[reh321]

Another advantage of short register mount is the ability to use "lens turbo" adapters on a APS-C mirrorless camera and you can convert FI a 20/2.8 FF lens to a 13/1.8 APS-C lens.

Doesn't this put more glass in the optical path - which almost always means some kind of distortion? I'd much rather go the direction of finding ways to increase effective ISO of body rather than messing around with lens.

It's very nice to be able convery you APS-C camera to a FF equivalent camera.

I'm sorry, but I have no idea what this sentence means, nor how it relates to the previous sentence.

The EVF has to stick out of the back of the camera, otherwise you won't reach it with your eye. That's one reason why some users prefer to have a detachable EVF as it can make the camera more pocket friendly with it off.

I don't understand these sentences either - at least they don't connect to the reality I know.

(1) There is no reason for EVF to stick out any further than OVF does. APS-C MILC's like Sony A6000 are quite svelte, and take up much less space in any dimension than Pentax APS-C DSLR's do.

(2) There is no evidence that detachable EVF is popular with consumers. For example, Canon tried that with the EOS-M3, but moved to integrated EVF with EOS-M5.

Besides, the ultimate problem here is that you are still addressing the wrong issue. The primary benefit of MILC/EVF is not size; the primary benefit of MILC/EVF is improved information provided to the user, especially under less-than-ideal shooting conditions.

[Nicolas06]

It's not possible to say which has better border performance. In absolute number the Samsung lens has higher score at f/3.2 on the borders than the Samyang lens at f/2.8.
That may change if the Samyang lens was tested on a higher resolution sensor, or not. If it's the lens or sensor resolution that is the limiting factor is not possible to say by this test.

Well the 18-135 at 135 does as great on the corners wide open... There like a bit of under design lens there. You can try to hide it to insist you are right but that Samsung lens doesn't manage to max out the sensor except on the very center. We both know the Samyang scale.

Because you insist I looked for 2 16mm, one samyang, one samsung. Around same sensor resolution (14 and 16MP). The samyang border match the samsung center basically.

Samyang 16mm f/2 (D7000, 16MP)


Samsung 16mm f/2.4


The samsung is a compromize lens, made for size. Nothing prevent to do exactly that, and that what we have with DA21, DA40, FA43, DA70... Many people like theses lenses like they like DA15, FA31, FA35/DA35, FA50/DA50 or FA77 that are still quite reasonably sized.. And honestly I don't see what's wrong with that. It is not like you get any bad photo if you were to use any of theses lenses.

[Nicolas06]

Besides, the ultimate problem here is that you are still addressing the wrong issue. The primary benefit of MILC/EVF is not size; the primary benefit of MILC/EVF is improved information provided to the user, especially under less-than-ideal shooting conditions.

And for that, the mount doesn't matter.

[Fogel70]

Doesn't this put more glass in the optical path - which almost always means some kind of distortion? I'd much rather go the direction of finding ways to increase effective ISO of body rather than messing around with lens.

I'm sorry, but I have no idea what this sentence means, nor how it relates to the previous sentence.

Improved ISO performance do not alter FOV, unless of course the improvement comes from using a larger sensor. I can take a small optical degeneration if it gives me a FF equivalent camera for $400. IMO the important use of "lens turbo" adapter is not the improved ISO performance. It's that you get the FF FOV on FI APS-C cameras.

I don't understand these sentences either - at least they don't connect to the reality I know.

(1) There is no reason for EVF to stick out any further than OVF does. APS-C MILC's like Sony A6000 are quite svelte, and take up much less space in any dimension than Pentax APS-C DSLR's do.

My response was to a post saying that EVF do not add depth to the camera compared to cameras without EVF or OVF.

(2) There is no evidence that detachable EVF is popular with consumers. For example, Canon tried that with the EOS-M3, but moved to integrated EVF with EOS-M5.

I did not say that this is the most popular choice, but that some users prefer to have a detachable EVF.

Besides, the ultimate problem here is that you are still addressing the wrong issue. The primary benefit of MILC/EVF is not size; the primary benefit of MILC/EVF is improved information provided to the user, especially under less-than-ideal shooting conditions.

I address those issues that are important to me. I really prefer using OVF over EVF, so I do not see much benefit of EVF. But I can take the loss of an OVF if it gives me some other advantage instead. I can even make use of a camera without both OVF and EVF as that may make me bring a "real" camera more often instead of leaving it at home.

---

Last edited by Fogel70; 10-10-2016 at 03:37 PM.

[reh321]

Improved ISO performance do not alter FOV, unless of course the improvement comes from using a larger sensor. I can take a small optical degeneration if it gives me a FF equivalent camera for $400. IMO the important use of "lens turbo" adapter is not the improved ISO performance. It's that you get the FF FOV on FI APS-C cameras.

OK, if that is really important to you. Personally, I don't use primes that much any more, because I would much rather choose perspective for each shot instead of being forced into using a perspective that happens to match one of the FOV's in my bag.

My response was to a post saying that EVF do not add depth to the camera compared to cameras without EVF or OVF.

Statisticians talk about whether a value is "significant" and whether it is "meaningful". Let's assume for a moment you are correct that a viewfinder automatically increases the depth of a camera. I see that an Olympus MFT camera without EVF is 37mm thick, while a Panasonic MFT camera with EVF is 44mm thick. Even if this comparison is universally significant, that EVF reliably adds 7mm to the thickness of a camera, I'm not convinced it is meaningful - that this thickness difference affects consumer behavior - and the real core of this discussion is in your last point(s)

I did not say that this is the most popular choice, but that some users prefer to have a detachable EVF.

I address those issues that are important to me. I really prefer using OVF over EVF, so I do not see much benefit of EVF. But I can take the loss of an OVF if it gives me some other advantage instead. I can even make use of a camera without both OVF and EVF as that may make me bring a "real" camera more often instead of leaving it at home.

And this is the core question - how does the market as a whole feel about this issue? My personal belief is that the typical user of a camera {which is not a smart phone} wants some kind of viewfinder, either OVF or EVF. You apparently do not agree, but looking at Canon's experience - first the EOS-M with no viewfinder, then the EOS-M3 with a detachable EVF, then the EOS-M5 with an integrated EVF, suggests that Canon is reaching the conclusion they need a viewfinder. It will be interesting to see whether the -M5 is more successful in the U.S. and Europe than the -M and -M3 were. What I do know, is that comments by Canon users at another photo discussion forum largely rejected the no viewfinder approach of the -M and impatiently waited for something with an EVF; when the -M3 came out, they largely rejected the detachable EVF also; we will see whether their actions match their words. My Q-7 travels with me despite its not having a viewfinder; however, I always feel hobbled by that omission, and I would buy a reasonably-priced EVF-equipped Q-5 in a matter of days even though I usually expect to get at least four years from a camera, and I've had the Q-7 for just 22 months now.

[Fogel70]

OK, if that is really important to you. Personally, I don't use primes that much any more, because I would much rather choose perspective for each shot instead of being forced into using a perspective that happens to match one of the FOV's in my bag.

That may explain why you prefer EVF, as OVF may be dark with slow zoom lenses.

Statisticians talk about whether a value is "significant" and whether it is "meaningful". Let's assume for a moment you are correct that a viewfinder automatically increases the depth of a camera. I see that an Olympus MFT camera without EVF is 37mm thick, while a Panasonic MFT camera with EVF is 44mm thick. Even if this comparison is universally significant, that EVF reliably adds 7mm to the thickness of a camera, I'm not convinced it is meaningful - that this thickness difference affects consumer behavior - and the real core of this discussion is in your last point(s)

This does not really say anything, as the depth of a camera usually include the grip. But in real life it's usually the distance between back and lens mount that tell how pocket friendly a camera is. So in you example it might just be that the camera without EVF has a deeper grip.

And this is the core question - how does the market as a whole feel about this issue? My personal belief is that the typical user of a camera {which is not a smart phone} wants some kind of viewfinder, either OVF or EVF. You apparently do not agree, but looking at Canon's experience - first the EOS-M with no viewfinder, then the EOS-M3 with a detachable EVF, then the EOS-M5 with an integrated EVF, suggests that Canon is reaching the conclusion they need a viewfinder. It will be interesting to see whether the -M5 is more successful in the U.S. and Europe than the -M and -M3 were. What I do know, is that comments by Canon users at another photo discussion forum largely rejected the no viewfinder approach of the -M and impatiently waited for something with an EVF; when the -M3 came out, they largely rejected the detachable EVF also; we will see whether their actions match their words. My Q-7 travels with me despite its not having a viewfinder; however, I always feel hobbled by that omission, and I would buy a reasonably-priced EVF-equipped Q-5 in a matter of days even though I usually expect to get at least four years from a camera, and I've had the Q-7 for just 22 months now.

Canon is working on extending their range of mirrorless cameras. I'm pretty sure they want to offer camera both with and without EVF.
You do not get the view of the majority of a user base by spending time on forums.

[surfar]

then the EOS-M3 with a detachable EVF, then the EOS-M5 with an integrated EVF, suggests that Canon is reaching the conclusion they need a viewfinder. It will be interesting to see whether the -M5 is more successful in the U.S. and Europe than the -M and -M3 were

M, M2 without a viewfinder...M3 attachable...M5 built in EVF, I wonder where the M10 fits into this?


It depends how you classify " successful"? I have read that the Canon M series is 2nd highest ICL mirrorless(sales wise),Also read it was 3rd highest.I cant remember exactly where because when theres something new I look at plenty of reviews/forums/youtubes.However, I would put the M5 into the same class as the FF 5D(4), a good stills camera that costs a LOT for the features it provides.

I'm pretty sure they want to offer camera both with and without EVF.

Firesales in Australia, some retailers running a $200 cashback.So i'll guess the M3 is finished? ? ?

if it gives me a FF equivalent camera for $400. IMO the important use of "lens turbo" adapter is not the improved ISO performance. It's that you get the FF FOV on FI APS-C cameras.

Which focal reducer do you use and on which camera?

[Nicolas06]

That may explain why you prefer EVF, as OVF may be dark with slow zoom lenses.

My OVF is dark zoom or not when the scene is dark. The problem there with f/1.8 or f/5.8. On most scene the OVF is clear be it f/1.8 of f/5.8. The more I read you, the more impression you never ever used a camera, mirrorless or not.

This does not really say anything, as the depth of a camera usually include the grip. But in real life it's usually the distance between back and lens mount that tell how pocket friendly a camera is. So in you example it might just be that the camera without EVF has a deeper grip.

Camera with EVF can be slim. They many models out there. The EVF doesn't have to be behind the lens and sensor neither. At some point you should go to a camera store and look for what already exist rather than continue arguing over the impossibility of things that everybody can buy and try for themselve and that sell by millions.

Canon is working on extending their range of mirrorless cameras. I'm pretty sure they want to offer camera both with and without EVF.
You do not get the view of the majority of a user base by spending time on forums.

Yep, but theses are entry level, it clearly positionned as a compromize. Having an EVF and not using it is no issue. The only issue is needing it and not having it.

[Fogel70]

My OVF is dark zoom or not when the scene is dark. The problem there with f/1.8 or f/5.8. On most scene the OVF is clear be it f/1.8 of f/5.8. The more I read you, the more impression you never ever used a camera, mirrorless or not.

Have you ever previewed DOF on an OVF with the lens stopped down?
A larger aperture let more light into the OVF, which makes the OVF brighter. That is the reason why a lens is kept wide open on a DSLR until the image is captured.
Try comparing a f/1.4 lens with a f/5.6 on a DSLR when it is dark.

Camera with EVF can be slim. They many models out there. The EVF doesn't have to be behind the lens and sensor neither. At some point you should go to a camera store and look for what already exist rather than continue arguing over the impossibility of things that everybody can buy and try for themselve and that sell by millions.

Sure they can be slim with EVF, but an EVF almost always take some extra space in the camera.
I have even seen DSLR users that hardly ever use the OVF, so an EVF/OVF is not very important for all users.

Yep, but theses are entry level, it clearly positionned as a compromize. Having an EVF and not using it is no issue. The only issue is needing it and not having it.

If you do not like to have an EVF you can get a smaller and cheaper camera. Why is it so important that every camera should have an OVF or EVF?
Even Leica has found a place for a mirorless camera without EVF (Leica T).

[reh321]

Sure they can be slim with EVF, but an EVF almost always take some extra space in the camera.
I have even seen DSLR users that hardly ever use the OVF, so an EVF/OVF is not very important for all users.

I added emphasis to the word "all", because that is the only thing making your statement true. As I have already said multiple times, I have been involved in discussions at other forums where few use Pentax; when a new MILC like the Canon EOS-M3 was anticipated, the primary issue for most participants was always "will they finally give us an EVF, or do I need to give up on them and go to a brand like Panasonic or Sony which already has it?" I bought my Q-7 despite its lacking an EVF because I found a way to cope without it, but the collapsible Hoodman takes up almost as much space as the camera body itself does. If Pentax released a Q-5 with EVF, making it 7mm thicker than the Q-7 is, at a couple hundred dollars more than release price of the Q-S1, my preorder would be in tomorrow.

If you do not like to have an EVF you can get a smaller and cheaper camera. Why is it so important that every camera should have an OVF or EVF?
Even Leica has found a place for a mirorless camera without EVF (Leica T).

Many years ago I learned to take good, well framed, "stable" {no camera movement} pictures using a viewfinder; I don't believe anyone can do that holding a camera using "zombie mode".

---------- Post added 10-11-16 at 11:08 AM ----------

M, M2 without a viewfinder...M3 attachable...M5 built in EVF, I wonder where the M10 fits into this?

Canon numbering sometimes makes about as much sense as Pentax numbering. The M10 was released roughly the same time as the M3, and was the lower cost alternative {to put this into standardized test terminology M10:M3 = K500:K50}

[Fogel70]

I added emphasis to the word "all", because that is the only thing making your statement true. As I have already said multiple times, I have been involved in discussions at other forums where few use Pentax; when a new MILC like the Canon EOS-M3 was anticipated, the primary issue for most participants was always "will they finally give us an EVF, or do I need to give up on them and go to a brand like Panasonic or Sony which already has it?" I bought my Q-7 despite its lacking an EVF because I found a way to cope without it, but the collapsible Hoodman takes up almost as much space as the camera body itself does. If Pentax released a Q-5 with EVF, making it 7mm thicker than the Q-7 is, at a couple hundred dollars more than release price of the Q-S1, my preorder would be in tomorrow.

Yes, but as I said before the participants on these types of forums are hardly the average user. We are a small group of enthusiast that has very different demands than the average user.
It's just like on a sports car forum, they don't have the same demands on their cars like the average mum or dad.

Q and other really small mirrorless cameras has the whole back covered by the LCD, so adding an EVF will add both depth and height, unless they put a much smaller LCD on the back. And the hotshoe or built in flash might have to go to be able to fit an EVF into Q camera unless the width is also extended..
So Q with EVF could end up quite a different camera. Compact Camera Meter

Many years ago I learned to take good, well framed, "stable" {no camera movement} pictures using a viewfinder; I don't believe anyone can do that holding a camera using "zombie mode".

Most mirrorless camera has a tillable screen so you can hold the camera against you body and look down at the screen, which is just as steady as holding the camera against your face.

[Nicolas06]

Yes, but as I said before the participants on these types of forums are hardly the average user. We are a small group of enthusiast that has very different demands than the average user.
It's just like on a sports car forum, they don't have the same demands on their cars like the average mum or dad.

Q and other really small mirrorless cameras has the whole back covered by the LCD, so adding an EVF will add both depth and height, unless they put a much smaller LCD on the back. And the hotshoe or built in flash might have to go to be able to fit an EVF into Q camera unless the width is also extended..
So Q with EVF could end up quite a different camera. Compact Camera Meter

Most mirrorless camera has a tillable screen so you can hold the camera against you body and look down at the screen, which is just as steady as holding the camera against your face.

Some, not all. That also something that make the camera thicker and if not well done, more likely to fail. That feature is present on mirrorless, regarless of EVF, and more and more DSLR too. I bet that the next Pentax flagship will have one and we already have KS2, K70 and K1.

But the use isn't the same as a viewfinder. It is usefull in some occasion, not in others where a viewfinder is better. If one can, it is best to have a camera that has both.

[Nicolas06]

Have you ever previewed DOF on an OVF with the lens stopped down?

This is not affected by lens max apperture but current apperture so the lens can be fast, it doesn't change anything for that specific feature.

A larger aperture let more light into the OVF, which makes the OVF brighter. That is the reason why a lens is kept wide open on a DSLR until the image is captured.
Try comparing a f/1.4 lens with a f/5.6 on a DSLR when it is dark.

Contrary to what you may think, I have used both slow zoom and also many fast lens for years in many condition. Overall, I have no issue with my slower lenses like the 55-300. Typically if I can't see through the view finder I also have difficulties to look at the scene with my bare eyes... I also point out, that if you really spend that much time in very dark environement you may want to rely on fast apperture lenses anyway. There much more valuable reason to buy a fast lens than darkness in the viewfinder.

And again if you use an FF DSLR, even with a slow len, the much bigger image help significantly, all the time, not only in very low light settings. No EVF is as big as the FF OVF.

For comfort of what you see the OVF is much better than the EVF. The interrest of EVF is being smaller, displaying custom information and providing more accurate information for the photo you take. But as a device to project a nice image to see with your eyes, the OVF provide a much better experience. More realistic, instantaneous, perfect colors...

Sure they can be slim with EVF, but an EVF almost always take some extra space in the camera.
I have even seen DSLR users that hardly ever use the OVF, so an EVF/OVF is not very important for all users.

As most features like articulated screen, improved ergonomics thanks to bigger form factor and more direct access buttons, very fast processing capabilities that need bigger batterie and more space for electronics, in body SR or an on board flash.

If you do not like to have an EVF you can get a smaller and cheaper camera. Why is it so important that every camera should have an OVF or EVF?
Even Leica has found a place for a mirorless camera without EVF (Leica T).

It is not important. A viewfinder (both OVF/EVF) provide a much better photographic experience overall. But you don't have to use it and if you really prefer to not use it despite having intense photographic use and experience, you have the choice too. If that also your dedicated pocket camera you'll pass on most features, among them EVF to make the camera smaller.

If I was to provide advice to somebody buying some serious camera I'd advice him to get one with an EVF or OVF because it is really practical and would help him/her significantly to grow its pratice as a photographer. But if you disagree, don't want it or whatever else, I have no issue with that. Each to its own.

[reh321]

Yes, but as I said before the participants on these types of forums are hardly the average user. We are a small group of enthusiast that has very different demands than the average user.
It's just like on a sports car forum, they don't have the same demands on their cars like the average mum or dad.

Q and other really small mirrorless cameras has the whole back covered by the LCD, so adding an EVF will add both depth and height, unless they put a much smaller LCD on the back. And the hotshoe or built in flash might have to go to be able to fit an EVF into Q camera unless the width is also extended..
So Q with EVF could end up quite a different camera. Compact Camera Meter

Most mirrorless camera has a tillable screen so you can hold the camera against you body and look down at the screen, which is just as steady as holding the camera against your face.

As I've already said, I would much prefer added size, even 7mm in each dimension (*), than have something which provides a cell-phone-like interface, and I would be near the front of the line if Pentax were to provide such a thing; even this larger camera, the one I've been calling a Q-5, would take up much less volume than my current kit, which includes a Q-7 and {minimally} a collapsible Hoodman.
You're welcome to buy something else, or just use the cell phone you already have, if that's your preference.

(*) My current smart phone is already larger than that in width and height {yes, I know it is thinner than a Q-7, that is not the point}

[eurostar]

Well, I guess if they are going to keep the past experience of the GXR, I'd say that we'll see a body that is just a WI-Fi handle where you can slide in a selection of smartphones providing monitor and touch interface, and where you can fit a sensor module (one APS-C, one FF, maybe one 1/1,7"), a detachable EVF and a selection of mount module, one proprietary for new, short flange lenses, one for K, one for 645, one for M, maybe even one for legacy Q...