[Emacs]

Mirrorless does have hurdles to overcome, but the potential for for the technology is pretty big. We are really only on the second generation of EVIL cameras.

The third will appear in about a year or two. It won't be sensor-integrated PDAF but the new approach in defocus estimation, which will lead to the AF superior even to best PDAF samples. The EVF with best sensors is about to ready to replace OVF (they need to apply some kind of exposure fusion method in realtime to fully utilize sensor DR capabilities. Those methods (realtime) are already developed, so I see no significant problem here, the only thing that matters is processing power. But mobile CPUs are getting so much faster today and it won't be a problem (and I think it isn't a problem even right now). With those EVF we don't limit by mirror size, we can have many additional info, etc.

So, we are moving to the future with small cameras and small lenses (especially wide angle ones) with superior IQ (larger sensors), with precise and consistent AF, with realtime focus confirmation for old manual lenses.

[Clavius]

Strange reason. You better to watch how it was in reality without any tiny dark cropped viewfinder, just with your eyes

I have to disagree with you. Staring down a EVF feels just like looking at a live-view screen. Resolution is always lower then the real thing. And no matter how fast it is, there's always noticeable lag.

But hey, different people have different tastes. Some people even like the idea of attaching legacy lenses to their iphones...

[stanleyk]

As for the EVF vs OVF argument I can remember in the 80's when I was told CD's would never replace the turntable. Now CD's are even considered out of date with the advent of MP3's. Technology changes. Probably most young people buying cameras now or in the next 5 years won't really care since for a lot of them the Iphone or something similar will be their introduction to photography. I know a lot of people who will swear film is better than digital. Maybe they are right. You can still buy film cameras but they are now the minority. My guess is the OVF will in 5 or so years be a niche item much like film. That doesn't make it better or worse than an EVF.

[eddie1960]

As for the EVF vs OVF argument I can remember in the 80's when I was told CD's would never replace the turntable. Now CD's are even considered out of date with the advent of MP3's. Technology changes. Probably most young people buying cameras now or in the next 5 years won't really care since for a lot of them the Iphone or something similar will be their introduction to photography. I know a lot of people who will swear film is better than digital. Maybe they are right. You can still buy film cameras but they are now the minority. My guess is the OVF will in 5 or so years be a niche item much like film. That doesn't make it better or worse than an EVF.

CD's are being phased out by the major labels but Vinyl has actually experienced sales growth every year for the last 10. I imagine small labels and indy pressing will keep the cd around (if for no other reason than the bands now make a good portion of their money from sales at the merch table - one of the reason Vinyl does well.

[RonHendriks1966]

Ricoh/Pentax FF will be close to end of 2012....Somebody whispered in my ear...

That would be great, but if someone from Pentax coult work out that same pack with APS-C then I will buy one of both in 2013!

[eddie1960]

I do agree that EVF at some point will dominate the entry level, but I think the enthusiast pro level will be much slower to adopt that change (For pro sport shooters they will have to see a d3 or dx level camera with EVF before they even think about it. then they will need to see a big benefit versus OVF. it will be a tough sell, and Canikon are pretty conservative in how they change pro product - and in that rarified market no one else even competes currently

[Clavius]

As for the EVF vs OVF argument I can remember in the 80's when I was told CD's would never replace the turntable. Now CD's are even considered out of date with the advent of MP3's. Technology changes. Probably most young people buying cameras now or in the next 5 years won't really care since for a lot of them the Iphone or something similar will be their introduction to photography. I know a lot of people who will swear film is better than digital. Maybe they are right. You can still buy film cameras but they are now the minority. My guess is the OVF will in 5 or so years be a niche item much like film. That doesn't make it better or worse than an EVF.

I like the turntable vs CD metaphore... The pro DJ's still use turntables with "vinyl". Why? The pro hears the better qualities.

Same goes for OVF's vs EVF. It's only marketing. The in-crowd will all use the new flashy EVF's. But anyone understands that a EVF can never outresolve or outrun the real image. The resolution of a OVF will always be higher, and completely devoid of lag. The pro's will all still use OVF.

[Ben_Edict]

CD's are being phased out by the major labels but Vinyl has actually experienced sales growth every year for the last 10. I imagine small labels and indy pressing will keep the cd around (if for no other reason than the bands now make a good portion of their money from sales at the merch table - one of the reason Vinyl does well.

The growth of vinyl may have reached something like 0.1 percent of the music media market? Actually I don't know the real numbers, but I think, there is always a niche for anything. That alone does not make it an economically viable alternative. Making good optical components (i.e. the prisms inside the optical viewfinder) will be so much more expensive in the future, when the general cost of electronic components decreases further, that it will not be the technology of choice for any major manufacturer. So, despite I don't like they idea now, I expct, that optical viewfinders will be replaced by electronic screens in the future. Also, this opens up some degrees of freedom for camera and lens designers, which will lead to better performance of the whole system. Currently, we only witness the beginning of that development.

Ben

[MrPetkus]

Shifting gears from EVF/OVF, mirrorless, etc., I did a real soul-searching on what sort of camera I'd really benefit from professionally. Shooting event photography with APS-C for years I've convinced myself that FF is the ultimate upgrade path and have jumped on this pining for Pentax FF bandwagon.
But I realize that my desire for a D3s has less to do with it's being FF and more with its amazing AF, fps, and the Nikon flash system and lens array. Of course FF adds the large viewfinder, DoF control, and contributes to DR and low-light ability. But those are less critical to "make the shot" - for me. The forthcoming Canon mIV X looks equally amazing.
The sensor performance of the 16Mp Sony Exmor narrowed the gap between the APS-C and the current crop of FF sensors (one can only imagine what a FF Exmor would bring).
However, the cost to upgrade my APS-C outfit is too costly when I factor in the lenses. *My* work benefits from the 1.5x crop factor. Take my 70-200/2.8 - that focal length range is a sweet spot for live performances in a smaller venue but I'd need a 105-300 equivalent which is what set of lenses and at what cost? If I needed the extra DoF to justify the FF cost, I'd get a fast 2.8 lens. The Nikon 300/2.8 is >$5k. The amazing 200/2.0 is ~$4.9k. it wouldn't make sense to buy, say, a 300/4 when I'd get nearly the same effect from a 200/2.8 on APS-C.
That's not to say I won't ever get a FF camera - I still want one for all the reasons everyone does. But realistically, for work, give me the d300s with the K5 sensor/body/controls and I'd be so set. When I owned the K7 I was readying to jump ship until the K5 came out, whereupon I made a very thoughtful decision regarding K5/d700/d300s/7D.
If today Nikon released a new 300s <as is> with the d7000 sensor, I'd buy it in a heartbeat. I'd wish they'd simply do that instead of dorking around with Sony's new 24Mp in the rumored config of the d400.
So IMHO the K3 shouldn't be FF. It should be APS-C, 16Mp, new processor/s, dual SDHC UHS-1, fat buffer, and killer AF. I want a new flash system. The K5 should've had a buffer on par with the d300s and 7D. Then make a FF camera. APS-C first - for all of us DA lens owners.
This talk of making a big >$3.5k unified grip/body FF Pentax is nonsense. Who's gonna buy it - a couple of folks on this forum? What percentage of Canikon professionals are going to ditch their d3s,x and Mark III, IVs for an expensive Pentax with only 3 good FF primes and a bevy of ebay FA telephotos? This notion is laughable at best. The only way for Pentax to get into the FF market is to make a splash with something novel - a largish FF EVIL like the M9. Quirky, retro-styled, robust and weatherproof for $2K. Then expectations for AF performance, etc., are much lower.

[eddie1960]

in the indy and minor label market Vinyl is a big chunk of their business. the majors are another story but they are in their death throws anyway. the music industry has left them behind. a lot of artists who have battled their way up the chain will look to them for distribution but even that is changing (why use them for digital distribution just go direct to Apple et al, the labels do little for artist development now. I have no love lost for their death (I spend a lot of time with people at various levels none of them will miss the big labels and many would be better off if they didn't sign s stupid deal in their youth)

[Kunzite]

People are in general change resistant so OVF will likely continue to be a powerhouse for some time to come

If it ain't broke, don't fix it

So IMHO the K3 shouldn't be FF. It should be APS-C, 16Mp, new processor/s, dual SDHC UHS-1, fat buffer, and killer AF. I want a new flash system. The K5 should've had a buffer on par with the d300s and 7D. Then make a FF camera. APS-C first - for all of us DA lens owners.
This talk of making a big >$3.5k unified grip/body FF Pentax is nonsense. Who's gonna buy it - a couple of folks on this forum? What percentage of Canikon professionals are going to ditch their d3s,x and Mark III, IVs for an expensive Pentax with only 3 good FF primes and a bevy of ebay FA telephotos? This notion is laughable at best. The only way for Pentax to get into the FF market is to make a splash with something novel - a largish FF EVIL like the M9. Quirky, retro-styled, robust and weatherproof for $2K. Then expectations for AF performance, etc., are much lower.

I'm not sure... a FF makes sense just because it can be sold for a higher price (and since Pentax don't have a K-mount pro camera to protect, they can put their best AF/processors/technologies in general inside). An APS-C, I'm afraid, can't be sold for much higher than the K-5 launching price.
I agree, though, that >$3.5k is too much.
And - again - I disagree with the idea of a mirrorless FF, for several reasons:
- it means starting another system: zero lenses (they at leat have some FF-compatible K-mount lenses in production)
- it won't boost K-mount sales; in fact it could have the opposite effect ("Pentax is going to kill the K-mount! Scream in panic! Their FF is not K-mount!")
- it's not really an upgrade path (but a migration path - migration to mirrorless, where some of us are very much unwilling to go)
- a one expensive camera (with a full range of lenses) is not self-sustainable; the K-mount system with an added FF flavour (and a full range of FF K-mount lenses) could be.
- the technology still isn't there
- I'd love a big, high quality "FF" viewfinder (please, Pentax, make it better than the competition's!)
- the same EVF can be put on an APS-C mirrorless, so why going "FF"?
- there really isn't necessary to make things differently just for the sake of being different

[sjwaldron]

I could see companies like Canon, Nikon, and Pentax going more the way of hybrid optical viewfinders than straight electronic. Especially with larger sensor cameras. Straight EVF seems like it will be more for entry level interchangeable-lens cameras than full-frame and larger. I'd like to try a Sony A77 someday to see if it will change my perspective on that though.

[MrPetkus]

- it means starting another system: zero lenses (they at leat have some FF-compatible K-mount lenses in production)

They're going to have to come up with a new system eventually if they intend to survive and remain relevant in an evolving marketplace. Like it or not, mirrorless is the fastest growing camera segment - eroding DSLR marketshare. Large sensors and EVF will be a feature more and more consumers are going to expect and want. Otherwise, they'll just use their iPhones. I'm not saying I want these things for myself, or the "pro" photographer wants them, just that the bread-n-butter consumer at Target, BestBuy, and Costco will want them. And the K mount isn't going to work.

In light of these seemingly obvious market trends it seems absurd that the Pentax answer was the Q. Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

[Kunzite]

Strange, I don't have a FF sensor in my cameras, I don't have an EVF either - but I have no urge to use my iPhone instead. Wait, I don't have an iPhone
I'm afraid the bread-n-butter consumer won't pay for a "FF" mirrorless (but more likely for much cheaper APS-C or m4/3 ones). There's nothing about mirrorless that would suddenly make them want "FF", while they were ignoring "FF" DSLRs.
IMO the K-mount is their only chance (and a good one).

[TaoMaas]

Large sensors and EVF will be a feature more and more consumers are going to expect and want.

I think you're half right. I don't think the majority of camera buyers know sensors from shinola. They buy more often on megapixels.