[kadajawi]

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

(2) after thinking about Pentax tendencies, I decided that the earliest I could reasonably expect a Q-S2 was next August, and I would end up waiting close to a year for the price to come down to what I was willing to pay

(3) although I had planned on getting a retro-looking silver-and-black one, a used like-new yellow-and-black Q7+02+06 was offered on Amazon for $281 (including shipping), and I snapped it up before someone else did.

---------- Post added 03-05-15 at 10:55 AM ----------

That lens is a power lens, and by experimenting with them, I've found that I'm much more comfortable with manual zoom, although I suppose I could eventually adjust to it. The Q7 body is stabilized, and I have yet to see it fail me, so I don't need a stabilized lens. And you forgot to talk about external flash ... that's right, the P900 doesn't do that trick.

But the bottom line is that this dreary winter has been much more fun for me using my existing Q7 to take pictures of birds visiting our backyard feeder, much more fun than sitting around wondering what the next bridge camera will be like.

Fair enough. I don't say this Nikon is perfect, but it's a reasonable choice IMHO. There are other bridge cameras (without the zoom range, to be sure) with bigger sensors. There are plenty of choices. The Q7 for example doesn't offer an EVF (though your solution of using a hoodman clone is valid, and, IMHO, could be supplied by Pentax with a system to mount it securely on any new mirrorless camera, or even DSLR), which for others may be the deal breaker, like how the lack of a hotshoe is for you. In any case this puts Pentax in a position where they have to compete with many small sensor cameras, including smartphones that have sensors bigger than the Q7. If traveling light is the goal, then IMHO the Nikon fits it better than the Q7 plus several big and heavy lenses. I suppose you could mount C mount lenses, which are much more compact thanks to the smaller image circle they are designed for, but are there adapters?

A APS-C sized mirrorless camera would nevertheless have its strong points too, and IMHO that's where the market is moving towards for APS-C. Mirrorless APS-C will cover the people who just want better image quality, and it can also cover those who are more serious into photography (though right now only Samsung is really covering that field with their NX1 (IMHO 50:50 stills:video), and to a lesser degree Olympus with their OM-D bodies (more towards stills, though they quickly move towards video and have proper video SR), perhaps also Panasonic's GH4, but that's mostly a video camera). Proper bodies with lots of controls and a nice deep grip. The advantage is that lenses can be shared between those who only want better quality and those who are serious into photography (or videography). Samsung was able to cut down EVF lag to pretty much not there, and eventually other manufacturers will be able to follow. Other limitations of mirrorless will surely go away too. I would like Pentax to be there when that happens, with a decent line up of lenses. And adapters that, without any drawback, lets us use our old lenses.

[reh321]

Fair enough. I don't say this Nikon is perfect, but it's a reasonable choice IMHO. There are other bridge cameras (without the zoom range, to be sure) with bigger sensors. There are plenty of choices. The Q7 for example doesn't offer an EVF (though your solution of using a hoodman clone is valid, and, IMHO, could be supplied by Pentax with a system to mount it securely on any new mirrorless camera, or even DSLR), which for others may be the deal breaker, like how the lack of a hotshoe is for you.

You are completely correct about an EVF. After several weeks of semi-heated discussions here about EVF, in which I took the position that an EVF is a good thing, I gave up; convincing some people here that an EVF is a good thing seems like a futile effort, and besides they aren't the ones who would need to be convinced. My hoodman clone was a surrender to reality, because I would rather do that than a silly head-covering.

In any case this puts Pentax in a position where they have to compete with many small sensor cameras, including smartphones that have sensors bigger than the Q7. If traveling light is the goal, then IMHO the Nikon fits it better than the Q7 plus several big and heavy lenses. I suppose you could mount C mount lenses, which are much more compact thanks to the smaller image circle they are designed for, but are there adapters?

My issue is not traveling as light as possible; my issue is covering a group of needs (including serious telephoto for birding) with only two cameras (see my explanation at https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/136-pentax-q/284548-dslr-q7-what-your-biggest-disappointment-6.html#post3133489), and a small-sensor ILC (within my budget, a small sensor is the only way I'm going to get the amount of "reach" I want) plus an APS-C ILC meet that particular need for me. As usual, your mileage may differ. I do have adapters which allow me to use both c-mount and d-mount lenses on my Q7, BTW.

A APS-C sized mirrorless camera would nevertheless have its strong points too, and IMHO that's where the market is moving towards for APS-C. Mirrorless APS-C will cover the people who just want better image quality, and it can also cover those who are more serious into photography (though right now only Samsung is really covering that field with their NX1 (IMHO 50:50 stills:video), and to a lesser degree Olympus with their OM-D bodies (more towards stills, though they quickly move towards video and have proper video SR), perhaps also Panasonic's GH4, but that's mostly a video camera). Proper bodies with lots of controls and a nice deep grip. The advantage is that lenses can be shared between those who only want better quality and those who are serious into photography (or videography). Samsung was able to cut down EVF lag to pretty much not there, and eventually other manufacturers will be able to follow. Other limitations of mirrorless will surely go away too. I would like Pentax to be there when that happens, with a decent line up of lenses. And adapters that, without any drawback, lets us use our old lenses.

This is another area that has generated more heat than light here. A year ago, I expected to see MILC cameras taking over the crop-camera world; I haven't seen serious market movement in that direction in the past year. I hope, but obviously don't actually know anything, that Pentax is learning from their Q-family development lessons that could be applied to an APS-C MILC if the market were to lurch in that direction.

[kadajawi]

People are judging EVFs (and mirrorless) by how they are now, not how they will be. It's akin to looking at the first motorized horse carts and saying... nah, these things will never be good, they should keep making horse carts with real horses in front. The other stuff is just a fad.

The thing with mirrorless now vs later is that it takes a couple of years to build up a good enough general purpose line up of lenses (and to get them reviewed etc.). Everyone but Pentax, Nikon and Canon have a head start. So when the market is shifting, they will be late to the game and people will be buying into those other brands. Really good mirrorless cameras that aren't lagging behind DSLRs at all will still take a year or two, but it's about being ready and having the system to support such a camera.

[cfraz]

People are judging EVFs (and mirrorless) by how they are now, not how they will be. It's akin to looking at the first motorized horse carts and saying... nah, these things will never be good, they should keep making horse carts with real horses in front. The other stuff is just a fad.

The thing with mirrorless now vs later is that it takes a couple of years to build up a good enough general purpose line up of lenses (and to get them reviewed etc.). Everyone but Pentax, Nikon and Canon have a head start. So when the market is shifting, they will be late to the game and people will be buying into those other brands. Really good mirrorless cameras that aren't lagging behind DSLRs at all will still take a year or two, but it's about being ready and having the system to support such a camera.

Can you provide a link where I can buy a camera that has an EVF which is as good as it will be someday? If not I'll continue to evaluate what is available now.

I bought a camera in 2009. Then I started reading PF. Then, like now, many were saying EVFs would be superior in every way to OVFs within a couple of years.

Edit: fix date.

---

Last edited by cfraz; 03-05-2015 at 05:11 PM.

[jatrax]

I'm not a fan of EVFs but to be fair it is not so long ago the film shooters were laughing at digital and saying it was a fad.

I think at some point they will be good enough so that they will be accepted. But until they are I will stick with OVF.

[Cynog Ap Brychan]

People are judging EVFs (and mirrorless) by how they are now, not how they will be. It's akin to looking at the first motorized horse carts and saying... nah, these things will never be good, they should keep making horse carts with real horses in front. The other stuff is just a fad.

Some people still like horse-drawn carriages! I think as long as there is a demand for OVFs, they will be around, maybe in the minority, but who knows? I bet no one thought vinyl records and analogue watches would still be around, either.

[Uluru]

Really good mirrorless cameras that aren't lagging behind DSLRs at all will still take a year or two, but it's about being ready and having the system to support such a camera.

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 ...

[clackers]

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 ...

(Laughs). You are such a misanthrope, Uluru!

You like Blackadder, but end up pining for a romanticized past like the Monty Python Four Yorkshiremen sketch.

Regards, Clackers (a proud and productive owner of your 'toy' K-S1).

[Clavius]

Then, like now, many were saying EVFs would be superior in every way to OVFs within a couple of years.

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.

[cfraz]

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.

I think its great that you find those attributes to be advantageous - you have a lot of very good mirrorless cameras to chose from.

The last time I explained why I still prefer OVFs, you ridiculed my choice of gear, accused me of posting with concealed motives because no one in their right mind could possibly prefer an OVF, and (I think someone else) piled on with my mind is "rubbish, obviously."

So I will simply state that I prefer making photographs with an OVF rather than an EVF camera. In spite of the EVF attributes you list. And in fact, specifically because some of those attributes are disadvantages, for me.

Unlike many EVF proponents on PF, I don't have any desire to make anyone else understand my preference, or agree with it, or convert them to my viewpoint. I hope only that you accept my choice for what it is: a simple, truthful, objective statement of preference.

I agree mirrorless cameras should be less expensive than DSLRs, but I find DSLR cameras to be much less expensive than comparably featured (again, features I value - quite unlike DPR's spec lists for example) mirrorless counterparts, except for Sony products. There may be a time an EVF is produced which I will prefer to an OVF, or it may become the only choice available. Until then, I will use my OVF camera without apology, not because my mind is rubbish, not because of some hidden agenda, and not because I have no choice but to use obsolete, ridicule-worth gear, but because I like it better.

[Clavius]

I think its great that you find those attributes to be advantageous - you have a lot of very good mirrorless cameras to chose from.

The market has 31 current and discontinued FF DSLRs vs 4 FF MILCs.

The last time I explained why I still prefer OVFs, you ridiculed my choice of gear, accused me of posting with concealed motives because no one in their right mind could possibly prefer an OVF, and (I think someone else) piled on with my mind is "rubbish, obviously."

That is simply not true. You're mistaking me for someone else.

[Mistral75]

The market has 31 current and discontinued FF DSLRs vs 4 FF MILCs.

(...)

Didn't check for DSLRs but there are 11 FF MILCs, 9 current and 2 discontinued:

- Leica M9 (discontinued)
- Leica M9-P (discontinued)
- Leica M Monochrom
- Leica M-E
- Leica M Typ 240
- Leica M-P Typ 240
- Leica M Edition 60
- Sony Alpha 7
- Sony Alpha 7R
- Sony Alpha 7S
- Sony Alpha 7 II

[mecrox]

FWIW, I had lunch today with five local photographers. One shoots Sony, one Olympus, one Pentax (me), one Nikon, one Canon and two Fuji. No one round the table had any doubt that smaller, lightweight cameras of the MILC + EVF kind would eventually dominate the industry. The problem at the moment is that a) they generally aren't good enough - yet; b) they aren't inexpensive enough - yet; and 3) that Canon and Nikon are going all they can to retain their OVF franchises because that's how they make money - so far. I don't understand the heat and harrumphing the subject generates. Technology and change means that nothing stays the same, but it usually takes a few years and a few iterations before a new way of doing things gains enough traction to become truly popular, because by then it has proved itself and is good enough for major showtime. That's where are are now, the traction phase. The traditional OVF DSLR isn't going to last forever and nor should we expect it to.

[kadajawi]

Can you provide a link where I can buy a camera that has an EVF which is as good as it will be someday? If not I'll continue to evaluate what is available now.

I bought a camera in 2009. Then I started reading PF. Then, like now, many were saying EVFs would be superior in every way to OVFs within a couple of years.

Edit: fix date.

The Samsung NX1 comes close, it is said. Still waiting for a shop around me to stock that camera At least it eliminates the lag, and having an OLED screen it should also be pretty good. The screens will only get sharper, and dynamic range will improve. One of the next big things for TV sets is high dynamic range TVs. That may trickle down/be applied to EVFs too. You can create bigger EVFs than it is physically possible for APS-C (or worse yet FT), and they can be brighter and have focusing helps. As far as as good as OVF goes, that's quite subjective I suppose. Some think we have reached that a while back with some Sony camera, while I think that camera isn't there yet. Some people are more optimistic than others, of course. I think it's at least 3 years away until for me the advantages of EVF outweight those of OVF.

@Uluru: Yikes. I appreciate the beauty of film (and you can shoot it, there's no one stopping you from doing so), but to say it's better than digital... I don't know. It is different. Likewise OVFs and EVFs are different. If I want to see reality, I can look next to the camera and see that. When taking a photo though what also matters is what the result will look like, and soon enough an EVF will be closer to the result than an OVF. All that is really missing is a way to display the complete, say, 13 stops the sensor can capture, rather than a compressed 8 bit image. Show me the unprocessed raw image (apart from white balance).

All I am saying is that at one point EVFs will have gone beyond what OVFs can do, eliminating the downsides and expanding on the advantages they already have. Somewhere around that the market may swing over towards mirrorless. Lighter, faster, less noisy, better viewfinder, perhaps cheaper, smaller. Want to make the camera big and heavy? I'm sure they'll gladly sell you a battery grip, and the top of the line models will try to be ergonomic rather than as small as possible. Since you have to change lenses anyway, you might as well switch system, and at that point the brands with established and proven systems will look really interesting. Pentax knows how hard it is to catch up, maybe it would be nice for a change to be waiting for the market to come to you instead. To be there already.

[Clavius]

Didn't check for DSLRs but there are 11 FF MILCs, 9 current and 2 discontinued:

- Leica M9 (discontinued)
- Leica M9-P (discontinued)
- Leica M Monochrom
- Leica M-E
- Leica M Typ 240
- Leica M-P Typ 240
- Leica M Edition 60
- Sony Alpha 7
- Sony Alpha 7R
- Sony Alpha 7S
- Sony Alpha 7 II

You really think a rangefinder has no mirror(s) inside? Oh my...

I admit, I should have used the term 'EVIL' instead.