[WMBP]

Staff note: This post may contain affiliate links, which means Pentax Forums may earn a small commission if a visitor clicks through and makes a purchase. If you would like to support the forum directly, you may also make a donation here.

---

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

I hadn't seen that particular comparison, but I have handled all of these cameras in person, so there wasn't any news there.

You seem to be objecting to what I said, but I am not sure what part of what I said you found objectionable. I said, "If you want to go small, go small," and then suggested possibly a compact camera or a micro four-thirds. I did not mean to imply that the NEX body isn't small. It certainly is, it's puny, in fact, especially compared to the lenses. The body is small, but the sensor isn't. I know that's the point. But to make the body small without shrinking the sensor, they have to design a body that is basically grotesque. A smaller sensor, on the other hand, allows them to design a body that is more comfortably proportioned.

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.

I confess that I don't find micro four-thirds very appealing, either. They were supposed to be smaller and cheaper, but they're not any cheaper, and some of them at least are not much smaller than the smallest APS-C bodies (NOT counting the NEX).

However, it seems to me that it's really OVER 135mm where the micro four-thirds might come into its own. That 2x crop factor means that a 300mm lens for micro four-thirds = 600mm-e. The Olympus Zuiko 70-300 is very affordable and my impression is that its image quality is better than that of my Tamron 70-300, which doesn't have the same telephoto reach.

For close-up work, I can't see myself switching to micro four-thirds. But if I could afford it, I'd buy a micro four-thirds camera for shooting wildlife.

Besides, I decided a while back that a camera that ... 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.

Fine, different strokes for different folks. I spend a lot of my time actually shooting, very little reviewing photos on the back of the camera.

Now I hasten to add that the weight of the camera matters a lot to me. I typically work with 2 cameras on a special harness (the Camera Slingers double strap). A long graduation or wedding ceremony is physical work for me. But while I'd like my cameras to be lighter, I don't want the ergonomics to be changed. I need to be able to hold the camera firmly, comfortably, and all the controls need to be handy. NEX looks to me like a camera designed precisely for people who don't actually want to take a lot of pictures. That's fine. But while I can imagine buying a micro four-thirds (unlikely, but I can imagine it), I am confident I'll never buy a NEX.

Will

[Cideway]

True WYSIWYG and reduced cost.

With an EVF you get reduced cost, but you don't get anything approaching WYSIWYG, what you get a reduced dynamic range version of the image, that is delayed due to the image processing pipeline (regardless of processing speed electrons can only travel so fast which adds another delay on top of human reaction time and shutter lag), with a blinding back light that causes loss of night vision in low light and eye fatigue in normal light, i don't know about you but i cannot stare at a small computer screen a meter away for hours on end and not have a sore eye, but i can look through an OVF for days without causing any eye issues.

Until they develop an Electronic view finder that doesn't need a backlight or active pixels then there will always be a market for OVF cameras

[konraDarnok]

With an EVF you get reduced cost, but you don't get anything approaching WYSIWYG, what you get a reduced dynamic range version of the image, that is delayed due to the image processing pipeline (regardless of processing speed electrons can only travel so fast which adds another delay on top of human reaction time and shutter lag), with a blinding back light that causes loss of night vision in low light and eye fatigue in normal light, i don't know about you but i cannot stare at a small computer screen a meter away for hours on end and not have a sore eye, but i can look through an OVF for days without causing any eye issues.

Until they develop an Electronic view finder that doesn't need a backlight or active pixels then there will always be a market for OVF cameras

Reduced dynamic range of what? Your eye? Well yea, but not of the image. The sensor records information in an RGB gamut and the EVF will show you an image in the RGB gamut.

The rest of your post doesn't even address the question of WYSIWYG. To say "don't get anything approaching WYSIWYG" is just not supported by what you wrote.

Most of your technological concerns will be addressed with higher resolution OLEDs and other technologies.

But even now, it's closer to WYSIWYG than a conventional SLR OVF -- which only frames the picture and perhaps has a DOF preview.

There's a reason so many people new to DSLR use the liveview function almost exclusively to shoot photos -- it's a closer approximation to the final shot.

An OVF requires a lot of experience to know how certain settings will effect what you see through the lens.

[Aristophanes]

There's a reason so many people new to DSLR use the liveview function almost exclusively to shoot photos -- it's a closer approximation to the final shot.

An OVF requires a lot of experience to know how certain settings will effect what you see through the lens.

I almost never see Live View used and right by my office every day I see thousands of tourists shooting their DSLR's. They use the VF almost exclusively. It's easy, instinctive, and fast. These people are "new to DSLR's" by the boatload. I've never seen so many DSLR's as the waterfront this summer.

These are shiny, new DSLR's bought for the cruise ship voyage and from what I can see, set in Auto mode almost exclusively. They take the shot and are done far before a Live View focus could be achieved. The average P&Ser takes at least 3x as long to get the shot.

OVF's are dead simple in auto mode. Frame, wait for focus (almost always audible), press shutter. Done.

EVF and overlay clutter is not enabling, it's inhibiting. Don't confuse new tech with good tech.

[gazonk]

I almost never see Live View used and right by my office every day I see thousands of tourists shooting their DSLR's.

I saw several (apparently) pros using LV at a festival on Friday. I guess it gave them more freedom in POV...

[konraDarnok]

Don't confuse new tech with good tech.

Where did I? I even reiterated several times that the current generation of EVF are inferior to OVF. But they are closer to WYSIWYG. Which, in the end, will supplant for the SLR OVF when the limitations of the EVF are refined.

Regardless of our anecdotal observations of how people use modern cameras, my experience is different from yours -- I see a lot of people that are used to framing a shot at arms length -- and they're doing it because they're basically getting the same shot as they see in the LCD screen. Because it's certainly not a more stable technique for photography.

But that's a different issue from EVF's in general. They can be eye-level, at arms length, or wherever it can be adjusted to be seen.

Which, frankly, is another advantage.

SLRs used to have an option to be usable at waist level, but that's not something that's really transitioned to modern SLR photography by any manufacturer as far as I'm aware.

[pxpaulx]

I saw several (apparently) pros using LV at a festival on Friday. I guess it gave them more freedom in POV...

This I would agree with. I also find the articulating olympus viewfinder on my e-pl1 equally freeing me from the horizontal and vertical planes.

[Art Vandelay II]

I hadn't seen that particular comparison, but I have handled all of these cameras in per "If you want to go small, go small," and then suggested possibly a compact camera or a micro four-thirds.

I just simply meant I don't see any advantages for m4/3's over APS-C EVIL's unless you're into telephotos (which I'm not). To me compacts aren't an option due to sensor size. I'm not looking for a camera to complement a DSLR, I want one to replace a DSLR.

However, it seems to me that it's really OVER 135mm where the micro four-thirds might come into its own.

I couldn't agree more with that, but luckily for me I can count on one hand the number of times I've used lenses over that length.

Fine, different strokes for different folks. I spend a lot of my time actually shooting, very little reviewing photos on the back of the camera.

Different kind of shooting I suppose. If I were a sports or wedding photographer maybe it would be different, but I am primarily a street photographer. My work flow is walking around and occasionally pulling the camera up to my face to snap a pic.

Now I hasten to add that the weight of the camera matters a lot to me. I typically work with 2 cameras on a special harness (the Camera Slingers double strap). A long graduation or wedding ceremony is physical work for me. But while I'd like my cameras to be lighter, I don't want the ergonomics to be changed. I need to be able to hold the camera firmly, comfortably, and all the controls need to be handy. NEX looks to me like a camera designed precisely for people who don't actually want to take a lot of pictures. That's fine. But while I can imagine buying a micro four-thirds (unlikely, but I can imagine it), I am confident I'll never buy a NEX.

Yep, we are total opposites. You're lucky, they're are tons of cameras for you to choose from already. However, outside of Leica, everyone decided to stop making cameras that interest me sometime in the mid-80's. I've owned 8 different DSLR's and sold every single one on eBay and decided to stick with those early 80's film cameras. The rumored Sony NEX-7 or Pentax EVIL are my best chances I have for the digital camera I've always wanted. True, the NEX3/5 are basically garbage for what I want, but the potential is there. I'm really excited to see the NEX-7 and the Zeiss lenses that are supposed to come with it.

[dnas]

OVF's are dead simple in auto mode. Frame, wait for focus (almost always audible), press shutter. Done.

EVF's are dead simple in auto mode. Frame, wait for focus (audible), press shutter. Done.

And they are even better when using MF lenses.....

(refering to Panasonic G1, GF1, G2)

EVF and overlay clutter is not enabling, it's inhibiting. Don't confuse new tech with good tech.

It's not inhibiting at all..... I have all the info I want and I can control most of the buttons I need without even taking my eye away from the EVF.

[johnmflores]

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.

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

The Oly on the left has a retractable zoom.

The EVIL dilemma is that it's size advantage over dSLRs is most evident when using primes BUT most of the world is using zooms.

Over time, serious compacts like the Canon G11 and the Panasonic LX5 will feature improved low light performance. Some future P&S will likely combine a fully-retractable, reasonably fast 3x-5x zoom with an APS-C or M43 sized sensor. At that point, where will EVILs lie?

One final thought - some compact cameras use mirrors to fold the optics inside the body of the camera and thus maintain a slim profile. This works with tiny sensors, or course, but how ironic would it be if a Pentax APS-c EVIL used a mirror to bend the optical path for packaging reasons?

[stanleyk]

Probably from DSLRs users (like me) who don't see the point in having a camera which wouldn't fit into pocket (lens attached) but perform worse than their current DSLR. Something like having disadvantage of both P&S and DSLR in one machine.

I agree with you, if one is prime user only, small primes (pancakes) on mirrorless has a lot of sense (speaking sizewise only).

Fair enough, but unless you've actually used for example the E-P2 and the Panasonic 20mm F1.7 I would argue it's hard to make a judgment on the image quality. I will assure you that unless you are printing really large (and I'd love to know who on this forum consistently prints bigger than 13X19) for all intents and purposes you will not be able to tell the difference between the E-P2 and the K7 or KX. I know because I have all three cameras (and a Leica to boot). And, I have absolutely no interest whatsoever in a full frame camera. If I was paying my mortgage with photography then yep, I'd be interested, but then I would actually have the skill set to use that camera.

I would suggest anyone who wants to know about the image quality on the E-P2 start here (a real professional photographer and educator):

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

Here's the author's bio, which strikes me as a bit more compelling than someone on a camera review website.

kirk tuck
Austin, Texas, United States
I've been taking photographs for international clients for two decades. I am the author and photographer of 4 photo books. I've taught at the University level and sit on the board of a college photo program. This blog exists to share what I know to benefit photographers, photography and users of photography. Thanks, Kirk http://www.kirktuck.com tweeting recent shoots day by day: kirk tuck (kirktuck) on Twitter

[stanleyk]

The Oly on the left has a retractable zoom.

The EVIL dilemma is that it's size advantage over dSLRs is most evident when using primes BUT most of the world is using zooms.

Over time, serious compacts like the Canon G11 and the Panasonic LX5 will feature improved low light performance. Some future P&S will likely combine a fully-retractable, reasonably fast 3x-5x zoom with an APS-C or M43 sized sensor. At that point, where will EVILs lie?

One final thought - some compact cameras use mirrors to fold the optics inside the body of the camera and thus maintain a slim profile. This works with tiny sensors, or course, but how ironic would it be if a Pentax APS-c EVIL used a mirror to bend the optical path for packaging reasons?

Well, I don't really use zooms much but for example I have the Sigma 10-20mm and the Olympus 9-18mm for my E-P2. Let me assure you that there is a SIGNIFICANT difference in size and weight between the Sigma and the Olympus. The Olympus is about the size of the DA 35mm LTD and weighs less than that.

I also will assure that for example there is a significant difference is size and weight between my Pentax M 75-150 and the Olympus 14-150mm (don't even bring up for example the Kiron Vivitar Series I 70-210 which is just a too big to bother with). I don't have the 14-150, but I've tried it out. Nice lens, but I really just don't care for zoom lenses. It's easier just to put another lens on the camera or walk further/closer to me, but I'm sure I'm in the minority on this one.

[Prox-iee]

I believe this is the most impressive

Nikon 2,8/6mm Fisheye-Nikkor Auto non-AI - eBay (item 230505635437 end time Aug-29-10 09:15:23 PDT)

[Aristophanes]

EVF's are dead simple in auto mode. Frame, wait for focus (audible), press shutter. Done.

And they are even better when using MF lenses.....

(refering to Panasonic G1, GF1, G2)

It's not inhibiting at all..... I have all the info I want and I can control most of the buttons I need without even taking my eye away from the EVF.

He was referring to Live View and using the rear LCD to frame the image.

EVF's have issues with highlights and shadows. Every one I have used is near useless in low light including the G2 and GH1 and PEN's I have tried. This is not a problem with an OVF, so inventing something that works less well to replace something that works accurately is commonly called a kludge.

I'll repeat what I have said before: the issue about mirrorless cameras is will you accept a downgrade of the VF capabilities in exchange for losing the mirror box and saving 80 grams. The tradeoff is not the loss of the mirror, it's the VF. Go back tot he evolution of the SLR and why it replaced the RF as the camera norm to see why it did so. Improperly executed, EVF's could be a step backwards. They have a very long way to go to match a pentaprism OVF as seen in K-7 and above.

[Art Vandelay II]

Over time, serious compacts like the Canon G11 and the Panasonic LX5 will feature improved low light performance. Some future P&S will likely combine a fully-retractable, reasonably fast 3x-5x zoom with an APS-C or M43 sized sensor. At that point, where will EVILs lie?

Oh I am excited about a Canon G series with a larger sensor also, but I personally don't care how much better ISO performance gets on small sensor compacts I simply won't own another one due the the lack of DOF control.

As far as the future of EVIL's are concerned; it seems like most DSLR owners have a hard time accepting the fact that some people such as myself actually prefer using EVIL's. Perhaps if some manufacturer had the guts to make a digital version of a Nikon FE/Olympus OM/Pentax LX then I'd change my tune on DSLR's, but no one does. Until then I'll take an EVF along with their true DOF preview for composing over a pathetic pentamirror or cropped sensor prism any day of the week. OVF's are in a sad state indeed when you can pick up a 30 year old $40 Pentax ME Super off of eBay and have a better prism then anything available in the digital world.

Also, seeing as how EVIL's have already grabbed 40% of the interchangeable lens sales in Japan (without a Canikon offering mind you), and show no signs of slowing down it might be more wise to ponder just where will DSLR's be. My humble prediction is that full frame and high end DSLR's will survive and account for a very small percentage of the camera market (2-3%, mainly just pros and very serious amateur); EVIL's will take over most of the APS-C market wiping out entry level DSLR's and bridge cameras (lets just say 20-30%); then everything else will be camera phones, superzoom small sensor pocket cameras, and high end compacts like the Panasonic LX5.