[eddie1960]

I don't know... to me the core strength of the Q is still the size, with a viewfinder that would be compromised. Also the ergonomics aren't designed for a viewfinder.

If we wanted to get a bit crazier... drop the screen. EVF only. Or create a viewfinder that is attached to the head, separate from the camera.

Actually drop the screen evf only could work for me (on my XE2 i use the EVF onluy option 95% of the time, and given the ability to send shots to my ipad and phone via wifi, a tweaked program that lets me use either as a screen solves the need for the back one

[wildman]

Actually drop the screen evf only could work for me

Yep.
Just reduce lcd size and use it as a data screen only for Hgram and menu and other essentials where it has a useful purpose but not the only means of composition and focus. Also compared to the LCD on my little Canon S95 it's very inferior to the Canon.

I think they need to rethink the whole Q concept and come up with something more serious. As it is it's neither a good small ILC nor a small compact fast PS.

As it is It's main saving grace is it's cute.

[reh321]

I think they need to rethink the whole Q concept and come up with something more serious. As it is it's neither a good small ILC nor a small compact fast PS.
As it is It's main saving grace is it's cute.

I've described it as a niche product in search of a niche.

Since the Q7/Q-S1 sensor is larger than the sensor on most bridge cameras, I believe that it could function as a serious ILC, but the lack of an EVF will make it hard for most of us to view it that way. Its "cuteness" could work in its advantage, as somebody taking pictures with appears to be a toy might be ignored in circumstances when s/he wants to be ignored.

[Mikesul]

I've described it as a niche product in search of a niche.

Since the Q7/Q-S1 sensor is larger than the sensor on most bridge cameras, I believe that it could function as a serious ILC, but the lack of an EVF will make it hard for most of us to view it that way. Its "cuteness" could work in its advantage, as somebody taking pictures with appears to be a toy might be ignored in circumstances when s/he wants to be ignored.

I would also like an EVF but the Q7 works really well for me even without the EVF. I am in very sunny Arizona but most of the time i can frame my pictures just fine. When I do have difficulty I use the ClearViewer adapter. It makes focusing in bright light easier.

[swa]

I have the OVF made for the Q 01 prime. For some reason, I've had difficulty using well, especially holding the camera level laterally. That's something I've never had a problem with, not with a rangefinder 35, not with optical viewfinders on earlier digital cameras and not with EVF's on digital cameras.. The only reason I can think of is the relatively wide field of view of the OVF coupled with the camera's small size. (I wonder if I'm alone in having this problem with the OVF/Q combination.)

My preference for the Q and Q7 would be an add-on EVF. I have Olympus VF-2 and VF-3 EVF's for my Olympus m43 Pens and like working with them. The VF-3 (the least expensive model) is coarse and its color rendition is nothing to brag about, but it gets the job done. I would welcome a similarly affordable EVF for the Q's.

Having a built-in or add-n EVF means you see what the lens sees regardless of focal length and field of view. It means not having to ride herd on a collection of optical finders if you have several lenses of different focal lengths, and not having the cost and perhaps bulk of one that adjusts for different focal lengths.

[NeilGratton]

I love the Qs (just upgraded from Q10 to Q7), and part of that is the size.

I would prefer a viewfinder / eyepiece, but wouldn't want to have a bigger camera to get that. (I have two Canon DSLRs, when I do want a viewfinder). I'd certainly consider a detachable viewfinder (for the right price), as I could leave it off when I wanted to be fully pocketable.

If I had to have only one camera, the Q would not be it, though - and the lack of viewfinder is a large part of why.

[Mikesul]

I love the Qs (just upgraded from Q10 to Q7), and part of that is the size.

I would prefer a viewfinder / eyepiece, but wouldn't want to have a bigger camera to get that. (I have two Canon DSLRs, when I do want a viewfinder). I'd certainly consider a detachable viewfinder (for the right price), as I could leave it off when I wanted to be fully pocketable.

If I had to have only one camera, the Q would not be it, though - and the lack of viewfinder is a large part of why.

That is the problem. If they add a view finder they will have to increase the size and weight not to mention the cost. But they could add a rangefinder style window such as the early Casio Exilims had. They took up very little space but worked well.

[reh321]

I have the OVF made for the Q 01 prime. For some reason, I've had difficulty using well, especially holding the camera level laterally. That's something I've never had a problem with, not with a rangefinder 35, not with optical viewfinders on earlier digital cameras and not with EVF's on digital cameras.. The only reason I can think of is the relatively wide field of view of the OVF coupled with the camera's small size. (I wonder if I'm alone in having this problem with the OVF/Q combination.)

My preference for the Q and Q7 would be an add-on EVF. I have Olympus VF-2 and VF-3 EVF's for my Olympus m43 Pens and like working with them. The VF-3 (the least expensive model) is coarse and its color rendition is nothing to brag about, but it gets the job done. I would welcome a similarly affordable EVF for the Q's.

Having a built-in or add-n EVF means you see what the lens sees regardless of focal length and field of view. It means not having to ride herd on a collection of optical finders if you have several lenses of different focal lengths, and not having the cost and perhaps bulk of one that adjusts for different focal lengths.

Today we had mostly lake effect clouds (not snow, thank goodness!), but some sun, so I took my Canon Elph and my iPhone 3 with me on my walk and practiced some. I am now convinced that I could learn to compose pictures (not just vaguely aim the camera), and probably even focus a heritage lens, when the sun is not around, but doing those things under bright sunlight is hopeless for me. I told my wife that we need to get a can of Spam so I could try out a DIY shade - she said that would be OK, but I would have to eat the entire contents first, so I'm not sure when that test will occur.

[Michaelina2]

Once I allowed "crop to compose" to enter my compositional comfort zone, I found the need to use a viewfinder evaporated. The Q system has a learning curve. Figuring out how to make the most of things without the features/conveniences found in other camera types is just part of it.


...my 2 cents... M

[reh321]

Once I allowed "crop to compose" to enter my compositional comfort zone, I found the need to use a viewfinder evaporated. The Q system has a learning curve. Figuring out how to make the most of things without the features/conveniences found in other camera types is just part of it.

...my 2 cents... M

The problem is that in bright sunlight I see so poorly that I have to be very conservative and include a lot of stuff I know won't make the final cut ... I really hate to throw so many pixels away when I'm not starting off with an enormous number to start with ("a pixel is a terrible thing to waste"). Besides, frankly it offends my sense of "art (not that I claim to be any kind of artist) to do more work PP than when I take the picture. As a long time user of slide film, my personal style is to do most of the thinking/work before I press the shutter, and personally I'm just not comfortable with what appears to be "point and hope" to me . I understand that you are different, I don't want to sound judgmental, as some unfortunately do, but a Hoodman might be an essential addon to me, so when I price a Q, I have to include the added cost of a 01 lens and a Hoodman.

[Michaelina2]

...As a long time user of slide film, my personal style is to do most of the thinking/work before I press the shutter....

I understand, but... then was then (my resume includes 40 years worth of Dektol and slide film)... now is now (15+ years into digital)... workflow habits are self made and hard to break.

As to viewing the subject on the Q-7's LCD, the fix is simple and built-in... just go into the Menu and boost the LCD Display Settings. My eyes are those of your nothing special, standard issue, 70+ year old. Upping the display setting for brightly lit scenes seems to improve things significantly... to the point that your objection is a non-issue for me.

Film was... well..., I do not miss it. Digital is a ton of fun... I'll never go back.

Whatever your decision... it's a good one.

Good luck and cheers... M

[Mikesul]

I understand, but... then was then (my resume includes 40 years worth of Dektol and slide film)... now is now (15+ years into digital)... workflow habits are self made and hard to break.

As to viewing the subject on the Q-7's LCD, the fix is simple and built-in... just go into the Menu and boost the LCD Display Settings. My eyes are those of your nothing special, standard issue, 70+ year old. Upping the display setting for brightly lit scenes seems to improve things significantly... to the point that your objection is a non-issue for me.

Film was... well..., I do not miss it. Digital is a ton of fun... I'll never go back.

Whatever your decision... it's a good one.

Good luck and cheers... M

Very well put. I use the Q7 (and earlier the Q) in super sunny Arizona. Seeing he LCD can be a challenge but there are easy and effective work arounds. Michaelina2 suggest two of them. You can also get one of the LCD shields such as those by Hoodman. I have fund the Clearviewer device the perfect solution. It is small light and can be folded away easily. I only put it on the camera when I need it but it allows better viewing in the sun and also gives a more stable, clearer image when using a telephoto since you can press it against your face as you would with a viewfinder. As I said, I only use it where there is extreme need. Most of the time the LCD on bright is more than enough.

[Tony Belding]

I really love my OM-D E-M5. I don't love everything about it, but the main reason it has me hooked is the viewfinder. I had to think a little, and go back to using some other cameras, to figure out why.

With DSLRs I just can't keep myself from "chimping". After most shots I feel compelled to immediately review the shot on the LCD and see if it looks OK, if the exposure is good. Usually it is... But not always, and I have to look.

With a film camera this never bothered me. I usually trusted that the camera's light meter was good, that the film has enough exposure latitude, and that the lab would correct things to some extent as needed. A bit of faith was required, since "chimping" was never an option. (Although, if I was really concerned about a difficult, high-contrast scene, I could bracket it.)

With the E-M5 it's also not an issue. The EVF provides a good enough approximation of what the camera is capturing, and I've got the EV +/- dial right under my finger, so that by the time I snap the shutter I'm already confident the exposure is what I wanted. There is no need to look again; I can start thinking about the next shot.

Composing with the LCD on the K-01 is also pretty good in dim light (although EV adjustment is a bit awkward), but going out in the sun just kills it. I can use a hoodloupe, then it's great -- but keeping track of the loupe and having it when I need it is just a different bit of awkwardness.

[johnmont]

I think you've got it completely backward. Pentax should use an EVF. A K-01 with an EVF would have been much better. When the K-S1 came out, and I read that it has a prism OVF instead of an EVF, I just scratched my head. What were they thinking?

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.

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.

Hi I am a long time Pentax user, and migrated to mirrorless (a K01), about a year ago.
My eyes however are no longer able to use the LCD panel for composition, so I needed a vewfinder solution.
I have ended up buying a Sony NEX-6, to satisfy my need.
The NEX-6 has turned out to fit my needs nicely, but I would much rather have stayed with Pentax.
Pentax need to develop a Sony Alpha 6000 equivalent and an A7II ( but better of course) and quickly.
regards
johnmont

[Electric Eye]

K-01 with optical viewfinder is.. the K-S1! Only very slightly bigger.
Regarding back LCD, I think it could use an upgrade, screens have gone a long way since the K-01 (or rather, K-5? in how many models was this screen used?).
I think the Q cannot have a through the lens viewfinder, but it can have a clip on optical viewfinder. Would be nice if Pentax made a little optical viewfinder that would automatically adjust the field of view to the same as the focal length of the lens. With modern technology, electronics becoming so cheap, these things should not be too difficult.
And I have mentioned in the past that I would like to see a clip-on EVF, which could be used on Pentax cameras.

Fuji did a nice job with their optical viewfinder!,its off to the left of centre and it's mechanically linked to the lens for zooming in and out....really great!