[Pål Jensen]

EVIL cameras are the future IMHO as well. The whole purpose of of the Single Reflex system was to get closer to WYSIWYG over the Double Reflex cameras they superseded.

High resolution internal monitors will really bring that goal to fruition. You'll look into the viewfinder and see exactly the picture you will get, right down to exposure, framing, and color..

You forget two things. To take the second issue first: you already do that with todays LCD screens and live view.
The most important to remember, however, is that a viewfinder is a viewing and aiming device. It is optical in function and principle. Its job is optical. Just like glasses or binoculars. Electronics will not replace optics, just augment them. An EVIL camera will in the future be seen as a"crippled" device, although it will have its advantages in size and cost. The size advantage is debatable when talking about advanced cameras (DSLR's); look at the size of a Pentax ME; a smaller DSLR is not practical and quite pointless. The smaller segment will still be catered for by P&S.
It is like electronic books; they will never replace real books.

[rparmar]

Consider film. Film has HUGE advantages over digital when it comes to dynaimc range. But who would trade dynamic range for the the mired of benefits that digital photography gives the user?

The truth is we are indeed mired in the benefits of digital. Sometimes it's nice to get unstuck and go back to something purer. Film aficionados find that works for them. Me, I'd prefer to keep the benefits of digital but strip back the complexity.

[Photomy]

You forget two things. To take the second issue first: you already do that with todays LCD screens and live view.
The most important to remember, however, is that a viewfinder is a viewing and aiming device. It is optical in function and principle. Its job is optical. Just like glasses or binoculars. Electronics will not replace optics, just augment them. An EVIL camera will in the future be seen as a"crippled" device, although it will have its advantages in size and cost. The size advantage is debatable when talking about advanced cameras (DSLR's); look at the size of a Pentax ME; a smaller DSLR is not practical and quite pointless. The smaller segment will still be catered for by P&S.
It is like electronic books; they will never replace real books.

Correct, electronics will not replace optics for the main image capture. The EVF uses this same primary lens optics avoiding more optics. For the pointing/framing, who needs extra optics? Have you ever used a rangefinder? Have you seen a Graflex with the sportsfinder pulled up and in action? The viewfinder has no function for the actual image, it is just a bracketing and aiming device (as you just said yourself). In particular, it is not needed with advanced AF on board. It is what we have been used to - like film. In the old days, when we relied on manual focus, then we really did need a good optical viewfinder. Think about it.

[konraDarnok]

The truth is we are indeed mired in the benefits of digital. Sometimes it's nice to get unstuck and go back to something purer. Film aficionados find that works for them. Me, I'd prefer to keep the benefits of digital but strip back the complexity.

Whoops! myriad

[konraDarnok]

You forget two things. To take the second issue first: you already do that with todays LCD screens and live view.
The most important to remember, however, is that a viewfinder is a viewing and aiming device. It is optical in function and principle. Its job is optical. Just like glasses or binoculars. Electronics will not replace optics, just augment them. An EVIL camera will in the future be seen as a"crippled" device, although it will have its advantages in size and cost. The size advantage is debatable when talking about advanced cameras (DSLR's); look at the size of a Pentax ME; a smaller DSLR is not practical and quite pointless. The smaller segment will still be catered for by P&S.
It is like electronic books; they will never replace real books.

I'd repeat what Photomy said on the subject @ 06:15 PM


I don't doubt that a optical viewfinder will always be clearer -- but functionally, an electronic viewfinder would be more useful to acheive what it was originally designed to do. Which is show you want the picture will look like before you opened the shutter and developed the film. I'm not much interested in the size argument.

Camera's do have a live view, but it's also kinda goofy. Why not set it up like the LX?

Thus, you could use the viewfinder usefully from the hip and have an optional slide on viewfinder with a prism to steady the image against your face.

The current "live view" option is clunky and redundant. Staring a screen with your arms held out makes no sense. At the hip, or against your face does.



As far as books? Well, I'd argue that in terms of sheer content that literate people consume on a daily basis, I'd say print is already a minority medium.

But in the particular case of books, digital paper is getting very good indeed -- with high resolutions and natural reflective lighting. I like books as much as the next guy, but some day, I'm sure I'll have a reading appliance that will allow me to read every text ever written where ever I am. That Kindle thing is getting very close to a desirable gizmo for such a purpose. I'll say this much. Libraries will be relegated to archives of books -- not knowledge in the very near future.

[nosnoop]

The most important to remember, however, is that a viewfinder is a viewing and aiming device. It is optical in function and principle. Its job is optical.

The only essential optical part is the lens.
Optical viewfinder gives you how your eyes see the world.
OTOH, Electronic viewfinder shows you how the sensor sees the world.

And I personally find the latter being more important. After all, I want to preview the captured image by the sensor - and only EVF can do that.

Just like glasses or binoculars. Electronics will not replace optics, just augment them.

Sure, electronics will never replace your camera lenses. But optical viewfinder will be going the way of vinyl records in entry DSLR market. The mirror slap, prism, mechanical shutter, complex optical overlay, metering sensors, complex secondary mirrors and AF sensor modules etc will all be rendered redundant in the EVIL. No more vibrations to worry about, no need for mirror lock up.

An EVIL camera will in the future be seen as a"crippled" device

Many consumers will disagree with you. In the minds of most consumers, current DSLRs with no Live View and no movie modes are considered crippled device!

a smaller DSLR is not practical and quite pointless.

That's a very strange statement indeed.
I would welcome the day if I can put an EVIL in my pocket!

It is like electronic books; they will never replace real books.

Nobody here says that EVIL would completely replace optical DSLR. They would both exist; just that EVIL will be sold in much larger numbers.

[jct us101]

I don't really like the EVF cameras. When I used the VF on the Canon S3 IS a long time ago it always messed with my eye. They're just too small.

[Photomy]

I'm personally waiting to see when someone brings out a body stabilized Micro 4/3 -- or similar EVIL.


The G1 is unattractive to me for that reason.


And I've mentioned this before. I want an EVIL that not only has body stabilization, but also forward and backward sensor based focusing for old manual lenses.


Someday, someone will make one, when the technology becomes ridiculously cheap and ubiquitous the way all semiconductor technology does.

Body SR on 4/3 micro should be easy I would think. Easier than what Sony did on the A900.

Full focusing with the sensor? Now that would take a lot more room in the camera I would think.

[PentaxPoke]

But this already there on the LCD screen of the camera, or will be. Not everything is a plus to have in the finder while shooting. DSLR's gives you the best of both worlds.
EVIL cameras are competitors for P&S primarily. Not DSLR's.

I completely agree with Matt and nosnoop, that EVF is the future. Not soon, but definitely in the future because of all the things they listed and many more. We could go on and on about the benefits of a future, high quality EVF. Optical would have no advantage whatsoever over a high-resolution, high-speed, well designed EVF. Arguments over viewfinder coverage and magnification also become moot. Camera companies can design very large, bright viewfinders with much more eye relief. You are no longer restricted to the mechanical limitations of mirrors, and the physics of the light paths. Cameras become lighter, more reliable, faster, and like nosnoop said, you finally see what the sensor sees, making you a better photographer.

The argument that the LCD already does what an EVF would do misses one very important point: With an EVF, you can design the viewfinder so your eye focuses towards infinity, just like an optical. One problem a lot of people have with using the LCD for framing is that your eyes need to focus close to see it. This poses problems for people that need reading glasses, or when the lights are dim, or even just when your eyes are tired.

EVF is clearly the future. The only thing holding it back is present electronics technology, and we know how fast that progresses.

[jct us101]

The EVF has to be bad for your eyes though, I mean you're not looking through glass, but you're putting your eyes up to a bunch of pixels...it's like putting your eye up to a laptop screen.

[PentaxPoke]

The EVF has to be bad for your eyes though, I mean you're not looking through glass, but you're putting your eyes up to a bunch of pixels...it's like putting your eye up to a laptop screen.

We are talking LCD's here, not cathode ray tubes. One could argue it is even safer...Look through the optical viewfinder at something very bright and it can blind you. Also, optical viewfinders are not UV filtered.

[uccemebug]

I'm not big fan on the trend towards tiny cameras but has anyone noticed just how small GH1 is ???

Dimensions 3.29 x 4.88 x 1.78" (83.57 x 123.95 x 45.21mm) body only

Weight 13.6 oz (385g) body only

K-7 is real appealing. But so is GH1, and really so is 5D Mark II for $100 more than 2x the money K-7 will launch at & likely stay at for 6 months. K20D didn't shed issue price as quickly as K10D. Theres such a buzz about K-7 it could take longer than 6 months for any meaningful price drops.

The G1 and GH1 have been available here in Japan for some time. I was initially impressed with the viewfinder on the G1 -- it's sharp and otherwise "feels good". But when panning around found the same ol' EVF problems: lag, jaggies and that vertigo feeling. Also, it's a curiously small image. Given that they can make it larger I'm not sure why they didn't; I was expecting to be swimming in the image as with a Pentax LX....

[PentaxPoke]

The G1 and GH1 have been available here in Japan for some time. I was initially impressed with the viewfinder on the G1 -- it's sharp and otherwise "feels good". But when panning around found the same ol' EVF problems: lag, jaggies and that vertigo feeling. Also, it's a curiously small image. Given that they can make it larger I'm not sure why they didn't; I was expecting to be swimming in the image as with a Pentax LX....

I'm guessing they didn't make it larger because the problem you stated would be even worse. Larger screen means more pixels, means more processing, more lag, etc.

EVF's just can't compete with optical...yet.
Just like a few years ago we said "digital can't compete with film."

I will miss the sound of the mirror slap...but I imagine sometime in the not-too-distant future, high-speed camera processing will be cost-effective enough that mechanical mirrors will be too slow to keep up. The processors will be fast enough to do 30 fps on an APS-C sensor. Then the line between still and video is gone...every frame of the video would be a full resolution still. EVF's will be a necessity.

Oh yeah, one more thing...you can see in the new age of video-capable DSLR's, optical viewfinders are already a limitation. Since it is not possible to use the optical viewfinder for video (because of the mirror), you have to take video by chimping with the LCD. I hate using the LCD for taking pictures or video. Something just feels very wrong when close focusing my eyes on a camera that is taking a picture of something far away.

[vinzer]

You can find Nikon, Canon and dare I say it, Pentax owners who've cashed out most all their prior gears after adding G-1. Alot of anticipation for GH1 there, though the K-7 BUZZ is louder here:


4/3rds Cameras - The GetDPI Workshop Forums


One of the Ex Pentax users shoots with G1 and his remainder Limited Pentax glass. He was a K10D owner and featured in Pentax USA print ad campaigns a couple years ago. I'm guessing G1 is more than a point and shoot to him since he preferred it to K10D?

Small and light is always a good thing for me. I can sacrifice a small bit in terms of shallow DOF (I tried 4/3 once, and I can get enough shallow DOF using it) if it would mean an easier system to carry around on a daily basis.

What I'm not willing to give up, though, is in-body stabilization, hence my hesitation to buy into Panasonic's offerings. Should Olympus be able to squeeze in stabilization in their m4/3 offering as well as a decent EVF and offer it at a friendly price, I'm in.

The K-7 looks real good, but I can wait and see what Olympus has in store.

[mattdm]

The only essential optical part is the lens.

The lens will go too, eventually. Effectively, a lens is an optical computer which takes light in one configuration as input, and rearranges into a specific output (focused image on the sensor plane). Any analog computer can be simulated with a digital computer; it just takes a proper sensor to read all of the data from the input and then work on it with enough precision. This side of things isn't anywhere close, but I'll bet it happens in the next fifty years. Probably before that there will be cameras where one big lens is replaced by thousands of nanoscale lenses.

These cameras will record everything in a stream of raw sensor data which can later be constructed computationally into a photograph (or movie). You'll choose the point of focus, depth of field, exposure time, and everything else essential after the fact.

Depending on how storage technology works by the time this comes about, either the shutter button will tell the camera to remember the next (and previous!) few seconds, or else it'll just mark a point in the stream so you can find it easily when processing later.

Nobody here says that EVIL would completely replace optical DSLR. They would both exist; just that EVIL will be sold in much larger numbers.

Oh, I'll say it. There will still be people shooting vintage cameras (with film, probably), but everything serious will move to all-electronic. Cheaper, better, and more capable — pick all three.