Originally posted by luftfluss Strange to me that an article lamenting the demise of the OVF in favor of a technology that the author feels is not superior is getting so much criticism on this forum.
I don't think the lament is the issue. Clearly the author favours an optical viewfinder over an EVF.
However, I think the article misses the mark by a wide margin and it's difficult to understand its point. Lamenting the general withdrawal of OVF cameras amongst major manufacturers (e.g., Nikon, Canon) is one thing, but the lament is premature: The article fails to mention Ricoh Imaging, their unique philosophy towards DSLRs, the new K-3 Mark III Monochrome (a novel DSLR with an OVF!), or even the dedicated community of Pentax DSLR users. So, in fact, the OVF is not "dead." The author is well aware of Ricoh Imaging and Pentax -- he's written a slew of articles on various Pentax products.
Specifically, the article contains several weird statements:
"The fetish for mirrorless cameras has closed off an entire evolutionary arm of camera design" "...you don’t have a dirty great mirror clanking up and down every time you press the shutter release." (this might have been satire, but hard to tell)
"
With a DSLR, or any camera with an OVF, such as a Leica M or a Fujifilm X-Pro, when you put the camera to your eye, what you see in the viewfinder is what you saw the instant before." (Not sure what this means.)
"Anyone remember the TLR? A unique and beautiful instrument for taking pictures that's now consigned to history." (Is the author comparing DSLRs to TLRs?)
"And yet it’s as if no one cares about the shooting experience any more, only the relentless binary logic of marketing and tech talk." (Yet, Ricoh Imaging seems very focused on the shooting experience, as are many Pentax users.)
- Craig