[audiobomber]

Most users manage perfectly well without.
That's where the price advantage of a MILC kicks in.

Pay less, get less is not remarkable.

[lytrytyr]

comparing an OVF on a P&S camera to a modern EVF (like on a NEX-6 or 7)

The refresh rate on the optical finders of the P&S cameras
is infinitely faster than that of the most expensive EVF available.

If you're tracking action, that's an important feature.

[lytrytyr]

Pay less, get less is not remarkable.

Pay just for what you want is good economics.

[IchabodCrane]

The refresh rate on the optical finders of the P&S cameras
is infinitely faster than that of the most expensive EVF available.

If you're tracking action, that's an important feature.

Yes, that's true and one reason why DSLRs will remain the preferred camera for some types of shooting. I imagine sports will be at the top of that list. EVF lag is bound to keep decreasing as the technology matures and if you're not a sports photojournalist, it may become perfectly acceptable for many if not most.

[lytrytyr]

DSLRs will remain the preferred camera for some types of shooting. I imagine sports will be at the top of that list.

Rangefinders were even better for action than SLRs,
but unfortunately they don't play well with telephoto lenses.

[northcoastgreg]

I believe there is no doubt that MILCS are cheaper to produce than DSLRs (IchabodCrane mentioned a few aspects). A DSLRs' precision mechanics and its calibration requirements (e.g., for 100% viewfinders) are comparatively cost intensive. I reckon soon EVFs will cost next to nothing in comparison

MILCs are only cheaper to produce than DSLRs because most MILCs don't have viewfinders. If you're comparing like for like, MILCs tend to be more expensive. Is that because MILCs with viewfinders sell with higher margins? Maybe. But given that Olympus, Panasonic, and Sony are all losing money on their cameras, this is not the most plausible hypothesis. Right now, the cost difference between an OVF equipped camera and an MILC with a quality EVF appears to be insignificant. After all, how much does an OVF cost? It can't be much more than $100. The Sony accessory EVF, generally regarded as one of the best EVFs, costs $300. So how much did it cost sony to make that EVF? Even if Sony is selling at very high margins, it's unlikely that the Sony EVF costs significantly less than an OVF.

That may, and probably will, change over time. But right now consumers are not experiencing any cost savings with EVFs. And the quality EVFs cost more. The cost advantages, therefore, of EVFs are still theoretical. More to the point, even insiders admit that the advantages of EVFs are only likely to make themselves felt among entry level ILCs. What does that tell us? That the cost advantages of EVFs are not likely to ever be all that significant. For if they were significant, they would bestow a competitive advantage on the mid-level and higher end products as well.

An EVF that cost "next to nothing in comparison" would probably be low quality with a high failure rate. If you cut corners, you can make very cheap electronic gadgets. We see this in some of the cheap p-TTL flashes on ebay. Such flashes can be two, even three times less expensive than the Metz or Pentax equivalents. But the cheap flashes have much higher failure rates. So when comparing like to like, what sort of cost advantages can we expect quality EVFs to enjoy over OVFs in years to come? Will it be $25? $50? $75? If it's only $50, is that really significant?

Predictions about technology are difficult and treacherous. When the Nikon D3 came out, people started predicting the imminent demise of APS-C DSLRs. These predictions have turned out to be wrong. The D600, the first "budget" FF from the big two, couldn't maintain it's introductory price for more than two months. Many of the predictions made on behalf of MILCs seem to me of the same complexion. They are made by people just a bit too infatuated with technology, whether of the FF or MILC variety. Technological innovation can have a profound impact on markets, but it is not necessarily determinative. Many photographers are set in their ways, and won't make any changes that affect their style of shooting unless they can see significant advantages in doing so. Digital trumped film because it is so much easier to make high quality images with digital than with film and because there were no great costs associated to switching (you could use the same AF lenses!). The advantages with EVFs, smaller camera sizes, larger sensor sizes are not comparable to the advantages of digital over film. People talk about EVFs becoming "as good" as OVFs. But "as good" doesn't provide strong enough incentive for switching to an EVF system, particularly when switching involves buying all new glass. People begin by being camera-centric in their buying choices. But once they've invested in a system, they become mount/format centric in their buying choices: they tend to buy the camera that works with their lenses, flashes, and accessories, rather than the camera featuring the newest and most fashionable technology.

[mecrox]

...

Many of the predictions made on behalf of MILCs seem to me of the same complexion. They are made by people just a bit too infatuated with technology, whether of the FF or MILC variety. Technological innovation can have a profound impact on markets, but it is not necessarily determinative. Many photographers are set in their ways, and won't make any changes that affect their style of shooting unless they can see significant advantages in doing so. Digital trumped film because it is so much easier to make high quality images with digital than with film and because there were no great costs associated to switching (you could use the same AF lenses!). The advantages with EVFs, smaller camera sizes, larger sensor sizes are not comparable to the advantages of digital over film. People talk about EVFs becoming "as good" as OVFs. But "as good" doesn't provide strong enough incentive for switching to an EVF system, particularly when switching involves buying all new glass. People begin by being camera-centric in their buying choices. But once they've invested in a system, they become mount/format centric in their buying choices: they tend to buy the camera that works with their lenses, flashes, and accessories, rather than the camera featuring the newest and most fashionable technology.

I think you are overstating your case. In the first place, the increasingly large numbers of people growing up with smartphones and tablets will likely find a mirrorless camera much more congenial than a traditional DSLR. Second, Pentax-users may be unusually conservative in their choices, perhaps a consequence of their average age but I'd be very surprised if this applied to every brand and every photographer. Third, there seem to be some extremely competent, well-made mirrorless cameras out there which are not short of sales - NEX, Fujifilm, Olympus all make them before we even get to the Sony RX1 or the Leicas. There is nothing crude or cheaply done about higher-end mirrorless cams.

One of the reasons Pentax seem to be struggling to produce an FF camera is that the longer you wait the more niches and angles are filled by others until eventually there appears no place to go. This seems to be where Pentax are with FF, having havered over it for years. It would be a shame if they continued the trend with mirrorless, imho, because you can miss parties as well as just be late to them. I don't see all this as having anything to do with technology but with what people want to buy. Tables (as netbooks before them) went from nowhere to everywhere because they are or were genuinely useful to people. Thus people wanted to buy them even if these things weren't what the old guard of the tech industry wanting to sell them because the old guard thought it could rig the market to suit its own agenda. It's not hard to feel something of the same may be going on in imaging, with the DSLR being pushed because it suits the makers very well but the camera-buyers not so much.

Netbooks, for example, allowed people to own a nifty if basic portable computer who would otherwise have struggled to afford a computer at all, a market ignore by the old guard. Thus they boomed in the developing world and among students. As similar scenario might turn out to be true with mirrorless cameras - superior quality at an affordable price - since they are inherently cheaper to produce than DSLRs. If anyone says this is all unprofitable and best kept away from, imho the answer is that it is unprofitable if you are late to the party and fluff your product. But for those who get in early with the right product, well they likely do extremely well.

OTOH, Pentax may use Ricoh for their forays into the land of no mirrors, leaving the other areas to Pentax. At least this would mean they had a presence in the sector.

---

Last edited by mecrox; 12-27-2012 at 11:41 AM.

[Medium FormatPro]

once they've invested in a system, they become mount/format centric in their buying choices: they tend to buy the camera that works with their lenses, flashes, and accessories

Pentax's last true hold onto life?? That one can purchase a number of Pentax's today that basically use the same mount as ones found from the lte 70's. Also one of the main reasons that any current Pentax's are in my collection

[IchabodCrane]

MILCs are only cheaper to produce than DSLRs because most MILCs don't have viewfinders.

No, as has been stated multiple times, they also don't have mirror boxes or dedicated precision auto focusing hardware. Those can be expensive items.

If you're comparing like for like, MILCs tend to be more expensive. Is that because MILCs with viewfinders sell with higher margins? Maybe.

The only MILCs with EVFs are currently the very high end models from Sony, Olympus, and Panasonic (less so).

But given that Olympus, Panasonic, and Sony are all losing money on their cameras, this is not the most plausible hypothesis.

How can you possibly know if they are losing money on MILCs? They make many other cameras, too. Importantly, the high end models with EVFs are probably the ones they are making the most money on. Wasn't it reported that Olympus can't make enough E-M5s to keep us with demand? It's impossible they are losing money on that model if this is true.

Right now, the cost difference between an OVF equipped camera and an MILC with a quality EVF appears to be insignificant.

Not if you take Kitizawa-san's comment at face value. He certainly knows more than anyone here about costs.

After all, how much does an OVF cost? It can't be much more than $100. The Sony accessory EVF, generally regarded as one of the best EVFs, costs $300. So how much did it cost sony to make that EVF? Even if Sony is selling at very high margins, it's unlikely that the Sony EVF costs significantly less than an OVF.

Once more, there's also the mirror box.

That may, and probably will, change over time. But right now consumers are not experiencing any cost savings with EVFs. And the quality EVFs cost more. The cost advantages, therefore, of EVFs are still theoretical. More to the point, even insiders admit that the advantages of EVFs are only likely to make themselves felt among entry level ILCs. What does that tell us? That the cost advantages of EVFs are not likely to ever be all that significant. For if they were significant, they would bestow a competitive advantage on the mid-level and higher end products as well.

An EVF that cost "next to nothing in comparison" would probably be low quality with a high failure rate. If you cut corners, you can make very cheap electronic gadgets. We see this in some of the cheap p-TTL flashes on ebay. Such flashes can be two, even three times less expensive than the Metz or Pentax equivalents. But the cheap flashes have much higher failure rates. So when comparing like to like, what sort of cost advantages can we expect quality EVFs to enjoy over OVFs in years to come? Will it be $25? $50? $75? If it's only $50, is that really significant?

This is all speculation.

[Kunzite]

Even if the EVF cost less than a reflex viewfinder system + dedicated PD-AF system, the simple fact that most MILCs does not come with one shows how price sensitive the MILC market is.
The E-M5 costs about $1000 (street price), more than an equivalent DSLR; if even at this price Olympus wouldn't make money on it, they would be doomed.
I believe Kitazawa-san was talking about the mainstream MILCs, i.e. the viewfinderless ones.

[Nuff]

Everyone forgets the scale of electronics. The costs of producing pentaprism has been increasing over the years. It's precisions stuff.

The beauty of electronics is that they only get cheaper and cheaper to produce everyday. The expensive part is R&D, the rest is dirt cheap and it's easy to test the if the electronic viewfinder works without human intervention. It's all automated process.

Imagine that this days we carry around computers in our pockets (smartphones) which are more powerful than even the biggest desktop computers from 10 years ago. Can you imagine how cheap the electronic viewfinders will be in 3-5 years time and who will have the upper hand as they only get better with every single iteration? My iphone has better resolution than my huge and clunky monitor from 10 years ago. Pentaprism have not changed much in the last 40 years. How far did the EVF come along in the past 5 years?

The price of a product isn't set by cost of producing an item, like E-M5 for example. It's all about supply and demand, the basics of economics. Olympus has problem producing enough of them, so of course it's going to be more expensive than similar DSLRs. And since it's cheaper to produce than the mentioned DSLRs, they profit margins are higher. It's a WIN/WIN situation for Olympus. The E-M5 isn't bleeding money, the other cameras would be.

[NSX167]

If this new coming FF is under RICOH brand not Pentax, I won't buy it, then I'll just save the money for a 645D.

[Clavius]

Everyone forgets the scale of electronics. The costs of producing pentaprism has been increasing over the years. It's precisions stuff.

The beauty of electronics is that they only get cheaper and cheaper to produce everyday. The expensive part is R&D, the rest is dirt cheap and it's easy to test the if the electronic viewfinder works without human intervention. It's all automated process.

Imagine that this days we carry around computers in our pockets (smartphones) which are more powerful than even the biggest desktop computers from 10 years ago. Can you imagine how cheap the electronic viewfinders will be in 3-5 years time and who will have the upper hand as they only get better with every single iteration? My iphone has better resolution than my huge and clunky monitor from 10 years ago. Pentaprism have not changed much in the last 40 years. How far did the EVF come along in the past 5 years?

The price of a product isn't set by cost of producing an item, like E-M5 for example. It's all about supply and demand, the basics of economics. Olympus has problem producing enough of them, so of course it's going to be more expensive than similar DSLRs. And since it's cheaper to produce than the mentioned DSLRs, they profit margins are higher. It's a WIN/WIN situation for Olympus. The E-M5 isn't bleeding money, the other cameras would be.

Can't agree with you more here! And the market is wide open for a Pentax FF EVIL. There is no real competition there. Pentax wants to be different, (or just avoid battling the big boys) so in this niche they can be different as much as they like.


EDIT: Strikethrough, Sony has beaten Pentax to it. Pentax missed yet another boat. I wonder, does Pentax have to try to be THAT dim?

Woa, that new Sony FF EVIL sure looks sweet! The ability to mount M-glass on an FF sensor with inbody SR... That could have been Pentax.

So, what other niches are left for Pentax to differentiate itself in?

[Alizarine]

so uhm... sorry to break the chain but, any updates on the translation...?

[Kunzite]

Everyone forgets the scale of electronics. The costs of producing pentaprism has been increasing over the years. It's precisions stuff.

Yet we have it on cheaper cameras. OTOH, the large scale EVFs cannot be found on the most MILCs sold... what an irony!

Imagine that this days we carry around computers in our pockets (smartphones) which are more powerful than even the biggest desktop computers from 10 years ago.

Yes, very useful tools for many things except for their basic function: as a phone, they're much worse.

How far did the EVF come along in the past 5 years?

Not far enough. Maybe in 10 years they would be decent, though... as the pentaprism viewfinders are now.

The price of a product isn't set by cost of producing an item, like E-M5 for example. It's all about supply and demand, the basics of economics. Olympus has problem producing enough of them, so of course it's going to be more expensive than similar DSLRs. And since it's cheaper to produce than the mentioned DSLRs, they profit margins are higher. It's a WIN/WIN situation for Olympus. The E-M5 isn't bleeding money, the other cameras would be.

Olympus can definitely make tons of cheap MILCs, which they have to attempt selling at a heavy discount, yet they can't make enough EM-5s? What's stopping them from making more, and cut production capacity from the cheap MILCs?
By the way, when did you hear about that?