[Clavius]

As I said, because for some reason they can't get the job done with .95x.

They can, but that's not the point. What if they just won't? How can any manufacturer expect their customers to stick to .95x when there's 13x out there?

Teachers could get the job done with a board and chalk just fine for many years, but when I pick up my daughter from school I only see huge electronic boards now. I have no doubt in my mind those teachers can still teach with chalk if they want to. But times have simply changed.

[Kunzite]

Because:

By the time you framed this guy then switched to 16x to check your focus, he'd be long gone. Focused by hand in a .95x viewfinder.

Make that 13x, if you wish.

[osv]

Yes, I understand perfectly. You:
- considered only people who already decided that MILCs (and not DSLRs) are for them (which is a very biased sample to start from)

considered only people who had owned dslrs before, period.

we could do the same here... how many people on this forum owned mirrorless, and went back to dslrs only?

funny how i ask both you and norm what your mirrorless experience was, and neither of you answered the question.

love those bird pics!! but even a broken clock is right twice a day

i also have plenty of decent k10d pics, thanks to zone focusing... wait, here is one where i actually had to focus with the ovf:

[normhead]

funny how i ask both you and norm what your mirrorless experience was, and neither of you answered the question.

Well actually my only mirrors cameras are my Optio W90, my Sigma DP2, and my K-01 but what the hell does that have to do with this...?

Now let me show you what's funny...

you personally can not get the job done at 0.95x.

That's what's funny. What's funny is that you think you know what you're talking about. Telling folks who were alive before there was even auto-focus they can't get the job done without an EVF. Now you're assuming that I was zone focusing or whatever, when in truth, you had no idea what I did.

As for the clock being right twice a day. That's offensive, but why don't you demonstrate your prowess here. Where are your small bird and long lens shots taken with your EVF? That's what I was expecting. Show me that what you go on and on about is relevant to me. And really, you think a zone shot of a car that has to drive on a road to a specific spot, is equivalent to being able to focus on a bird in 3d space? Do you actually have any experience in photography?

The technique used is, focus past the point where eye of the bird is in focus, , remember where that is in your rotation, focus back by the point where the bird is in focus and then out in the other direction., turn your wrist so the lens is set to half way between the two focus points. This whole technique takes less than a half second as long as you are close. And here is where your analysis falls down and what I've been saying all along. You aren't in position to understand what you can do with a .95 OVF, because you've never learned/ don't know / haven't practised, proper MF technique. You see this EVF and magnification as a way to avoid learning photography.

You're getting real close to beting BorIsclettoed, as in being deemed unworthy of status or standing. I'm not correcting your insanity any more, it's tiring, it gets me nothing, and you're just as stupid (or possibly smart, but not likely) after I post as you were before.

---

Last edited by normhead; 12-11-2014 at 10:30 AM.

[osv]

Well actually my only mirrors cameras are my Optio W90, my Sigma DP2, and my K-01 but what the hell does that have to do with this...?

you are whining about evfs, but since none of those cameras have evfs?? you don't have any evf experience to base your opinions on.

not sure why that is so difficult for you to understand? it should have been intuitive from the beginning... how can you make comparisons to something that you don't know anything about

Now you're assuming that I was zone focusing or whatever, when in truth, you had no idea what I did.

i was actually thinking that you guys used autofocus, which proves nothing.

this is all about keeper ratios, not whether we can nail the occasional shot.

[normhead]

you are whining about evfs, but since none of those cameras have evfs?? you don't have any evf experience to base your opinions on.

not sure why that is so difficult for you to understand? it should have been intuitive from the beginning... how can you make comparisons to something that you don't know anything about



i was actually thinking that you guys used autofocus, which proves nothing.

this is all about keeper ratios, not whether we can nail the occasional shot.

You thought I used auto-focus on a A-400? Do you even know what the letter A stands for? OK that's it, you and I are done.

[Kunzite]

considered only people who had owned dslrs before, period.

we could do the same here... how many people on this forum owned mirrorless, and went back to dslrs only?

Wrong. That "period" is just wrong, because it tries to hide your bias.
If you weren't biased, you'd uniformly sample the population - people who chose both DSLRs and MILCs. You would not include artificial conditions like "people who had DSLRs, jumped to MILCs then back again". And the result would be disastrous for your theory, showing an overwhelming preference towards DSLRs compared to EVF-equipped MILCs.

funny how i ask both you and norm what your mirrorless experience was, and neither of you answered the question.

Should I bother to respond? I tried various MILCs, EVF equipped and viewfinderless, all the important manufacturers; mostly in good condition, at worst in a (relatively) well lit camera store. I saw EVFs before they were integrated into cameras. I used my DSLRs in "MILC" (Live View) mode.
Do you think MILCs are so rare that I wouldn't have access to them?

Now, your turn: what Pentax product are you using and why?

---------- Post added 11-12-14 at 07:46 PM ----------

You thought I used auto-focus on a A-400? Do you even know what the letter A stands for? OK that's it, you and I are done.

Isn't that an Airbus?

[osv]

Wrong. That "period" is just wrong, because it tries to hide your bias.

funny how you are the only one who can't understand what was said...

Should I bother to respond? I tried various MILCs, EVF equipped and viewfinderless,

that doesn't answer the question that was asked.

i'm seeing a pattern here... fail to comprehend what was said, or deliberately ignore it.

either way proves my point.

[Kunzite]

Well, since you're just trolling and ignore all the explanations and answers given, I'll simply ask you for the third time:
What Pentax product are you using and why?

[Clavius]

Well, since you're just trolling and ignore all the explanations and answers given, I'll simply ask you for the third time:
What Pentax product are you using and why?

I realise you're not asking me, but... Pot meets kettle. That same question that you ask right there can be asked to ANY Pentaxian that is asking for FF format also. Since the dawn of digital Pentax has been about APS-C. Anybody who joined Pentax should have been OK with the lack of FF format. Apparently, it's ok to demand features. If it's ok to demand FF format, then it's also OK to ask for stabilisation during video, EVF's, shorter registry distances, fast tele's, fast UWA's, WR and motors in more lenses, etc... Actually, all we all are saying is: "Do something!"

[Kunzite]

I'm not surprised you jumped in to defend your fellow. He declared that OVFs don't work, yet Pentax doesn't have a single EVF-equipped interchangeable lens camera. In his opinion, no Pentax ILC can possible work. The question is valid.

[Digitalis]

love those bird pics!! but even a broken clock is right twice a day

Did you just compare a watch to a camera?

also have plenty of decent k10d pics, thanks to zone focusing... wait, here is one where i actually had to focus with the ovf

With an image like what you posted using manual focus with an OVF, I can't see how an EVF would improve anything.

[Clavius]

All nice pictures... So what? If that's the criteria, then we don't even need digital. Because I could get such pictures just fine too back in the film days. So, why did the majority of the market switch to digital anyway? Convenience of course! Hopefully, I don't have to explain why digital is more convenient then film. In the same way it's so much more conventient focussing with a bright 13x viewfinder then with a dim 0.95x.

Back in 1996 I was able to travel with my Seat Ibiza Crono 1.3 just fine. No heating (broken), no navigation, no airco, definitely no horsepowers worthy of any mention at all... But it did the job just fine. Without going into details: my current car is much better featured. Even though I had no problem with navigating myself back then, but now I still literally ask my current to just do it for me. And the temperature is management now very well. And when I hit the gass it feels like I'm tied to a rocket. I can focus on my driving and driving fun completely now. There were loads of people holding back such developments too. I don't understand why. It's silly.

Same goes for a viewfinder. The more I can focus on photography itself, the artistic side, the better.
- Every time I snap a picture, take the camera away from my eye and need to review my picture on the LCD screen the OVF has failed in that.
- Every time I want to achieve my focus precisely and exactly at a certain point and I can't because of the dark blurry VF, it fails.
- Everytime I switch on video mode and stand there like a douche with my DSLR stretched out in front of me, it fails.
- Every time my OVF tells me the focus is 100% correct, but my sensor says it's not (backfocus problems) it fails beyond miserably.
- Every time I pay extra to enjoy the "features" I listed above here, it fails.

Sorry, it turned into a rant!

[Ash]

This is much more a personal preference than it is an objective advantage. An answer to the above rant:

- An OVF user can focus on the photography just fine with a responsive camera that snaps when desired. There is no need to take the eye off the OVF, which shows the scene in real time. Showing a scene in WYSIWYG format means lag time at a number of levels. Even a tiny lag, which would exist in any EVF system, would delay just enough to miss an exposure timed by the photographer at a vital moment.
- There is a lot of repeated mention of dark blurry VF. This is just nonsense. I have never peered my eye into a blurry OVF unless the scene itself is OOF. Darkness in the VF means the scene itself is dark, the OVF is still giving realtime feedback which the photographer can work with. It is not the OVF that is 'failing'.
- Video quality on a still camera whether through a VF or not is dependent on the camera, how you look performing the task cannot be more important than the final result. If it does, then clearly the photography/videography is a secondary gain to the douche behind the camera.
- Optical focusing can be calibrated quite easily to sensor focusing nowadays thanks to improved technology and camera features. Focusing discrepancies are quite a moot point to the photographer who knows his/her camera and can make fine adjustments when rarely necessary.
- Paying the price for quality gear is not understood by those who do not value the quality in the gear.

[Digitalis]

There is a lot of repeated mention of dark blurry VF. This is just nonsense. I have never peered my eye into a blurry OVF unless the scene itself is OOF. Darkness in the VF means the scene itself is dark, the OVF is still giving realtime feedback which the photographer can work with. It is not the OVF that is 'failing'.

Good point Ash.

Every time I snap a picture, take the camera away from my eye and need to review my picture on the LCD screen the OVF has failed in that.

The OVF isn't designed for image review, that isn't a fault. If you have good technique you would know what you have captured the scene correctly, instead of chimping while time and opportunity goes by. That is the difference between professional and an amateur.

Every time I want to achieve my focus precisely and exactly at a certain point and I can't because of the dark blurry VF, it fails.

You are using slow lenses in dark environments. That is a common technical fault with people new to photography - nothing to do the with the OVF. A camera equipped with an EVF would become grainy under those same circumstances, if it didn't the manufacturer is applying NR to the video stream which will reduce scene detail,and it would increase display lag and make it harder to focus especially on moving subjects.

Everytime I switch on video mode and stand there like a douche with my DSLR stretched out in front of me, it fails.

The camera isn't responsible for you looking like a douche - you are, this comes from your own hang-ups and psychological insecurities. No camera can stop you from being insecure.

Though this might help impress the ladies :

very time my OVF tells me the focus is 100% correct, but my sensor says it's not (backfocus problems) it fails beyond miserably.

I recommend you see your optician or calibrate your diopter and AF system properly.

Seriously are you completely daft? Clavius, these aren't valid criticisms of OVFs. You're complaining about things that are fundamentally your own fault - things that could easily have been avoided by doing the right thing instead of expecting technology to make everything easy for you.

It's like going to a restaurant and complaining that your spoon cannot cut a steak.