Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
05-20-2010, 09:25 AM   #301
Site Supporter
Aristophanes's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Dartmouth, Nova Scotia
Photos: Albums
Posts: 3,922
QuoteOriginally posted by falconeye Quote
Actually, I don't care if you're confusing EVF with rear screen or not. For sure, you're confusing me

And to repeat: Each and every EVF has an eyepiece. Without, not an EVF ...
An EVF in film/TV can be any mini-display whether viewed through an eyepiece or in a shrouded LCD. The finder is the screen and the eyepiece is the ocular (as you call it). Eyepiece optional:

http://pro.sony.com/bbsc/ssr/cat-broadcastcameras/cat-hdstudio/product-HDVF550/

More confusing is that the vernacular now is to call Sony's NEX an EVIL, though it has no eyepiece, nor even the option of one:

Sony EVIL NEX 3 Looks Freaky, But Brings Great Specs

http://www.wired.com/gadgetlab/2010/01/five-reasons-you-should-ditch-your-dslr/

Clearly the definition of a "viewfinder"has been expanded. Cat's out of the bag (if it was ever in the bag to begin with):

Viewfinder - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Last edited by Aristophanes; 05-20-2010 at 09:34 AM. Reason: Forgot a link
05-20-2010, 09:41 AM   #302
Site Supporter




Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Middle of Everywhere
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,169
QuoteOriginally posted by falconeye Quote
This is simply amazing!

Amazing, simply amazing! Is your wife an exceptional person?
May I ask if you have ever been photographed by someone using a K-7? I have and I never can tell when the shot was taken. It can be quite disconcerting.

In the case of my wife (pre-K-7), I think she was able to see finger movement on the shutter release then react in anticipation of the click, or flash. She just knew when to blink. With the K-7, she sees finger movement but can't pre-determine blink time because the silent shutter never provides confirmation.

BTW: Short, lightly built, red-headed Irish women have reflexes that are faster than a ferret and a temper to match. I know... trust me... and I'm not trading her in!

Cheers...
05-20-2010, 09:57 AM   #303
Veteran Member
WMBP's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Dallas, Texas
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,496
QuoteOriginally posted by Michaelina2 Quote
My wife is on constant 'photo high alert.' She has split second reflexes and until I got a K-7, EVERY shot of her suffered from the blinkies....

I have a problem with subjects blinking when I use flash and P-TTL. That's a well known problem with some small percentage of the population who have hair-trigger reflexes: the P-TTL (or i-TTL or E-TTTL) exposure pre-flash causes certain people people to blink, and a split second later, when the actual flash fires, their eyes are half closed.

But I've never heard of anybody who had this problem as a response to the sound of the shutter. I don't know about the times involves (falconeye seems to) but I suppose, if people can respond quickly enough to a pre-flash to blink in the photo (which I know they do), they maybe could respond fast enough to a sound. I've just never heard of anybody who did.

Glad you got it sorted, though.

I've heard that the K-7 is quieter. But it's still not silent.

Will
05-20-2010, 10:31 AM   #304
Veteran Member
falconeye's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Munich, Alps, Germany
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 6,863
QuoteOriginally posted by WMBP Quote
I suppose, if people can respond quickly enough to a pre-flash to blink in the photo (which I know they do), they maybe could respond fast enough to a sound.
I blink to the P-TTL preflash and find it annoying. So, I normally turn my flash to M because to not do this to others. A person not blinking when flashed surprises me

But there is no way I could blink fast enough triggered by the mirror slap sound. There is at least an order of magnitude more time with pre-flash. I can see the a clear pause with my naked eye and I think we are talking about 100 - 300ms here. The average conscious human reaction time is 215ms, with 0.01% scoring about twice as fast. Reflexes can be faster than 100ms.

The reflex we're talking about is the Corneal reflex.

05-20-2010, 11:24 AM   #305
Senior Member
Angevinn's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Chicago, Ill.
Posts: 205
Leica restates that it has no 4/3 plans

Olympus and Panasonic rumors Blog Archive Leica will not join MicroFourThirds (via Steve Huff)

Stefan Daniel again states that Leica will not enter the m4/3 market. Leica doesn't believe the image quality is there. That just leaves Panasonic and Olympus.

Olympus and Panasonic rumors Blog Archive (FT3) Nobody else will join MicroFourThirds (no Fuji, no Sigma, no Kodak, no Leica)

There was another rumor on that forum that Fuji is not pursuing m4/3 that strongly anymore. I'm sure it will be made more clear at Photokina.

It will be interesting to see how M4/3 fairs in 2011 against the Sony NEX, Samsung NX and any other EVIL or Mirrorless cameras that will be brought out.

APS-C is as small as I'd go in camera sensors. I'm anxious but patient for a Pentax FF DSLR and new D-FA lenses!
05-20-2010, 11:47 AM   #306
Inactive Account




Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: New Orleans
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 3,053
QuoteOriginally posted by Aristophanes Quote
No, I'm not. I'm, referring to the practical application of having an optical viewfinder regardless of whether the data is sourced (you call it an ocular). Therefore I use the film industry example where they universally frame their subjects on digital apparatus through an eyepiece to this day. And even more interesting, they use single eyepieces as we "focus" better with one eye than with two. If the resolution of the EVF/LCD starts to match the eye's, it won't change the need to put a piece of glass up to the eye for most detailed and creative shots. The standard for creative vision has been set by OVF extended through an ocular to a single eye directly. Like you say, the implementation to match that from EVF is not here yet.

I wonder if it is economically more efficient to do what rangefinders do and have a direct optical path to the eye and do away with all the other not-yet-invented technology to do what 150+ years of optics can do already. For snapshots, the Sony NEX just looks stupid enough that $20,000 for a Leica system is almost appealing. This opens a market for a low-cost, rangefinder system (which is what we are all secretly dreaming about anyway, right?).
Don't forget that these tiny high resolution displays that will go into hypothetical EVFs will need to be color calibrated.
Other persistent advantages of optical components over electronic components would be:
- lower power draw (a mirror or prism requires none to function as you frame and compose your shot) and
- eyestrain (staring into a backlit display like an LCD or one that radiates light like an OLED)
- low light performance for an optical component is determined by the photographers eyeballs but for an electronic device would be determined by the black levels of the display and the sensitivity of the sensor
05-20-2010, 03:42 PM   #307
Senior Member




Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Japan (Australian expat)
Posts: 166
QuoteOriginally posted by mattdm Quote
But we're not talking about "not-yet-invented technology". It's current technology that is in its early stages. It's a no-brainer to predict that this technology will improve. The only game is guessing at what time it will overtake physical optics (at an affordable price).
Exactly!!!!

The exact same question was asked 10 years ago(when the first consumer grade DSLRs came out), as to when DSLRs would overtake film SLRs (in numbers sold).
05-20-2010, 04:03 PM   #308
Veteran Member
falconeye's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Munich, Alps, Germany
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 6,863
QuoteOriginally posted by mikemike Quote
low light performance for an optical component is determined by the photographers eyeballs but for an electronic device would be determined by the black levels of the display and the sensitivity of the sensor
Yes, and an illuminated VF may actually disturb the eye's dark adaption if not brightness-controlled by an ambient light sensor.

However, an EVF can integrate luminosity over a larger period of time than the eye and therefore outperform the human eye by a large factor. It could be configured to do so. Right now however, this isn't the case. Out in the dark, EVFs show nothing but color noise whereas I can still frame with an OVF. But I expect this to reverse in the foreseeable future.

05-20-2010, 04:07 PM   #309
Site Supporter
Aristophanes's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Dartmouth, Nova Scotia
Photos: Albums
Posts: 3,922
QuoteOriginally posted by dnas Quote
Exactly!!!!

The exact same question was asked 10 years ago(when the first consumer grade DSLRs came out), as to when DSLRs would overtake film SLRs (in numbers sold).
But there is a law of diminishing returns and the cost/benefit ratio of the new technology may not scale low enough to overcome the advantages of an older technology. I remember this same argument used when digital watches with LED's then LCD's came out. Would you rather wear a Timex or Tag-Heuer right now?

It simply may be that we can creatively construct photographic images better through an optical eyepiece at a vastly more cost-effectively thah any EVF in the same form factor.

Most people will still be happy to take the trade-off with a rear LCD as their EVF, and the EVIL concept takes over. Many won't. It's a big, diverse market with proven tech and history.
05-20-2010, 04:18 PM   #310
Veteran Member
falconeye's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Munich, Alps, Germany
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 6,863
QuoteOriginally posted by Aristophanes Quote
a rear LCD as their EVF
In all due respect, may I kindly ask you a favour?

While you may technically be correct, please avoid the term EVF in conjunction with an eyepiece-free screen. AFAIK, you are the only one using the term "EVF" in this way on this (still photography) forum and IMHO it makes reading your posts a bit painful. And if you wonder, people move from EVIL to MILC or SLD to avoid "EV" in the same cases as well.

I leave the decision at your discretion. I am just forwarding the wish.


EDIT.
You may want to contribute to the corresponding Wikipedia article though (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electronic_viewfinder. In its current form, it would exclude a rear screen to be called EVF. They even write: "A live preview on the LCD display (as distinct from an electronic viewfinder)". I see your point though as technically, a rear screen is electronically showing a view of the framing. It's just that almost everybody else is misusing the term to mean something else, i.e., what Wikipedia currently publishes.

Last edited by falconeye; 05-20-2010 at 04:29 PM.
05-20-2010, 07:05 PM   #311
Senior Member




Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Japan (Australian expat)
Posts: 166
QuoteOriginally posted by dnas Quote
Exactly!!!!

The exact same question was asked 10 years ago(when the first consumer grade DSLRs came out), as to when DSLRs would overtake film SLRs (in numbers sold).


QuoteOriginally posted by Aristophanes Quote
But there is a law of diminishing returns and the cost/benefit ratio of the new technology may not scale low enough to overcome the advantages of an older technology. I remember this same argument used when digital watches with LED's then LCD's came out. Would you rather wear a Timex or Tag-Heuer right now?

It simply may be that we can creatively construct photographic images better through an optical eyepiece at a vastly more cost-effectively thah any EVF in the same form factor.

Most people will still be happy to take the trade-off with a rear LCD as their EVF, and the EVIL concept takes over. Many won't. It's a big, diverse market with proven tech and history.
Again the same was said about large sensors (APS-C) in DSLRs "cost/benefit ratio of the new technology may not scale low enough to overcome the advantages of an older technology. "

But they DID. DSLRs overtook film SLR sales by 2005, in only 5 years!!!

Sometimes it doesn't matter if an older technology is thought to be better if the consumers vote with their wallets. This is what happened with DSLRs & film SLRs.

Last edited by dnas; 05-20-2010 at 08:22 PM.
05-20-2010, 07:32 PM   #312
Administrator
Site Webmaster
Adam's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Arizona
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 43,217
I was half-joking there I would be horrible if Pentax went for this for their SLRs, but I mean it wouldn't hurt for their Optio's.

Adam
PentaxForums.com Webmaster (Site Usage Guide | Site Help | My Photography)



PentaxForums.com's high server and development costs are user-supported. You can help cover those costs by donating. Or, buy your photo gear from our affiliates, Adorama, B&H Photo, or Topaz Labs, and get FREE Marketplace access - click here to see how! Trusted Pentax retailers:

05-20-2010, 10:06 PM   #313
Site Supporter
Aristophanes's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Dartmouth, Nova Scotia
Photos: Albums
Posts: 3,922
I am just pointing out to you that your narrow definition of an EVF was a much broader definition from film/TV since the 1980's. I worked in the film industry in the late 80's through to 1998 and a "viewfinder" was exactly like the link from Sony I demonstrated, eyepiece free, but often with a loupe, sometimes just a hood. A TTL viewfinder was the optical arrangement, like a Director's lens, and a small monitor or later, small LCD, was "the viewfinder".

So now we have the bizarre situation with still photography where the rear LCD "viewfinder" on an EVIL is sometimes paired with a non-SLR OVF as a kludge add-on, on a system called EVIL, with no (by your definition) EVF. I disagree, the common phrasing is not moving from EVIL to MILC or whatever. They're going EVIL all the way: Wired, Engadget, Gizmodo, and AP. It's done.

An LCD used to frame a video or still is a viewfinder on a continuum with an EVF. Other photographers appear to agree:

Digital Camera Viewfinders: OVF, EVF, LCD, SLR, DSLR, Optical, Electronic, Tunnel | NeoCamera.com

And Nikon has always called their Live View through the rear LCD a "viewfinder":

D3 | D3X - Reliability and Operability

Even dummies call it that:

Checking out a Digital Camera’s LCD Viewfinder - For Dummies

I agree that an EVF may technically mean a small, eyepiece-enahnced LCD, but in common use with EVIL and other acronyms expanding the usage, no. It appears the term is migrating out of ignorance to the video end of things.

My point has always been that the eyepiece EVF route may not be cost-effective when compared with an enlarged LCD rear "viewfinder" a la EVIL given that size appears to be a factor in the form, and it is clear the eyepiece option is getting the boot. The casualty here and in P&S land is the eyepiece. Once the mirror goes, so goes the eyepiece. The rear LCD is becoming the viewfinder, with zoom viewing (not lens zooming) replacing TTL optical acuity.

Which might make the rangefinder optical solution both cost-effective and more real for the creatively inclined and detail-oriented photographer (with the known limitations). Or the current mechanical solution. Not everyone wants a small form factor and the narrowly-defined EVF might be an expensive, compromised solution to a problem that is already solved by cost-effective mechanical and optical means. And if you want an LCD display, the rear LCD "viewfinder" is already always going to be right there (but only on Nikons, apparently).





QuoteOriginally posted by falconeye Quote
In all due respect, may I kindly ask you a favour?

While you may technically be correct, please avoid the term EVF in conjunction with an eyepiece-free screen. AFAIK, you are the only one using the term "EVF" in this way on this (still photography) forum and IMHO it makes reading your posts a bit painful. And if you wonder, people move from EVIL to MILC or SLD to avoid "EV" in the same cases as well.

I leave the decision at your discretion. I am just forwarding the wish.


EDIT.
You may want to contribute to the corresponding Wikipedia article though (Electronic viewfinder - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. In its current form, it would exclude a rear screen to be called EVF. They even write: "A live preview on the LCD display (as distinct from an electronic viewfinder)". I see your point though as technically, a rear screen is electronically showing a view of the framing. It's just that almost everybody else is misusing the term to mean something else, i.e., what Wikipedia currently publishes.
05-20-2010, 10:17 PM   #314
Site Supporter
Aristophanes's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Dartmouth, Nova Scotia
Photos: Albums
Posts: 3,922
QuoteOriginally posted by dnas Quote
Again the same was said about large sensors (APS-C) in DSLRs "cost/benefit ratio of the new technology may not scale low enough to overcome the advantages of an older technology. "

But they DID. DSLRs overtook film SLR sales by 2005, in only 5 years!!!

Sometimes it doesn't matter if an older technology is thought to be better if the consumers vote with their wallets. This is what happened with DSLRs & film SLRs.
You're comparing the material costs of film to digital. Not the same thing, and not necessarily superior in quality of output, though certainly in usability.

With the optical dilemma EVIL or M43 poses for detailed subject framing, the progress here might not be able to overcome the basic form factor obligations that an eyepiece attached to a camera body presents, EVF or OVF. The cost to get to an all "E" system with an eyepiece might not be worthwhile, not when there's a known solution working very well now, and when the rear LCD can function as a viewfinder in any case (as is now very often done in studio or macro work).

Sometimes analogue is better. Self-windng, mechanical watches are much higher-margin items than LCD versions, and a superior product for their singular, non-Dick Tracy purpose. OTOH there's pretty much no value in a rotary phone right now...

Consumers voted with their wallets for sub-prime mortgages. That doesn't mean economic success nor a quality housing sector. New tech + $$$ does not always = enhanced quality, nor even value (the forgotten parameter).
05-21-2010, 01:52 AM   #315
Senior Member




Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Japan (Australian expat)
Posts: 166
QuoteOriginally posted by dnas Quote
Again the same was said about large sensors (APS-C) in DSLRs "cost/benefit ratio of the new technology may not scale low enough to overcome the advantages of an older technology. "

But they DID. DSLRs overtook film SLR sales by 2005, in only 5 years!!!

Sometimes it doesn't matter if an older technology is thought to be better if the consumers vote with their wallets. This is what happened with DSLRs & film SLRs.

QuoteOriginally posted by Aristophanes Quote
You're comparing the material costs of film to digital. Not the same thing, and not necessarily superior in quality of output, though certainly in usability.

With the optical dilemma EVIL or M43 poses for detailed subject framing, the progress here might not be able to overcome the basic form factor obligations that an eyepiece attached to a camera body presents, EVF or OVF. The cost to get to an all "E" system with an eyepiece might not be worthwhile, not when there's a known solution working very well now, and when the rear LCD can function as a viewfinder in any case (as is now very often done in studio or macro work).

Sometimes analogue is better. Self-windng, mechanical watches are much higher-margin items than LCD versions, and a superior product for their singular, non-Dick Tracy purpose. OTOH there's pretty much no value in a rotary phone right now...

Consumers voted with their wallets for sub-prime mortgages. That doesn't mean economic success nor a quality housing sector. New tech + $$$ does not always = enhanced quality, nor even value (the forgotten parameter).

I'm not comparing the material costs of film to digital for the consumer.

I'm saying that whether people like it or not, technology moves forward, and what survives is what people will buy. People will not buy what they don't want to buy.

Pentax does NOT make a 35mm film SLR any more, because it is not profitable to do so. Whether or not a Pentax 35mm film SLR is better than a Pentax DSLR, is irrelevant because it does not exist for you to buy.


Nikon make a film SLR. One SLR. The Nikon F6 SLR. But Nikon have listed on their website, NINE Digital SLRs. Why? Because only Pros buy the F6.
It is irrelevant to Nikon as to whether the F6 is superior to all of their DSLRs, because they can't afford to neglect DSLRs that consumers will buy.
Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
blog, el, pentax, pentax news, pentax rumors, photography
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
For Sale - Sold: Pentax 49mm rubber hood for standard lens fulcrumx29 Sold Items 1 11-20-2009 05:02 PM
DNG - The non standard standard Lowell Goudge Digital Processing, Software, and Printing 13 07-21-2009 05:02 AM
how does one join the pentax photo gallery nirvanaguy19 Photographic Technique 4 01-08-2008 08:45 PM
Pentax Days! Come join us and meet Pentax! codiac2600 Pentax News and Rumors 23 11-19-2007 08:46 PM
SMC PENTAX-M 28mm F/1.7 STANDARD LENS HmmmGoFigure Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 8 07-07-2007 08:46 AM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 05:23 PM. | See also: NikonForums.com, CanonForums.com part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top