[Douglas_of_Sweden]

So now, we won't be confused for Praktica MTL5 shooters, eh?

The MTL5 can acutally be quite silent...every time the shutter and mirror jam

Try a Konica T3, makes any Pentax sound quite except the 67's. On the other hand you could probably drop a T3 from the third floor and still be able to use it afterwards...

[ManuH]

The SLR was supposed to kill the rangefinder (that's debatable) compacts were supposed to kill the SLR in the 90's. digital was supposed to kill film. nope mirrors aren't going anywhere. at least not anytime in the foreseeable future. the EVIL camera will just be another option.

Well... digital effectively killed film. Of course film and rangefinders are not completely dead and they still have their use and their advantages but there're far from being mainstream anymore. In the future the same will happen with OVF.

[séamuis]

Well... digital effectively killed film. Of course film and rangefinders are not completely dead and they still have their use and their advantages but there're far from being mainstream anymore. In the future the same will happen with OVF.

I don't equate non-mainstream with dead. and I fail to see how you make the connection.

[Maffer]

A bit offtopic perhaps, but how about the shutter activation - is it like with K20D so that you have to make the button click after pressing it down half-way or is it smooth trigger action all the way?

[pentaxmz]

I think you're wrong. No EVIL can replace the actual light being reflected from a mirror. The hybrid cameras without a mirror are just a niche for those who want the optical quality of a DSLR and don't want a bulky camera. Mirrors are not going away.

Surely, you must mean that "mirrors are not going away soon." If you said that, I would agree with you. Otherwise, one day you will realize how silly your statement was.... kind of like when Lord Kelvin infamously stated, "There is nothing new to be discovered in physics now, All that remains is more and more precise measurement." or that x-rays would prove to be a hoax.

Are you sure you want to stick to your statement? Everything on the Internet is forever.

I predict that within the next ten years, advancements in imaging displays will allow for the elimination of pentaprisms (and mirrors)... the term DSLR will be history. Furthermore, integration of video and still will continue to the point where it will be commonplace for a camera to mean both fully still and video capable.

[pentaxmz]

I still find that in some situations film is better than digital. When it comes to dynamic range even full frame cameras can't beat film. So digital hasn't replaced film, it just gave a choice to those that find digital more convenient.

For now, for now... I am certain that only a few more years are necessary before this changes! Hover, multiple exposures and post processing eliminates this current weakness.

But for long exposures (i.e. deep sky astrophotography), digital beats film many times over. Digital imagers have a much greater quantum efficiency compared to film (even gas hypered). A deep sky image is far more accurate, 'crisper', and captures more stars then the best film.

[fejker]

I think that when they manage to replace the pixels with one giant gel surface they will reach the quality of film. I don't see that happening anytime soon.

As for EVIL eliminating OVF ... not for a looooong time. I'd rather use a rangefinder than look into an EVIL. (notice the use of terms "look through" and "look into")

[pentaxmz]

Why would you want that? You could not use K mount lenses anyway with normal performance since the registration distance is very much smaller on the mirrorless samsung. For portrait and macro lenses it would be devastating and all lenses would get increased close focusing distances. Long teles is the only benefit I could think of, but for small birds the increased minima focusing distance could still be a problem.

First of all... I never stated that I wanted one. I was simply reporting a development.

Second, HUH?

Unless you are privy to technical specifications, why would the registration distance change? This has no relationship to whether or not the camera has a mirror. The light path is 'theoretically' exactly the same, whether mirrored or mirrorless. Remember, through the mirror the focus plate is where the image is formed - exactly the same distance to the imager.

For instance, you could pretend that once the mirror goes up on any camera, it is essentially a mirror-less camera (esp. if one has live view). There is 'theoretically' no need for a difference in registration between a mirrored and mirrorless camera.

The only true difference that I would expect is a live view screen that is indistinguishable from our current optical based view screen. Video displays are not quite there yet, however, with the rapid advancements in OLED technology, we are not far off.

[fejker]

Then what's the point in removing the mirror if not making the camera smaller? And to make it smaller you'd have to eliminate the mirror chamber - the registration distance changes.

I know you're going to argue now that by removing the mirror you'd get rid of the "unneeded" mechanical parts and that it would make for a good quiet camera. But hell, I'd rather have a 6×7 mirror flop around in there than look at a digitally reproduced image on the screen or view finder. I can't see why you see this as an advantage. Besides think of the battery life and wearing of the sensor that would have to be constantly turned on etc.

[séamuis]

Unless you are privy to technical specifications, why would the registration distance change? This has no relationship to whether or not the camera has a mirror. The light path is 'theoretically' exactly the same, whether mirrored or mirrorless. Remember, through the mirror the focus plate is where the image is formed - exactly the same distance to the imager.

For instance, you could pretend that once the mirror goes up on any camera, it is essentially a mirror-less camera (esp. if one has live view). There is 'theoretically' no need for a difference in registration between a mirrored and mirrorless camera.

except the whole point of a mirrorless camera is so that its smaller and lighter, it would make no sense to remove the mirror/pentaprism and keep the same registration distance, because then it would be next to impossible to make the camera significantly smaller. the registration distance is what it is because of the mirror. for most consumers its not about the viewfinder its about the size, weight and portability. that's what the manufacturers are trying to achieve better level of. thus its extremely likely the registration distance would change.

[pentaxmz]

I think that when they manage to replace the pixels with one giant gel surface they will reach the quality of film. I don't see that happening anytime soon.

As for EVIL eliminating OVF ... not for a looooong time. I'd rather use a rangefinder than look into an EVIL. (notice the use of terms "look through" and "look into")

There is a name for people like you..... ludites. ha ha

Kidding.

I did the conversion from film to digital back when the *ist came out. But I was so utterly unimpressed with that camera's images, I continued to use my MZ-S cameras with mostly Kodachrome 64 (I was also using my Mamiya 645 ProTL). It wasn't really until I purchased my K20D that I was suitably impressed enough to retire my MZ-S cameras.

BTW, for snapshot photography I've been using a digital camera far longer (since the early 90's).

Even the Mamiya's image quality is surpassed with the K20D by shooting multiple images and combining them with software like AutoPano. Yes, it takes a little longer to photograph but it can be done!

Anyhow, perhaps your quality expectation bar is higher than mine?

But I ask you, name one type of photo that you believe has superior results on film (any 35mm film) than with digital camera of, at least, 14mp. I bet I can prove you wrong.

[pentaxmz]

Then what's the point in removing the mirror if not making the camera smaller? And to make it smaller you'd have to eliminate the mirror chamber - the registration distance changes.

I know you're going to argue now that by removing the mirror you'd get rid of the "unneeded" mechanical parts and that it would make for a good quiet camera. But hell, I'd rather have a 6×7 mirror flop around in there than look at a digitally reproduced image on the screen or view finder. I can't see why you see this as an advantage. Besides think of the battery life and wearing of the sensor that would have to be constantly turned on etc.

Well, technology advancements are not always about advantages but rather that it can be done. (example: electric can opening.... okay maybe there is an advantage... but I don't want one!)

A digital viewer (or the future) will be an advantage because it will enhance what you see. Think of it this way, our current optical view screens are useless in low light (or virtually no light). A digital screen (of the future) will allow one to see perfectly well what cannot be seen otherwise.

Remember I am talking about the future (within ten years) where screens (i.e. OLED or whatever) create a display that is indistinguishable from our current optical screens. It will happen, it's just a matter of time and technology.

Please note, given current technology, I won't accept this right now.

[Yohan Pamudji]

Then what's the point in removing the mirror if not making the camera smaller? And to make it smaller you'd have to eliminate the mirror chamber - the registration distance changes.

I know you're going to argue now that by removing the mirror you'd get rid of the "unneeded" mechanical parts and that it would make for a good quiet camera. But hell, I'd rather have a 6×7 mirror flop around in there than look at a digitally reproduced image on the screen or view finder. I can't see why you see this as an advantage. Besides think of the battery life and wearing of the sensor that would have to be constantly turned on etc.

The benefits of EVF as exactly as you described: less moving parts, hence less cost and less things to break and silent operation. No doubt manufacturers will pocket most of the cost savings for their own profit, but still the benefits are there. Drawbacks to EVFs or personal preference against them don't make their benefits irrelevant.

Technology will not stand still. EVFs will not always be low-res, slow-refresh abominations. CMOS will not always be the primary imaging system. Li-Ion will not always be the preferred battery tech. I'd rather have a loud mirror and shutter than a completely silent EVF with today's tech, but I'm not going to discount the distinct possibility that technology will continue to improve.

[OregonJim]

But I ask you, name one type of photo that you believe has superior results on film (any 35mm film) than with digital camera of, at least, 14mp. I bet I can prove you wrong.

Haha, that's funny.

[séamuis]

But I ask you, name one type of photo that you believe has superior results on film (any 35mm film) than with digital camera of, at least, 14mp. I bet I can prove you wrong.

and how could you do that exactly? especially considering the digital sensor still doesn't come close to film regarding dynamic range.