[RobA_Oz]

Well, I certainly don't think an EVF is superior to an optical viewfinder in any way except for very low light situations, or for correct framing, where the OVF is not a through-the-lens variety.

We shouldn't let terminology get in the way of this discussion, either. The LCD screen is an EVF, just not an eyepiece type, and that's an important distinction to me. An eyepiece type viewfinder of any sort has advantages and disadvantages, regardless of whether it is electronic or not. For me, I like the isolation that an eyepiece viewfinder brings, especially with an eyecup fitted that blocks stray light. I usually compose with the other eye shut to complete my isolation from everything but the subject, but I often then open the other eye to be aware of potential intrusions into the field of view. The initial framing, though, takes place in isolation, as it helps me concentrate on the subject.

You can, of course, attach a hood or loupe to an LCD screen, to transform it into an eyepiece EVF, but in the case of the Q, that would defeat the main purpose of its form and size.

[JPT]

I don't give a hoot whether Ricoh introduces an EVF or whether Ricoh doesn't. Won't change a single thing for me.

What gets under my skin is the dismissive attitude that an EVF is always a superior technology to a passive optical viewfinder, which implies those who do not agree are benighted.

Everything is a compromise. I value what an EVF omits more than what it adds.

OK. I see what you mean about the way people express their opinions as if they are absolute truths. It can be a bit annoying, but I don't let it bother me, especially when it's from nonnative English speaker.

I don't think this is an EVF thing. It's the same on every side of every debate.

[Big Dave]

I have only used Sony EVFs (Nex 7, Nex 6, A6000 and the add-on EVF for the Nex 5 series) but I found all of them acceptable and the A6000 was excellent. By the way I am only a few months from 70 and wear glasses so my eye sight, while not to bad, is far from perfect. The main advantage is the extra information in the viewfinder and the ability to focus quickly and accurately with manual lenses.

I agree with you, people who complain about EVF's haven't used the new models, like my A7R. They are fantastic. You can see depth of field and exposure before you shoot. The focus peeking for manual lenses is amazing. I'm almost 72 in a couple of months with glasses and love the hi-res EVF.

[kadajawi]

If you have a preference for OVFs, I don't see a reason to be annoyed or frustrated. All current K-mount cameras have them.

The frustrating thing for those who prefer EVFs is that Pentax danced around the idea with the K-01, but then gave up. In fact Pentax have never produced an EVF Camera themselves, which means they're boxing themselves into one viewfinder technology. They also haven't implemented on-sensor PDAF. So I worry about their ability to compete in future.

I'm still happily using my K-01, without any kind of viewfinder, but I miss one sometimes. I feel hesitant to move back to an OVF camera because of focusing accuracy issues. One thing about CDAF is that when it's locked, it's really spot on. When I look back at my K20D shots, I see that there were lenses I never managed to properly calibrate. There was an article on DPR about this using the Canon 70D, where they concluded that on-sensor AF detection was just more accurate, even with calibrated lenses.

I slightly prefer an OVF to look through, but not at the expense of focusing accuracy.

When the K-01 was launched EVFs weren't good. Now they start to become good, though they require really fast processors in order to keep lag low. Pentax doesn't have access to those.

PDAF on sensor could be easy to do for Pentax... just buy a sensor that has it.

IMHO EVFs will be better than OVFs in almost all areas, but they aren't yet. Pentax might just want to wait until they are actually good.

[eddie1960]

IMHO EVFs will be better than OVFs in almost all areas, but they aren't yet. Pentax might just want to wait until they are actually good.

They may be good enough (and in fact I love the EVF on my XE2 which is pretty good BUT a proper OVF can't be beat for some things EVF may well have a load of stuff that makes the downside issues acceptable (I still find mine slow like I find an SLR OVF slow compared to a good RF because the mirror blocks the view for a brief period on an SLR) - RF however are limited on lens compatibility and have parallax issues.......... in other words there is no perfect system. SLR is damn close, but with my aging eyes I appreciate the focus assist and the zoom in possible on an EVF
CIF was working alright as long as i wasn't shooting too wide open. I can however see a day where EVF supersedes OVF, and in fact think it's fast approaching. For many people who did not grow up shooting SLRs the EVF may actually be their preference. It will also be ultimately cheaper to put in a high quality EVF as time passes than it is to put in the SLR setup (or the RF set up)

[RobA_Oz]

When the K-01 was launched EVFs weren't good. Now they start to become good, though they require really fast processors in order to keep lag low. Pentax doesn't have access to those.

What makes you think that?

IMHO EVFs will be better than OVFs in almost all areas, but they aren't yet. Pentax might just want to wait until they are actually good.

…and maybe fall further behind in the marketplace. I don't think they can wait, and I doubt they are. Remember, there's that other arm of Pentax called Ricoh…

[kadajawi]

What makes you think that?



…and maybe fall further behind in the marketplace. I don't think they can wait, and I doubt they are. Remember, there's that other arm of Pentax called Ricoh…

Simple. Pentax is limited to the Milbeaut. Sony makes the processor for themselves, and Samsung too (and the fastest processor is from Samsung). Doubt they'll offer it to Pentax, and even then it might not be trivial to adapt to it.

I think now, or soon, is the time to get serious with mirrorless, in order to get some dedicated lenses into place.

[Clothears]

An EVF has significant advantages over an optical viewfinder. It's better in low-light, since the camera can electronically gain-up the image for you. If your exposure is off, you'll see it. If your white balance is off, you'll see it.

But it won't have the resolution for manual focussing unless perhaps you provide focus peaking, or give it a retina display.

Of course your live view on the LCD does all of this too. What kills the LCD is the glare outdoors on sunny days. I got a hoodloupe for my K-01. It works well, but it's just a nuisance to keep track of and have ready when it's needed.

Shows how useless live view is.

And then there's glasses. To see through the VF, I take my glasses off. Which instantly renders the rear screen useless.

[kadajawi]

But it won't have the resolution for manual focussing unless perhaps you provide focus peaking, or give it a retina display.


Shows how useless live view is.

And then there's glasses. To see through the VF, I take my glasses off. Which instantly renders the rear screen useless.

Screen resolutions are constantly going up. And I can't focus manually with my K-5... well, sort of it works, but it is REALLY hard. With an EVF you can zoom in when you focus manually.

Also, EVFs can be much bigger than the OVF, which is physically limited. That makes focusing much easier.

[RobA_Oz]

Simple. Pentax is limited to the Milbeaut. Sony makes the processor for themselves, and Samsung too (and the fastest processor is from Samsung). Doubt they'll offer it to Pentax, and even then it might not be trivial to adapt to it.

I understand Fujitsu has been slow in releasing newer and faster versions, but that doesn't mean they won't do so, or do you know something else about it? It's an ARM-based processor, and they're not standing still.

I think now, or soon, is the time to get serious with mirrorless, in order to get some dedicated lenses into place.

No argument there. A development of the K-01 (rebodied for the broader marketplace, perhaps) with built-in optics to give a 35mm frame FoV whilst retaining the 24MP APS-C sensor would be something they could do, even with a slow EVF.

[Mikesul]

But it won't have the resolution for manual focussing unless perhaps you provide focus peaking, or give it a retina display.


Shows how useless live view is.

And then there's glasses. To see through the VF, I take my glasses off. Which instantly renders the rear screen useless.

Manual focusing with the A6000 EVF was a dream. It was the main reason I wanted to stay with the camera. By far the best photos I took with my M*300 were with the A6000 and EVF - fast, accurate, easy.

[kadajawi]

I understand Fujitsu has been slow in releasing newer and faster versions, but that doesn't mean they won't do so, or do you know something else about it? It's an ARM-based processor, and they're not standing still.


No argument there. A development of the K-01 (rebodied for the broader marketplace, perhaps) with built-in optics to give a 35mm frame FoV whilst retaining the 24MP APS-C sensor would be something they could do, even with a slow EVF.

They will release newer and faster versions, no doubt about it. But Samsung derives their processors from their smartphone processors, and smartphones are developing at a much faster pace than cameras. Samsung develops and makes some of the fastest ARM processors. They are at an advantage.

[Tony Belding]

But it won't have the resolution for manual focussing unless perhaps you provide focus peaking, or give it a retina display.

A DSLR isn't that great for manual focusing either, unless perhaps you get a split prism and microprism focusing screen put on it. Manual focus is an afterthought on today's DSLRs and mirrorless cameras alike.

What irks me more is focus-by-wire lenses, but that's a different issue.

[reh321]

Your second paragraph is what I was getting at. I'm suggesting a built-in OVF - with adjustable FOV based on focal length. Not SLR, nor an add-on.

My first digital camera was a Canon powershot that had these features in a tiny palm sized camera, so its definitely doable.

I have been an avid supporter of putting an EVF on every mirror-less camera; maybe younger people can handle the LCD outdoors, but I cannot (I am almost 67), and Sony has demonstrated that an EVF can be constructed that is barely distinguishable from an OVF. I don't see much point to an OVF, because there is no way of anticipating all lenses that might be used, and to me, a primary use of a viewfinder would be to help me in seeing what I am doing when I am trying to manually focus a legacy lens, which means that I need to see what the camera actually sees.

---------- Post added 11-11-14 at 01:26 PM ----------

Simple. Pentax is limited to the Milbeaut. Sony makes the processor for themselves, and Samsung too (and the fastest processor is from Samsung). Doubt they'll offer it to Pentax, and even then it might not be trivial to adapt to it.

I think now, or soon, is the time to get serious with mirrorless, in order to get some dedicated lenses into place.

At this point Pentax needs to put some kind of viewfinder on the Q; the viewfinder Canon uses is not very good, but it makes the SX-50 and SX-60 usable. What Pentax needs to do is to get back into the game, so that people will actually think of them when discussing questions such as "What Mirrorless Camera Should I Use for Birding?"; there really was a thread like that at another site - I suggested a Pentax Q ... and my suggestion was totally ignored. That is not good.

[kadajawi]

I have been an avid supporter of putting an EVF on every mirror-less camera; maybe younger people can handle the LCD outdoors, but I cannot (I am almost 67), and Sony has demonstrated that an EVF can be constructed that is barely distinguishable from an OVF. I don't see much point to an OVF, because there is no way of anticipating all lenses that might be used, and to me, a primary use of a viewfinder would be to help me in seeing what I am doing when I am trying to manually focus a legacy lens, which means that I need to see what the camera actually sees.

---------- Post added 11-11-14 at 01:26 PM ----------


At this point Pentax needs to put some kind of viewfinder on the Q; the viewfinder Canon uses is not very good, but it makes the SX-50 and SX-60 usable. What Pentax needs to do is to get back into the game, so that people will actually think of them when discussing questions such as "What Mirrorless Camera Should I Use for Birding?"; there really was a thread like that at another site - I suggested a Pentax Q ... and my suggestion was totally ignored. That is not good.

How about a viewfinder instead of a display?


The Q suffers from it's small sensor IMHO. It's not being taken serious... and to be honest I'd rather have a relatively large sensor camera with fixed zoom lens than one with a small sensor and different lenses... I really have a hard time understanding the Q.