[IchabodCrane]

Isn't that the one where the person in the right hand seat was operating a mini side-yoke with his right hand, not observed by others in the cockpit? (A consequence of the Airbus side-yoke). I thought he "simply" kept it pulled back the whole time, (forcing the plane into a nose-up attitude, when they really needed nose-down for speed), rather than having input anything that the computer was acting upon? (I saw a reconstruction on TV based on the retrieved "black"-box recorder).

A difference between the cockpit of a plane and an EVF is that (I think) even the most modern cockpit isn't displaying the scene in front of the aircraft electronically. That view has to be obtained directly. (The thought of the pilot having no direct view, only an electronic view, in an aircraft is a bit scary to me as a passenger! If the power fails, there would no longer be any view! The consequences of a power failure in a camera are insignificant in comparison).

IIRC, it was the other way around. The PIC (pilot in charge... left seat) was wrongly pulling up on his joy stick while the first officer (right seat) was correctly pushing down on his joy stick. All studies/reviews point to the FO having no idea that the PIC was inputing the wrong command.

[Digitalis]

The EVF-discussion comes up in MANY topics, not only here on PF, but on Canon and Nikon forums alike. So it appears that there's enough people that want one.

Just because many people are talking about producing a high level EVF based camera body doesn't give the idea merit. Current EVF based Mirrorless cameras haven't been selling all that well...at least compared to traditional SLRs.

OVFs are prone to being out of sync with the lens focus, in other words, they need to be calibrated.

I calibrate my own RF cameras and SLR cameras, I wet clean the sensor and clean the mirror box - I consider it part of the basic setup of a new camera when I buy it, especially when I plan to use manual focus lenses with it. As a working professional I consider it mandatory for all the cameras I buy.

[gazonk]

Just because many people are talking about producing a high level EVF based camera body doesn't give the idea merit. Current EVF based Mirrorless cameras haven't been selling all that well...at least compared to traditional SLRs.

IMHO both the OM-D EM-5 and the NEX-6 (and NEX-7) make a whole lot of sense, if you want minimal bulk without IQ compromise. The NEX-6 with the 16-50 kit lens is simply ridiculously small compared to a Pentax K-50 with kit lens - which was why my daughter decided to abandon Pentax when her K100D was stolen. She'll have to find a replacement for her 35mm/2.4, which was stolen with the camera, but I think she'll be fine with the NEX 35mm/1.8.

The NEX-6 seems to be selling far less than the NEX-5R, though, even in Japan: I had a look at bcnranking and kakaku, and K-5 IIs, K-30 and Q10 all seem to sell better than the NEX-6.

[Barry Pearson]

IIRC, it was the other way around. The PIC (pilot in charge... left seat) was wrongly pulling up on his joy stick while the first officer (right seat) was correctly pushing down on his joy stick. All studies/reviews point to the FO having no idea that the PIC was inputing the wrong command.

OK. Perhaps I remembered it wrong. I thought the captain had vacated his left seat (and left the cabin) leaving the original other officer in the right seat. And I thought it was the latter that got it wrong. But without being a pilot I could easily miss such significance and mis-remember.

Edit: But I've just read that it was the PIC who got it wrong, as you say. I don't know why I remember that it was the pilot on the right who did.

---

Last edited by Barry Pearson; 08-14-2013 at 04:43 AM.

[Uluru]

Can we go back to the subject?
We are two weeks away from early September, and absolutely no information of any kind, not even a leaked spec, about any Ricoh Imaging camera.
Even in GR's case we've had some clues, and two weeks before the official info about K50/500, we've had a French website leak.
What is going on?

[falconeye]

Yet TV cameras have recorded sports for ages *without any OVF*. How did they do that?

To be fair, we must note that most of "ages" the TV cameras' EVF has not been digital.

The image was captured by tubes and with no intermediate storage and with only a few analog "in the line" processing steps, it was output to both a wire and a TV tube serving as the EVF. Therefore, the lag of analog EVFs was extremely small. Digital EVFs still have a hard time to match this.

[Clavius]

Just because many people are talking about producing a high level EVF based camera body doesn't give the idea merit. Current EVF based Mirrorless cameras haven't been selling all that well...at least compared to traditional SLRs.

You can't sell a beast that doesn't even exist: A pro level flagship MILC. It's like saying that there is no market for a Pentax FF DSLR based on the fact that the sales of Pentax FF DSLRs has been very slow in the past decade.

I calibrate my own RF cameras and SLR cameras, I wet clean the sensor and clean the mirror box - I consider it part of the basic setup of a new camera when I buy it, especially when I plan to use manual focus lenses with it. As a working professional I consider it mandatory for all the cameras I buy.

You're actually confirming my opinion here. That an OVF per default is not good enough for proper manual focussing. Only for pointing / framing and letting the AF do it's thing. For manual focus, third party screens and shims have to be applied. That results often in focus screen and focus confirmation being misaligned and requiring extra calibration. Horrific fidgetty technical work that has very little to do with photography at all.

Imagine a dentist being distracted from his primary function by such technical knowledge and skills about his drill and being forced to overhaul his drill in this way! It's all good fun for hobbyists, but for the average pro his tools just need to work.

No calibration needed with CDAF, and it's ultra precise compared to PDAF. And for manual focussing: peaking and zooming at the press of a button. Or no information at all, also at the press of a button. Compositional aids like frames, horizons, rule of thirds, all available and customizable on the go.

[lawsonstone]

This conversation, though utterly bizarre, is so stimulating and entertaining, I almost hope Pentax NEVER releases the K3 or FF because then we'd stop having these supremely nerdy, fun, humorous and stimulating conversations and... start taking pictures… I never even knew Schrödinger even had a cat. If he did, and he ate the gerbil, would the gerbil then… no, I'm not going there.

[johnmflores]

This conversation really should have happened on paper, with posts delivered via a network of pneumatic tubes. Would have been more reliable and accurate than these fiddly electrons....

[Aristophanes]

You can't sell a beast that doesn't even exist: A pro level flagship MILC.

Leica?

No calibration needed with CDAF, and it's ultra precise compared to PDAF

Mmmm....both can be ultra-precise. It's not an either/or but depends on the subject, conditions, and context.

We've had over a century of sharp photographs taken without the "benefit" of an electronic intermediary. The idea that real focus demands a CDAF compared to the inaccuracies of PDAF is false.

[Asahiflex]

To be fair, we must note that most of "ages" the TV cameras' EVF has not been digital.

The image was captured by tubes and with no intermediate storage and with only a few analog "in the line" processing steps, it was output to both a wire and a TV tube serving as the EVF. Therefore, the lag of analog EVFs was extremely small. Digital EVFs still have a hard time to match this.

You are completely right of course. (I still remember using a video camera with burned tubes; we've come a long way since then). Nevertheless almost all broadcasting systems in use today are digital so I think my statement is still true.

[johnmflores]

You are completely right of course. (I still remember using a video camera with burned tubes; we've come a long way since then). Nevertheless almost all broadcasting systems in use today are digital so I think my statement is still true.

The difference between still and video is how they capture the "decisive moment". I won't say that it's harder with stills, but it is different.

I can understand that still photographers are worried about potential lag that a digital system can introduce:

Youtu.be

Youtu.be

On the other hand, mirrorless cameras with electronic shutters like the Nikon V1 can shoot full resolution RAWS as fast as 60FPS, making capturing the decisive moment easier.

At the end of the day, old techniques may not be compatible with new technology, and photogs will have to develop new techniques that take advantage of the new tech.

[Kunzite]

You're actually confirming my opinion here. That an OVF per default is not good enough for proper manual focussing. Only for pointing / framing and letting the AF do it's thing. For manual focus, third party screens and shims have to be applied. That results often in focus screen and focus confirmation being misaligned and requiring extra calibration. Horrific fidgetty technical work that has very little to do with photography at all.

The need for calibration doesn't make a tool "not good enough".

No calibration needed with CDAF, and it's ultra precise compared to PDAF. And for manual focussing: peaking and zooming at the press of a button. Or no information at all, also at the press of a button. Compositional aids like frames, horizons, rule of thirds, all available and customizable on the go.

Is it "ultra precise" compared with a properly calibrated dedicated PDAF system? Are you sure about that?

[Cynog Ap Brychan]

For manual focus, third party screens and shims have to be applied.

I do all my critical focussing for macro work manually, using the standard screen. I don't see what the problem is, to be honest.

[Digitalis]

Imagine a dentist being distracted from his primary function by such technical knowledge and skills about his drill and being forced to overhaul his drill in this way! It's all good fun for hobbyists, but for the average pro his tools just need to work.

My dentist pays someone to repair his equipment, I'm a professional musician - I don't repair my own instruments, I pay someone to do it. And there are plenty of professionals who pay good money to get their cameras calibrated and serviced. I just happen to be able to do all my camera calibrating and adjustments myself.

both can be ultra-precise. It's not an either/or but depends on the subject, conditions, and context. We've had over a century of sharp photographs taken without the "benefit" of an electronic intermediary. The idea that real focus demands a CDAF compared to the inaccuracies of PDAF is false.

+1 I agree, Photographers have managed quite well without all the creeping featurism - in the end it all comes down to skill.