[jimr-pdx]

I still believe the on-sensor AF will soon be used by Pentax engineers to do something surprising, as SR was adapted to astro-imaging. Maybe Lytro all-in-focus shots in camera, special AF bracketing or some such?

[Doundounba]

I still believe the on-sensor AF will soon be used by Pentax engineers to do something surprising, as SR was adapted to astro-imaging. Maybe Lytro all-in-focus shots in camera, special AF bracketing or some such?

In-camera focus stacking would be wonderful...

[Aristophanes]

Sony A-mount has the same mechanical linkage as K-mount have, and they have adapters that fully support A-mount lenses on E-mount.

The disadvantage is that the adapter get expensive as it need AF-motor and mechanical linkage for aperture.
Sony A-Mount to E-Mount Lens Adapter with Translucent LAEA4 B&H

But on the other hand a Sony A7 + fully supported A-mount adapter is cheaper than A99.

The adapter is large, heavy, costly, and sells poorly.

[GlassJunkie]

What value does a mirrorless EVF camera of any mount in APSc or FF have, with a sub par diluted quality focusing finder have? Does anyone here actually believe that a photographer that has customer satisfaction and IQ to deliver would stake their rep on something focused on a pixelated VF? If so, ok. Just hard to fathom....

Snaps, Backup camera/body? Maybe. Underwater? Yup. Product shoot? Macro? Wildlife? Not for our clients. Worked too hard to get them....

And as I noted before.... FF cannot out resolve a 24mp APSC until it reaches near 51mp. Simple optical engineering.... Landscapes? 645z/ hassy or d810 with a tidy widey..... Else, what is all of the buzz/ kvetching about on FF or worse yet FF mirrorless? I haven't seen output anywhere that would make me rollover for FF. At 24-36mp, FF is a sub-optimal resolver.

Risk averse businesses that have proven themselves will always be the hype-skeptics. Better a fast follower than a bleeding-edge lesson-learner.... Give me great glass, a good tough body, and a crisp sensor. And Please.... Pentax Gods, deliver a 100-450mm 0r 150-450, or 135-380, or 100-400, or 250-500, or anything so we are not consigned permanently to Sigma. I wait, with baited breath, to turn over a 120-400 DG (whatever)... OK, but just wrong ...on a K-3...

[Fogel70]

The adapter is large, heavy, costly, and sells poorly.

Yes of course, just like fast high quality glass . But they are still important products to have.
With the A-mount adapter you can get DSLR performance on continuous AF, which otherwise would require an even more heavy and costlier DSLR.

[ElJamoquio]

The adapter is large, heavy, costly, and sells poorly.

How many units has it sold?

[boriscleto]

The adapter is large, heavy, costly, and sells poorly.

But other than that it is something Ricoh should do. Because MIRRORLESS!!!!!

[jcdoss]

The adapter is large, heavy, costly, and sells poorly.

You forgot ugly!

[Mike.P®]

The next lens should be not a 2,8 70-200. It is the telezomm till 4xxmm

Personally I would be more than happy with just that. Anything else would just be a bonus.

[Nicolas06]

What value does a mirrorless EVF camera of any mount in APSc or FF have, with a sub par diluted quality focusing finder have? Does anyone here actually believe that a photographer that has customer satisfaction and IQ to deliver would stake their rep on something focused on a pixelated VF? If so, ok. Just hard to fathom....

Few years ago, this was digital that was not good enough for pro... Now film is used by fews. How many years for electronic view finder to replace most reflex? 10 years? 20 years?

The reflex system cannot show what the camera really see. it cannot really insert information like focus peaking, histogram or just show the actual exposure not with just a number but with actual content. It cannot reframe. The view finder can't neither show the real deph of field without loosing most of it's light. The mirror make design of wide angle lenses more bulky, expensive and of lesser quality. Overall it is an expensive thing that can fail and limit the shooting rate.

Said like that I wonder why anybody would even want an optical viewfinder.

[monochrome]

Few years ago, this was digital that was not good enough for pro... Now film is used by fews. How many years for electronic view finder to replace most reflex? 10 years? 20 years?

The reflex system cannot show what the camera really see. it cannot really insert information like focus peaking, histogram or just show the actual exposure not with just a number but with actual content. The view finder can't neither show the real deph of field without loosing most of it's light. The mirror make design of wide angle lenses more bulky, expensive and of lesser quality. Overall it is an expensive thing that can fail and limit the shooting rate.

Neither does an EVF - it is merely an electronic estimation of what the sensor captured.

[Pål Jensen]

Few years ago, this was digital that was not good enough for pro... Now film is used by fews. How many years for electronic view finder to replace most reflex? 10 years? 20 years?

The reflex system cannot show what the camera really see. it cannot really insert information like focus peaking, histogram or just show the actual exposure not with just a number but with actual content. It cannot reframe. The view finder can't neither show the real deph of field without loosing most of it's light. The mirror make design of wide angle lenses more bulky, expensive and of lesser quality. Overall it is an expensive thing that can fail and limit the shooting rate.

Said like that I wonder why anybody would even want an optical viewfinder.

The point of a (optical) viewfinder is not to see like the sensor sees. It is an aiming, framing and composing device. Images are created and previsualized inside the photographers mind. DSLR's do have an electronic finder as well; it is called LCD screen.....
Optical viewfinders will go out of fashion the moment optical glass do the same...

[Aristophanes]

How many units has it sold?

18 reviews worth.

---------- Post added 08-06-14 at 07:46 PM ----------

But other than that it is something Ricoh should do. Because MIRRORLESS!!!!!

Ricoh GR and Q.

The Q-mount is the cute toy, last gasp of small sensors in a dedicated mount or form factor.

[boriscleto]

Ricoh GR and Q.

The Q-mount is the cute toy, last gasp of small sensors in a dedicated mount or form factor.

this forum need a sarcasm font...

[Kunzite]

The reflex system cannot show what the camera really see. it cannot really insert information like focus peaking, histogram or just show the actual exposure not with just a number but with actual content. It cannot reframe. The view finder can't neither show the real deph of field without loosing most of it's light. The mirror make design of wide angle lenses more bulky, expensive and of lesser quality. Overall it is an expensive thing that can fail and limit the shooting rate.

Said like that I wonder why anybody would even want an optical viewfinder.

The EVF also cannot show what the camera really see; the tiny LCDs have limits. It can of course insert information - some of it needed to compensate for its deficiencies (focus peaking), I'm not sure how it could reframe - as it can't see anything outside what the sensor captures.

I wonder why people aren't queueing to have their eyes removed and replaced with tiny digital cameras.