[Rondec]

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.

There are obviously issues with both OVFs and EVFs. The issues with EVFs are primarily to do with eye strain, battery drain, inability to compose without turning the camera on, and lag. With the OVF, you can struggle in dark settings, has less ability to have electronic feed back (like histogram in viewfinder, focus peaking).

I do think that the idea that an EVF is a "truer" representation of your final image as compared to what you see in an OVF is not accurate. It is just different. Maybe if all you ever do is shoot jpegs, that would be true, but I shoot RAW and my experience is that there is plenty of dynamic range that is available that doesn't really show up in EVF or, LCD that you can actually see with an OVF.

In the end a viewfinder is a tool. A tool which should help you with composing your photos and achieving the final results you desire. I happen to prefer an OVF to all of the LCDs/EVFs I have used, but I am sure that over time, this will shift.

[monochrome]

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.

Photographers have successfully focused using optical viewfinders for 150 years. It is a matter of technique learned through experience over time. I submit the advent of modern autofocus over the last twenty years has allowed newer photographers, especially casual and enthusiast photographers, to avoid the manual focus, OVF learning curve altogether. Having never acquired technique and skill (and having correspondingly acquired technique and skill using arms'-length LCD focusing) younger photographers naturally drive viewfinder evolution towards their familiar electronic experience.

Add to this your point that LCD's can (they often don't) display a close approximation of the actual digital file characteristics (such was of course never available with film) and I will concede EVF's will likely obtain prominence in the comparatively near future. As older OVF shooters age and lose visual acuity (which has happened to me) and struggle to focus with an OVF (IMHO the typical subject of a VF complaint thread) LCD and EVF focusing, including electronic focusing aids such as Zoom and Focus Peaking, will gain momentum. We'll just have to learn to use the new tools we are given.

None of that, however, changes my opinion that the view through an opticfal viewfinder is preferable to and better than the processed image on an LCD or EVF.

[FlickPhotos]

The larger sensor is harder to source. Think about it, they have been using the SAME Crop sensor for a while now in nearly all of thier DSLR models.

[Aristophanes]

The larger sensor is harder to source. Think about it, they have been using the SAME Crop sensor for a while now in nearly all of thier DSLR models.

We already know that. At the necessary performance for the price vis-a-vis the compeition only Sony fabs are capable of putting out the goods. Toshiba and Aptina may be able to but their product is unseen, untested, unknown. Canon does their own.

[Cyril_K5]

My little cent in this long thread on why this is taking so long is that when Pentax was bought by Ricoh, they created issues in the distribution agreement of new Sony sensors (such as the 24mp one) within their newly developed bodies. Haven't you noticed that all the new cameras recently released by Pentax all have the 16mp sensor?
So I think:
- either they are looking for a new supplier (which for me is not necessarily a good sign since Sony still produces the best sensors)
- or they are waiting for Sony to drain the market with their A99 before allowing them to purchase and distribute their 24mp sensor
You wouldn't guess how many industrial issues aren't technical but legal nowadays...

I looked at the interview of the 2 Pentax executives last year and I noticed that they said it would be a "different" FF once developed. To me it means only one thing, they will make it mirrorless like Sony to allow a more compact body and they are facing development issues as this is a completely new concept for them. I am not sure this is good news actually... A Pentax SLR without Pentaprism? Should that still be called a Pentax?

[Fogel70]

My little cent in this long thread on why this is taking so long is that when Pentax was bought by Ricoh, they created issues in the distribution agreement of new Sony sensors (such as the 24mp one) within their newly developed bodies. Haven't you noticed that all the new cameras recently released by Pentax all have the 16mp sensor?
So I think:
- either they are looking for a new supplier (which for me is not necessarily a good sign since Sony still produces the best sensors)
- or they are waiting for Sony to drain the market with their A99 before allowing them to purchase and distribute their 24mp sensor
You wouldn't guess how many industrial issues aren't technical but legal nowadays...

I think the reason is much simpler. It's all about keeping the cost down. By using the same sensor in all APS-C cameras the cost of the sensors is lower as they will buy the sensor in higher volume. Inventory cost will also be lower with only one sensor.

They also don't need to update hardware/software to support new sensors, so R&D cost will be lower on new cameras.

[Kunzite]

I looked at the interview of the 2 Pentax executives last year and I noticed that they said it would be a "different" FF once developed. To me it means only one thing, they will make it mirrorless like Sony to allow a more compact body and they are facing development issues as this is a completely new concept for them. I am not sure this is good news actually... A Pentax SLR without Pentaprism? Should that still be called a Pentax?

So... "different" actually means "like Sony", and speculation become "news"?
Should I point again to lensroar's translation of that interview, in which Kitazawa-san talks about a FF DSLR? Or we'd rather give in to FUD and start panicking?

[Cyril_K5]

So... "different" actually means "like Sony", and speculation become "news"?
Should I point again to lensroar's translation of that interview, in which Kitazawa-san talks about a FF DSLR? Or we'd rather give in to FUD and start panicking?

At the time of the interview, the Sony A99 wasn't released...

[Cyril_K5]

I think the reason is much simpler. It's all about keeping the cost down. By using the same sensor in all APS-C cameras the cost of the sensors is lower as they will buy the sensor in higher volume. Inventory cost will also be lower with only one sensor.

They also don't need to update hardware/software to support new sensors, so R&D cost will be lower on new cameras.

Possible yes

[Clavius]

I looked at the interview of the 2 Pentax executives last year and I noticed that they said it would be a "different" FF once developed. To me it means only one thing, they will make it mirrorless like Sony to allow a more compact body and they are facing development issues as this is a completely new concept for them. I am not sure this is good news actually... A Pentax SLR without Pentaprism? Should that still be called a Pentax?

Of course not... It will be called a "Ricoh"!

Maybe that's why their recent launch event sounded in their new strategy of "breaking with tradition."?

[Kunzite]

At the time of the interview, the Sony A99 wasn't released...

The Sony SLT concept appeared in 2010. A SLT is about the same size as a DSLR, so this couldn't be the camera you wanted Pentax to copy in order to be different, right?

[Cyril_K5]

The Sony SLT concept appeared in 2010. A SLT is about the same size as a DSLR, so this couldn't be the camera you wanted Pentax to copy in order to be different, right?

I am not Pentax's CEO (unfortunately otherwise I could afford a brand new shiny Nikon D800 will all the lenses...) but probably something different ;-)

[Cyril_K5]

Of course not... It will be called a "Ricoh"!

Maybe that's why their recent launch event sounded in their new strategy of "breaking with tradition."?

Mmmm... Would I replace the front of my camera with a Photocopier brand... I'd rather move to Canon then

[Clavius]

Mmmm... Would I replace the front of my camera with a Photocopier brand... I'd rather move to Canon then

That's like saying Pentax is an endoscopy brand. Ricoh has produced some fine cameras in the past, including SLRs, and they're producing fine cameras now.

I think your previous point is very ontopic though. Discarding all existing plans and building an FF EVIL does require some extra time. Especially if they also have to build a KAF adapter to go with it.

[Kunzite]

He was joking, as Canon is well known for their photocopiers... and I think they make other products, too

There are better ways to commit suicide than to discard your existing market.