote
All these "un-necessary" technologies improve the photographic process by making it easier to concentrate on a subset of all the decisions a photographer must make (shutter time, aperture, ISO, focus, focal length, framing, composition, timing, etc.) while letting the camera handle other decisions or helping the photographer confirm the appropriateness of those decisions.
The problem with EVF adoption is, it really doesn't add that much and you give up your OVF to use it. It's not an added feature, it's a replacement feature and there are situations where it's at disadvantage. You have to give up what you have to get what it has to offer. I put my camera on AV, set my aperture and watch the shutter speed in the viewfinder if I'm worried. I'm not sure what could be easier. My camera lives on -0.7 for regular shooing +.03 for snow backgrounds or back lit. I know what the images will look like using those setting and if they are 1 stop plus or minus I can deal with that. My Heron above I had maybe 5 seconds to get shot off, and I had to turn the camera on. You make it sound like with an EVF you don't have to preset your camera for what you expect. I'd argue that promotes bad technique, have your camera ready for your environment and if you get an opportunity don't waste it checking settings in the viewfinder or anywhere else. Get that Heron image, the opportunity may be brief, don't spend time messing with your camera. Checking or confirming doesn't matter, when it's time to shoot, compose, focus and shoot. If you're thinking about camera settings, you're going about it the wrong way. Preparation is everything.

The answer to "I might mess up" is solved by preparation, not by having to check settings in the viewfinder.

Last edited by normhead; 04-15-2019 at 08:02 AM.
04-15-2019, 07:49 AM   #94
Site Supporter
Site Supporter




Join Date: Dec 2012
Photos: Albums
Posts: 822
QuoteOriginally posted by normhead Quote
Why? Shake reduction gets me images previously impossible.



Look at this image.
300mm lens, 6.3 1/160s and 100 ISO.
No discernible noise because I exposed at 100 ISO, hand held 300mm at 1/160s, an impossible shot without the fast focusing 55-300 PLM and shake reduction.
How would have an EVF improved my chances?
Shake reduction was just one example. Obviously an EVF isn't going to help you get a shot you've already gotten. But it might help with ones you've missed. The point is that we have drawn a line in the sand at the feature sets in our cameras, and decided that if we get pretty good results that's all that's necessary. Everything else is superfluous, or a crutch, or overcompensation for lack of skill. I'm sure these same discussions were had in 2010, with the features available in 2010. Or 2000, or 1980. I'm sure these same things are discussed on Fuji or Nikon forums, just with their particular feature set being what's necessary to take good photos.

04-15-2019, 08:15 AM   #95
Pentaxian
Site Supporter
normhead's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Near Algonquin Park
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 31,941
QuoteOriginally posted by ThorSanchez Quote
But it might help with ones you've missed
Or it might not. My point being, until you show me how it does, I'm not really interested in supposing it might. I could care less about other forums.

QuoteQuote:
I'm sure these same things are discussed on Fuji or Nikon forums, just with their particular feature set being what's necessary to take good photos.
I don't listen to those dudes either. You seem to be missing the point. The Pentax feature set suits me for quantifiable reasons. I shoot a lot of macro, where Pixels shit makes my K-1 better than a D850 or EOS 5DS. Ditto landscape. The AF with a 55-300 PLM is faster than I need, the camera is ready to shoot before I am, the physical characteristics of the camera match my style and what I shoot. Whether or not other people's cameras from other brands suits their style is as about as unimportant to me as it gets. So if Pentax doesn't suit your style and you own one, that's sad. Your insistence that I like Pentax the way Nikon users like their cameras is nonsense. I bought my K-1 pretty much for pixel shift. I was thinking K-P but then I thought, for a bit more, I can get a K-1 and have a totally different set of options from what my K-3 offers and share lenses with both systems. I didn't switch to Canon, Sony or Nikon because they didn't have pixels shift, and I spent $3.5k on lenses after I bought the K-1, $5500 on another system is a pretty good start. There can be things that make a difference to your final image that are not available on every platform. Not all brand preferences are about people justifying their purchases. That is insulting to a lot of people, like the people who research and make sure what they buy suits their needs.

If you are a Nikon, Sony of Canon shooter you are much more likely to have been swayed by marketing or just bought what your friends and relatives have. Not all were, but it's more likely.

Last edited by normhead; 04-15-2019 at 08:23 AM.
04-15-2019, 08:51 AM   #96
Pentaxian
photoptimist's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2016
Photos: Albums
Posts: 3,124
QuoteOriginally posted by normhead Quote
You do realize camera settings etc are displayed under the image in a OVF don't you?
LOL! Yes but that doesn't mean I take the time to look at them!


QuoteOriginally posted by normhead Quote
The difference being the EVF replaces the OVF. You have to give up something to get it. The LCD back display AF, AE and AWB, you can use them or turn them off. They didn't replace an existing feature they augmented it, without taking away the ability to use them if you want to manually focus your lens, use a spot meter, and white balance in post. If you want to shoot like 1965 you can.
Yep! No free lunch! Both VF technologies have disadvantages:

With an EVF, I give up battery life, a real view of the scene, a cool noise-free sensor, and the ability to zoom/frame/compose a shot with the camera off. (And for some % of the population, EVFs are a literal headache.)

With an OVF, I give up a silent camera, seeing the true DoF/bokeh of the scene @ apertures larger than about f/4, a preview of the effects of the settings, focus peaking, histogram, and an integrated 16X magnifier.

Both VFs suck in different ways although the Calvinist photographer can soldier on and make either VF work.

As it stands now, one is forced to make that VF trade-off at the system level -- buying into a system with a particular VF technology and carrying that body. A swappable VF would let me pick the VF in the field. And a hybrid-VF would let me have my cake and eat it too!

QuoteOriginally posted by normhead Quote
The problem with EVF adoption is, it really doesn't add that much and you give up your OVF to use it. It's not an added feature, it's a replacement feature and there are situations where it's at disadvantage. You have to give up what you have to get what it has to offer. I put my camera on AV, set my aperture and watch the shutter speed in the viewfinder if I'm worried. I'm not sure what could be easier. My camera lives on -0.7 for regular shooing +.03 for snow backgrounds or back lit. I know what the images will look like using those setting and if they are 1 stop plus or minus I can deal with that. My Heron above I had maybe 5 seconds to get shot off, and I had to turn the camera on. You make it sound like with an EVF you don't have to preset your camera for what you expect. I'd argue that promotes bad technique, have your camera ready for your environment and if you get an opportunity don't waste it checking settings in the viewfinder or anywhere else. Get that Heron image, the opportunity may be brief, don't spend time messing with your camera. Checking or confirming doesn't matter, when it's time to shoot, compose, focus and shoot. If you're thinking about camera settings, you're going about it the wrong way. Preparation is everything.

The answer to "I might mess up" is solved by preparation, not by having to check settings in the viewfinder.
But all that "preparation" is hard! What would be easier is not having to always pay attention to the fluctuating AE values. Why suffer for my art when a bit of technology could help confirm that the exposure, WB, and other settings were basically right?

Personally, I think OVFs are better than EVFs for most but not all shooting. I'd like to get to swap OVF vs. EVF for vacation shooting (e.g., for silent EVF shooting in cathedrals, OVF for most other shooting). But what I really want is a hybrid-VF which I'd usually set to OVF for everything except the post-shot review. I'd occasionally set it to EVF for silent shooting, big-bokeh compositions, and some critical focus shots.
04-15-2019, 08:54 AM - 2 Likes   #97
Pentaxian
Site Supporter
normhead's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Near Algonquin Park
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 31,941
QuoteOriginally posted by photoptimist Quote
But all that "preparation" is hard! What would be easier is not having to always pay attention to the fluctuating AE values. Why suffer for my art when a bit of technology could help confirm that the exposure, WB, and other settings were basically right?
I guess my problem is I'm not suffering.

As the Buddha said "Life is suffering".
As Leonard Cohen said " I tried all the world's great religions, but happiness kept breaking through."
I'm more like Leonard.

Sometimes this place makes me feel guilty because my cameras make me happy just doing what I do.

Last edited by normhead; 04-15-2019 at 08:59 AM.
04-15-2019, 09:48 AM - 1 Like   #98
Pentaxian




Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 2,145
QuoteOriginally posted by ThorSanchez Quote
The point is that we have drawn a line in the sand at the feature sets in our cameras, and decided that if we get pretty good results that's all that's necessary. Everything else is superfluous, or a crutch, or overcompensation for lack of skill. I'm sure these same discussions were had in 2010, with the features available in 2010.
And all that has been completely correct in 2010 and many years before. The 9 years after that there was zero major innovation which is not superfluous, or a crutch, or overcompensation for lack of skill. Probably some years before even.


In the end real viewfinder versus minidisplay is an irrelevant detail.

The only big gamechanger that ever happened is making photography ultra-portable - and this single innovation came from phone companies. As a consequence they are reaping the benefits.

04-15-2019, 10:33 AM   #99
Site Supporter
Site Supporter




Join Date: Dec 2012
Photos: Albums
Posts: 822
QuoteOriginally posted by normhead Quote
Or it might not. My point being, until you show me how it does, I'm not really interested in supposing it might. I could care less about other forums.

I don't listen to those dudes either. You seem to be missing the point. The Pentax feature set suits me for quantifiable reasons. I shoot a lot of macro, where Pixels shit makes my K-1 better than a D850 or EOS 5DS. Ditto landscape. The AF with a 55-300 PLM is faster than I need, the camera is ready to shoot before I am, the physical characteristics of the camera match my style and what I shoot. Whether or not other people's cameras from other brands suits their style is as about as unimportant to me as it gets. So if Pentax doesn't suit your style and you own one, that's sad. Your insistence that I like Pentax the way Nikon users like their cameras is nonsense. I bought my K-1 pretty much for pixel shift. I was thinking K-P but then I thought, for a bit more, I can get a K-1 and have a totally different set of options from what my K-3 offers and share lenses with both systems. I didn't switch to Canon, Sony or Nikon because they didn't have pixels shift, and I spent $3.5k on lenses after I bought the K-1, $5500 on another system is a pretty good start. There can be things that make a difference to your final image that are not available on every platform. Not all brand preferences are about people justifying their purchases. That is insulting to a lot of people, like the people who research and make sure what they buy suits their needs.

If you are a Nikon, Sony of Canon shooter you are much more likely to have been swayed by marketing or just bought what your friends and relatives have. Not all were, but it's more likely.
It wouldn't be the first time I've missed the point. I understand that we pick our cameras and systems based on our preferences, I know I picked Pentax because of a nice combination of features and affordability.

But I don't know anyone who bought into a system after having thoroughly reviewed all of the possible choices and done a comprehensive analysis of alternatives. We go with what we think is right at the time, and hope we're right. Pentax has been good to me. But that doesn't mean that features they don't currently offer might not be of benefit to me. I try to always reassess my choices, to see what's out there, and to add in my little feedback that perhaps Pentax will aggregate and introduce some new things that will help me as a photographer and the growth of the brand.

And as you said, categorizing brand preferences as only justifying purchases is insulting to a lot of people who research and buy what suits them, even if their choices are Nikon or Canon or an Olympus with an EVF and no mirror.
04-15-2019, 07:12 PM   #100
retired sw engineer
Loyal Site Supporter
reh321's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: South Bend, IN, USA
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 12,340
QuoteOriginally posted by Rondec Quote
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?
You are aware that they have already filed a patent for this kind of thing? They have already done some of the R&D work

It wouldn't be an add-on to my KP.
It would be the special, new, distinctive feature of a line of Pentax cameras, just as the 'accelerator' was of the most recent ones.
And, yes, that is something that could entice me to purchase yet another Pentax camera, just as the KP's 'accelerator' did.
04-15-2019, 07:25 PM   #101
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter
monochrome's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: St. Louis, Missouri
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 23,941
QuoteOriginally posted by reh321 Quote
You are aware that they have already filed a patent for this kind of thing? They have already done some of the R&D work

It wouldn't be an add-on to my KP.
It would be the special, new, distinctive feature of a line of Pentax cameras, just as the 'accelerator' was of the most recent ones.
And, yes, that is something that could entice me to purchase yet another Pentax camera, just as the KP's 'accelerator' did.
It is my considered opinion that something (r)evolutionary is under development for the next APSc platform that is the cause of the delay.
04-16-2019, 02:51 AM - 1 Like   #102
Site Supporter
Site Supporter




Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Gladys, Virginia
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 19,461
I guess I just don't think of EVFs as revolutionary. They are just a different way of seeing the world. It's a bit like saying that you could replace the windshield of your vehicle with a giant LCD screen -- but, that it would be better, because you could have all sorts of extra information on it that would help with the driving experience, the outside temperature, your driving speed, maybe feedback from the sensors in your tires telling what the air pressure in each of them is. But honestly, I would find all that stuff to be distracting from driving.

In the end, they are two different ways of shooting the same photos. The photos actually look very much the same and I would challenge anyone to identify which photos on Flickr were shot using an EVF and which ones were shot using an OVF. I don't really care very much (except every EVF I've used gives me eye strain pretty quickly), but the EVF evangelists do irritate me by telling me that my photos would be dramatically better if I used an EVF. Well, I would probably shoot less if I had an EVF but maybe I could get used to it. I don't use manual focus lenses so all of that is out as a benefit. I don't shoot astro photography so that is out. I just don't see it as doing much for me.

But if Pentax releases something buzz worthy that sells more cameras, that's all good in my book and I'll try to work with (or around) it.
04-16-2019, 03:11 AM - 1 Like   #103
Senior Moderator
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter
BigMackCam's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: North-East of England
Posts: 11,919
QuoteOriginally posted by Rondec Quote
I guess I just don't think of EVFs as revolutionary. They are just a different way of seeing the world.

...

In the end, they are two different ways of shooting the same photos. The photos actually look very much the same and I would challenge anyone to identify which photos on Flickr were shot using an EVF and which ones were shot using an OVF. I don't really care very much (except every EVF I've used gives me eye strain pretty quickly), but the EVF evangelists do irritate me by telling me that my photos would be dramatically better if I used an EVF.
I don't think your photos would be dramatically better if taken using an EVF. I don't think they'd be any better at all. That's a fallacy, for sure.

That said, I do find that I get a better keeper rate (or have to take fewer shots to get a keeper) in certain situations when using my mirrorless EVF camera. The live histogram is particularly useful, as I know for sure whether I'm under-exposing shadows or over-exposing highlights and can adjust accordingly before I even press the shutter release. Even though I'm pretty competent at estimating EV compensation for different scenes when using my DSLRs, there are times - especially with higher-dynamic-range scenes - where I don't get it quite right, or at least not optimal. And if I'm shooting with shallow depth-of-field, an EVF allows me to obtain and/or check for precise focus accuracy. By the time I take the shot, I know for sure I've got the focus spot on, rather than having to chimp or find out later on during raw development.

So, whilst I prefer looking through an OVF, there are benefits - to me - in using an EVF for certain situations. A well-executed hybrid of the two would be awesome...
04-16-2019, 03:33 PM   #104
retired sw engineer
Loyal Site Supporter
reh321's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: South Bend, IN, USA
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 12,340
QuoteOriginally posted by Rondec Quote
I guess I just don't think of EVFs as revolutionary. They are just a different way of seeing the world. It's a bit like saying that you could replace the windshield of your vehicle with a giant LCD screen -- but, that it would be better, because you could have all sorts of extra information on it that would help with the driving experience, the outside temperature, your driving speed, maybe feedback from the sensors in your tires telling what the air pressure in each of them is. But honestly, I would find all that stuff to be distracting from driving.
But a hybrid screen would be like putting an airplane-like 'heads-up' display on your car, displaying things like speed, time and current gasoline level on the bottom of the windshield, where normally all you see is hood, so you could glance at it more quickly - or perhaps an enhanced view of the road that would allow cars to drive without lights, so no one would be blinded by the lights of on-coming vehicles - or something that would enable the driver to follow the road despite 'blinding' rain or snow. A few years ago I was driving on I-94 just north of here when 'white out' suddenly descended up the road, so I pulled off onto the shoulder 'by Braille' {there were 'rumble strips' between the right lane and the shoulder} until visibility returned; the next day local news had a report of a 50+ vehicle accident that occurred just a few miles behind me ..... I would have loved a system that could show the road and other vehicles on my screen even under those conditions.
04-16-2019, 03:37 PM   #105
Site Supporter
Site Supporter




Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Gladys, Virginia
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 19,461
QuoteOriginally posted by reh321 Quote
But a hybrid screen would be like putting an airplane-like 'heads-up' display on your car, displaying things like speed, time and current gasoline level on the bottom of the windshield, where normally all you see is hood, so you could glance at it more quickly - or perhaps an enhanced view of the road that would allow cars to drive without lights, so no one would be blinded by the lights of on-coming vehicles - or something that would enable the driver to follow the road despite 'blinding' rain or snow. A few years ago I was driving on I-94 just north of here when 'white out' suddenly descended up the road, so I pulled off onto the shoulder 'by Braille' {there were 'rumble strips' between the right lane and the shoulder} until visibility returned; the next day local news had a report of a 50+ vehicle accident that occurred just a few miles behind me ..... I would have loved a system that could show the road and other vehicles on my screen even under those conditions.
I guess it doesn't matter that I'm not really interested in that info in my viewfinder?
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!
adoption, base, camera, canon, dslr, eos, ff, ff mirrorless adoption, flickr, frame, k1, lenses, mirrorless, moment, nikon, panasonic, pentax, people, photo industry, photography, pool, post, shift, shops, size, sony, time, users
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Survey on determiners in the adoption of the MOOCs* by learners chino974 General Talk 0 07-29-2016 06:01 AM
Just got an LX.... and slow shutter speed seem way too slow LFLee Pentax Film SLR Discussion 42 07-14-2016 10:23 AM
Pets Kitty for Adoption Newtophotos Pentax K-3 Photo Contest 2 06-02-2014 08:07 AM
Pets Ready for Adoption (Caution - Cute Pups) atupdate Post Your Photos! 23 05-31-2014 09:50 PM
effects filters slow down camera,turn off filter and camera is still slow zorak Pentax K-r 7 10-05-2011 06:12 AM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 07:46 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