[juu]

Art, btw some say the 8-19 in that picture is already in an extended position due to the existance and the position of the "home dot".

[audiobomber]

The picture here shows a Leica-badged lens:

Panasonic Lumix DMC-L1 Review: 1. Introduction: Digital Photography Review

Besides the optics though, I'm not sure what expertise Leica could offer Panasonic that they don't already have.

"the DMC-L1 shares its optical subsystem (lens mount, mirror box, viewfinder, auto focus and exposure sensors) with the Olympus E-330"

All the tough to engineer SLR-like bits were Olympus, which supports my point. The only way to get into the DSLR market is to partner with or buy an existing player. Not so with EVIL. If you can build a TV or p&s, you can build an EVIL camera. Soon EVIL will cost less than than dslr's because of simple build and non-exclusivity.

[juu]

Soon EVIL will cost less than than dslr's because of simple build and non-exclusivity.

I agree with this.

The only way to get into the DSLR market is to partner with or buy an existing player. Not so with EVIL. If you can build a TV or p&s, you can build an EVIL camera.

If this was true, wouldn't we see more well-implemented CDAF solutions for large(ish) sensor cameras? So far only Panasonic comes to mind to have done it right.

I think the big few DSLR players (of which Pentax is luckily one) probably defend the DSLR market with a lot of patents just like the technologies required to implement EVIL well are probably already protected by patents registered by camcorder builders.

[Wheatfield]

I think the big few DSLR players (of which Pentax is luckily one) probably defend the DSLR market with a lot of patents just like the technologies required to implement EVIL well are probably already protected by patents registered by camcorder builders.

Pentax built the first Japanese SLR camera, but were not allowed to patent the idea by the Japanese patent board. It was felt at the time that the development of the SLR was going to be too important to the rebuilding of Japan's industrial base to limit it to one company.
Hence, there are no patents on the SLR concept, and anyone is free to build an SLR camera.
IIRC, Contax in Germany built the first "real SLR camera.
It's more likely that the electronic viewfinder is patented and licensed for use.
I believe Fuji had the first EV, so if there is a patent on the concept, they are likely the patent holders.

[Boris]

Pardon me if I am wrong, but if someone is holding a patent on certain idea or technology, you could turn to them and for proper fee obtain rights to do it yourself, could you not???

[juu]

Pentax built the first Japanese SLR camera, but were not allowed to patent the idea by the Japanese patent board. It was felt at the time that the development of the SLR was going to be too important to the rebuilding of Japan's industrial base to limit it to one company.

That's interesting, I hadn't heard of that.

Hence, there are no patents on the SLR concept, and anyone is free to build an SLR camera.

I'm pretty sure there are other patents to cover many important pieces, even if the SLR as such isn't. Patents to cover phase-detect auto-focus, metering, etc.

It's more likely that the electronic viewfinder is patented and licensed for use.
I believe Fuji had the first EV, so if there is a patent on the concept, they are likely the patent holders.

These things are probably also covered by hundreds if not thousands of patents. If Fuji were there first, they probably got the most important ones, but other companies hold others that they can trade/leverage.

[Wheatfield]

Pardon me if I am wrong, but if someone is holding a patent on certain idea or technology, you could turn to them and for proper fee obtain rights to do it yourself, could you not???

Precisely. Providing the patent holder will sell you usage rights, then you are not breaching patent law.

[juu]

Pardon me if I am wrong, but if someone is holding a patent on certain idea or technology, you could turn to them and for proper fee obtain rights to do it yourself, could you not???

Yes, you could. But the patent holder can set the "proper fee" high enough to effectively prohibit you from being able to make the product.

What happens often these days is that large players that hold multiple patents on each other make deals about not suing each other and effectively using each others patents. I suspect the large DSLR makers may have made such deals among themselves.

As an aside, in my opinion, the patent system has evolved into something that may be hurting, not helping innovation, at least in fast-moving industries like electronics and IT. Trivial patents are being approved and any newcomer faces numerous lawsuits from established players.

[lithos]

For those Pentaxians who say "I don't care about EVILs and cameras that are popular with general consumers. Just as long as Pentax makes cameras with OVFs that I can use my classic Takumars on, I'm happy," all I can say is, that's a sure recipe for Pentax's ultimate demise. Hey, I want those kinds of cameras, too. But Pentax is too small to survive on the hard-core enthusiast market alone.

Really? I thought it was all those who crack a fat over EVILs who wanted to use all the old lenses, and not just from Pentax.

The general feeling I get from all these threads is that every other manufacturer evah! is cranking out EVILs like they've all been taken up in some gadgetry rapture and Pentax has been left behind.

And aren't EVILs enthusiast cameras, anyway?

[Wheatfield]

I suspect the large DSLR makers may have made such deals among themselves.

I suspect someone is blocking my posts.
There is no patent on the SLR camera design.

[juu]

lithos, I think Biro's point is very valid. Some may wish for Pentax to keep building the DSLRs for as long as possible but that may mean a slow decline of the company.

And aren't EVILs enthusiast cameras, anyway?

Not really, or at least not for long.

[juu]

I suspect someone is blocking my posts.

I suspect someone is blocking mine as they don't seem to be getting through.

There is no patent on the SLR camera design.

You said that before, and I responded to that before:

I'm pretty sure there are other patents to cover many important pieces, even if the SLR as such isn't. Patents to cover phase-detect auto-focus, metering, etc.

Have you now received and understood this message?

Also, there are quite a few patents on SLR camera designs, even if some have possibly expired now. Please refer to US Pat. 4062028 (Canon, Single reflex camera), 5065175 (Asahi, Single-lens reflex camera system), etc. as examples.

[lithos]

lithos, I think Biro's point is very valid. Some may wish for Pentax to keep building the DSLRs for as long as possible but that may mean a slow decline of the company.

So, better for a quick death shelling out for an entirely new camera format, new lens lines, mounts, product facilities in a format whose takeup has been less than was hyped so far?

Not really, or at least not for long.

So are EVILs going up to the pro grade, or down to the consumer grade?

The online sites that rave the most about EVILs aren't photography sites, they're gadgey sites. Engadget, Techradar, Wired...places that like. EVILs are the new cameraphones, so it seems. They're like pro cameras, but they don't ruin the line of your Crumpler messenger bag.

The biggest "issue" users have with the Pen is a lack of a built-in flash, which I think is telling.

[Biro]

Really? I thought it was all those who crack a fat over EVILs who wanted to use all the old lenses, and not just from Pentax.

The general feeling I get from all these threads is that every other manufacturer evah! is cranking out EVILs like they've all been taken up in some gadgetry rapture and Pentax has been left behind.

And aren't EVILs enthusiast cameras, anyway?

Lithos... I'm talking about the hard-core traditionalist DSLR fans (of which there are many) who want nothing other than a traditional SLR with an optical viewfinder on which they can use their classic lenses. I'm not telling Pentax to stop making these cameras. Hey, I like them too.

But when the traditionalists pooh-pooh the idea of EVILs and other new technology (many of them still have issues with auto focus!), they fail to realize that Pentax and other camera companies need to find new customers and markets in order to grow and thrive. If Pentax - or anyone else - continues to make only traditional SLRs, they risk falling slowly behind and eventually becoming irrelevant.

So far, not every other company is cranking out EVILs - we essentially have Panasonic, Olympus and Samsung right now. But it is clear other companies are interested and it is very likely we will see EVILs from them. I can't imagine a company like Sony won't tap into this market and there are published rumors about Kodak, Fuji and Canon as well. I agree with those who maintain EVILs are likely to be the Next Big Thing in the camera world.

Are EVILs enthusiast cameras? It seems the answer is yes and no. There seems to be a split. Many of us are embracing them but others refuse to accept an electronic viewfinder - or no viewfinder at all. I understand their point. But it is very possible - and even likely - that advances in technology many eventually take care of the current shortcomings of EVFs. Look at how far sensor technology has come in 10 years.

As an enthusiast myself, I can see adding an EVIL to my kit - but currently only as a second camera or system. Face it: even enthusiasts occasionally don't want to lug around a full-sized DSLR kit. And EVILs seem, to least to me, to be the best compromise yet between weight, size and image quality. Currently my only real options for vacation and travel are a Pentax K-x with either the 18-250mm zoom or a single prime, or a megazoom P&S. An EVIL might be a better option.

What is clear is that EVILs are intended by their makers to be a better form of bridge camera that will encourage more consumer P&S users to move up, become comfortable with using multiple lenses and perhaps become serious photo enthusiasts themselves. If a lot of of existing enthusiasts get on board as well, fantastic.

[juu]

So, better for a quick death shelling out for an entirely new camera format, new lens lines, mounts, product facilities

I agree that the need for a new mount with new lenses is a huge issue. However, I don't think tackling it means certain, quick death. The rest that you list doesn't seem to be that big of a problem, considering that DSLRs component-wise are a superset of EVILs (except for the EVF part).

in a format whose takeup has been less than was hyped so far?

Are you saying EVILs have not been successful for Pana/Oly so far? Are you saying they haven't met and exceeded their sales targets? If so, please elaborate why.

So are EVILs going up to the pro grade, or down to the consumer grade?

I think short-term, down to consumer grade. Long-term, not sure, perhaps as EVFs improve even up to pro grade.

The online sites that rave the most about EVILs aren't photography sites, they're gadgey sites. Engadget, Techradar, Wired...places that like. EVILs are the new cameraphones, so it seems.

If so, that seems an argument for Pentax building an EVIL camera and not against it.

Moreover, it seems also that most serious photography sites like Luminous Landscape have reviewed cameras like the GF1 favourably.