[jogiba]

The only reason they are even afloat is they started selling off real estate last year.

Sony sells Tokyo building for $1.2 billion, year's second office sale | Reuters

Eventually they will run out of things to sell off and won't actually exist, except as a legal entity collecting media royalties, until they have to sell off the last of the IP to pay the lawyers.

Anyway, this has nothing to do with Pentax and why the FF is taking so long to show up. Probably they are tight lipped with news since they didn't want to cannibalize k-50 sales.

GM was is much worse shape in 2008 and a few years later they made record profits , Sony will still be around after you die.

[noser]

GM was is much worse shape in 2008 and a few years later they made record profits , Sony will still be around after you die.

Perhaps! It looks like things are unfolding in Sony-land quite quickly, and in reverse of what I suggested:

Third Point Boosts Sony Stake as Daniel Loeb Seeks Talks - Bloomberg

I do hope they stick it out in hardware, since the sensor manufacturing is important. Or maybe We can buy that from them... I heard that Ricoh has some deep pockets. That would sure speed up things in Pentax-land

[monochrome]

The LX solution would be easier/better implementated with through Electronic viewfinders. Some very high resolution. And some lower, but very fast and bright. Some with more, some with less features. Specialized for macro, or studio-work. Big/small, etc.

I suppose, but based upon the way the LCD implementation adjusts the image (versus what the Histogram shows the sensor is actually converting from the RAW data) I'm not sure I would ever actually know what the camera is recording.

At least with an optical viewfinder I see what is actually coming through the lens. (Not that it matters to me - I can't use viewfinders any more - even the LX work-arounds).

[Anvh]

I suppose, but based upon the way the LCD implementation adjusts the image (versus what the Histogram shows the sensor is actually converting from the RAW data) I'm not sure I would ever actually know what the camera is recording.

At least with an optical viewfinder I see what is actually coming through the lens. (Not that it matters to me - I can't use viewfinders any more - even the LX work-arounds).

I don't understand your reasoning.

You are talking about what you see in the finder to apose to the actual image, wouldn't a EVF not be closer to that then a OVF?

EVF at least use the image as the basis but with OVF you're looking at the outside world.


ps. for those that use long lenses, with an EVF you get a stablized image in the finder with pentax

[konraDarnok]

Speaking of EVF, why not make an APS-C camera with a built in focal reducer where the mirror box used to be? All the legacy lenses will have the proper field of view, they'll sharpen up, and become 1 stop faster. It'd also have the extra advantage of keeping the sensor sealed from dust.

Focal reducers are getting rave reviews for the NEX system, and everybody seems really happy with Sigma's 18-35mm f1.8 (which is probably just a 24-50mm f2.8 with a focal reducer of some kind.)

Nikon E series - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It seems the Nikon E series did just that.

[Kunzite]

Few points:
Calling what the EVF displays "the actual image" is misleading. With an OVF what you're seeing is the real image as formed by the lens. With an EVF, a processed video stream displayed on an uncalibrated display. You definitely won't get to see the final print while looking through either

The outside world is actually what you're trying to capture, so I'd think it has some relevance

With EVF+SR you'd get stabilized viewfinder lag. Thanks but no, thanks.

[Anvh]

Yeah indeed a bit misleading but still the EVF should come closer to the image then OVF right?
Final print is a whole other thing of course, but the image the camera makes.

About the lag, that is really minimal, we aren't talking about camera's from 4 years ago.


evf lag of the A77 is less then 1/10 of a second.
https://m.youtube.com/#/watch?v=lZqV7TTwtlU&desktop_uri=%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DlZqV7TTwtlU

EVF are very commen in the video industrie and their demands are not that much different then with photography...

[monochrome]

Yeah indeed a bit misleading but still the EVF should come closer to the image then OVF right?
Final print is a whole other thing of course, but the image the camera makes.

The EVF processes the electronically captured and converted photons - processes them in the way the engineers thought best to make the largest number of their target users think the EVF presented a great (processed) image. My comments about LCD gain in my K-01 not representing what the file actually records (confirmed by the histogram, which itself is taken from a jpeg conversion of the RAW file) illustrates my point.

An OVF transmits the photons (admittedly focused by the lens - but that action is identical whether OVF or EVF) across a mirror, through a prism and a diopter and directly to my retina. I believe optical engineers attempted to suppress image alteration, or at least to correct distortion and return the image to its true appearance, in the optical path when they designed the light path.

IMHO an OVF shows me a much closer approximation of the real world than an EVF.

[Kunzite]

Yeah indeed a bit misleading but still the EVF should come closer to the image then OVF right?
Final print is a whole other thing of course, but the image the camera makes.

About the lag, that is really minimal, we aren't talking about camera's from 4 years ago.


evf lag of the A77 is less then 1/10 of a second.
https://m.youtube.com/#/watch?v=lZqV7TTwtlU&desktop_uri=%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DlZqV7TTwtlU

EVF are very commen in the video industrie and their demands are not that much different then with photography...

Closer to what image? The camera outputs a RAW file with impressive DR, resolution and color accuracy, yet the EVF cannot even properly display the embedded JPEG.

I don't care about measuring the lag; I would simply take the camera and try it for a while. The lag is noticeable and increases in not-so-ideal light. It might be good enough for some uses, but I wouldn't want e.g. to track fast moving objects through a viewfinder which lags.

[Clavius]

Anvh, some people value the experience of looking through the OVF very highly. They use their cameras as binoculars. The fact that there's a camera attached to their VF is secondary to them.

All a VF has to do, is aid in composing, focussing, and mimic the output of the camera as closely as possible. The VF that does that the best should be leading.

Currenlty, the LCD display is much better for focussing fast glass. Better for focussing manual glass. Better for studio work. You can do video with the LCD, show compositional aids, histograms, zoom, peaking, etc etc... I actually don't know anybody that uses the OVF much. If these function are not going to be implemented in the VF, then I fear the VF will disappear all together.

[Kunzite]

Anvh, some people value the experience of looking through the OVF very highly. They use their cameras as binoculars. The fact that there's a camera attached to their VF is secondary to them.

Sarcasm FAIL.

You are wrong in saying that a viewfinder has to "mimic the output of the camera as closely as possible" (not that an EVF can actually do that). It doesn't. It can't. It shouldn't. There are only 2 functions a viewfinder MUST implement: composing and focusing.
It is wrong to assume:
- that you only want to see what the EVF is able to display (which is just a subset of what your camera can capture)
- that you should try to make the image you're seeing look as close as possible to the intended final, processed image, while looking through the viewfinder; and that you'll want to do it more or less every shot.

I'd say the opposite - a good reflex viewfinder is better than a mere LCD at focusing (without zooming in on the later, which generates composition issues). Of course, the LCD is better if you can take the time to zoom in.
Even the default one on my K-5 has markings which can be used as compositional aids, if buying a specific one is not wanted.
Instead of a histogram you have the metering system's indication, which will do in all but the most critical works.
Zoom and peaking are necessary on EVFs, because they lack the ability to proper judge focus.

[Clavius]

You are wrong in saying that a viewfinder has to "mimic the output of the camera as closely as possible" (not that an EVF can actually do that). It doesn't. It can't. It shouldn't. There are only 2 functions a viewfinder MUST implement: composing and focusing.

Even if you're correct, then the electronic screens or EVFs are still better at composing and focussing. Why else all the fidgetry with shims, focus screens, and VF enlargers? Why else all the fuss and threads about manual focussing fast lenses? Even today a new one was started: https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/photographic-technique/228083-advice-mate...st-lenses.html

Have you ever looked around here and seen how many threads there are on focussing problems? How many frustrated people pay extra for the outdated optics, shims, mechanisms, prisms, screens and then end up using the LCD instead?

It is wrong to assume:

Yet you can't tell us why this is wrong?

- that you only want to see what the EVF is able to display (which is just a subset of what your camera can capture)

But it's still better, brighter, sharper, larger & more then what the OVF is able to show. So why complain?

Moreover, you're incorrect. The simple LCD screen is already doing a good job at that.

It's only logical that we want to see the same signal that is going to be written to the SD card. EVFs are going to do that. (Are already doing that.) OVFs never could and never can do that.

- that you should try to make the image you're seeing look as close as possible to the intended final, processed image, while looking through the viewfinder; and that you'll want to do it more or less every shot.

I'd say the opposite - a good reflex viewfinder is better than a mere LCD at focusing (without zooming in on the later, which generates composition issues). Of course, the LCD is better if you can take the time to zoom in.
Even the default one on my K-5 has markings which can be used as compositional aids, if buying a specific one is not wanted.
Instead of a histogram you have the metering system's indication, which will do in all but the most critical works.
Zoom and peaking are necessary on EVFs, because they lack the ability to proper judge focus.

What a mess, I can't react to this.

We all know what happened to the OVF of point and shoots and bridge cameras. And the same thing will happen to higher end cameras of course.

[ElJamoquio]

We all know what happened to the OVF of point and shoots and bridge cameras. And the same thing will happen to higher end cameras of course.

When?

[Clavius]

When?

By the looks of all the people with problems focussing their fast lenses with OVF's, and using the LCDs to peak or zoom focus instead, it's happening right now. Just a matter of time before companies realise the OVF has become ballast.

[ElJamoquio]

By the looks of all the people with problems focussing their fast lenses with OVF's, and using the LCDs to peak or zoom focus instead, it's happening right now. Just a matter of time before companies realise the OVF has become ballast.

To my knowledge I can't get an OVF on a P&S. You certainly cannot on a 'bridge' camera, or at least that would stretch the definition of 'bridge'.

So let's say 99% of those cameras do not have an OVF.

What's a high-end camera? On this forum, a plausible definition might be something with an MSRP of over $1500?

Choose your definition, but when will 'high end' cameras lose their OVF?