[konraDarnok]

EVFs gets a well deserved bum rap at their present level of implementation. Optical viewfinders are still superior.
You would chimp less if you learned more about the relationship between DOF and aperture, not that the screen on the back of a camera is much good for determining DOF anyway.

Superior at what? Quantify what it is they're "better" at.

And what would "learned more about the relationship between DOF and aperture" tell me about exposure? Don't be so assuming.

DOF preview in that example was to illustrate a WYSIWYG feature of the OVF -- the only one that I'm aware of between SLRs. There are other WYSIWYG features once you compare range finders, point and shoot, or TLRs.

That was the whole purpose of the SLR in the first place, a better way to "see what you get" over range finders, point and shoot, or TLRs.

That's what I'm quantifying.

And when you're talking about WYSIWYG, EVF will be an impoverishment over the OVF -- and will probably supplant it for that reason.


I'm not claiming, for example, that in the current iterations I've used that EVFs are easier to see in bright sun light -- because they're not.

[sharathk]

since these lenses are not the same DSLR lenses, can't they make them reactractable as in P&S cameras. is there such a thing as interchangeable retractable lenses.

[urje]

Even with DOF preview, it can be hard to judge what your picture will look like in once it's taken. It's why people "chimp" the lcd preview all the time. I know I do.

I 'chimp' mostly for the histogram, which means I chimp to check exposure. That's one thing a /good/ EVF could certainly have an edge over an OVF. Also, sometimes I check sharpness, and you'd need to review and zoom in to check that properly either way. Concerning DOF preview, I always forget that exists when I'm shooting, but I often shoot wide open anyway, so I always have a DOF preview

[Pablom]

since these lenses are not the same DSLR lenses, can't they make them reactractable as in P&S cameras. is there such a thing as interchangeable retractable lenses.

every zoom lens I ever owned was retractable

[sharathk]

every zoom lens I ever owned was retractable

what i meant was the lens partially/completely resides within the camera (since there is no mirror i hope there is some space in front of the sensor) and retracts when powered on.

[frank]

[glanglois]

Just the ticket.

All you have to do is carry a wooden railing about with you for stability.

And be prepared to explain to your significant other why you claimed that you bought an EVIL to reduce the size and weight of your kit!

In my case, I'd have to get a longer Olympus strap to manage the LCD-to-eye distance. It seems to increase at a rate similar to that at which my hair changes color .....

[Fogel70]

what i meant was the lens partially/completely resides within the camera (since there is no mirror i hope there is some space in front of the sensor) and retracts when powered on.

On mirrorless cameras the are often very little space behind the lens mount for this. Maybe the design of the camera could be done differently but I suspect the lens mount in that case needs to be bigger which might make the whole camera bigger.

One reasons why lenses on P&S can retract into the camera is that the lens use much shorter focal length and need to cover a much smaller sensors so the lenses are smaller.

[Aristophanes]

He has an adapter AND a teleconverter on that. Must be 600mm+.

But....I perish the strain on the mount if this thing is put on a tripod.

[jogiba]

[philippe]

Small lenses can be 'big' too...

[philbaum]

But what if you are never going to use a long lens? For example I have a Sigma 120-400, a Series 1 70-210, and the Penax 55-300. I can count on both hands the number of times I've used them. On the other hand I use the DA 15-70mm all the time or I did until I got the E-P2 with the Olympus 9-18mm, Panasonic 20mm and Panasonic 45mm. That's all the lens I'll ever need. The whole E-P2 kit fits in this tiny National Geographic shoulder bag. The same coverage in a Pentax kit would definitely necessitate a larger bag. I'm not sure where this EVIL camera has to fit in your pocket thing comes from. That said all the micro four thirds stuff would fit in a jacket pocket.

If I was a person who used a 70-200, no I probably wouldn't buy an E-P2. I usually just use the Panasonic 20mm and have the 45mm in case I want to do a macro shot. Really good lenses.

Stanley, well stated. I think there is paradigm shift here.
Old paradigm: DSLR for good pictures, P&S for carrying around spur of the moment shots

New paradigm: smallish DSLR (mirrorless or Kx style), no P&S

Many dslr owners i know have both a point and shoot plus their main camera. I hate carrying around my point and shoot, because i know the images won't be that great.

I have a DA 300 that i rarely take pictures with, but when i do its to take high quality images via a tripod. With a separate lens tripod mount, there is no need for me to have a large cam. body to use with the 300.

I'm not saying that everyone would be willing to settle for a smaller body, i'm just saying that perhaps some camera mfrs, have figured out there is a community of photographers that would love to use the same smallish dslr for their carry-around needs as well as their main camera body.

[WMBP]

I blogged about the NEX after having a chance to handle one. I was not favorably impressed by the product. ("Sony NEX: Are you kidding me?") I thought the camera looked absurd with the kit lens, and in my hands at least felt VERY awkward. Sticking a long telephoto zoom on it would just be, well, over the top. I think 99% of the excitement about this product now is actually excitement about the CONCEPT, not about the execution. I mean, at some point, what you'll be looking at is a monocular or telescope that can take photos.

If people want to go small, they should go small—get a Panasonic LX3 or LX5 compact camera; or at least buy a micro four-thirds body and a pancake lens. But the idea that you can have an APS-C camera that's the size of a micro four-thirds camera or smaller, just seems nuts. We going through a cultural phrase where there is an unnatural urge to make some things smaller that simply can't be made smaller. People are willing to put up with the absurd keyboards on their smart phones because smart phones are new and cool. But the human hand is a fixed size, and nobody can type efficiently with his thumbs only.

A lot of things are being done these days just because they CAN be. The thrill of novelty won't last forever.

I don't want to pay for a Nikon D3 or Canon 5D. But if somebody gives me one, well, I'll use it. On the other hand, if somebody gives me a NEX, it's going straight to a listing on eBay.

Will

[Art Vandelay II]

If people want to go small, they should go small—get a Panasonic LX3 or LX5 compact camera; or at least buy a micro four-thirds body and a pancake lens. But the idea that you can have an APS-C camera that's the size of a micro four-thirds camera or smaller, just seems nuts.

I'll take it you didnt see this:
Mirrorless Camera Size Comparison: NEX5, NX10, E-P2, E-PL1, GF1, G2





To me it looks like is long as you stay under 135mm's or so (in 35mm terms) there is really no size advantage to using to using m4/3's. Which is perfect for me since I have no use for any lens over 135mm's.

Even over 135mm's whats the big deal? Unless you are talking about a Nikon D3 every camera on the market is unbalanced with a monster 70-200 f/2.8. Besides, I decided a while back that a camera that doesn't pound my spine into dust when I carry it in my messenger pack; and one that is also easy to cary in hand; and feels nice when reviewing pics is more important to me then a camera that feels perfect when I hold it to my face. I spend very little time actually shooting pics. I spend more time carrying the camera in my hand as I walk then I do in the shooting postion. So a camera that "disappears" when not in use is far more important to me than perfect ergos.

I'll never own a camera with a massive front grip again. I don't have one on my Pentax LX and I get along just fine without it no matter what lens I put on it.

[pxpaulx]

He has an adapter AND a teleconverter on that. Must be 600mm+.

But....I perish the strain on the mount if this thing is put on a tripod.

4/3 to m4/3 adapter yes, tcon no. That is the 70-300 at 300mm with the hood on.

And to an earlier post above, any way you slice it or dice it, you need to support 600mm equivalent focal length! If you ar interested in how I support the same setup, check out the post I made earlier today in the 'universal l-bracket' thread (would link but am on my iPod).