[Kunzite]

But why discussing this in a thread called "K-3 speculation", unless you think the switch will happen now? (it won't, of course)

[Asahiflex]

But why discussing this in a thread called "K-3 speculation", unless you think the switch will happen now? (it won't, of course)

[Barry Pearson]

But why discussing this in a thread called "K-3 speculation", unless you think the switch will happen now? (it won't, of course)

If that question is directed at me, the answer is that I joined a discussion that was already taking place.

[LamyTax]

We're on page 164, of course, EVF, FF and "pentax is doomed" have to be mentioned.

Because the K3 is, of course, an FF EVIL with a new bayonet and not a new high res APS-C DSLR flagship for a good price.

[Cynog Ap Brychan]

I'm just wondering why the photograph of the derailment was flipped. Am I losing the thread.....?

[Barry Pearson]

Oh, yeah; another of those analogies. It doesn't matter that we switched to digital, which shows we're not opposed to technology - when it properly works. It's irrelevant that the digital have clear benefits over film, its immediacy and control, while electronic viewfinders merely tries to emulate the functions of the optical ones.

Of people who used to use film, there has been a massive spread in the speed and enthusiasm of their switch to digital. Some were earlier adopters, while some still haven't switched. Some jumped right in, while others adopted digital bit by bit over years. I assume some switched brands to switch to digital, while others were carried along by their chosen brand. (For example, I know a dedicated Leica user who switched when Leica switched).

Many people who were late adopters, or haven't switched at all, didn't agree that on balance there were clear benefits with digital. They could perhaps recognise some advantages, but for them the disadvantages were more important, and sometimes still are. I think the EVF versus OVF positions are just like that, and will continue to be.

(I don't know whether the people who are moving upwards from mobile phone or point & shoot photography to something better will be more likely to be happy with EVFs rather than OVFs. They are less likely to continually make comparisons between the two. Has that survey been done?)

EVFs have the chance of going beyond the objective "to emulate the functions of the optical ones". They can add extra functionality, and/or they can remove some of the disadvantages of OVFs. (Size, weight, vibration, noise, frame rate - these matter to some people, although not to all).

[Clavius]

EVFs have the chance of going beyond the objective "to emulate the functions of the optical ones". They can add extra functionality, and/or they can remove some of the disadvantages of OVFs. (Size, weight, vibration, noise, frame rate - these matter to some people, although not to all).

Let's hope EVF will never emulate the darkness, small size and blurryness of the OVF. EVF has gone past that already and we shouldn't want to go back. Oh, and you forgot the OVF's inability of doing video.

But that is not the topic there. The topic is K-3 speculation: Are there any new rumors? (Please, let there be some!) I don't care what kind of VF or sensor it will have, as long as Pentax isn't just sitting completely still - dead in the water - anymore.

[Uluru]

But that is not the topic there. The topic is K-3 speculation: Are there any new rumors? (Please, let there be some!) I don't care what kind of VF or sensor it will have, as long as Pentax isn't just sitting completely still - dead in the water - anymore.

Watch out for September 5th.
New Pentax camera(s). And world's fastest AF.

[Clavius]

Watch out for September 5th.
New Pentax camera(s). And world's fastest AF.

Wow, that's actually what they promised. They stated they wanted to be the best in AF next. I hope that blazing AF means it's accurate as well. Accuracy is MUCH more important then speed imho. Hang on though... I use MF for the most accurate focus.

[thibs]

Let's hope EVF will never emulate the darkness, small size and blurryness of the OVF.

The OVF is not small and dark by design, it is often small and dark following the design used (eg pentamirror etc.)

EVF has gone past that already and we shouldn't want to go back. Oh, and you forgot the OVF's inability of doing video.

Again, nothing to do with the fact that it is optical but by a design choice. A pellicle mirror à la SLT would not get in the way. Sure it brings its set of problems but so does the EVF.

I still think this debate is often full of bad faith, from both "camps".

[Clavius]

The OVF is not small and dark by design, it is often small and dark following the design used (eg pentamirror etc.)

Again, nothing to do with the fact that it is optical but by a design choice. A pellicle mirror à la SLT would not get in the way. Sure it brings its set of problems but so does the EVF.

I'm comparing the small dark VF of my K-5 and 5DMKII with the large and bright VF on my NEX7. I don't think the OVF of the K-5 or 5DMKII is particularly bad at all. The OVF is just bound by the limits of the OVF. The size of the OVF is restricted to the size of the format, whilst the EVF is not. Same goes for the brightness and sharpness.

I still think this debate is often full of bad faith, from both "camps".

There's obviously a market and use for both VF systems. No need the one cancels the other. Nevertheless, I'm eagur to see the appearence of the first prosumer grade ILC with a EVF.

(But there are other threads for this discussion.)

[Rondec]

The OVF is not small and dark by design, it is often small and dark following the design used (eg pentamirror etc.)



Again, nothing to do with the fact that it is optical but by a design choice. A pellicle mirror à la SLT would not get in the way. Sure it brings its set of problems but so does the EVF.

I still think this debate is often full of bad faith, from both "camps".

I agree. The reality is that the EVF versus OVF debate is very much subjective. People try to bring "hard facts" to bear, but the question really is what photographers like to use. From what I have seen, most non-photographers prefer to compose on the back LCD of a camera as opposed to using a viewfinder at all.

It isn't that big a deal and I could get used to an EVF, but I do think it is a little ironic that goal of EVFs is to achieve the clarity, dynamic range, freedom from lag already present in OVFs.

[Kunzite]

The OVF is not small and dark by design, it is often small and dark following the design used (eg pentamirror etc.)

Agree, but as Clavius said there are however limitations regarding:
a. the frame size
b. having to divert part of the light to the AF system.
I would say those are by design.

I still think this debate is often full of bad faith, from both "camps".

My apologies if I let this impression myself. My feeling, confirmed in many occasions, is that some of the people liking EVFs are trying to push them on me/us, before the technology is ready (by my/our standards). "We" in this context is the majority of photographers, who likes/are using OVFs over EVFs. Let's not forget this thread is dedicated to a (rumored, but pretty certain) soon to be announced high end K-mount SLR, yet it again derailed into "EVFs are the future". Even if they are, who cares?

Without this, and if I wouldn't find the subject appearing over and over again on pretty much every thread talking about new Pentax products, my tone would be different. After all, somewhere in the distant future there could be an EVF good enough for me (but, who knows what will happen until then?)

There's obviously a market and use for both VF systems. No need the one cancels the other. Nevertheless, I'm eagur to see the appearence of the first prosumer grade ILC with a EVF.

My 2 cents:
- Pentax for OVF people
- Sony for EVF people.

[Clavius]

Let's not forget this thread is dedicated to a (rumored, but pretty certain) soon to be announced high end K-mount SLR, yet it again derailed into "EVFs are the future". Even if they are, who cares?

Agree! EVF's are only on topic if the K-3 was rumored to actually have an EVF.

Without this, and if I wouldn't find the subject appearing over and over again on pretty much every thread talking about new Pentax products, my tone would be different.

Well yes, so apparently it seems that people want it.

My 2 cents:
- Pentax for OVF people
- Sony for EVF people.

I can live with that, but can you?

- Pentax for OVF people = evolutionary dead end.

- Sony for EVF people. = Now and has a future + endless possibilities.

Moreover, you're forgetting the third option. Pentax did patent a hybrid VF. A very cool alternative option that would give Pentax something unique again.

[Kunzite]

I'm not saying they should stay with OVFs forever, never reacting to market changes. And I agree with the possibility of a third option; I actually hope it will be seriously investigated.