[Kunzite]

I have a "red dot sight" that fits into the hot shoe of my camera. I can look at a scene directly (not via any viewfinder) with the red dot sight in my field of view, and where the red dot is in the scene will be the centre of the sensor. The red dot sight is like a "head up display". Perhaps we will have those on cameras one day? I'm just making the point that there are lots of potential options.

Good luck using that with several focal lengths, and in situations where parallax errors are significant.
Yes, I agree: how we achieve that is important; and the reflex viewfinder is a system which evolved in decades, trying to respond to our requirements. It won't be easily surpassed.

[Barry Pearson]

Yes, I agree: how we achieve that is important; and the reflex viewfinder is a system which evolved in decades, trying to respond to our requirements. It won't be easily surpassed.

A point I was making is that in some respects it has already been surpassed. Any viewfinder system can be measured in a number of dimensions - A, B, C, D, E, F.... (You can write your own script about what these actually are). OVFs are better at A, B, C .... EVFs are better at D, E, F ....

At the moment, for very many enthusiasts, A, B, and C are what really matters, and D, E and F don't matter much. Those people wouldn't touch EVFs. I think for some people it is already the other way round, especially if D and E (say) are to do with size and weight. Those people probably don't get involved in Pentax SLR forums much.

A mechanical system will evolve slower than an electronic system - that is the nature of electronics. EVFs will year by year narrow the gap of A, B, and C, and widen the gap of D, E, and F. At some point an individual photographer may switch some of the time or all of the time. Or at some point a manufacturer may decide for particular new cameras to sacrifice the market where A, B, and C are important. I think we will see lots of cases of both of these over the next 5 years.

(I remember when people were making claims that film was still the future because it was well established, and digital had so far to go to catch up!)

[Kunzite]

Every viewfinder system is a compromise, and the SLR's is the longer registration distance needed for the mirror. There's no "evolving" around that; like the EVFs can't "evolve" around their electronic nature. They can only hope to become good enough so the lag will become unnoticeable even in challenging conditions, the colors accurate, the resolution high enough and the battery consumption tolerable.
The speed with which they're developed - not that fast, I'd say - isn't really relevant, as we're comparing them not only with mature technology, but also with the laws of physics: the speed with which the OVF is showing you images is the speed of light.

As I was saying, OVFs won't be surpassed easily - for people who cares about their advantages. Otherwise, I agree; playing Angry Birds it's much easier on an EVF (half-joking, I bet you could do that on the next Android-based NX).

[Fogel70]

The speed with which they're developed - not that fast, I'd say - isn't really relevant, as we're comparing them not only with mature technology, but also with the laws of physics: the speed with which the OVF is showing you images is the speed of light.

Do you really think you need a viewfinder with the speed of light?
EVF don't need speed of light, they only need to be fast enough so that human perception don't notice any difference from speed of light.

[Aristophanes]

I remember when people were making claims that film was still the future because it was well established, and digital had so far to go to catch up!

I also remember a claim that digital zoom would replace optical zoom.

And where's my electric car?

I would not take for granted that anEVF can replace an OVF given the difficulty in replicating the precise light path in real time with no artefacts or unnaturalness to our eye.

[Aristophanes]

unless it is a leica.

Do NOT get me on about the Leica sensor. The K-500 has a better sensor.

[IchabodCrane]

Here's the inherent drawback of an EVF (IMHO): The photographer is trying to capture a scene as it actually is and an OVF displays a scene "as it actually is". It's the job of the sensor to record the scene which we see with our eyes as faithfully as possible. Modern sensors do an admirable job of that but even when they don't, they still leave latitude for us to make corrections later. An EVF can't do this. All it can do is display what the sensor instantaneously records and then output that information with some degree of additional degradation. So basically an EVF displays the scene two steps removed from actual.... analog --> digital --> analog. Whereas the photographer can later adjust for any misinterpretations in the process, the camera can't do that for us in real time.

[monochrome]

Golly gosh darn it.

Everything I've been saying in this thread about mobile OS's and connectivity this industry guy just said:

"And camera makers need to eliminate the painful process of uploading to a computer, then posting to your favorite website."

Sensor size is what matters and the trend is for larger, says Aptina: Digital Photography Review

Not a bad summary done in Grade 10 speak which is fine for DPR.

I'm going to send him an invoice.

I will simply note for discussion that Pentax has worked with Eye-Fi to integrate their cards into the Q line and GR camera's Menu, then speculate that the engineering relationship might not end there - might actually extend to a Firmware license. If a radio can fit in an SD card . . . . .

Do you suppose that would qualify as "never before?"

[Kunzite]

Do you really think you need a viewfinder with the speed of light?
EVF don't need speed of light, they only need to be fast enough so that human perception don't notice any difference from speed of light.

We evolved while seeing direct, no-lag images; that's not what the EVFs are showing us. Sometimes it doesn't matter, but sometimes it does - and while effectively reaching the speed of light is not required, I don't see EVFs closing the gap easily.

[derekkite]

The test of an evf is the ability to find a subject and track it using a 500mm lens. It is a matter of processing power and display speed. Eventually it may be equivalent to the optical viewfinder, but it is quite a ways away. Canon finally figured out a way to speed up focus without a separate sensor. The necessity of that breakthrough is the limits of processing ability. It could be that a fast evf is beyond processing ability and would require a separate sensor or some fraction of the large sensor to make it work.

[Barry Pearson]

The speed with which they're developed - not that fast, I'd say - isn't really relevant, as we're comparing them not only with mature technology, but also with the laws of physics: the speed with which the OVF is showing you images is the speed of light.

OVFs are faster to view, but slower to shoot. They have to move a mirror out of the way. It is likely to be easier to reduce the lag in EVFs than to reduce the mirror-movement delay. (Reaching 15 fps, say, may be tricky with mirrors, less so with EVF).

Do you really think you need a viewfinder with the speed of light?
EVF don't need speed of light, they only need to be fast enough so that human perception don't notice any difference from speed of light.

True! And, of course, we don't actually perceive things at the speed of light. A lot of processing goes on between light falling on the retina and the perception of that image in the brain! Any impression that we see things instantly is an illusion.

Here's the inherent drawback of an EVF (IMHO): The photographer is trying to capture a scene as it actually is and an OVF displays a scene "as it actually is".

Even when it is true that "the photographer is trying to capture a scene as it actually is", the photographer is handicapped because that isn't what the camera itself is actually doing. It is transforming the image of the scene into something else: possibly similar, possibly better, possibly worse. An EVF offer the possibility of informing the photographer what the camera is capturing, so that the photographer can compensate.

If I want to know the scene really looks like, I'll look at it directly, not through a viewfinder! The viewfinder is an aid to capturing the scene, and it can help to know what it is capturing. For example, is the camera clipping highlights or shadows?

The test of an evf is the ability to find a subject and track it using a 500mm lens.

That is an interesting test of any viewfinder, and I certainly can't do it reliably with an OVF! I am simply unable to get the results I want with my Sigma 500mm APO EX DG f/4.5. I'm not saying I could do it with an EVF instead - just that OVFs fail the same test, at least for me. Perhaps that is also telling us what we already know - different photographers have different requirements, and succeed or fail in different ways with different technologies. (It would be interesting to know if there is any way that an EVF could help me track successfully with my 500mm lens).

[monochrome]

The problem with the all-knowing technological advances is they replace, they don't supplement, and that while usually less expensive and often more rationally precise, they aren't always better as I define good.

At the end of the day all I want is the opportunity to choose which viewfinder I prefer to use, and not be told any more that because some skinny piece of polished aluminum will slip into my shirt pocket without a lens mounted it is, perforce, better than anything I want to use.

[lytrytyr]

It would be interesting to know if there is any way that an EVF could help me track successfully with my 500mm lens.

When using a 180mm lens on my orginal "crop-sensor" Q
(a narrower field of view than 500mm on APS-C),
I sight approximately along the lens barrel,
and am then close enough to use the LCD to track precisely.

An EVF would not help this process, however,
since then you wouldn't see the lens barrel.

[IchabodCrane]

Even when it is true that "the photographer is trying to capture a scene as it actually is", the photographer is handicapped because that isn't what the camera itself is actually doing. It is transforming the image of the scene into something else: possibly similar, possibly better, possibly worse. An EVF offer the possibility of informing the photographer what the camera is capturing, so that the photographer can compensate.

If I want to know the scene really looks like, I'll look at it directly, not through a viewfinder! The viewfinder is an aid to capturing the scene, and it can help to know what it is capturing. For example, is the camera clipping highlights or shadows?

Well.... you parsed my post which redacted one of the important points. The sensor can capture "reality" better than the EVF can display what is being captured by the sensor. In fact, the sensor can record something like 14 EV in dynamic range. What can an EVF display? Nowhere close to that. Basically, an EVF can't do a very good job of displaying what the photographer is actually capturing in the camera whereas an OVF can.

If clipping is a problem, there's always live view or instant review to indicate that.

[lytrytyr]

OVFs are faster to view, but slower to shoot.

This is why rangefinder cameras like the Leica
were often better for tracking action than an SLR with OVF.