[k5astro]

Please explain how you get the image into the viewfinder without a ......... mirror.

Unless you are suggesting Ricoh release a rangefinder.

Yeah, I guess I'm suggesting the Q be a rangefinder - but with its changeable lenses.

EVF might do but it would have to be awesome. I've heard reports of EVF causing nausea and headaches but I've also heard rave reviews of the Fuji EVF. I do like focus peaking but like I said the EVF would have to be virtually optical in performance. OVFs are a pleasure to look through.

[Basie]

Electronic viewfinders, although praised just don't seem to yet have the quality I need to feel like it's virtually optical.

I would like o see and EVF with focus peaking. My old Panasonic had a EVF that even with it's limitations are much better than the OVF in my K5, which is not very useful for manual focus. So EVF with modern technology would be the way to go IMHO

[monochrome]

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. If you apply any sort of art filter or effects filter, you'll see it. It simply provides a better representation of what your camera is seeing and capturing, and that's a big advantage.

The thing is - I don't think it is a better representation of what I am seeing - and that's what I care about.

[TER-OR]

The Q with the 01 lens is nearly a rangefinder. I'd like to get a little optical viewfinder for it myself, but never remember to look for one.
A mountable viewfinder with multiple framings might be possible - FOVs of various lenses, though it would get a little crowded and maybe not so useful.

[Tony Belding]

The thing is - I don't think it is a better representation of what I am seeing - and that's what I care about.

I don't get it? So... You don't care if the WB is off or the exposure is off, as long as it looked good through the VF when you were snapping the shot??

[luftfluss]

I don't get it? So... You don't care if the WB is off or the exposure is off, as long as it looked good through the VF when you were snapping the shot??

This doesn't make any sense.

[RobA_Oz]

I recall once musing here about how good I thought my recently-acquired FA Limited would look on a rangefinder-style camera, and promptly being subjected to a torrent of poohooing the idea. I think most of those people have now departed the Forums. How things change, but then again, so have I. Having watched EVFs develop and improve (I wasn't particularly impressed with the OM-D's original EVF, but I have to admit that the more recent ones are much improved) I think that the time would be right to offer an option for the next Q, if they feel that adding a permanent one would compromise the size too much. It would be a pricey exercise, though.
I have a couple of OVFs for my Q. A third was actually bought for my wife's EX-1, and it's a nice little unit that proves you don't have to make these things as big or as expensive as most choose to, but it's a single FL. Of the others, one is from a Yashica lens converter set (again, small but also single FL) and the other is a Russian Leica-copy multi-FL turret OVF that looks nearly as big as the camera! None of them are really all that helpful at framing, but some would say they look pretty cool, especially the turret one. I'd prefer something that works.

[monochrome]

I don't get it? So... You don't care if the WB is off or the exposure is off, as long as it looked good through the VF when you were snapping the shot??

An EVF is not a perfect representation of what the sensor 'sees' nor what infomration will actually be in the file. It is the camera software's emulation of what it thinks the exposure looks like. It is subject to the engineers' opinions and to the limitations of display technology.

My WB and exposure are rarely off. Even for a complex lighting situation, I can manually test WB and manually adjust WB. Same for EV. I always have LV if I really need it.

I don't believe the EVF is a true representation of the WB or exposure. I see the true representation of the exposure. EVF's are fine for people who want to shoot that way. I don't need to.

I really get annoyed when people claim to know better than I what is right for me. WB and EV / EV Comp are metering issues (different meters) that I handle myself, manually, better than any camera engineer's idea of what (he) thinks I think they should be. And I like to do it.

Many EVF and MILC converts (not saying you) have lost touch with the idea that there are other opinions and other people. There is no universally superior technology.

What I would LIKE is to have a selectable Histogram and other information overlay on the passive viewfinder screen.

[eddie1960]

I recall once musing here about how good I thought my recently-acquired FA Limited would look on a rangefinder-style camera, and promptly being subjected to a torrent of poohooing the idea. I think most of those people have now departed the Forums. How things change, but then again, so have I. Having watched EVFs develop and improve (I wasn't particularly impressed with the OM-D's original EVF, but I have to admit that the more recent ones are much improved) I think that the time would be right to offer an option for the next Q, if they feel that adding a permanent one would compromise the size too much. It would be a pricey exercise, though.
I have a couple of OVFs for my Q. A third was actually bought for my wife's EX-1, and it's a nice little unit that proves you don't have to make these things as big or as expensive as most choose to, but it's a single FL. Of the others, one is from a Yashica lens converter set (again, small but also single FL) and the other is a Russian Leica-copy multi-FL turret OVF that looks nearly as big as the camera! None of them are really all that helpful at framing, but some would say they look pretty cool, especially the turret one. I'd prefer something that works.

the FA 43 is available in a leica mount (hard to find and pricey, produces quite nice images from what i've seen on rangefinder forum. I'd love to see it on the new Leica bodies (I've only seen scanned film shots)

[RobA_Oz]

the FA 43 is available in a leica mount (hard to find and pricey, produces quite nice images from what i've seen on rangefinder forum. I'd love to see it on the new Leica bodies (I've only seen scanned film shots)

Yes, I've seen those. I think they really made a splash in the broader world of photography, particularly as Pentax had slipped into making plastic mediocrities by then, otherwise.

[JPT]

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.

[monochrome]

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. If you apply any sort of art filter or effects filter, you'll see it. It simply provides a better representation of what your camera is seeing and capturing, and that's a big advantage.(My emphasis)

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.

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.

[eddie1960]

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.

In General I still think a true 100% finder on an SLR is the best in many cases. That said it comes with a size penalty to some degree (there are no SLR as small as the mirrorless contingent. EVFs have also come a very long way, I miss the simplicity of the OVF and the claritry, I love the Focus peaking, menu controls and dof preview via EVF . and I love the smaller size and layout of the Fuji XE. I liked the general performance on the Olympus but I think for that body design i'd rather a true SLR (and the bigger Sensor)
I will almost certainly still shoot with the K7, and with the really big OVF my Bronica etrsi. I will even buy a new K series body at some point and probably 3 more af lenses (21/50/70) to add to the mf lenses i am using more on the Fuji. certawinly long lenses will be via the Pentax (Stabilization and a more comfortable feel with a long lens)

[Fogel70]

It would be cool if Pentax made a twin lens version of the Q.

A lot user have aasked for a retro Pentax camera, and this would kind of be the ultimate retro camera, and Pentax would benefit from selling twice as many Q lenses.

[monochrome]

It would be cool if Pentax made a twin lens version of the Q.

A lot user have aasked for a retro Pentax camera, and this would kind of be the ultimate retro camera, and Pentax would benefit from selling twice as many Q lenses.

Heh. They could just as well attach a roll-up, light-tight, fabric hood to the rear of the camera and make it a tiny view camera. That would control the bright sun glare issue.