Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
08-08-2013, 08:40 AM   #2371
Pentaxian
Barry Pearson's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Stockport
Posts: 870
QuoteOriginally posted by IchabodCrane Quote
If that is your objective then nothing can be better than an OVF. As stated before, no practical EVF can render the dynamic range that a sensor can record. Will it someday? I don't venture to guess but if one does I doubt it will be linked to the number of transistors in a processor doubling every two years (now believed to be every three years). Also, no EVF can "gain up" to match a brightly sunlit scene which means there will be an additional lag that no processor can ever address -- the lag in our eyes adjusting from sunlight to whatever an EVF can pump out.

What's wrong with instant review blinkies and histograms for finding clipped highlights?
I use various methods of getting the exposure right, and want something better (for me).

For much of my photography I use manual exposure. That includes studio work and (a lot of the time) airshows and motor sports. I have a Gossen Digipro F exposure meter, but if I am going the trouble of taking a separate reading, I've found I'm better off taking a photo and looking at the instant review blinkies and histograms, as you say. (I'm told that using a separate exposure meter impresses the models! I don't think they are that naive). If you looked at my photos from an airshow shoot you would see the occasional photo of (say) public-address loud-speakers against the sky. Those were for such review purposes.

But this introduces delay. What I would like is a digital preview that I can see as I'm framing the next photo. Perhaps the next airplane is hurtling towards me. Or the model has moved from the carefully metered original position. Perhaps her arm is now too close to a softbox and has clipped. Or she has added jewelry that sparkles and has clipped. (Both real examples).

Note: I've never claimed that Moore's Law is entirely responsible for advances in EVF performance. (And Moore's Law isn't just about packing density, but also about speed). The reason why EVFs are steadily improving year by year is largely irrelevant - what surely matters is that they are improving. I hope that isn't in dispute!

Much of my experience of the gradual replacement of mechanical parts with electronic parts over the last few decades often preceded increases in processor power, and were not necessarily driven by it. There is a sort of symbiotic relationship - someone works out how to replace mechanics with electronics in a particular subsystem, there is now a justification for more R&D in that area of electronics, features and performance are achieved that were perhaps never expected, and so on, perhaps like a feedback loop. Moor'e Law, improvements in materials science, virtually free replication costs for firmware and software, etc, carry things forward once started.

Here are what I said earlier, before the distraction of whether Moore's Law actually exists:
Post 1
Post 2

08-08-2013, 08:56 AM   #2372
Pentaxian
gazonk's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Oslo area, Norway
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 3,509
QuoteOriginally posted by Pål Jensen Quote
A camera without an optical finder is a camera lacking an important feature.
But the best camera is the one that's with you. When her K100D was stolen, my daughter abandoned Pentax for Sony NEX-6. I can't blame her, it's simply a trade-off between having a suboptimal viewfinder or a camera that you too often will leave at home.
08-08-2013, 09:02 AM   #2373
Site Supporter
Cynog Ap Brychan's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Gloucester
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,090
Maybe in five years we'll be framing our photographs through our Google Glass, transmitted by our cameras.... Just a thought!
08-08-2013, 09:05 AM   #2374
Pentaxian
konraDarnok's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2007
Photos: Albums
Posts: 960
QuoteOriginally posted by Aristophanes Quote
Eyeglasses are a prime example. I remember when we were ALL going to have contact lenses because they'd only get better and they'd be the only choice anyone would want.

Nope.

Then laser surgery.

Nope.


FWIW, my father had corrective surgery 15 years ago and says it's the greatest thing ever, and most people I know with glasses would do it if they could afford it. YMMV.


But it's something of a misplaced analogy, as the context of my reply was with Moore's law. Eyeglasses and buggy whips are not progressing the way semi-conductors are.

Now let's get really speculative here. The last 50 years has been something of a digital revolution, photography included. I'm betting the next revolution is going to quantum because that's where Moore's law is pushing us with ever smaller scales; there is a limit with what can be done classically, and a lot of forefront technology is tinkering on the very edges of reality.

Consider a quantum camera. It doesn't rely on lenses, it creates images by reading the quantum state of light. This kind of stuff, the pure visualization of reality with solid state devices is not that far away. 25? 50 years? The idea anything is done analog, be it lensing or recording is going to be archaic. All the nail biting and concern trolling over the future of the K mount or SLR's? Pshaw. We're not even scratching the surface of technology.


Last edited by konraDarnok; 08-08-2013 at 09:12 AM.
08-08-2013, 12:31 PM   #2375
Pentaxian




Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Romania
Posts: 8,428
QuoteOriginally posted by konraDarnok Quote
that's where Moore's law is pushing us
That's why I strongly disagree with calling it a "law". No, Moore's empirical observation is not pushing us anywhere, it doesn't generate progress and it doesn't apply wherever there is progress. The Moore's empirical observation can only observe things, and sometimes it might be regarded as a goal to strive for; but always, it's the Moore's empirical observation who has to bend to reality.

The Moore's empirical observation also has a quite limited scope, it doesn't work for lots of things and can't be used to prove that mechanical systems should/would be replaced by electronic ones; this must be discussed on a case-by-case basis. And so far no one here was able to tell how it would apply to electronic viewfinders (which are LCDs, not ICs).

I would not go "really speculative" in this discussion, either. Fake arguments only shows the lack of real ones, IMO... no fast progress on the EVFs? OK, let's bring up Moore's "law". Optical viewfinders works at the speed of light? Let's talk about abolishing optics altogether. Nice try, but it didn't work.
08-08-2013, 12:56 PM   #2376
Pentaxian
konraDarnok's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2007
Photos: Albums
Posts: 960
QuoteOriginally posted by Kunzite Quote
That's why I strongly disagree with calling it a "law". No, Moore's empirical observation is not pushing us anywhere, it doesn't generate progress and it doesn't apply wherever there is progress. The Moore's empirical observation can only observe things, and sometimes it might be regarded as a goal to strive for; but always, it's the Moore's empirical observation who has to bend to reality.

The Moore's empirical observation also has a quite limited scope, it doesn't work for lots of things and can't be used to prove that mechanical systems should/would be replaced by electronic ones; this must be discussed on a case-by-case basis. And so far no one here was able to tell how it would apply to electronic viewfinders (which are LCDs, not ICs).

I would not go "really speculative" in this discussion, either. Fake arguments only shows the lack of real ones, IMO... no fast progress on the EVFs? OK, let's bring up Moore's "law". Optical viewfinders works at the speed of light? Let's talk about abolishing optics altogether. Nice try, but it didn't work.


The reason EV will replace OV is cost, not Moore's Law. Moore's Law is merely why future iterations of EV will be better than they are now. And LCDs are old technology. New finders use organic LEDs.
08-08-2013, 01:26 PM   #2377
Pentaxian




Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Romania
Posts: 8,428
EVFs and noVFs eventually replacing OVFs because of cost, sounds plausible*. Moore's empirical observation as a cause of EVF improvement isn't.
And I don't see EVFs and LCDs improving with anything like that rate, though the constant usage and denaturation of Moore's empirical observation would suggest that. By the way, OLEDs have their own problems.

* Even the cost factor is not as important for less cost conscious people, those who might find an OVF plain better, for many years.
08-08-2013, 01:52 PM   #2378
Site Supporter




Join Date: Sep 2012
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 1,728
QuoteOriginally posted by konraDarnok Quote
The reason EV will replace OV is cost, not Moore's Law. Moore's Law is merely why future iterations of EV will be better than they are now. And LCDs are old technology. New finders use organic LEDs.
So why does an A99 cost as much as a D800?
And if an EVF has real advantages over an OVF, why aren't people selling their FF Nikons and Canons and buying the Sony?

08-08-2013, 01:59 PM   #2379
Pentaxian




Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Romania
Posts: 8,428
Well, the cost advantage would happen only when the EVFs will be fully developed, a mature technology not needing much R&D budget.
We're not there yet. So far, the cost advantage is with the noVF cameras (most MILCs); yet still they sells in much lower volumes than SLRs.
08-08-2013, 01:59 PM   #2380
Veteran Member




Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: United States
Posts: 340
Sony FF

The reason why no one is buying the A99 has nothing to do with the EVF and more the fact that there is almost no FF lens support other than legacy minolta glass. No one is going to buy a 3k camera and put used glass on it. Pentax at least has a couple FF lenses still in production.
08-08-2013, 02:13 PM   #2381
Pentaxian
konraDarnok's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2007
Photos: Albums
Posts: 960
QuoteOriginally posted by IchabodCrane Quote
So why does an A99 cost as much as a D800?
And if an EVF has real advantages over an OVF, why aren't people selling their FF Nikons and Canons and buying the Sony?


This a common misunderstanding of how capitalism works. The costs of a camera are not passed on or saved by the consumer. The market prices the camera, not how much it costs to make. If you can't make the camera for the price the market is willing to bear, you go out of business (or at the very least lose money) No doubt the A99 costs less to make than the D800; therefore Sony makes more profit per unit sold, which is why Sony is doing this. Mirror boxes are expensive to manufacture, engineer, and support. For all I know all FF digital cameras are loss leaders as an excuse to sell profitable glass.

"Advantages" also have nothing to do with how capitalism works. This is where digital cameras came from in the in the first place. Early digital cameras were inferior to film in almost every respect. Resolution, color, lag, you name it, it was terrible, but a digi cam is cheap -- no springs, no gears, no complex film transport mechanisms. You just print a board and put in a plastic box. Competition in that market is what improved image quality and the user experience to what it is today. It's all about making a buck.

Last edited by konraDarnok; 08-08-2013 at 02:39 PM.
08-08-2013, 02:53 PM   #2382
Pentaxian
Pål Jensen's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Norway
Photos: Albums
Posts: 3,064
QuoteOriginally posted by konraDarnok Quote
The costs of a camera are not passed on or saved by the consumer. .
Yes it is. If a company don't make money on what they sell they'll eventually go bust....

You overestimate the cost and complexity of the mirror box and viewfinder system. We have had $300 SLR's for goodness sake.
Apart from its other advantages, the mirror assembly are among the most reliable part of a DSLR. It is more likely that the electronics will fail than the mirror or finder system.
Another point is that some things some people are simply willing to pay for even if cheaper alternatives should materialize....
08-08-2013, 02:59 PM   #2383
Pentaxian
konraDarnok's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2007
Photos: Albums
Posts: 960
QuoteOriginally posted by Pål Jensen Quote
Yes it is. If a company don't make money on what they sell they'll eventually go bust....
You didn't read my argument very well. The price of a camera, or any good, is determined by what people are willing to pay as dictated by supply and demand. How much it costs to manufacture is irrelevant. Either the overhead allows for a profit or it does not. If it costs 10k to manufacture and people are only willing to pay 3k, you **can not pass the costs on.** It doesn't work that way.

QuoteOriginally posted by Pål Jensen Quote
the mirror assembly are among the most reliable part of a DSLR.
Which is why my K7 couldn't take a crisp picture unless the mirror was locked up? Thankfully they fixed the problem with the K5, but that hassle is not cheap to engineer around. Reliability comes at a cost.

Last edited by konraDarnok; 08-08-2013 at 03:14 PM.
08-08-2013, 03:02 PM   #2384
Pentaxian
Pål Jensen's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Norway
Photos: Albums
Posts: 3,064
QuoteOriginally posted by konraDarnok Quote
The optical viewfinder's days are numbered, there is no doubt in my mind. Both Sony and Olympus seem to have completely abandoned them.
..and the customers have abandoned Sony and Olympus . Could it be a connection?

Incidentally, Sony boasted being No.2 in the DSLR world within a few years after the Minolta buyout. It has failed miserably. Olympus too is a fading star. Perhaps they are barking up the wrong tree?
08-08-2013, 03:05 PM   #2385
Pentaxian
Pål Jensen's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Norway
Photos: Albums
Posts: 3,064
QuoteOriginally posted by konraDarnok Quote
You didn't read my argument very well. The price of a camera, or any good, is determined by what people are willing to pay as dictated by supply and demand. How much it costs to manufacture is irrelevant. Either the overhead allows for a profit or it does not.

.
No. This is how buying things on the used market work. If people aren't willing to pay for what a product cost, the manufacturer won't make it. If they do make it and have to take a loss, it is unintentional and due to bad research.
Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
aps-c, body, k-5, k-7, k-7/k-5, pentax, pentax news, pentax rumors, reason, sensor, sony
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Speculation: What if Pentax did not go FF but rather a 1.3x? brecklundin Pentax DSLR Discussion 36 08-13-2013 10:36 PM
Any speculation on how long... Tom S. Pentax K-5 10 12-16-2010 09:19 PM
K-x price speculation SylBer Pentax DSLR Discussion 18 10-13-2010 12:29 PM
Small rant + speculation ilya80 Pentax News and Rumors 35 04-20-2010 11:42 PM
speculation about FA lenses on FF DSLR lpfonseca Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 19 11-05-2009 10:34 AM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 10:14 PM. | See also: NikonForums.com, part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top