Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
03-06-2015, 10:41 AM   #856
Senior Member
JeffB's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Denver, Colorado
Posts: 209
Mirrorless is clearly the future. But how long it takes that future to fully arrive is anyone's guess. Optical mirror finders will likely be necessary for fast action sports for a long time to come. But that market segment is rather small. Look at how rapidly the Fuji X system has grown and been adopted. The X-T1 hit the sweet spot for tech and usability.

Pentax may be stuck. The beauty of the K mount is the vast amount of glass out there that fits the camera bodies. The flange to sensor distance is fixed based on the original design to accommodate the mirror. This is true for Canon and Nikon too. If the SLR makers go to a new mirrorless format using a narrower mount like Fuji has done they risk obsoleting their legacy lenses which are the main reason users are loyal to them. They tried sticking SLR lenses on mirrorless bodies and that clearly failed. It is pointless because there is no size advantage as the flange distance is the same as the SLR bodies.

I'm straddling both world right now. I use Fuji X because I really enjoy the super compact size and image quality. I still use Pentax because I am invested in glass and there are still more lens choices that interest me in the K mount. But this is changing fast. Fuji just introduced a fast 50-140 f/2.8 zoom and a 120 macro is scheduled for near future. Once I have those 2 my most used Pentax glass will be redundant.

03-06-2015, 11:07 AM   #857
Pentaxian
Mistral75's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Paris
Posts: 2,779
QuoteOriginally posted by Clavius Quote
You really think a rangefinder has no mirror(s) inside? Oh my...

I admit, I should have used the term 'EVIL' instead.
At least no mirror that increases the flange to sensor distance.
03-06-2015, 12:13 PM - 1 Like   #858
Pentaxian
Wired's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Edmonton, AB
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 2,494
My problems with every EVF I've used is I get motion sickness from the OVF. This is the main reason I sold my XT1, A7, EM1, and EM5. So I've given them a chance.


One thing i would love though is a mirrorless systems that can sync with your strobes and show you what your image will look like with the lights fired in your viewfinder. I'm dreaming big.
03-06-2015, 12:27 PM - 1 Like   #859
Pentaxian




Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 2,609
I think a decent alternative would be a mirrorless Pentax that has an adapter that gives you NO drawbacks compared to using a native mirrorless lens. That way legacy lenses can be used, but new lenses can also be developed/used.

As for speed... I'm not sure if that holds true for such a long time. The main problem is viewfinder lag, but that's down to 5ms with the Samsung NX1. In turn you don't need to focus, move a big mirror up, wait for the whole thing to get stable enough, then open the shutter, and take a photo. You can focus right until the moment you take the image, you can even skip the shutter, but even with that it should take less time between pressing the shutter button and getting a photo.

03-06-2015, 12:41 PM - 1 Like   #860
Pentaxian
philbaum's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Port Townsend, Washington State, USA
Posts: 3,659
QuoteOriginally posted by Clavius Quote
And they are not? OVF shows nothing during video recording. Doesn't show live DOF preview, no WB settings, no focus zooming, no peaking, no histogram, etc. OVFs are darker. The size of OVF is dependant on the sensor/mirror format while EVF is not. OVF and its sub-parts requires much manual calibration, and thus makes the camera much more expensive. All in all, a camera with an EVF immerges me more in the act of taking a photo or video, then an SLR. It doesn't only let me look through the lens and its characteristics, but also "through" the sensor and its own characteristics.

OVFs - I don't have a problem with anybody who wants to buy a camera with OVFs - go for it! But from an intellectual weighing of pros and cons, i don't see that they stack up well against todays EVFs.

Even besides the pros listed ably by Clavius, there's a couple more.
Weight - One can throw out the pentaprism and the mirror mechanism. that should save weight, esp considering there needs to be less body volume for the pentaprism.

Reliability - less mechanical mechanism to wear out and fail.

Liveview doesn't measure up to an EVF. Liveviews are clunky, noisy and can't be held up against the eye like an EVF.

OVFs are dim - a couple months ago, i sat down in a coffee shop with a friend to look at his A7R/S. Then i looked at my K3 OVF again, and it was just dim - i thought there was something wrong with it. Then i realized, i just got used to it being dim, esp indoors. With an EVF, one can dial up whatever brightness one wants or doesn't want - not with an OVF.

What you see is what you get - with an EVF, i don't have to remember to look at the exposure meter - the EVF view is what i'll get.

Again - enjoy your OVFs if you want or own one. I own OVFs as well - i just enjoy the EVFs more.

Last edited by philbaum; 03-06-2015 at 12:47 PM.
03-06-2015, 12:50 PM   #861
Site Supporter
Zygonyx's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Ile de France
Posts: 2,951
QuoteOriginally posted by Uluru Quote
Well, the basic principle is this: it was bad enough that digital processing has substituted analog film, you know. That was a massacre of photography number one. But then we have another act, that humans must now take another substitute of viewing the reality through screens. Because .. their eyes aren't good enough anymore. Now, that is mutilation.

First, let us kill the medium. Then kill the photographer.

So what is left out of once called photographic, tactile, visual, immersive and physical experience? Nothing.
Perhaps only physical experience left is to carry a sharp pencil when 'shooting around' and occasionally stab ourselves to check if we are still alive and there ...
Bravo !
I couldn't mean it better.
EVF is for percieved reality denyiers / increased reality lovers.
Soon they will all wear Google glasses.
Guess where's authentic photography ?

Last edited by Zygonyx; 03-06-2015 at 12:56 PM.
03-06-2015, 01:13 PM   #862
Pentaxian
philbaum's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Port Townsend, Washington State, USA
Posts: 3,659
When i recommended a mirrorless design for Pentax, I fully realize that it means a cavity will exist in Pentax, Nikon and Canon mounts. I think its worth it even with the cavity - one would still have a lighter camera and less mechanical mechanism and mirror shock.

An optional electronic shutter would be easier with an EVF. I've used one and they are so cool for indoor events - absolute quiet except for the aperture mechanism. Its true one can encounter a rolling shutter effect for moving subjects, but then one can always switch back to the mechanical shutter.
03-06-2015, 01:23 PM   #863
Senior Member




Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: walking in the air
Posts: 227
QuoteOriginally posted by reh321 Quote
I felt the same way last Halloween, when I first started thinking about getting a Q. But, three things happened between then and Black Friday:

(1) I invested $11 in a hoodman-clone shipped from China, and discovered, by experimenting on the Canon Elph I was using at the time, that it did do the job of giving me an effective viewfinder even in bright sunlight and without a silly head-covering
Good idea. What kind of clone? One with a frame that must be sticked on the camera or one that comes with an elastic cord?

Can you give a link to your chosen model?

03-06-2015, 01:43 PM   #864
Pentaxian
Uluru's Avatar

Join Date: May 2010
Location: Back to my Walkabout Creek
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 2,400
QuoteOriginally posted by JeffB Quote
Mirrorless is clearly the future.
Mirrorless is the design inspired by (1) cutting cost to the bone and (2) pushed by companies who never had or who abandoned traditional mounts because they do not have enough stamina to compete using them.

So, considering (1) and (2), if you think that the future is cutting costs to the bone as the only mean to compete, and the prevail of one solution only, they we as a society are doomed and dead before we start taking about anything. First is a form of legal economic prostitution and a generator of social, economically transferrable diseases. The other some form of communism.

By that logic they won't need even people in such factories. As a whole, we are indeed going towards that form of "economy" anyway. Same as some believe we should stop being humans and opt for genetic engineering, get rid of deficient natural limbs and organs, replace them with artificial substitutes and regulate our natural impulses to become more "economically sustainable".

As they say in westerns, "It ain't whiskey. You drink that pis*, I won't".

Last edited by Uluru; 03-06-2015 at 01:49 PM.
03-06-2015, 02:49 PM   #865
Pentaxian




Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Romania
Posts: 8,414
QuoteOriginally posted by kadajawi Quote
I think a decent alternative would be a mirrorless Pentax that has an adapter that gives you NO drawbacks compared to using a native mirrorless lens. That way legacy lenses can be used, but new lenses can also be developed/used.
There would be a significant drawback compared to using a native DSLR lens, on a DSLR: the lack of a proper, optical viewfinder
Accept it, folks: for many of us a high quality OVF is still a superior solution, and it will continue to be so for a while. We're valuing seeing instead of cheapness, less complexity, extra yet nonessential information, artificial brightness, manufacturer quoted lag times and hot pixels.
03-06-2015, 03:28 PM   #866
Pentaxian
Wired's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Edmonton, AB
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 2,494
QuoteOriginally posted by philbaum Quote
OVFs - I don't have a problem with anybody who wants to buy a camera with OVFs - go for it! But from an intellectual weighing of pros and cons, i don't see that they stack up well against todays EVFs.

Even besides the pros listed ably by Clavius, there's a couple more.
Weight - One can throw out the pentaprism and the mirror mechanism. that should save weight, esp considering there needs to be less body volume for the pentaprism.

Reliability - less mechanical mechanism to wear out and fail.

Liveview doesn't measure up to an EVF. Liveviews are clunky, noisy and can't be held up against the eye like an EVF.

OVFs are dim - a couple months ago, i sat down in a coffee shop with a friend to look at his A7R/S. Then i looked at my K3 OVF again, and it was just dim - i thought there was something wrong with it. Then i realized, i just got used to it being dim, esp indoors. With an EVF, one can dial up whatever brightness one wants or doesn't want - not with an OVF.

What you see is what you get - with an EVF, i don't have to remember to look at the exposure meter - the EVF view is what i'll get.

Again - enjoy your OVFs if you want or own one. I own OVFs as well - i just enjoy the EVFs more.


I agree with you 100%. I love EVF's... if I didn't get motion sickness from them and use them in low light situations a lot (too grainy). But if I was street shooting or landscape shooting or hiking... that kinda thing and I didn't get motion sickness from them I'd go to one in a heartbeat again....

I miss my XT1...
03-06-2015, 03:35 PM   #867
Pentaxian
philbaum's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Port Townsend, Washington State, USA
Posts: 3,659
QuoteOriginally posted by Wired Quote
I agree with you 100%. I love EVF's... if I didn't get motion sickness from them and use them in low light situations a lot (too grainy). But if I was street shooting or landscape shooting or hiking... that kinda thing and I didn't get motion sickness from them I'd go to one in a heartbeat again....

I miss my XT1...
Thats too bad - it must be the refresh rate. My wife used to get nauseated from the older fluorescent tubes.
03-06-2015, 04:19 PM   #868
Pentaxian




Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 2,609
QuoteOriginally posted by Kunzite Quote
There would be a significant drawback compared to using a native DSLR lens, on a DSLR: the lack of a proper, optical viewfinder
Accept it, folks: for many of us a high quality OVF is still a superior solution, and it will continue to be so for a while. We're valuing seeing instead of cheapness, less complexity, extra yet nonessential information, artificial brightness, manufacturer quoted lag times and hot pixels.
I'm on your page. For now. I have yet to see a EVF that I prefer, though maybe the NX1 will be that EVF. And a proper EVF won't be cheap. The electronics to run it, the faster processor required, the screen itself, optics for the screen... on the high end it won't be cheap. But as soon as it gives me a better experience than OVF I'll gladly switch, and I am pretty sure that will come soon enough.

I've ruined quite a couple of photos because of not having an EVF. The OVF is giving you THE IMPRESSION that everything is alright, even when it totally isn't. And if I want to see reality I can just look at it. Lower the camera and look at it.

SLRs are a suboptimal design in the first place. TLR cameras are the real deal, you don't lose any light, and it's more direct. Less lag between pressing the button and having the photo. We only use SLRs because they are cheaper.
03-06-2015, 05:21 PM   #869
Pentaxian




Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Romania
Posts: 8,414
If you're interested in video, I can see how an EVF will be a better solution for you. I'm not. And I'm in no hurry to get rid of something which works (for me and many others).

We're using SLRs instead of TLRs because they have no parallax errors, and because you're seeing through the lens you're shooting with - they're much better suited for an interchangeable lens system.
03-06-2015, 05:30 PM   #870
Pentaxian




Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 2,609
QuoteOriginally posted by Kunzite Quote
If you're interested in video, I can see how an EVF will be a better solution for you. I'm not. And I'm in no hurry to get rid of something which works (for me and many others).

We're using SLRs instead of TLRs because they have no parallax errors, and because you're seeing through the lens you're shooting with - they're much better suited for an interchangeable lens system.
Ah yes, but EVFs give you the closest representation to the final photo that's possible. Much closer than an OVF can ever give you. Maybe not yet, but soon enough. SLR is closer than TLR or rangefinder. That's one of the reason for it's popularity. But EVF is closer yet.
Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
645z, ad, camera, cameras, canon, display, dslr, evf, features, ff, film, full-frame, glass, lens, lenses, market, mirror, mirrorless, money, nikon, pentax, pentax news, pentax rumors, results, sensor, time, value, vs
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
This is what Pentax should do Rekusu Pentax Medium Format 19 01-12-2015 01:10 AM
What should I do? kodai84 Photographic Industry and Professionals 4 01-05-2014 08:49 AM
Focusing on Pentax K-Mount only - Or what should I do with my M42s antipattern Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 5 01-30-2013 10:26 AM
What Should I Do? tabl10s Pentax K-5 8 10-16-2012 03:55 AM
what Pentax should do nathancombs Pentax DSLR Discussion 12 07-06-2007 01:39 AM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 01:15 AM. | See also: NikonForums.com, part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top