[Clavius]

BTW, it would be just stupid not to produce FF.

We can finally agree on something.

if someone need WR solution I mention Olympus OM-D, not Pentax.

Now you stopped making sense again. You prefer recommending 4/3 with WR over APSC with WR?!?

[gazonk]

LOL
Try to find any advantage over EVF, I only can count disadvantages:

Advantage #1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10: The view through the viewfinder doesn't look like sh*t.

Case closed.

[Emacs]

1) Framing accuracy can be high enough for all practical purposes. We'll see if Pentax will go 100% on the next 645D.
2) Nope
3) Nope

2) Nope ?
3) Nope ?
Dude, why are you trying to deny obvious? It's very clear, you will easily notice clip areas as well as too dark ones with EVF. In this case I prefer not to care how it looks in reality: I rather care how much information will I save for further PP. The EVF will help this greatly. If you want to see how it looks in reality: give up crappy VF, your perception will be much better with 2 eyes, real 3D
As well as the second point: you cannot nail the focus reliably with OVF. And, you should know, the better focusing screen is the worse exposure metering. The only really good method is using magnification The latter is actually very fast one if using combined with approach developed by Hasselblad in their True Focus technology. I wonder why other manufacturers haven't utilzed it yet. BTW hassie will present the first MF mirrorless solution this autumn at fotokina. Fuji is known to have similar plans (not fotokina, but there were rumors they were preparing for mirrorless MF). This should also decrease price range for MF cameras. If they will be in $10000 price range, I will likely buy one for landscape shooting.

[Emacs]

Advantage #1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10: The view through the viewfinder doesn't look like sh*t.

Case closed.

LOL
Dude, such a silly list only proves the only thing that holds people using OVF is common stupidity and inertia, when they are even unable to formulate what advantages do their tools bring. As I said, there is NO ONE advantage of OVF over EVF.

[Kunzite]

I don't think I'm a "dude".
Indeed, both 2) and 3) are Nope. Have you ever saw a real viewfinder?
2) - you're mistakenly assuming that an EVF can accurately represent the image as captured by the sensor, but this is not happening. What display can show the full 14.1 EV DR of the K-5's sensor?
The only thing that could help is a live histogram, which also has some limits.
3) it's very easy to manually focus with a high quality MF viewfinder.
By the way, your "give up crappy VF" (crappy? You're completely clueless!) means you'll be unable to see where the camera is focused, you won't be able to compose anything because you can't tell precisely what's in the frame and so on.

Advantage #1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10: The view through the viewfinder doesn't look like sh*t.

Case closed.

He he, well said.

[gazonk]

LOL
Dude, such a silly list only proves the only thing that holds people using OVF is common stupidity and inertia, when they are even unable to formulate what advantages do their tools bring. As I said, there is NO ONE advantage of OVF over EVF.

My point was just that the fact that the current EVFs still look like sh*t is such a big disadvantage that it - for ME, of course YMMV - annihilates ANY advantage of EVF over OVF.

My daughter has a NEX-7, so I know what nice features of EVFs I miss by sticking with OVFs, but even the highly praised NEX-7 viewfinder (again, at least for ME!) doesn't offer serious competition to my K-5's viewfinder. Which of course means that the state-of-the-art EVFs look really, really silly compared to the 645D viewfinder.

[Clavius]

Guys: Don't feed the troll.

[gazonk]

3) it's very easy to manually focus with a high quality MF viewfinder.

Btw. is it just me who is over-enthusiastic about my new K-5, or does its VF work better for MF than the K10D VF does? Are the focusing screens different? (Or maybe just the focus confirmation during MF works better?)

[gazonk]

Guys: Don't feed the troll.

Agreed. I should have listened to myself when I said "case closed"

[Emacs]

Have you ever saw a real viewfinder?

Recently looked through the Pentax 67 one. Missed my histogram and peaking. And it's larger than S2's pinhole
In fact, the future is moderately large EVF (about the size of FF OVF) with some sort of DOF indication (peaking is too basic).

2) - you're mistakenly assuming that an EVF can accurately represent the image as captured by the sensor, but this is not happening. What display can show the full 14.1 EV DR of the K-5's sensor?
The only thing that could help is a live histogram, which also has some limits.

Such a wide DR is impossible to represent anyway (assuming you are interested too see the good shot in the end, not just seeing via VF, which is kinda of pointless, since I said you would have much better experience without any VF). So, the only way is to preserve highlights (which is way easier with EVF) using live histogram. Or to sacrifice bright areas in order to brighter darker ones (much easier to control with EVF too). With OVF you don't have such a control. In fact, you have to make assumptions based on your expirience -- this means this tool is not good enough. Don't even tell you can see the entire scene in the OVF: no one cares what did you see, they rather want to have some fancy result, which is much easier to achieve with EVF.

Remember, I'm talking this as former K-5 owner. I didn't missed it at all, I have much higher rate of keepers today, both in landscape and people shooting: NEX-5N is inferior technically to K-5 (well, the only thing I missed is DR I got from my K-5, better controls with NEX would be welcomed too). Other than that, I'm more than satisfied with the predictability of this small camera + performance of superior Leica M lenses, which are completely outclass FA limiteds. Sure, they are too expensive, but recent example of Fuji 35/1.4 shows the advantage you have with shorter flange distance.

[Kunzite]

Nonsense.
With an OVF, the DR you see is limited by your own eyes. With an EVF, you'll miss parts of the image.
Is composition and accurate focusing "pointless"? Because that's what you claim, that I would have "much better experience" without focusing and composing the image (that's what a viewfinder does, doh!).
You're saying the EVFs are good because they can show a live histogram, which is fair enough. However... have you heard about exposure metering systems? One does not make assumptions about the light, but measure it.
And peaking, come on... that's a "feature" meant to lessen one of the EVFs disadvantages: the lack of resolution. Why would I want it on a MF viewfinder?

By the way, do you have the optional viewfinder for that NEX? It would be funny if you don't, but it would also explain why you think no viewfinder is better than a high quality viewfinder.

[Alizarine]

Dude, why are you trying to deny obvious? It's very clear, you will easily notice clip areas as well as too dark ones with EVF. In this case I prefer not to care how it looks in reality: I rather care how much information will I save for further PP. The EVF will help this greatly. If you want to see how it looks in reality: give up crappy VF, your perception will be much better with 2 eyes, real 3D

There can always be LV if the next sensor will be a CMOS; and if not, who says nobody can put overlays on the VF too? while it may make the VF hump bigger, so what? if it fulfills the purpose

[RXrenesis8]

who says nobody can put overlays on the VF too

My friend has a 7D, and the AF points and grid being on a transparent LCD is pretty damn inspired. Now imagine overlaying whatever you want in one, Histograms, custom focus points, focus-peaking live in the viewfinder... The future is gonna be cool!

[Talisker]

In fact, you have to make assumptions based on your expirience -- this means this tool is not good enough.

What a crass statement. You seem to live in a world of instant gratification and can't be bothered to learn anything by experience but just want the quickest route to a result, whatever the result may be. You have to learn to use ANY tool. Are the film rangefinders your Leica M lenses were designed for 'not good enough' because they have none of the technical features you crave? Are 5x4 field cameras 'not good enough' because they have no automation and rely on knowledge and experience of the medium?

Don't even tell you can see the entire scene in the OVF: no one cares what did you see, they rather want to have some fancy result, which is much easier to achieve with EVF.

No one cares what you saw (or what you used) – but they do want your vision (which is different to 'some fancy result'). Just because one person prefers a particular method to achieve a result doesn't make the others wrong or inferior, it just means that person can't use them, whether due to skill, aptitude, or not bothering to learn...

[Kunzite]

I'd guess when you see the world through a miniature TV screen, all you can hope for is "some fancy result"