[derekkite]

And what about durability and/or planned obsolescence with EVFs ?

If you are sony you do that with both the bodies and lenses.

[Rondec]

The main advantage of EVF as far as I can make out is to have instant information while viewing composition, i.e show a live histogram as an overlay or show exposure clipping. FF mirrorless for size and weight advantage is lunacy as as you correctly stated, a comparable lens will dwarf the body and degrade ergonomics for effective hand holding of camera and lens combo. I don't think EVF is quite there yet as a replacement for an Optical Viewfinder from a resolution and energy use perspective but what do I know , I use a crop sensor camera so that means I am only a complete amateur, my lenses are too noisy or don't have the maximum sharpness expected in 2015, my favoured system is so left field that we have a thread discussing how rare we are!

I think the thing is that OVFs are mature technology. They aren't going to change much, other than maybe some overlays that could be added. On the other hand, EVFs are improving with less lag, better feedback as to exposure. So, for instance, if you turn your EV compensation down 1 EV, your OVF will look the same, while the EVF would darken by one stop. In addition, you can get focusing helps like focus peaking in the viewfinder.

I see a lot of possibilities for EVFs, I just don't like the penalities of poorer battery life and eye strain. I still like OVFs better, but I can understand how some would want an EVF more.

[mecrox]

As to Sony battery life, discussed below, Sony's been using the same small battery in all their e-mount cameras, Nex and A7's alike. There's a 3rd party brand that works well and they're as available as popcorn. Been using them since 2011 and haven't had any failures, I would hope that if Pentax went to an EVF model, they would keep their much larger battery.

As to evfs and milcs, they are only 1/4 to 1/3 the market size in units of DSLRs. But i'll bet Canikon really wish they could have those sales back in their arena. It would mean a lot less contraction for their operations. In 2014, the currency value of those MILCs went up a lot faster than unit sales. That can only mean that Sony's high priced FF milc are selling really really well - since their aps sized cameras are selling cheap.

Pentax doesn't want to compete in the MILC market (except for Q)? I don't know if that is the right thing for Pentax as a company or not- the retail market is too hard for me to figure out My opinion is that Sony was going nowhere when they were in the DSLR business - now in the MILC market - they own the biggest share.

is it wise to read too much into what spokesmen say, least of all in these interviews? They are done in marketing-man mode, after all. Fair enough, but allow for some good old salesmanship. Pentax talked down FF for many years because they didn't have one so were obliged to talk up what they did have. Now they are talking down mirrorless beyond Q size. In both cases, it could be more spin than actualité. I mean, Pentax don't have a larger-sensor mirrorless system so they would say that about mirrorless generally, wouldn't they? They aren't going to say "Fuji? Fantastic and definitely the future. I'd buy one over our products if I were you." If mirrorless continues to the point where the DSLR market is really really hurting, and/or if camera-on-a-chip assemblies become economically compelling to the camera business, I'd be surprised if the story didn't change rather rapidly.

[Zygonyx]

C'mon, stop the provocative argument.
My SLR mirror is busted too although... that may be an old MV from a flee market and really not taken care of (I was pursuing the M50/1.7)

Not according to [some/many] others.

If you are sony you do that with both the bodies and lenses.

I'm really questionning that - as a general matter - because i hear a lot about it, but see nothing formally.
Wouldn't any class action bring news about that concept ?

[monochrome]

Pentax doesn't want to compete in the MILC market (except for Q)? I don't know if that is the right thing for Pentax as a company or not- the retail market is too hard for me to figure out

Somewhere on one of these threads I read that Ricoh's sales in Japan are larger than the entire rest of the world. Q does OK in Japan, even if we in the 'rest of the world' don't appreciate it very much. It seems that Ricoh believes they do have a mirrorless offering - it just isn't the one we want.

[Stavri]

As to evfs and milcs, they are only 1/4 to 1/3 the market size in units of DSLRs. But i'll bet Canikon really wish they could have those sales back in their arena. It would mean a lot less contraction for their operations. In 2014, the currency value of those MILCs went up a lot faster than unit sales. That can only mean that Sony's high priced FF milc are selling really really well - since their aps sized cameras are selling cheap.

I don't agree with such a statement. Canon is fully invested in FF, their lenses are getting larger by the day. Why would one use a 24mm f1.4 or a 100-400mm lens with a MILC, it's absurd to even think of it. Nikon meanwhile is following suit trying to catch up to Canon. Have you seen the FUJINON XC50-230mmF4.5-6.7 mounted on the camera, it just looks ridiculous. The system that's better suited for MILC is Pentax which already has a line of high performance and meticulously crafted small lenses. People are commending Fujji for releasing quality glass on their X mounts while in Pentaxland this has been going on for over a decade.

I personally am of the belief that the shoot-by-wire features of the MILC cameras and all the visual cues bombarding your viewfinder in the end don't necessary translates to a richer experience but I might be old fashioned, only time will tell.

[Kunzite]

is it wise to read too much into what spokesmen say, least of all in these interviews? They are done in marketing-man mode, after all. Fair enough, but allow for some good old salesmanship. Pentax talked down FF for many years because they didn't have one so were obliged to talk up what they did have. Now they are talking down mirrorless beyond Q size. In both cases, it could be more spin than actualité.

Of course it isn't, and it's amazing how sometimes a poorly translated word can generate thread after thread
However, we can find valuable information in those interviews; we just have to be careful how to read them Many things they were "considering" and "thinking about" are now on the market, or - like the FF - will be on the market soon. Marketing-man or not, they're telling us the truth (albeit not all of it); we should listen carefully and without substituting their words with our hyperactive imagination.

And IMO they're not talking down the MILCs, they're simply saying "the time is not right for us to make a large sensor mirrorless camera".

I mean, Pentax don't have a larger-sensor mirrorless system so they would say that about mirrorless generally, wouldn't they? They aren't going to say "Fuji? Fantastic and definitely the future. I'd buy one over our products if I were you." If mirrorless continues to the point where the DSLR market is really really hurting, and/or if camera-on-a-chip assemblies become economically compelling to the camera business, I'd be surprised if the story didn't change rather rapidly.

What makes you think he would buy a Fuji instead of a Pentax or a Ricoh? What makes "under the radar" Fuji "definitely the future"? That's typical MILC-talk, and not how a highly ranked Ricoh Imaging official would think.

By the way, a certain gentleman (for which I have the highest esteem) was virtually lynched for publicly using a Leica (besides his Pentax and Ricoh cameras).

[philbaum]

is it wise to read too much into what spokesmen say, least of all in these interviews? They are done in marketing-man mode, after all. Fair enough, but allow for some good old salesmanship. Pentax talked down FF for many years because they didn't have one so were obliged to talk up what they did have. Now they are talking down mirrorless beyond Q size. In both cases, it could be more spin than actualité. I mean, Pentax don't have a larger-sensor mirrorless system so they would say that about mirrorless generally, wouldn't they? ....

Yep - good point!

One of the concepts implied in the interview, was that a MILC would require a new mount design, not a k-mount. Perhaps that idea arose out of their experience with the K-01. I'm sorry to see them assume that, if the interview is accurate. I think its credible to just throw the mirror out, use the K-mount, and let the internal cavity act as a convection space - with heat leaving the hot chips and then transferring via air convection to cooler parts of the body. (Sony reportedly had heat transfer problems with the A7s (really tight internal space)) and had to go to an external recorder for 4K data)

[jeff knight]

DPR Concerning Full Frame: Are you worried that it's a bit too late?

Pentax: "We don't think so. Ok, well we know that some of our valuable customers have already changed systems. So in that sense we're late for them, and we're sorry."
Isn't this an important statement. An explicit apology. Big news. Shouldn't we be impressed? Grateful? Comments? Would Nikon be so candid, or apologize for anything? This is one more reason I love Pentax.

[Uluru]

Yep - good point!
.. - with heat leaving the hot chips and then transferring via air convection to cooler parts of the body. (Sony reportedly had heat transfer problems with the A7s (really tight internal space)) and had to go to an external recorder for 4K data)

Yes, only good thing about of mirrorless cameras is they can warm up freezing underpants in the middle of the winter.

---------- Post added 03-10-2015 at 09:33 AM ----------

I personally am of the belief that the shoot-by-wire features of the MILC cameras and all the visual cues bombarding your viewfinder in the end don't necessary translates to a richer experience but I might be old fashioned, only time will tell.

You are right, because there is no experience there.
I have the Q, it is mirrorless, and lens focuses by wire and it is boring. It is made to be cheap like all mirrorless, and as a result the experience is cheap and one could feel cheated if invested into it as a system. I have tried Olympus m4/3 camera and lenses, tried Fujis, and they all feel like cheap plastic. No experience, no feedback, no emotion. Just warm plastic pretense.

Actually best of mirrorless experience is the Leica X2 with retracting lens — that is one very good, but so sloooow camera. GR is also very fine camera, because of the retracting lens too. So I think that is the issue with mirrorless; if a company limits the tactile experience, which in mirrorless is none, and opts for retracting lenses with electronically controlled aperture, then the camera may actually feel better. Only problem is, there are only two cameras worth considering, and one them is ultra slow. The other has an odd focal length. That is why I eagerly wait for this years GRs (plural).

But, in regards to Q, I don't feel cheated because I know Pentax made no pretense that Q is a serious mirrorless answer. It isn't. It is tongue in cheek offer by Pentax, but few people get that joke. Pentax knows it is fun, I know it too, and therefore I don't look for 5-star restaurant experience when eating some fast food in urgency.

But I am not betting my entire diet on fast food, no. I leave that to mirrorless folks.

[cfraz]

Yep - good point!

One of the concepts implied in the interview, was that a MILC would require a new mount design, not a k-mount. Perhaps that idea arose out of their experience with the K-01. I'm sorry to see them assume that, if the interview is accurate.

There was an interview earlier this year, maybe on Imaging Resource, in which a Ricoh official implied lenses designed for PDAF are hampered on mirrorless cameras because they generally have larger, heavier focusing element groups than lenses designed for mirrorless cameras.

CDAF requires more back and forth focusing element movement so lighter is better. Maybe that is what Saiki was referring to here, rather than just the "wasted" K-mount registration distance space. Not sure if on-sensor PDAF can mitigate this issue.

EDIT: Mistral noted in post 85 of this thread an Imaging-Resource interview with Sigma, not Ricoh, on the same topic. My apologies for the faulty recollection.

[Winder]

Luckily for Pentax there's a bunch of us still out there that get motionsickness from most EVFs.

I really don't see a significant difference between the EVF in the Sony A7 line or the Fuji X-T1 compared to an OVF and they are both bigger than the OVF in the K-3. Neither the A7 or the Fuji X-T1 EVF is as nice as OVF of the Sony A900, but they hold up very well against an APS-C OVF. There are several features that you can turn on/off that effect the refresh rate of the EVF. Shooting in snow (doing that alor recently) the EVF shows you the scene as the sensor is recording it, with an OVF that is not the case. There have been several occasions where being able to see exposure in real time with both the histogram and EVF has been a real advantage. Yes, I can shoot and check exposure with the OVF, and then make adjustments and shoot again.... and check again.... Its not as fast as working with a good EVF.

Once the refresh rate, DR, resolution exceed what the human eye can perceive then the OVF will be dead for most applications. Cameras built around the OVF will need to develop new technology to compete with the EVF.

Maybe mirrorless and EVFs are the way of the future, but they haven't captured the imaginations of photographers the way I think folks thought they would have by now.

The younger generation is use to the EVF. Everyone who shoots HD Video professionally and has come over to do still work is use to the EVF. I personally prefer the big OVF of cameras like the A900 or my old Contax 645, but most APS-C OVFs are not as good as the current generation of premium EVFs in my opinion. Penta-mirror OVFs don't stack up at all.

To be fair, I'm not sure the A7r has a battery of comparable capacity next to the K-3.
In real world though, your argument is still valid.

I have the A7m2 and the K-3. The A7m2 battery gets me 300 shots. The K-3 will get me 700+. I guess to some people it is a huge deal, but for people who come from film and had to change 120 rolls every 15 shots or 35mm ever 24-36 shots, having to carry a couple of small batteries around is definitely a first world kind of problem. I would love to get 1,000 shots out of battery, but in the end it doesn't slow me down.

The A7 line, Fuji X-T1, Olympus OMD-EM-1 are all cameras that are more than capable of professional results. Cameras lines like the A7 and Fuji X-T1 are just a little over 1 year old and they are already very capable. They are going to be very strong systems in just a couple of years. Personally I love the IQ and color from the A7m2. That was my biggest surprise when I started using it.

[Uluru]

There was an interview earlier this year, maybe on Imaging Resource, in which a Ricoh official implied lenses designed for PDAF are hampered on mirrorless cameras because they generally have larger, heavier focusing element groups than lenses designed for mirrorless cameras.

CDAF requires more back and forth focusing element movement so lighter is better. Maybe that is what Saiki was referring to here, rather than just the "wasted" K-mount registration distance space. Not sure if on-sensor PDAF can mitigate this issue.

Yes, that was his implication. In a mirrorless camera unable of PDAF, current lenses are wasted. And they will not issue anew range of CDAF-ready lenses, no.

[RuiC]

No, Rui. That one:

Thibs, Is that this one? What happened to the rear abscess ??? Can't find any info about it!

[SyncGuy]

that really isn't physically possible, unless they gave up the high eye point. And in any case with AF being such an established technology High magnification viewfinders aren't really needed as few people use manual focus enough to warrant the extra bulk of the larger prism needed for higher magnifications. Look at the viewfinder spects for the Canon 1 series cameras 100% at 0.76X magnification, that isn't much compared to a manual focus camera like the ME super which had a massive viewfinder.

Yea... You have a point there and i'm aware of it. Just hoping.. LoL!

Speaking of which, in all honesty, i'm just curious how is it possible to have a huge frigging VF in our film SLRs; particularly the MX, and yet it's not achievable in current DSLRs, notwithstanding brand speak?