[rob_k20d]

I'm even sorrier if you prefer to go out with a wooden legged whore that can't dance.

Well, lets run with this politically incorrect analogy.

Maybe people should prefer to go out with a wooden legged whore.

I might not care about whether she can dance. (I haven't done extensive research, but I don't think dancing is what most people pay for, but that's another matter.) I might be a breast man, rather than a leg man. She may be beautiful, have stunning breasts, a beautiful face, and may be well trained in tantric sex, and can give someone pleasures they could only dream of, and for all of that she may still be cheaper than all of the other whores around.

So long as you are not repulsed by disability (and one shouldn't be), there may be very good reason to go out with a wooden legged whore, as you so charmingly put it.

If the K-01 is the camera equivalent of the wooden legged whore described above, there may well be a market for it. But it isn't for leg men (or rather those who need a viewfinder).

---

Last edited by rob_k20d; 02-16-2012 at 05:54 AM.

[Wheatfield]

Yes, Harford was talking about Canon. Perhaps he understates the position that Canon were already in as camera manufacturers, and therefore unfair for him to refer to them as a "photocopier company". However, it seems to me that Harford's main point remains: the first digital cameras were not perfect, and certainly not as good as film cameras for anyone serious about photography. But there was a niche market for digital cameras, even early on. This niche market then gave "the technology a foothold to improve". And it improved very quickly, and "many established names such as Fuji, Kodak, Olympus and Leica" (and we can add Pentax) "were scrambling to catch up in a landscape that had dramatically changed."

OK, I don't know who this guy you are talking about, so I don't know if he has any more credentials as a commentator than Newson has as a camera stylist but, the company that really blew it at the start of digital camera was Kodak. They invented the things, and then went on to ignore them as much as they could.
Saying he was understating Canon's place as a camera manufacture is a delightfully polite way of saying he has his head stuck firmly in his nether regions, and anything he said afterwards would have to be treated with suspicion, since his initial premise is stupidly wrong. Canon had been making cameras since 1935, they started as a camera manufacturer, and were very much at the forefront of camera manufacture from the 1960s onwards. They were the first company to invest heavily in electronics to operate their cameras (perhaps they were able to borrow some know how from the business machine end of things), the original EOS camera of 1987 was pretty much a computer with a lens.
Canon had the advantage at the time of being large enough to have a strong electronics division, and were forward thinking enough to combine electronics and cameras, and ultimately to see the advantage of digital imaging as the future, but calling them a business machine company is just laughably ignorant.

Ultimately, that assessment seems right to me. And, interestingly, it is with the introduction of mirrorless camers (and often viewfinderless cameras) that Fuji and Olympus are getting back into the picture.

The asessment is right, the reasoning is suspect.

If there are problems with the screen, it is reasonable to think that this then will be an area that camera manufacturers will be keen to improve. Of course, if there is reason to think that this is simply impossible, that would change things. But I am not convinced that it is impossible to develop a screen that can be seen in daylight. I could be wrong, but I am not yet convinced.

Car manufacturers haven't figured it out with dashboards yet. It's why we still have dials rather than readouts. Figuring it out will involve a pretty daunting challenge, either cause the sun to go dim, or make an LCD backlight powerful enough to overcome the sun's brightness, while at the same time not be so hot as to melt the camera or burn out the retinas of the users.
Probably it will be easier for them to cause the sun to go dim, but the unforeseen consequences of that are pretty dire.

Regarding the claim that this thread is evidence that people have been brainwashed into thinking cameras and viewfinders don't mix, that doesn't sound plausible to me.

You think they just woke up en masse and said we don't want viewfinders any more? Camera manufacturers, like every other manufacturer want to sell their product for as much as they can, while at the same time making it for as little as they can. It's called maximizing profit for the shareholders, and it is the number 1 priority of companies, even at the expense of their customers. A good viewfinder is both a thing of beauty to use, and a very expensive component to put on a camera, especially compact cameras where the viewfinder needs to be coupled to a zoom lens without actually using that lens for viewing. Removing the viewfinder and just letting people use the viewscreen makes good economic sense. The progression from viewfinders to no viewfinders started with making the viewfinders really crappy so that people would tend to stop using them in place of the rear screens. After that, they weren't missed. I also don't think we can discount the effect that camera phones had. They got people away from using cameras altogether, but also from using viewfinders in particular.

Certainly until the bright sunlight problem has been solved, there is definitely a place for a viewfinder. Even after the problem is solved, there may still be.

But I find some of the objections about screens - e.g. that they can't be held stable - simply unconvincing. I also think there are advantages of not having a viewfinder/mirror that are often ignored. There are some very real problems with the screens - well, 1 anyway, but a significant one. But many of the other objections, and blindness to advantages, seems to be resistance to change.

Try holding a camera at arms length with a long telephoto lens and see if you can hold it steady. The only advantages to not having a viewfinder are economic, especially for the manufacturer, who doesn't have to put them onto the cameras, thereby saving a boatload of manufacturing costs, and some smaller advantages to the consumer, who gets a slightly cheaper and smaller product.
The disadvantage is not having a viewfinder.

I don't think I am ready to give up my viewfinder yet. But I can see potential benefits in the future, and I can see the appeal of a mirrorless camera (e.g. for indoor event photography where it is important to be a quiet as possible), and I am simply interested to imagine (and then to wait and see) what cameras will look like in 10 or 20 years time.

Not having a mirror and not having a viewfinder do not go hand in hand. Panasonic make very nice little mirrorless cameras that have viewfinders. Sorry to shoot that one down for you, but that's just the way it is.

Also, how have the camera manufacturers performed this brainwashing? I haven't seen any anti-viewfinder propaganda. There is certainly evidence that consumers are buying cameras without viewfinders. This doesn't seem to me to be good evidence of brainwashing. Olympus (and others) make m4/3 cameras with and without viewfinders, and the ones without seem to be very popular.

Consumers have had the option taken away from them. They haven't complained for the most part, but this doesn't change that they are no longer being given the option. To a great extent, mirrorless cameras are being touted as the next Second Coming, and people are certainly buying into it. Olympus has the advantage of having dropped their OM system so long ago that no one cares about it any more, and the other 4/3 makers have no depth of age in the camera industry. 4/3 is a reinvention of the wheel, and is being hyped as new and improved. The brainwashing has nothing to do with viewfinders, they have just been taken away by the manufacturers.

[rob_k20d]

OK, I don't know who this guy you are talking about, so I don't know if he has any more credentials as a commentator than Newson has as a camera stylist but, the company that really blew it at the start of digital camera was Kodak. They invented the things, and then went on to ignore them as much as they could.
.

The guy is not a camera historian. And neither am I. So I take your point - as I have already conceded in my previous post - that he (and therefore I) was just wrong about Canon.

That said, does that really challenge the basic claim that if companies ignored digital photography it left them at a disadvantage?

I am not sure what your point is with Kodak. If they invented them, but then ignored them, it seems that it is the second of these facts that is the relevant one, and the one that may explain why kodak are not the force they used to be in photography.

[rob_k20d]

Car manufacturers haven't figured it out with dashboards yet. It's why we still have dials rather than readouts. Figuring it out will involve a pretty daunting challenge, either cause the sun to go dim, or make an LCD backlight powerful enough to overcome the sun's brightness, while at the same time not be so hot as to melt the camera or burn out the retinas of the users.
Probably it will be easier for them to cause the sun to go dim, but the unforeseen consequences of that are pretty dire.

Car manufacturers haven't worked it out. Okay. But is there any significant advantage for car manufacturers. I can't see one. There is at very least one significant advantage for camera manufacturers, even if that is only the one you point out - it is more economical.

You might be right about the impossibility of making a screen that will be properly visible in sunlight. On the other hand, I haven't yet heard anything to convince me that it must be impossible. If a kindle can have a screen that I can read in bright sunlight, and if a cheap laptop can, is it unreasonable to think that a camera can?

Watch from 2 minutes in

You Tube

You Tube

[rob_k20d]

You think they just woke up en masse and said we don't want viewfinders any more? Camera manufacturers, like every other manufacturer want to sell their product for as much as they can, while at the same time making it for as little as they can. It's called maximizing profit for the shareholders, and it is the number 1 priority of companies, even at the expense of their customers. A good viewfinder is both a thing of beauty to use, and a very expensive component to put on a camera, especially compact cameras where the viewfinder needs to be coupled to a zoom lens without actually using that lens for viewing. Removing the viewfinder and just letting people use the viewscreen makes good economic sense. The progression from viewfinders to no viewfinders started with making the viewfinders really crappy so that people would tend to stop using them in place of the rear screens. After that, they weren't missed. I also don't think we can discount the effect that camera phones had. They got people away from using cameras altogether, but also from using viewfinders in particular.

Yes, companies want to make a profit, and they want to increase their profit margins. But there is one simple part of economics you forgot. Competition. If people want a viewfinder, a camera manufacturer will provide it, and people will buy it. I assume that is one (though, of course, I stress only one) of the reasons why many of us buy DSLRs rather than mirrorless cameras. But not everyone buys DSLRS.

Also, you talk about camera manufacturers making cameras without viewfinders as if it is a conspiracy. Here competition is important too.

As you explain very well, making a camera with a viewfinder is not easy, and is not cheap. That means that if you build a camera with a viewfinder, and I build one that is more or less the same, but without a viewfinder, my camera will be cheaper. Lets say it is 20% cheaper. The question then is, what does the consumer want more: a viewfinder or a 20% saving.

And how does the camera phone point support your claim that camera companies brain washed people. Rather, it seems to go against your claim - providing an alternative explanation.

[rob_k20d]

Try holding a camera at arms length with a long telephoto lens and see if you can hold it steady.

Why? Why hold a camera at arms length? Sure, with a screen, you can. Doesn't mean you have to. (See my earlier post). And not everyone uses long, heavy lenses.

The only advantages to not having a viewfinder are economic, especially for the manufacturer, who doesn't have to put them onto the cameras, thereby saving a boatload of manufacturing costs, and some smaller advantages to the consumer, who gets a slightly cheaper and smaller product.
The disadvantage is not having a viewfinder.

Even if the only advantage is economic, that is far from insignificant.
Second, you mention another example yourself - a smaller camera. Again, a significant consideration for many.
Third, it isn't obvious these are the only advantages, but I won't repeat my earlier post.

Not having a mirror and not having a viewfinder do not go hand in hand. Panasonic make very nice little mirrorless cameras that have viewfinders. Sorry to shoot that one down for you, but that's just the way it is.

Why, exactly, do you think I would consider this to be bad news?

Consumers have had the option taken away from them. They haven't complained for the most part, but this doesn't change that they are no longer being given the option. To a great extent, mirrorless cameras are being touted as the next Second Coming, and people are certainly buying into it. Olympus has the advantage of having dropped their OM system so long ago that no one cares about it any more, and the other 4/3 makers have no depth of age in the camera industry. 4/3 is a reinvention of the wheel, and is being hyped as new and improved. The brainwashing has nothing to do with viewfinders, they have just been taken away by the manufacturers.

The claim that the option has been taken away from the consumer doesn't seem to be consistent with your own claim above that Panasonic make very nice mirrorless cameras with viewfinders.

Again, particularly in relation to compacts, they haven't taken viewfinders away as some kind of conspiracy. They are, as you say, more expensive. To make a camera with a viewfinder adds more expense. And, with the exception of DSLRs, it seems that a lot of consumers are not willing to pay that extra for a camera with a viewfinder.

Some of us are willing to pay extra for a viewfinder, and we do. What I am interested in is whether the number of people who will pay extra for a view finder will drop significantly if camera manufacturers do manage to improve the screens.

[monochrome]

1. You don't have to hold it at arms' length ever
2. You don't have to shoot with the sun at your back every time
3. You don't have to use a telephoto lens every time
4. You don't have to critical-focus every single shot
5. You don't have to have every conceivable mode available for every shot

For my own use, while the above limitations would make the K-01 impossible or unsuitable to use in those individual circumstances that doesn't mean it won't be preferable to use for most of my circumstances.

I have a DSLR for when it is needed.
I have numerous film SLR's for when they are preferable
I will have this NoVF MILC

I will likely prefer to use the K-01 for many of my photography needs. The secret will be to hold the K-01 like an SLR. Uniquely, the K-01, due to its size and mass, will actually be an effective tool for many K-mount lenses including legacy MF lenses.

I'll show you all next month.

---

Last edited by monochrome; 02-16-2012 at 12:06 PM.