Originally posted by Kunzite It is common sense that some people would rather see the subject they want to photograph through optical instruments, and not at some heavily processed image, pale approximation of what the result could be without any kind of post-processing, displayed on some lousy, non-calibrated miniature display. YMMV.
I'll stop here, but please, don't say that optical viewfinders are pointless as if our opinion doesn't matter.
Nobody, except you, said anything about lousy viewfinders. We don't want lousy EVF's, just as much as we don't want lousy OVF's.
With the OVF, there is a lot of guessing involved. There is three different images:
- The world we see with our eyes.
- The dark tunnel we see through the OVF is vastly different from that.
- Then the actual output is different from both again.
What else can be expected from a merge of digital and analog?
The EVF will have the ability to show the output, exactly as the RAW file will be, in the VF.
This is actually right in Pentax "
dare to be different" street. To populate that niche they want. Like by introducing the LX-D, worlds first interchangable electronic viewfinder camera. An IEVIL.
Not to mention the endless possibilities of such an EVF. For example, with my phone, I can just sweep over a landscape, whilst I see a panorama being stitched, on screen, in real time. My phone does it better then my camera in combination with any PP-stitching-software, because my phone knows exactly in what direction I'm moving the lens. And when it wants me to go over an area again, it paints it red. My expensive DSLR cannot do that. My phone is actually better suited for taking a panorama picture, then my dedicated camera. Is it just me, or is that terribly wrong? It should be 20x better at it.