[pacu]

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.

Well I learned to trust only histograms, not uncalibrated screens in a uncontrolled enviromental light. EVFs should be better than screens but the "what you see is what you get" argument stands only for casual snapshooting. And it is fine for the majority, although not the second coming of photography as some companies would like.

[Zygonyx]

Exactly, nobody would take benefit from a uniform technology. Plus, it never happenend since early last century.

[kadajawi]

Well I learned to trust only histograms, not uncalibrated screens in a uncontrolled enviromental light. EVFs should be better than screens but the "what you see is what you get" argument stands only for casual snapshooting. And it is fine for the majority, although not the second coming of photography as some companies would like.

Unfortunately as it stands histograms can't be trusted either, they are (AFAIK for all cameras) only valid for the JPEG. You get more than the histogram shows. That is (right now) also true for EVFs... they show you what you are guaranteed to get, and you'll get a bit more (like <100% OVFs, just for exposure). In any case it might be better (for me it is) to see what I am guaranteed to get (and ideally one day it will show exactly what I'll get) instead of reality, of which some part may or may not be captured.

I don't crimp, so I am sometimes surprised by what is missing, or how wrong the exposure is. EVFs would fix that.

[Zygonyx]

This is not a matter of OVF versus EVF : live view is always available if you need it, on DSLR with OVF.
Even in bad light conditions, histograms can be read.
So, no need to change everything for a potential "plus", yet to be proven : having histograms adressing raw is useless (no more margin as on JPEGs) , or at best not enough : because it will never change the (in)accuracy of calculated "grey" balance, nor exposition sampling + algorythms...
All in all, i don't think its a fair exercise to simultaneously minimalise/ignore OVF's bodies well known qualities, and maximalise EVF's virtual "potential".

---

Last edited by Zygonyx; 03-09-2015 at 12:00 AM.

[kadajawi]

This is not a matter of OVF versus EVF : live view is always available if you need it, on DSLR with OVF.
Even in bad light conditions, histograms can be read.
So, no need to change everything for a potential "plus", yet to be proven : having histograms adressing raw is useless (no more margin as on JPEGs) , or at best not enough : because it will never change the (in)accuracy of calculated "grey" balance, nor exposition sampling + algorythms...
All in all, i don't think its a fair exercise to simultaneously minimalise/ignore OVF's bodies well known qualities, and maximalise EVF's virtual "potential".

There are also RGB histograms...

OVFs have advantages, I'd say the main advantage is speed. There's no lag between what you see and reality. With FF OVFs the size is good too, but APS-C ones aren't that good. Not so big, not so bright... Resolution IMHO isn't too good either, because of the size.

[pacu]

Unfortunately as it stands histograms can't be trusted either, they are (AFAIK for all cameras) only valid for the JPEG. You get more than the histogram shows. That is (right now) also true for EVFs... they show you what you are guaranteed to get, and you'll get a bit more (like <100% OVFs, just for exposure). In any case it might be better (for me it is) to see what I am guaranteed to get (and ideally one day it will show exactly what I'll get) instead of reality, of which some part may or may not be captured.

I don't crimp, so I am sometimes surprised by what is missing, or how wrong the exposure is. EVFs would fix that.

In the end all that matters is the final picture the gear/technique is irrelevant the viewer. You always know what you get with spot metering/center weight if you know a thing or two and with matrix metering within a year you know how it usually behaves and the shortfalls. I can see on the other hand that an evf can help a person with no experience. Maybe it will give a chance to Olympus, Fujifilm, Sony a chance to win newbies, otherwise they don't stand a chance angaist Canon and Nikon. Pentax is the only company with dslr ibis and the biggest line of aps-c lenses and that's the reason I choose them years ago.

---------- Post added 03-09-15 at 02:17 PM ----------

There are also RGB histograms...

OVFs have advantages, I'd say the main advantage is speed. There's no lag between what you see and reality. With FF OVFs the size is good too, but APS-C ones aren't that good. Not so big, not so bright... Resolution IMHO isn't too good either, because of the size.

RGB histograms show the histograms of the jpeg, which is enought if you use an approximate whitebalance. Then you can postprocess the raw for the details.

[Bophoto]

Q have only a external optical viewfinder.
Richo GR have the same(only Richo).
K series, 645 and the new one have only internal optical viewfinder.
The solution is 1 external electronic viewfinder for hotshoe to all cameras (Q, GR, 645, K and the new one.
For Q it means that it works in bright lights.
For GR the same and you see crop mode.
For K, the new one and 645, you can have video in viewfinder. Pentax can use it for high speed (over 5p/s) without mirror is working.
Those that like it buy it, and everyone(?) are happy.
250-300€/$ for a good one.

---

Last edited by Bophoto; 03-11-2015 at 10:11 AM.

[Zygonyx]

Good idea, i always thought and said Ricoh GXR, GR, Pentax K-01 and Q should have shared this additional EVF.

---------- Post added 11-03-15 at 10:27 ----------

Now, look at the respective market shares of Mirrorless producers in Japan / year 2014 :





Conclusions :
1/ this market is going more and more competitive, so it will be more and more difficult to inject new sucessfull products
2/ Ricoh is making tendencial progress with the Q system, doing better than Nikon and Fuji...

IMHO, this illustrates perfectly Ricoh's "reasonable choice" to throw in K-mounted FF to maximise synergies with lenses sales and design, and stay with Q mount for the time beeing in the ML segment. Plus, there is quite a lot to do with Q mount : WR/AW , EVF, etc..

[thibs]

Q have only a external optical viewfinder.
Richo GR have the same(only Richo).
K series, 645 and the new one have only internal optical viewfinder.
The solution is 1 external electronic viewfinder for hotshoe to all cameras (Q, GR, 645, K and the new one.
For Q it means that it works in bright lights.
For GR the same and you see crop mode.
For K, the new one and 645, you can have video in viewfinder. Pentax can use it for high speed (over 5p/s) without mirror is working.
Those that like it buy it, and everyone(?) are happy.
250-300€/$ for a good one.

Absolutely agree. They have nothing to lose by doing this.
Well, maybe no in the upcoming FF, as it is "pro" oriented and as such, less likely to get such novelties.

[Uluru]

It is incredible how well Pentax does with a simple tiny toy Q and virtually no marketing to speak of.
It is nothing pretentious like Nikon 1 or Fuji X, but sells far better.
Pentax has really understood the catch behind the mirrorless euphoria, to be nothing but a venting phase in the wake of the era of smartphones.

If they issue a couple of GR-like cameras, powerful but compact, they have the mirrorless very much covered.
And the FF, that comes with a magic mirror like that one from the story of Snow White, will make many wee in their pants.

[Pål Jensen]

I think mirrorless only makes sense if you want to get really small; like the Q system....

[kadajawi]

It is incredible how well Pentax does with a simple tiny toy Q and virtually no marketing to speak of.
It is nothing pretentious like Nikon 1 or Fuji X, but sells far better.
Pentax has really understood the catch behind the mirrorless euphoria, to be nothing but a venting phase in the wake of the era of smartphones.

If they issue a couple of GR-like cameras, powerful but compact, they have the mirrorless very much covered.
And the FF, that comes with a magic mirror like that one from the story of Snow White, will make many wee in their pants.

The Q is only doing well in Japan, the Fuji system is doing (relatively) well outside of Japan.

[Cynog Ap Brychan]

The Q is only doing well in Japan, the Fuji system is doing (relatively) well outside of Japan.

Do you have any figures for this? I'd be interested to see what the global situation is.

[Uluru]

The Q is only doing well in Japan, the Fuji system is doing (relatively) well outside of Japan.

One may presume that based only on appeal to certain audiences on forums such as DPR (western based).
But that does not translate in sales numbers. In reality, it is only a form of wishful thinking.
Most likely in the west, both Q and X cameras sell equally bad.

Last numbers shown by Fuji were for the X100, of few years ago, which then (when was more demand for cameras in general) sold in ~ 100,000 units worldwide within first year or so.

It would be interesting to see numbers for the GR.

[mecrox]

One may presume that based only on appeal to certain audiences on forums such as DPR (western based).
But that does not translate in sales numbers. In reality, it is only a form of wishful thinking.
Most likely in the west, both Q and X cameras sell equally bad.

Last numbers shown by Fuji were for the X100, of few years ago, which then (when was more demand for cameras in general) sold in ~ 100,000 units worldwide within first year or so.

It would be interesting to see numbers for the GR.

Being so heavily dependent on the Japanese market does not sound like a comfortable place to be. If that changes then so too will the cameras, at least to a degree.