[tokyoso]

They people who don't know they want a finder.

Face it, the mirror is a mechanical solution to let people see what the glass sees but also expose the film.

Nowadays we can see what the sensor pick up so there's no need for it anymore.

I assume smaller MILCs come first, and then the contrast-detect focus speed gets updated in the normal lines, mirror gets removed and EVF added and eventually they get redesigned for new lenses since one find ways to redistribute the camera layout which fits better now when the mirror is gone.If the MILC provide the same picture quality, even without the same ability to effect the settings, and a similar lens section / decent kit-lenses then they will pick that up instead because it's smaller.

HD video on DSLRs are here to stay.

You can't flip the mirror around all the time during filming so that will lead to faster auto-focus without mirror flips, and sooner or later you will get a global (whole sensor electronical) shutter.

As soon as that happen and that focus work just as well / better than the old methods then the only reason to keep the optical viewfinder would be no lag.

Reasons to remove it would be 100% coverage, magnification for manual focus, DOF-preview, shutter blur preview, WB-preview, bigger and brighter, all sorts of innovative and clever information and AF-designs which may come from the ability to actually get the whole image and calculate things on all the data available.

The people around here which claim they want to see a camera without movie ability don't understand anything either. It's 100% fail to not adapt it.
Entry level replaceable lenses cameras will need to have a movie mode and people coming from P&S may not even care about the viewfinder at all. And hence no need for a mechanical solution.

But optical viewfinders can't do everything an electronical would be able to and won't even work during filming.

interesting points. its hard to bet money against technology advancement. i do hope EVFs become main stream, as if they aren't already. then we'll have people reminisencing the good, ole days of mirror flips...

[kevinschoenmakers]

I wonder if somewhere in this debate (in the sense of marketshare) between EVF and OVF the 'feel' of an optical viewfinder with a mirror will be important. Lots of people really enjoy how it feels, the mechanical aspect of a mirrorslap and the sound of the shutter. Friends of mine enjoy taking pictures with my camera for that reason, and I know I certainly enjoy it. For a seizable part of the consumerbase there will be one less reason to upgrade to a MILC if it 'feels' and sounds the same as their compact.

I guess for quite some time optical finders will stay around, just for that reason.

[gazonk]

I guess for quite some time optical finders will stay around, just for that reason.

At some point we'll probably get EVF-cameras that simulate mirror slap

[falconeye]

Nowadays we can see what the sensor pick up so there's no need for it anymore.

aliquis, while all of your points are valid, they are trivial too. Of course will EVF replace the mirror box. And of course it hasn't done yet.

We already had a more elaborate discussion about when exactly this would happen and when an EVF could be considered a match for the optical VF, i.e., when it is as much fun and accurate to use the EVF, as we are now used with the optical VF.

That's a discussion about EVF resolution, contrast and latency which are all very weak properties for EVF now, and brightness where EVF is strong already.

Unfortunately, you contributed nothing to this discussion.

[Adam]

Valentín Sama, well informed and reputed Spanish expert on photography (I mentioned him several times before in my blog), just posted in his blog that Pentax might be seriously considering to join the micro4/3 standard. If this hint becomes true, we might be in front of one of the major news in the world of photography during 2010.

This is the original sentence in Spanish:


Translation:


Please let me stress that I only translated the information, so all the merit (for good or bad) comes from the original post from Valentín Sama, available here:
Acerca de la fotografía. Técnica, estética y opinión: Pentax y el Micro Cuatro Tercios

Could it be a micro four thirds P&S or sub-slr?

[Aristophanes]

EVF hasn't replaced OVF in digital film making. They complement each other because EVF struggles with DOF and ambient viewing conditions. The main advantage of an OVF--as anyone who has ever used a rangefinder will know--is it allows the eye to focus on the subject in isolation.

You "go somewhere else" when the eye is forced into a particular perspective, as with microscopes and telescopes. Sort of like what Timothy Leary said about where your mind "goes" when you talk on the phone. You cannot get that with EVF, not on the size of screen for a portable system. In a controlled lab situation, sure, EVF detail is exceptional on a big screen HDTV display (like CSI), but you need that end magnification to get our mind's attention.

I agree EVF will appeal to those whose photo or videographic aesthetics are vernacular, but not for creativity or precision. OVF is an extension of our eye as an optical device. EVF is not. Ironically the analog OVF is closer a cybernetic creation than EVF.

[falconeye]

You cannot get that with EVF, not on the size of screen for a portable system.

I am sorry to say. But you confuse EVF with rear LCD screen.

EVF stands for electronic viewfinder. Serious implementations would be based on replacing the focus screen by an (almost) equally sized 4MP (**) OLED screen and you would still watch through the ocular. Such EVFs don't exist yet why EVF-based cameras aren't yet considered serious tools by many.

But this has nothing to do with the principle. The principle of EVF is NOT inferior to OVF. Just their current implementations are. Stay tuned.


__
(**) Human eye resolving power is about 20 arcsec (at ~5% MTF; more like 60 arcsec at 50%). So, a 35mm focus screen fooling the eye at 100% 1.0x magnification (what Pentax MX was close to provide) requires 4.8µm large RGB pixels (a 7500x5000 RGB screen). The relaxed MTF50 requirement (which would be judged excellent but still inferior to optical) means a 2500x1670 or 4.2MP RGB screen (12.5 million dots). Personally, I'll have a look as soon as they surpass 10 million dots (or 8 million with Samsungs RGB dot array). BTW, this requires a live feed surpassing 3.3MP which is much more than the current and alias-prone 0.9MP 720p or 2.1MP 1080p live feeds.



Addendum:

On the other hand, as soon as this happens, a camera's VF is a great cinema. I'll then expecting binocular attachments to sell like hot cakes and 3D front lens adapters to become a standard

Maybe, EVF's of this quality will become stand-alone gagets to go with your xPhone etc. too, not just your system camera. A standard to attach EVFs may be a desirable thing soon, much like the flash hot shoe "standard".

---

Last edited by falconeye; 05-20-2010 at 06:40 AM.

[cateto]

Could it be a micro four thirds P&S or sub-slr?

I don't really understand your question, as the line to distinguish P&S from sub-slr (when dealing with interchangeable lenses, mirrorles cameras) is very fine. In fact, you can put any micro4/3 camera from Olympus or Panasonic under automatic mode, and it would be a P&S, right?

[WMBP]

I wonder if somewhere in this debate (in the sense of marketshare) between EVF and OVF the 'feel' of an optical viewfinder with a mirror will be important. Lots of people really enjoy how it feels, the mechanical aspect of a mirrorslap and the sound of the shutter. Friends of mine enjoy taking pictures with my camera for that reason, and I know I certainly enjoy it. ...

One of the major steps on my transition in 2006 from a Canon fixed-lens (superzoom) "bridge" camera to my first DSLR, was the experience of using an Olympus DSLR to take a few photos for a friend. I was really impressed by the clarity of the image in the (optical) viewfinder.

I do not want to give up that clarity. I would however be delighted to give up the sound of the mirror slap. There are times when I like it, but every time I shoot in a church (as I will tonight) I wish that my cameras were quieter.

Will

[Michaelina2]

I would... be delighted to give up the sound of the mirror slap. There are times when I like it, but every time I shoot in a church (as I will tonight) I wish that my cameras were quieter.

Will

...trying a K-7?

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. In fact, I'd be hard pressed to find a pre-K7 film or digital photo of her with her eyes open and face relaxed.

While the K7's shutter is audible to the photgrapher, it's silent to the subject. A quiet shutter may not be a high priority feature, but it makes a huge difference when your subject is jumpy, or the setting calls for minimum distractions.

...my 2 cents...

[falconeye]

She has split second reflexes and until I got a K-7, EVERY shot of her suffered from the blinkies.

This is simply amazing!

The time between first mirror slap noise and shutter exposing the middle of an image is 22ms (I measured it for my K-7). At the speed of sound, this means the mirror slap sound has travelled 7.5m when the image is exposed. Say, your wife is closer. So, this gives her a 10ms period to blink her eye. At the speed of nerve impulses, this corresponds to 1.8m (a body length) max. travelling distance. Say, the ear is closer to the eye then we may be left with 7ms actual reflex reaction time including lid closure time. At least as fast as the shutter of the camera itself!

Amazing, simply amazing! Is your wife an exceptional person?


Of course, longer exposure times like 1/30s extend the period and make all this more likely. But then, a fast shutter speed like 1/250 would solve the problem too.

[thibs]

I comfirm this: k7 is VERY silent.

[Aristophanes]

I am sorry to say. But you confuse EVF with rear LCD screen.

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?).

[falconeye]

No, I'm not.

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 ...

[mattdm]

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.

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).