[Kobie]

Anti-EVF is a Pentax fan thing. When Pentax didn't have a full frame camera, the majority of members in this forum constantly said they didn't want a full frame camera. After Ricoh release the Pentax K1 , the same folk said that full frame is fantastic.

Now, Ricoh are no capable of making a mirrorless full frame camera, so it is expected to have many Pentax fans in Pentax forum to reject the EVF. When the day will come that Ricoh releases a full frame or apsc camera with EVF, the same folk will say it's great.

Uhhhhh, no. I don't know who you're preaching to, but I'm another that's definitely not in that audience you speak of.

I don't care who makes an EVF camera, I can't stand it. It (TO ME) just feels artificial.
I really tried to like it so used a Sony A7 II since, well, Sony is ALL the rage. I changed focus settings, turned tracking on and off, focused over and over again, the throbbing sensation generated by the EVF every time the lens would focus drove me nuts. Focus ability? Ya, it's got a zillion focus points and a large yellow rectangle spanning just over 1/2 of the whole EVF and that's the center point of focus? Come on. Tracking speed was actually worse than on my K-3, both with kit lenses.
After a few minutes my eye started to hurt, I have a feeling it's the constant pulsing (although you can't see the pulsing, it is there due to refresh rates) and that odd throbbing (scene goes wide, then narrows and shifts) when focusing. It's just too disconnected for my liking. The only thing that's good (again TO ME) about EVF is seeing the immediate changes to the exposure and flipping from the EVF to the rear screen is instant with no change in exposure. Oh, and everything is dead quiet. Other than those, I don't see what the big deal is with EVF outside of "OH! NEW TECH! I'm going to jump all over that!" And why so many down play OVF. Even when you compare them realistically for their strengths and weaknesses, it doesn't matter. OVF is crap and EVF is king. Either way, it's not a Pentax "fan" thing, it's a thing period. Unless that EVF is 100% perfect in behaving EXACTLY like an OVF but adds some features, it'll never be good enough. So, ya, I'm an OVF fan, regardless of the brand.

---

Last edited by Kobie; 11-27-2019 at 07:09 PM.

[n3eg]

The primary reason I still buy CDs is because they represent a durable library. I no longer listen to CDs. As soon as I've purchased
a new CD it gets ripped and then I listen to the music via digital file. I have my digital library backed up to multiple sources but there
remains that possibility of catastrophic digital failure and my CD library is insurance that my music collection can be restored. I do think
some form, most likely multiple forms, of physical medium will see demand for that reason alone.

I have mine on 3 computers, one smartphone, and 2 SD cards in MP3 players. My photos are on one computer and two hard drives in different locations.


I think I'm OK unless we get nuked, and then I think I won't be editing photos OR listening to music...

---------- Post added 11-27-19 at 06:56 PM ----------

re: 4/3

Not likely in the least. Pentax already has its hands full with APS-C, FF and MF, not to mention the on again off again Q and
all the Ricoh products. I think it safe to say we will likely see a fully fleshed out MILC system before a m4/3 camera.

Yeah, we all know that. It would be fun though. Flagship APS-C is no fun. And OVF < EVF < NOVF.


I guess the Q will have to do.

---------- Post added 11-27-19 at 06:58 PM ----------

I assume you're suggesting tube amps are resurging and not going extinct

I'm listening to my 1965 tube ham radio right now. Keeps the radio room warm and still fun to play with.

[tvdtvdtvd]

Yeah, we all know that. It would be fun though. Flagship APS-C is no fun.


I guess the Q will have to do.

My K-3 strongly disagrees with that statement.

If m4/3 rocks your boat, go for it, but the chances of a Pentax m4/3 really are about nil.

If we're pining for unrealistic wants, I vote for reissued Takumars with modern coatings. Heavily dampened, full metal bodies, manual focus,
in essence nothing changed save for the updated coatings and addition of a K-mount. Certainly doable but with almost no likelihood.
And yet more realistic than a Pentax m4/3. Sorry.

[MarkJerling]

Uhhhhh, no. I don't know who you're preaching to, but I'm another that's definitely not in that audience you speak of.

I don't care who makes an EVF camera, I can't stand it. It (TO ME) just feels artificial.
I really tried to like it so used a Sony A7 II since, well, Sony is ALL the rage. I changed focus settings, turned tracking on and off, focused over and over again, the throbbing sensation generated by the EVF every time the lens would focus drove me nuts. Focus ability? Ya, it's got a zillion focus points and a large yellow rectangle spanning just over 1/2 of the whole EVF and that's the center point of focus? Come on. Tracking speed was actually worse than on my K-3, both with kit lenses.
After a few minutes my eye started to hurt, I have a feeling it's the constant pulsing (although you can't see the pulsing, it is there due to refresh rates) and that odd throbbing (scene goes wide, then narrows and shifts) when focusing. It's just too disconnected for my liking. The only thing that's good (again TO ME) about EVF is seeing the immediate changes to the exposure and flipping from the EVF to the rear screen is instant with no change in exposure. Oh, and everything is dead quiet. Other than those, I don't see what the big deal is with EVF outside of "OH! NEW TECH! I'm going to jump all over that!" And why so many down play OVF. Even when you compare them realistically for their strengths and weaknesses, it doesn't matter. OVF is crap and EVF is king. Either way, it's not a Pentax "fan" thing, it's a thing period. Unless that EVF if 100% perfect in behaving EXACTLY like an OVF but adds some features, it'll never be good enough. So, ya, I'm an OVF fan, regardless of the brand.

Yup, I've tried the Sony A7ii, the A7iii, the Nikon Z and the Canon EOS R. They all hurt my eyes.

[reh321]

Yup, I've tried the Sony A7ii, the A7iii, the Nikon Z and the Canon EOS R. They all hurt my eyes.

I have tried only Nikon Z7 and Canon M-50 .... neither hurts my eyes.

[MarkJerling]

I have tried only Nikon Z7 and Canon M-50 .... neither hurts my eyes.

It seems I'm not alone. You must be lucky.
The EOS R was like looking through a leadlight window.

[reh321]

It seems I'm not alone. You must be lucky.
The EOS R was like looking through a leadlight window.

Based on sales, you may be a typical Pentax user, but not necessarily typical of camera users in general. Only time will tell which viewfinder is the ‘best’ choice for manufacturers to provide if they can provide only one choice.

[Winder]

A very interesting interview with Philippe Farreng, General Sales Manager for Europe, Ricoh Imaging:

Pentax fête ses 100 ans : "notre communauté est extrêmement attachée à notre marque"

Pentax celebrates their 100th anniversary: 'our community is extremely committed to our brand' (Google translation)

Some excerpts translated from French by yours trulyxxx

• On the DSLR side, the market is decreasing more in volume than in value - since it is mainly the entry-level models that are disappearing. Full frame and premium models are more resilient compared to the market decline. Mirrorless cameras are now the only sector currently growing, but only its high-end part. (...) What is suffering today in the mirrorless market is mainly the cameras with 4/3" and APS-C sensors. Under Sony's leadership, the full-frame mirrorless market is doing well.
  xxx
• Today, the parent company in Japan is asking itself many questions about mirrorless cameras in order to determine whether Pentax shall enter this market, and if so in what form.
  xxx
• The full frame mirrorless market is already starting to become saturated in a very short time. (...) In order to hope to capture market share, we must be able to immediately announce a wide range of lenses. That's where the complexity lies today. Indeed, developing a mirrorless camera is easier than designing a SLR camera. However, the difficulty lies in developing a wide range of lenses in a very short period of time.
  xxx
• So there are several possibilities for us: to focus only on the niche market that the DSLRs will be tomorrow, to move towards mirrorless - but in this case, do we have the ability to enter this market with a sufficient optical range? - or to use an existing lens mount in partnership. But these are only options at the moment. Today, no final decision has been made on this topic as I speak.
  xxx
• In terms of development - new sensor, new design, electronic circuits - a DSLR takes about 14 to 18 months to be brought to market. With a mirrorless camera, this can be done in a much shorter time: in 8 to 10 months it is possible to design a mirrorless camera. The main difficulty is the lenses because different production lines are needed, so there are a number of issues that need to be managed.
  xx
  xxx
• On the mirrorless side, it is likely that the parent company in Japan is taking the issue very seriously due to the very clear market evolution.
  xxx

I think medium format is the area where Ricoh should first launch mirrorless. The existing lens line-up already needs to be overhauled and the mirror box on the 645z is huge and the deletion of the mirror greatly reduces the form factor. MF users don't expect lightning fast AF or 30 different lenses. Ricoh could launch a MF mirrorless along the lines of the Fuji GFR/GFS and 3 lenses and make a lot of people happy. Its the premium end of the market and that is where Ricoh needs to be. Ricoh has an awful lot of work to do if they want to play in the FF mirrorless segment. Even Canon is struggling to catch up to Sony in terms of AF and performance. Ricoh needs something that is faster than the Hassy X1D II but priced similarly. They need true F/1.4 glass.

[RobA_Oz]

It seems I'm not alone. You must be lucky.
The EOS R was like looking through a leadlight window.

Imagine that: everybody’s different.

Some people smoke and drink and live to be one hundred. It doesn’t prove alcohol and tobacco aren’t harmful.

If your physical threshold tolerance for an EVF is low, then it’s telling me something about the physiological response to artificial light of this kind. Actually, there’s a fair bit of research that’s pointing to issues with long-term screen-viewing, so we don’t need to pretend that there’s a natural immunity to it.

The only way you’ll find your own tolerance level is through use, and clearly some of us can tolerate it for longer than others, but none of us can say we haven’t been warned.

[edri]

I think medium format is the area where Ricoh should first launch mirrorless.

The medium format is a very narrow niche, with very few buyers interested in this.

[Mistral75]

The medium format is a very narrow niche, with very few buyers interested in this.

Indeed but the unit margins are nice and Ricoh are looking for profit, not revenue.

[repaap]

About that EVF thing. Things are also changing in terms of technology in fast pace. Main advantage of OVF is that you can see with no lag, and it does not hurt your eye. ofcourse some might not be that sensitive for this than others, but some might be too much so. Even looking at my computer screen make my eyes feel tiered and sore, same goes for my iPad and Iphone. Yet I have got used to use them. it could be that all the advantages of EVF(you can see what you are shooting/no blackout between shots...) is getting ahead. But seriously. old generation EVF is not fun, and they do not feel good on my eyes. I have Oly Em5 Mk.II. So that is not perhaps the best to compare it to. I did like what it could be, but oh boy, not nice.

I think that if Ricoh is going to go for it, some will be really excited, but there will be many of not so much. Who knows.

[deus ursus]

Yup, I've tried the Sony A7ii, the A7iii, the Nikon Z and the Canon EOS R. They all hurt my eyes.

Only looking at those cameras hurts my eyes! 🤢

[Class A]

the advantages of EVF(you can see what you are shooting/no blackout between shots...)

EVFs are notorious for showing you what has already happened.

You may not get a literal "black out" but what you are seeing between captures at high burst rates is what the camera captured a moment ago (if the camera shows something other than "black").

This issue will probably be addressed in the future and I trust there are already cameras that aren't as bad as most in this department, but currently you don't get a more "up to date" view through an EVF during bursts compared to an OVF, to the best of my knowledge, the opposite is the case.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c9uya9-XnFk&t=266

[repaap]

Suppose tht one have to look around marketing hype, and possible great advantages to see the blackouts, or speedbumps, or hickups or what ever one is calling them. (I'm sure that there are several even nasty words for it)

EVFs are notorious for showing you what has already happened.

You may not get a literal "black out" but what you are seeing between captures at high burst rates is what the camera captured a moment ago (if the camera shows something other than "black").

This issue will probably be addressed in the future and I trust there are already cameras that aren't as bad as most in this department, but currently you don't get a more "up to date" view through an EVF during bursts compared to an OVF, to the best of my knowledge, the opposite is the case.

Code:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c9uya9-XnFk&t=266