Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
11-09-2019, 09:57 AM - 2 Likes   #16
Pentaxian
tvdtvdtvd's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 1,567
QuoteOriginally posted by photoptimist Quote
For example, I doubt EVFs will ever reach the DR of an OVF. I was shocked when looked through the OVF of the M-1, noticed that my eyes could easily resolve details on both a lit lightbulb and shadowed black-fronted appliance and that those two surfaces were 17 stops different in light level! The human eye has about 20 stops DR but an EVF is limited by the DR of the sensor, processing, and display.
Why not? It's not hard to imagine the EVF behaving as our eyes do, constantly readjusting as the light conditions vary. You look at a bright area
through the viewfinder and the EVF centers DR on that spot; look at a dark spot and the EVF readjusts. It's even conceivable the EVF will be
able to shift DR quicker than our own eyes.

QuoteOriginally posted by photoptimist Quote
What will be superior is a hybrid VF.
No argument there, though I still suspect that OVFs will fall away from wide use as EVF technology improves. Production costs alone
will be a strong motivation for the manufacturers. Improved resolution, interpreted DR beyond what even the eye can see, plus all the
current benefits with digitally overlain information, will be plenty motivation for most shooters. It will never exactly match what an OVF
can do but I'm confident EVF will mature to a point that any short comings are strongly overweighed by the advances.

Don't forget, only the five richest kings of Europe will ever want a computer.
Even if Thomas J. Watson's original quote is exaggerated or even farcical, technological advancement has often surpassed prediction.

11-09-2019, 10:36 AM   #17
retired sw engineer
Loyal Site Supporter
reh321's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: South Bend, IN, USA
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 16,293
QuoteOriginally posted by tvdtvdtvd Quote
Why not? It's not hard to imagine the EVF behaving as our eyes do, constantly readjusting as the light conditions vary. You look at a bright area
through the viewfinder and the EVF centers DR on that spot; look at a dark spot and the EVF readjusts. It's even conceivable the EVF will be
able to shift DR quicker than our own eyes.
I know that in darker times, I have to switch to LV on my KP solely because of darkness. I have taken some photos then I never could have framed or focused using the OVF.
11-09-2019, 02:28 PM - 1 Like   #18
Pentaxian
ecostigny's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2017
Location: Branford, CT
Posts: 340
QuoteOriginally posted by biz-engineer Quote
A kind of "groupthink", Groupthink - Wikipedia , I've discovered that term recently.
It looks like groupthink to me. Canon and Nikon introduced their mirrorless mounts with bold claims as to the enhanced lens performance those mounts will allow. They then pushed out some extremely capable and expensive glass to take advantage of those mounts. However, they seem to have overestimated the halo effect of their new offerings vs. Sony's system with its established lens lineup and highly-promoted AF functionality.

Regardless of which mirrorless system you pick, they all seem like desperate attempts to grab as much cash as possible out of a shrinking overall market.
11-09-2019, 06:00 PM   #19
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter




Join Date: May 2016
Location: East Coast
Posts: 2,417
QuoteOriginally posted by Kozlok Quote
I have been considering adding a MILC to my kit for a light weight travel option. Being me, I made a big spreadsheet of all my possible options. For APS-C, mirrorless saves me around 200g in a 2 kg travel kit vs my K-S2. Not enough really to justify the cost. M4/3 saves more, but I don’t see that option as compelling.

The truly lightweight MILC kits include poor performing collapsible lenses. The better lenses end up erasing the mythical weight advantage.
I picked up an a6000 "kit" with the 16-50 and 55-210. It's very nice, but the bottom line is it really wasn't light enough to make a difference for what I was after, which was a daily carry camera that basically lives in a messenger bag that follows me around to the office etc. So, what ended up being "the kit"? A Q-S1 with 06, 02, and 08 zooms, and it all fits in a Pentax S90-160 case.

11-09-2019, 07:09 PM   #20
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
Digitalis's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Adelaide.
Posts: 9,821
QuoteOriginally posted by tvdtvdtvd Quote
technological advancement has often surpassed prediction.
This view should be tempered by the fact that technological advancement has also fallen well short of prognosticators expectations.

I think of this whenever some big drug company announce some treatment for a horrible malady which passes phase I trials they say will be released in a few years....Right, that is about enough time for some horrible toxicity or side effect to show up in Phase III that cans the whole project and sends the company scurrying back to the drawing board.

Last edited by Digitalis; 11-09-2019 at 07:21 PM.
11-09-2019, 07:16 PM   #21
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter




Join Date: May 2007
Location: Flagstaff, Arizona
Posts: 554
QuoteOriginally posted by tvdtvdtvd Quote
She quickly
sold the X3 and bought a '92 Volvo 240 with no AC and no radio and she is much, much happier.
Sensible lady - good for her.

We are 1998 Volvo V70 (my wife's daily driver) and 2004 Volvo V40 drivers (well over 200k total miles). I hope these last forever! (Not to be confused with my Subaru 1986 XT - which is for sale)
11-09-2019, 07:37 PM   #22
Pentaxian
tvdtvdtvd's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 1,567
QuoteOriginally posted by Digitalis Quote
This view should be tempered by the fact that technological advancement has also fallen well short of prognosticators expectations.

I think of this whenever some big drug company announce some treatment for a horrible malady which passes phase I trials they say will be released in a few years....Right, that is about enough time for some horrible toxicity or side effect to show up in Phase III that cans the whole project and sends the company scurrying back to the drawing board.
Touché.
11-09-2019, 09:04 PM   #23
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
Navmaxlp's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Pennsylvania
Posts: 162
This seems a lot like the 3D Blu Ray market to me. Manufacturers had nothing else to drive sales so they tried to push an under developed yet catchy sounding product to the public. Obviously didn't take off shy of early adopters. Of course others did buy in but mostly because there was nothing else to buy at the time. I think Pentax is wise to lay low. I'm honestly still looking for the benefits of mirrorless over DSLR. Sure, they're marginally lighter and smaller. I was at a party today however, where a guy had a mirrorless rig that was slightly larger than my K3 setup. How was it better? I think in a few years, we will look back at this and giggle.

11-10-2019, 08:32 AM   #24
Pentaxian
photoptimist's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2016
Photos: Albums
Posts: 3,924
QuoteOriginally posted by tvdtvdtvd Quote
Why not? It's not hard to imagine the EVF behaving as our eyes do, constantly readjusting as the light conditions vary. You look at a bright area
through the viewfinder and the EVF centers DR on that spot; look at a dark spot and the EVF readjusts. It's even conceivable the EVF will be
able to shift DR quicker than our own eyes.
Interesting and not impossible. But it does imply that the camera must change the exposure setting of the sensor every time your eyes move to bring that part of the scene (e.g., the bright lightbulb or dim black appliance face) into the DR of the sensor. When I look at that same high-DR scene that my eyes can clearly see in the OVF but try to use live view, I have a choice of setting the exposure for being able to see the details on the lightbulb (and most of the rest of the scene is unresolvable black) or boosting the ISO to see the appliance front (and the entire wall around the lightbulb is huge circle blinding-white with blinkies).

Note: there are HDR sensors being used in smartphones. But the quad-pixel technology creates some very strange motion blurring artifacts.

QuoteOriginally posted by tvdtvdtvd Quote
No argument there, though I still suspect that OVFs will fall away from wide use as EVF technology improves. Production costs alone
will be a strong motivation for the manufacturers. Improved resolution, interpreted DR beyond what even the eye can see, plus all the
current benefits with digitally overlain information, will be plenty motivation for most shooters. It will never exactly match what an OVF
can do but I'm confident EVF will mature to a point that any short comings are strongly overweighed by the advances.

Don't forget, only the five richest kings of Europe will ever want a computer. The Simpsons - Dr Frink Computer (Frinkiac 7) - YouTube
Even if Thomas J. Watson's original quote is exaggerated or even farcical, technological advancement has often surpassed prediction.
Except that this line of logic:
1) underestimates the costs of EVFs in added high-speed electronics and exotic sensors
2) overestimates the costs of the mirror reflex mechanism
3) assumes cameras are commodities -- people switch brands to save a few dollars
4) assumes camera buyers are unwilling to spend extra $$$ to get extra features.
11-10-2019, 12:25 PM   #25
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter




Join Date: Dec 2017
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 650
With the 645Z, as well as some other Pentax DLSRs I don't own, one has available both OVF and EVF. However, unless one is fairly young, progressive deterioration in accommodation with age will require significant correction to view the EVF closely for focus purposes which will make more distant vision out of focus. This visual inconvenience can be avoided by the relatively unportable tethering of a 24-inch IPS monitor to the camera. To get around this in the future, holographic optical displays projected into the eye as in modern fighter jet helmets can be envisioned, and such may allow working in the field while also compressing the dynamic range to allow in-shadow focusing in the presence of bright lights.
11-10-2019, 02:24 PM   #26
Pentaxian
tvdtvdtvd's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 1,567
QuoteOriginally posted by photoptimist Quote
Interesting and not impossible. But it does imply that the camera must change the exposure setting of the sensor every time your eyes move to bring that part of the scene (e.g., the bright lightbulb or dim black appliance face) into the DR of the sensor. When I look at that same high-DR scene that my eyes can clearly see in the OVF but try to use live view, I have a choice of setting the exposure for being able to see the details on the lightbulb (and most of the rest of the scene is unresolvable black) or boosting the ISO to see the appliance front (and the entire wall around the lightbulb is huge circle blinding-white with blinkies).

Note: there are HDR sensors being used in smartphones. But the quad-pixel technology creates some very strange motion blurring artifacts.

Except that this line of logic:
1) underestimates the costs of EVFs in added high-speed electronics and exotic sensors
2) overestimates the costs of the mirror reflex mechanism
3) assumes cameras are commodities -- people switch brands to save a few dollars
4) assumes camera buyers are unwilling to spend extra $$$ to get extra features.
1) For the present. Today you can purchase an entire computer for the cost of a 30MB drive in 1989. That's 30 megabytes, which
is not enough to store even one K-1 RAW file.
2) Again, for the present. As we move forward in time the relative cost of the EVF will come down and I'm confident it will eventually
be less expensive to produce than a mechanical assembly. Don't forget the added cost of the pentaprism itself.
3) Not sure how this is relevant to my point, though cameras certainly are commodities for some shooters within the example you've
given. Photography forums are awash with tales of brand switching to chase after tech, and for some the cost of that tech is a factor.
Certainly the mass appeal of Sony is driven by a combination of advanced tech and perceived value, (albeit at the loss of so much
else, but that's another argument).
4) Not at all. I am well aware there is still an audience for Large Format cameras that shoot sheet film and have no problem with
that. I am certain there will still be OVF cameras as long as there is demand. That is not what I was implying by saying EVF
will eventually come to dominance. I can well imagine the SLR format being around 100 years from now as either a high priced
boutique item and/or a budget DYI choice.
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!
camera, damp, dslr, leica, lenses, market, mirrorless, models, photo industry, photography, revolution
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Nature Yellow and damp eaglem Post Your Photos! 5 10-07-2019 07:15 PM
Landscape Damp Dawn mole Post Your Photos! 4 12-25-2015 08:07 PM
Travel in the city are warm and damp. zztopd Post Your Photos! 2 02-24-2014 12:16 PM
a product that is used to change lens in a dusty or damp environment jon pafford Pentax Camera and Field Accessories 17 10-10-2009 11:31 AM
A special visitor at Florence Harbor on a damp, foggy night... Volvo244T Post Your Photos! 6 06-15-2009 01:14 AM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 07:03 PM. | 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