[repaap]

There is still the on-demand Bayer-AA filter, astrotracer option, great ergonomics, weather-sealing, unique shooting modes, the green button, etc., so there are a few more reasons why someone might fancy a Pentax DSLR, but in general, yes, anyone able to tolerate an EFV can find a lot of things to like elsewhere as well (particular as far as video is concerned) .

Yes, thank you. There are many things specially great with Pentax. Which are perhaps not understood, and 'we' take them for granted. But this clearly will be one thing differentiating pentax from the crowd. (yes, Canon and Nikon still has them and perhaps Nikon will get back to them even more in the future.)

[Serkevan]

I phones don't use an EVF as far as I recall. The complaint is for the EVF refresh rate.

It's the exact same issue, the problem is that the EVF is magnified and it takes most of you field of view, so it's terribly obvious when it's not refreshing fast enough, or when the resolution drops. I swear I can see the individual dots on the EVF of an A7iii... and that's in good light and without jerking the camera around. The 3.69MDot panel on the EOS R was a bit better but it still had the exact same issue whenever I tried moving the camera.

Moreover, phones have much smaller sensors and their readout is faster, so they can reduce the refresh-rate-related issues a fair bit...

[reh321]

I phones don't use an EVF as far as I recall. The complaint is for the EVF refresh rate.

Any LCD will exhibit the same phenomenon.

[Cynog Ap Brychan]

I'm not sure why so many people seem to have problems with EVFs. The ones in my Nikon Z6 and Z7 are very good, and the Leica SL-2S has a great EVF. That said, I do like an optical finder, particularly outdoors on bright days. One's eyes get accustomed to the ambient light, and an EVF looks so very dim when one puts one's eye to the finder. Both EVFs and OVFs have advantages and disadvantages. I really don't mind which I use depending on the circumstances. I will always have a DSLR and it will be a Pentax.

[Wheatfield]

It's the exact same issue, the problem is that the EVF is magnified and it takes most of you field of view, so it's terribly obvious when it's not refreshing fast enough, or when the resolution drops. I swear I can see the individual dots on the EVF of an A7iii... and that's in good light and without jerking the camera around. The 3.69MDot panel on the EOS R was a bit better but it still had the exact same issue whenever I tried moving the camera.

Moreover, phones have much smaller sensors and their readout is faster, so they can reduce the refresh-rate-related issues a fair bit...

A slow EVF will manifest itself as eye strain. A slow cell phone screen will manifest as jerky cannon shells is Angry Birds.
That and jerky doom scrolling.

[repaap]

I'm not sure why so many people seem to have problems with EVFs. The ones in my Nikon Z6 and Z7 are very good, and the Leica SL-2S has a great EVF. That said, I do like an optical finder, particularly outdoors on bright days. One's eyes get accustomed to the ambient light, and an EVF looks so very dim when one puts one's eye to the finder. Both EVFs and OVFs have advantages and disadvantages. I really don't mind which I use depending on the circumstances. I will always have a DSLR and it will be a Pentax.

This is true. Both has advantages. Haven’t got to try most recent EVF. That tech is getting better. I personally did get annoyed by similar thing you mentioned, but with my oly E5Mk2. Not a great example. But I really liked it and thought of it at the times. But as you said. In some circumstances it is hard to get wheat you can see with your other eye in VF for your other eye. And some how it is ‘cool’ too and in some cases practical too.

Then there are some other preferences too, and disability’s but that is not part of this.

It is all about that famous feeling. That is it

[Wheatfield]

I'm not sure why so many people seem to have problems with EVFs.

They give a surprisingly large percentage of people eye strain. For me, that manifests as something approaching a migraine headache if I over indulge using an EVF. I suspect it's related to the refresh rate, as I noticed the Fuji screens were easier to take in their performance mode.
In performance mode I can look through the viewfinder for a couple of minutes, in normal mode it is a few seconds before I am having some discomfort.

[Kunzite]

I'm not sure why so many people seem to have problems with EVFs. The ones in my Nikon Z6 and Z7 are very good, and the Leica SL-2S has a great EVF. That said, I do like an optical finder, particularly outdoors on bright days. One's eyes get accustomed to the ambient light, and an EVF looks so very dim when one puts one's eye to the finder. Both EVFs and OVFs have advantages and disadvantages. I really don't mind which I use depending on the circumstances. I will always have a DSLR and it will be a Pentax.

Because we have problems with EVFs?

What is "great" for you might only be "bearable" for us, sometimes not even that.

[reh321]

They give a surprisingly large percentage of people eye strain. For me, that manifests as something approaching a migraine headache if I over indulge using an EVF. I suspect it's related to the refresh rate, as I noticed the Fuji screens were easier to take in their performance mode.
In performance mode I can look through the viewfinder for a couple of minutes, in normal mode it is a few seconds before I am having some discomfort.

I just spent about an hour on our deck with my Q-7 - I have a Hoodman attached.
I'm not sure how this combination works for you, but I didn't have any problems.
Yes, I didn't spend an hour straight looking through my virtual viewfinder - but I won't have done that if I had the KP with me either.

added: but EVF has nothing to do with the K-3iii, which has a truly fine OVF.

[Larrymc]

Any LCD will exhibit the same phenomenon.

Yes, but you don't have your eye squeezed up against the screen either. not nearly the same viewing the screen at a distance.

[reh321]

Yes, but you don't have your eye squeezed up against the screen either. not nearly the same viewing the screen at a distance.

So, that is your answer to the original question about iPhones.

There is still my experience of using the Q-7 with a Hoodman - I didn't do that continuously - but as much as I would with an EVF, and I didn't have any problems.


added: EVF has nothing to do with the K-3iii, which has a truly fine OVF.

[gatorguy]

So, that is your answer to the original question about iPhones.

There is still my experience of using the Q-7 with a Hoodman - I didn't do that continuously - but as much as I would with an EVF, and I didn't have any problems.

Suffice to say some people will have headaches from extended use, some won't. One person's "I had no problem" doesn't mean another's "Gosh, head and eye aches every time I use one" remark is wrong. Physical issues from lengthy use of EVF's (or even other types of displays) is common.

I don't think we need to continue another dozen posts about it, does anyone else?

[Larrymc]

Suffice to say some people will have headaches from extended use, some won't. One person's "I had no problem" doesn't mean another's "Gosh, head and eye aches every time I use one" remark is wrong. Physical issues from lengthy use of EVF's (or even other types of displays) is common.

I don't think we need to continue another dozen posts about it, does anyone else?

I whole heartedly agree.

[reh321]

Suffice to say some people will have headaches from extended use, some won't. One person's "I had no problem" doesn't mean another's "Gosh, head and eye aches every time I use one" remark is wrong. Physical issues from lengthy use of EVF's (or even other types of displays) is common.

I don't think we need to continue another dozen posts about it, does anyone else?

This whole sub thread began because it was said that some reporters are taking their own photos using iPhones.
As I already said above

EVF has nothing to do with the K-3iii, which has a truly fine OVF.

[Class A]

What is the real difference between “post facto denoising” and what Pentax does?

There is no difference. With "post facto denoising" I referred to the approach (practised by Pentax) of reducing noise through post-capture image processing. This kind of image processing can be done at any point in time, in-camera or in post-processing on a computer.

Denoising is noise reduction

I use the following definitions (perhaps debatable but definitely useful):
"noise reduction" = reduction of sensor-induced noise using in-sensor technology (e.g., dark current suppression). These techniques address shortcomings of the light capturing process and never have detrimental effects on image data integrity (due to the fact that interfering sources are attenuated, subtracted, etc.; they cannot be confused with the signal/data).

"denoising" = image processing technique for removing noise from images (e.g., by smoothing high spatial frequencies). This approach does not have access to additional information at the time of capture and will result in some loss of data integrity (some information will be lost, due to the fact that signal/data and any interferences one wishes to remove are now inextricably combined). Subjective evaluation may attest "better image quality" since the image does not look as noisy anymore, but inevitable some information will have to be sacrificed (hence Pentax's comments on the need for caution when using this approach).

It would be reasonable to use "noise reduction" as a general term and regard "denoising" as a special case of "noise reduction" but then I don't know what term I'd use for the in-sensor "noise reduction".

... removing what was added to the data.

Modern sensor technology is so good that there is hardly any noise added to the data (data = photon count received by the sensor). The order of magnitude is a couple of individual electrons per pixel.

The overwhelming noise one sees in a high-ISO image is part of the data. Illumination is a stochastic process -- individual quanta (photons) randomly hit a scene -- and in very low light levels, its random nature is revealed. The random nature of illumination means that recorded intensities will fluctuate. Some pixels receive more photons than others but not because there is an actual brightness difference, but because they randomly received more photons. When the number of photons is large (i.e., light levels are higher) then two pixels recording the same brightness will statistically receive a very similar amount of photons. When the number of photons is small (i.e., light levels are low) then one pixel may receive zero photons and the other pixel two photons, even though they both should have received one photon each.

So, in summary, the salt & pepper look of high-ISO images is correctly capturing reality; that's how the scene looks like when only a very limited number of photons are around. In other words, there is "scene noise" which is part of the data.

What "denoising" does is attempting to make the image of the scene look better than the scene looked. Granted, "denoising" will also address the very low residual sensor-contributed noise, but due to the proportion between "sensor-induced noise" and "scene noise", "denoising" mainly combats "scene noise".

As you can imagine, leaving the data intact, i.e., refrain from "denoising" can have advantages, e.g., by stacking multiple noisy image one can get a clean image since one is essentially simulating a longer exposure time, which in turn means more photons are being used, which in turn increases the signal to noise ratio. If you stack denoised images, you no longer get this simulation effect, as you are now working on data that no longer represents the photons during capture. Another advantage of preserving intact data is that future image processing may do an even better job than the "accelerator unit (II)" of reconstructing a nice looking scene from noisy (here, "noisy" = "incomplete") data.

I hope this helps to better appreciate my perspective.