[Pål Jensen]

It's been said that Japanese firms today retain the mentality that what works in Japan is going to work in the rest of the world .. because that thinking is what got them to the position of global dominance that they enjoy today. .

Thats often said but isn't really true. It is just because the japanese embrace any new gadget; whether it succeeds or not. The problem is that the japanese consumer have a short attention span and are equally quick to abandon it when it is not the latest fashion anylonger. Both the APS film SLR and the Pentax Auto 110 were popular in Japan but flopped elsewhere. Pentax managed to manufacture (and presumably sell) 1,5 million lenses for the 110 SLR...

[stanleyk]

"For anyone who thinks micro 4/3 or EVIL in general is so great, why not just buy one that already exists?"

Well....why not just buy a full frame from one that already exists? I think if you get a Canon you can use your Pentax lenses or at least some of them.

Actually quite a few very good photographers think 4/3's is not so bad. Here's a few reviews"

The Visual Science Lab/Kirk Tuck: The EP2, San Antonio Fun shoot, shake out, field test, fun color stuff.

The Olympus E-P2 Digital Camera Review | STEVE HUFF PHOTOS

Olympus E-P2 / Mini Review Photofocus

[uccemebug]

Thats often said but isn't really true. It is just because the japanese embrace any new gadget; whether it succeeds or not.

I was reiterating a point made recently by someone on a "Business in Japan" forum that I follow. That the Japanese manufacturers have gotten to a point where they believe that the world will follow their lead regardless of what's going on. Regarding cameras, though, we see no real challenge to the Japanese way of doing things. So following the trends in Japan is not a bad bet as to what the Japanese manufacturers will pursue for their global marketing efforts.

The problem is that the japanese consumer have a short attention span and are equally quick to abandon it when it is not the latest fashion anylonger. Both the APS film SLR and the Pentax Auto 110 were popular in Japan but flopped elsewhere. Pentax managed to manufacture (and presumably sell) 1,5 million lenses for the 110 SLR...

Interesting point, are you likening those isolated local hits to the current fad for EVIL cameras?

[nosnoop]

I know that Japan's camera sales data is easily available and therefore often gets referenced in the forums, but the Japanese market "trends" do not the global "trends" equal... If your impression of the popularity of EVIL/Micro 4/3 or whatever is based strictly on Japanese sales figures, you might as well be pi$$ing in the wind.

OTOH, if you ignore this trend JUST because it is Japanese data, then you are hiding in the sand. The domestic market is very important in the eyes of the Japanese manufacturers. Many product decisions are influenced by Japanese taste - like the 100 colors K-x; and subsequently, the rest of the world got a taste of this production decision.

In this world, there is no guarantee, and nobody has the crystal ball. If the new product has failed in Japan, there is little chance that its existence would continue. But if it has good success in Japan, the chance that it would succeed elsewhere is greatly increased. And its production would be guaranteed based on the domestic performance alone.

I think Pentax should avoid the EVIL market.... They should focus (no pun intended) on getting a FF dSLR to market before what's left of their customer base gets whittled down any further by Nikon/Canon defections

Pentax should invest where the money is - the mirrorless market, which is set to be the fastest growing segment in the next few years. It simply does not make sense to chase after a sub 2% market segment; Pentax has wisely go with 645D instead where Canikon domination does not exist.

As for EVILs displacing optical viewfinders, I don't think so.

This will happen to entry and mid level cameras, where you like it or not. Optical viewfinder is static technology wise, while EVF is improving every year. It won't be long before EVF would be better than optical viewfinder.

[nosnoop]

Both the APS film SLR and the Pentax Auto 110 were popular in Japan but flopped elsewhere.

You bring out this rare example every time. But for every one of this rare unsuccessful case, there are 9 other examples where the product was successful in Japan in its debut, and went on to become a world wide hit.

[Pål Jensen]

Pentax should invest where the money is - the mirrorless market, which is set to be the fastest growing segment in the next few years. It simply does not make sense to chase after a sub 2% market segment; Pentax has wisely go with 645D instead where Canikon domination does not exist.

This will happen to entry and mid level cameras, where you like it or not. Optical viewfinder is static technology wise, while EVF is improving every year. It won't be long before EVF would be better than optical viewfinder.

1. EVIL is not where the money is. It is probably years until R&D is paid for and by then the price war is equally hard as for P&S. There is a reason why Nikon and Canon does not have EVIL's presently; their current business is far more profitable. Therefore they are not in a hurry.
Of course EVIL is the fastest growing marked. As all totally new products will be; it goes from zero to something. However, the statsitic are decieving; just because EVIL is grouped along with DSLR's doesn't mean that it is where they are finding their customers. In addition, the latest data is from the moment Sony released their version. Japanese sales are very much up and down; the products need (usually) to be fresh.
2. A EVF will never be better than a optical viewfinder; an optical viewfinder is the real thing. An EVF camera is simply a camera lacking a feature. Sometimes I wonder if people actually use cameras? Viewing histograms and exposure data is just a small part of creating and image. First we need to study the subject, then aim, compose, frame etcc. Then we need to judge exposure. Only then is histograms and such useful. If you are in a hurry theres no time to access all kinds of cluttered data. You have to know your camera and shoot. Then you need and uncluttered optical viewfinder; the perfect aiming and framing device.
All optical viewfinder cameras can be augmented with electronic finders and or panels where data can be assesed when needed. I would estimate than 95% of the time I'm doing photography I don't even have the camera powered up. An electronic viewfinder simply do not solve any photographic problems.

[thibs]

Pentax having basicaly zéro p&s marketshare, they can't lose according to your own analysis.

[patk]

Pentax having basicaly zéro p&s marketshare, they can't lose according to your own analysis.

hoya could lose considerable upfront costs: r&d, contracts it would be obligated to fulfill (sensors, parts, etc.), retooling, marketing and advertising, among others i'm sure i can't even imagine. then there's the cost of failure and loss of reputation should that occur. what seems obvious to supporters of one or another development path for any company may not be so obvious to those whose main objective (and responsibility) is profitability.

[Aristophanes]

1. EVIL is not where the money is. It is probably years until R&D is paid for and by then the price war is equally hard as for P&S. There is a reason why Nikon and Canon does not have EVIL's presently; their current business is far more profitable. Therefore they are not in a hurry.
Of course EVIL is the fastest growing marked. As all totally new products will be; it goes from zero to something. However, the statsitic are decieving; just because EVIL is grouped along with DSLR's doesn't mean that it is where they are finding their customers. In addition, the latest data is from the moment Sony released their version. Japanese sales are very much up and down; the products need (usually) to be fresh.
2. A EVF will never be better than a optical viewfinder; an optical viewfinder is the real thing. An EVF camera is simply a camera lacking a feature. Sometimes I wonder if people actually use cameras? Viewing histograms and exposure data is just a small part of creating and image. First we need to study the subject, then aim, compose, frame etcc. Then we need to judge exposure. Only then is histograms and such useful. If you are in a hurry theres no time to access all kinds of cluttered data. You have to know your camera and shoot. Then you need and uncluttered optical viewfinder; the perfect aiming and framing device.
All optical viewfinder cameras can be augmented with electronic finders and or panels where data can be assesed when needed. I would estimate than 95% of the time I'm doing photography I don't even have the camera powered up. An electronic viewfinder simply do not solve any photographic problems.

It is entirely possible that DSLR APS-C prices could fall with kit lens to the $300 range. That's a lot of bang for the buck. And there's deflation stalking the retail markets.

The biggest trend in word processing is unadorned interfaces, just a plain writing page. Many creative endeavours are going simpler, not towards the Photoshop paradigm. We likely will see the "authenticity" paradigm rear its head again and anything PP'd will be viewed as "lesser" and with artistic suspicion. It's happened before, and will again.

[nosnoop]

1. EVIL is not where the money is. It is probably years until R&D is paid for and by then the price war is equally hard as for P&S. There is a reason why Nikon and Canon does not have EVIL's presently; their current business is far more profitable. Therefore they are not in a hurry.

The economy of scale in the expected high and increasing volume of mirrorless cameras would allow R&D to be recuperated in shorter time frame. And the main extra area for R&D in the mirrorless system is the new mount and new lenses. Most of the other systems already exist in current and upcoming DSLR.

Nikon has practically confirmed officially that it will be releasing a mirrorless system soon, and Canon would not be far behind.

I expect most EVIL buyers are first time owner of an interchangeable lens camera, upgrading from P&S. And if they have selected EVIL, it is unlikely that they would purchase a DSLR in the near future.

2. A EVF will never be better than a optical viewfinder; an optical viewfinder is the real thing. An EVF camera is simply a camera lacking a feature.

If you have already made up your mind that optical would always be better, then nothing could change your mind; just like some prefer vinyl over CD, even with flaws and imperfection. OTOH, many upgrading from P&S would enjoying using EVF more.

As I mentioned before, Optical Viewfinder is just a simulation of what your sensor would see, while EVF is the real deal - it is what your sensor sees. And that's what I am more interested in. In the next few years, EVF would improve to the point where it could be better than OVF - at least for those people who have no attachment to OVF.

Sometimes I wonder if people actually use cameras?

Everyone has his/her way of taking photograph; I don't think your photographic skill would be automatically superior to another user just because of the specific camera or technology he/she has chosen.

[fzwo]

As I mentioned before, Optical Viewfinder is just a simulation of what your sensor would see, while EVF is the real deal - it is what your sensor sees. And that's what I am more interested in. In the next few years, EVF would improve to the point where it could be better than OVF - at least for those people who have no attachment to OVF.

Very well put!

The superiority of the EVF concept has nothing to do with the currently available EVIL cameras.

[Pål Jensen]

If you have already made up your mind that optical would always be better, then nothing could change your mind; just like some prefer vinyl over CD, even with flaws and imperfection. OTOH, many upgrading from P&S would enjoying using EVF more.

As I mentioned before, Optical Viewfinder is just a simulation of what your sensor would see, while EVF is the real deal - it is what your sensor sees. And that's what I am more interested in. In the next few years, EVF would improve to the point where it could be better than OVF - at least for those people who have no attachment to OVF..

Nobody denies that it is nice to see what the sensor sees but, excluding to see the real thing is not a feature but the absence of one. All DSLR's, as far as I know, let you see how the sensor sees the world if you like to; this is not the problem. A DSLR let you in addition see the undiluted reality helping your vision. A straight lightpath to you eyes will forever be better than light having been through a sensor and electronics before it reaches you. Again electronic viefinders solve no photographic problem and you can be sure that high-end cameras for the foreseeable future will all be supplied with optical viewfinders.

[thibs]

Maybe this is nitpicking but I'll add the following: what the sensor sees in LiveView mode isn't always the same as what it sees in Shoot mode. Hmmm ?

Easy, my LX3 when pointing at a very bright object will display artefacts on the screen, usually a line from top to bottom of the screen (say, like K-7 mighty green line).
However, the picture itself NEVER shows that problem.

Second, LiveView mode will often display a lot more noise than shoot mode (depending on sensor but this is logical, sensor heats more in LiveView mode). The difference is aesthetics but practicaly, it is sometimes difficult to focus in such conditions.

This doesn't remove any advantage EVF DOES indeed have over OVF but that's miracle at all.

[nosnoop]

Maybe this is nitpicking but I'll add the following: what the sensor sees in LiveView mode isn't always the same as what it sees in Shoot mode. Hmmm ?
Easy, my LX3 when pointing at a very bright object will display artefacts on the screen, usually a line from top to bottom of the screen (say, like K-7 mighty green line).
However, the picture itself NEVER shows that problem.

Even though EVF can accurate display the sensor coverage area and things like white balance, there will be some difference between LiveView and actual shooting mode - mainly because LiveView is done with open aperture and has to set a limit on shutter speed to maintain a reasonable refresh rate.

The line displayed by LX3 is a typical CCD vertical smear artifact, where a bright light can overload an entire column of pixel. You will see this if you use video mode. It could be much reduced when the lens is stopped down.

Second, LiveView mode will often display a lot more noise than shoot mode

During low light, the liveview shutter speed (1/60 or 1/30 s) may be quite a bit higher the select shoot mode shutter speed. This is to maintain the EVF refresh rate.

That's why in some camera, you can select whether you want the EVF to bias towards final image capture, or to ease viewing.

[falconeye]

To the people discussing EVF vs. OVF ...

One aspect often overlooked is the high dynamic range of the human eye (if allowed to use microsaccades). Large sensors and forthcoming sensors with high quantum efficiency and low readout noise come pretty close.

So, what the human eye sees and image information available for post processing will be pretty similiar soon and has an advantage to the human eye today.

This means that an EVF with its 8 bit dynamic range and its tendency to ruin the eye's dark adaption can only provide a glimpse of available image information.

Theory? No!

A couple of weeks ago, I photographed a great Midsummer fire, with people's faces being partly indirected illuminated by the fire and their bodies creating great shadow shapes. Very well seen in the OVF. And I could render part of it by RAW image processing. But the rear screen showed nothing but black with a few bright blotches. Completely useless.