[2351HD]

I have made it known on this forum that I don't feel like there is a place for OVFs on DSLRs any more, or at least no excuse not to include an optional EVF. This I am still standing firm on, especially with a FF sensor with sensor shift stabilisation. One of the major advantages in stabilisation is the stable viewfinder image. This you do not get on the K-1.

However, I have also said in the past that if the feature set was enough, that I can look past the above shortcomings and deal with yet another OVF until the time that they are disposed of. I use an OVF on the 645z and its ok for now.

So..........

I am all but 100% certain that I am going to get a K-1. It has a amazing blend of performance, unique features, stunning image quality, Pentax "X factor", beautiful handling (no doubt) and more.

The pixel shift sample still life image on the Ricoh website is the best I have seen from any digital FF sensor to date, and thats only a JPG, not the RAW file. Simply stunning colour depth and resolution. Add to that the Astrotracer function and I am sold.

One can only hope that Zeiss start re-issuing the ZK series of lenses. Oh boy how good would a Zeiss ZK 15mm f/2.8 be! Or even more, an Otus 85mm!

My $0.02 for what its worth.

Scott

[Adam]

I think a hybrid viewfinder would be amazing, and rather innovative. But for now I'll definite settle for the bendy display. That was also quite clever!

[Rondec]

There are pluses and minuses to everything, but when I consider the cost of the K5 when it was released versus the cost of the K-1 at release, it is amazing. As far as I can remember, the K5 released at 1600 dollars for the body only and 1700 for a body and kit lens.

I guess the folks who predicted the demise of APS-C due to the drop in prices on full frame sensors are probably partially right. Of course, there are still cameras like the 7D MK II and D500 coming out, so there is still a place for high end APS-C.

[bxf]

One of the major advantages in stabilisation is the stable viewfinder image

I would have thought the main advantage is less blurry images. The camera shake, except with long telephoto lenses, is not usually so objectionable as to make it difficult to compose. However, I can appreciate your preference with respect to shooting video.

---------- Post added 23-02-16 at 12:31 ----------

I guess the folks who predicted the demise of APS-C due to the drop in prices on full frame sensors are probably partially right.

This may apply to some extent to enthusiasts, but I'd bet that much of the general public has no interest in carrying cameras larger and heavier than necessary.

[mikeodial]

I have made it known on this forum that I don't feel like there is a place for OVFs on DSLRs any more, or at least no excuse not to include an optional EVF. This I am still standing firm on, especially with a FF sensor with sensor shift stabilisation. One of the major advantages in stabilisation is the stable viewfinder image. This you do not get on the K-1.

However, I have also said in the past that if the feature set was enough, that I can look past the above shortcomings and deal with yet another OVF until the time that they are disposed of. I use an OVF on the 645z and its ok for now.

So..........

I am all but 100% certain that I am going to get a K-1. It has a amazing blend of performance, unique features, stunning image quality, Pentax "X factor", beautiful handling (no doubt) and more.

The pixel shift sample still life image on the Ricoh website is the best I have seen from any digital FF sensor to date, and thats only a JPG, not the RAW file. Simply stunning colour depth and resolution. Add to that the Astrotracer function and I am sold.

One can only hope that Zeiss start re-issuing the ZK series of lenses. Oh boy how good would a Zeiss ZK 15mm f/2.8 be! Or even more, an Otus 85mm!

My $0.02 for what its worth.

Scott

I think stabilization will work in live view. You can also add a "hood style" viewer if you want to use Live View in the field with or without a tripod.

[VoiceOfReason]

I think the bendy LV might be good on astrophotography provided it will amplify the object enough to make sure you've centered it.

[shardulm]

I think stabilization will work in live view.

It does.

I have made it known on this forum that I don't feel like there is a place for OVFs on DSLRs any more, or at least no excuse not to include an optional EVF. This I am still standing firm on, especially with a FF sensor with sensor shift stabilisation. One of the major advantages in stabilisation is the stable viewfinder image. This you do not get on the K-1.

However, I have also said in the past that if the feature set was enough, that I can look past the above shortcomings and deal with yet another OVF until the time that they are disposed of. I use an OVF on the 645z and its ok for now.

So..........

I am all but 100% certain that I am going to get a K-1. It has a amazing blend of performance, unique features, stunning image quality, Pentax "X factor", beautiful handling (no doubt) and more.

The pixel shift sample still life image on the Ricoh website is the best I have seen from any digital FF sensor to date, and thats only a JPG, not the RAW file. Simply stunning colour depth and resolution. Add to that the Astrotracer function and I am sold.

One can only hope that Zeiss start re-issuing the ZK series of lenses. Oh boy how good would a Zeiss ZK 15mm f/2.8 be! Or even more, an Otus 85mm!

My $0.02 for what its worth.

Scott

OVFs are the best you can get. Besides the EVF and LV add a toll on the processor, may cause heat issues, drains battery (the biggest con) pretty fast. I don't see why should the battery power be wasted in another places than the sensor operation, SD R/W operation and the camera operation. It just requires a higher capacity batter and or reduced no of pictures per battery. Besides that the EVF does not aid manual focusing at all. LV and focus peaking does and I use it at times. I also don't agree that it aids composition and if so how. You have 100% fov in the OVF..duh?
EVF and LV are painstakingly slow to use in a fast paced environment like events etc. There is no time to live view and take pictures and the battery dies sooner than you like.

Asking for an EVF instead of an OVF is like asking for a car with a 60" Xtrawide TV screen instead of a transparent glass windshield in the front. <-- yeah imagine that. That is how I feel about not having an OVF.

[derekkite]

I would have thought the main advantage is less blurry images. The camera shake, except with long telephoto lenses, is not usually so objectionable as to make it difficult to compose. However, I can appreciate your preference with respect to shooting video.

---------- Post added 23-02-16 at 12:31 ----------


This may apply to some extent to enthusiasts, but I'd bet that much of the general public has no interest in carrying cameras larger and heavier than necessary.

That is one benefit. Having a stable image to focus on makes it more reliable. A stabilized lens is a joy to use.

[mecrox]

There are pluses and minuses to everything, but when I consider the cost of the K5 when it was released versus the cost of the K-1 at release, it is amazing. As far as I can remember, the K5 released at 1600 dollars for the body only and 1700 for a body and kit lens.

I guess the folks who predicted the demise of APS-C due to the drop in prices on full frame sensors are probably partially right. Of course, there are still cameras like the 7D MK II and D500 coming out, so there is still a place for high end APS-C.

I suspect these things are very dependent on where in the world someone lives.

For example, the new middle classes in India or China can purchase something like a Nikon D3300 and kit lens for a modest price, by Western standards, and with a modern 24 mpx APS-C sensor this is a very potent outfit indeed. No mirrorless camera can match this or a similar Canon outfit in value either. So in that context, I'd say APS-C has a long and successful run ahead of it.

Meanwhile, in the West photo enthusiasts are spoiled for choice but a few rungs up the market, in FF land. In London now, I can buy a Nikon factory refurb D610 for the same or less than a K3ii, or a D750 + 24-120mm or D810 body, all factory refurbs again, for the same price as the forthcoming K1 and all from a proper main dealer. These prices were a fantasy only a short while ago, though the amount of CaNikon and likely Sony refurb and nearly new stock floating around at heavy discounts is a measure of how tricky the Pentax K1 may find it to gain any traction outside of t' faithful. It may be that Pentax have had to price the K1 at what their research tells them cameras like the D750 or the D800 or D810 are actually selling for, in practice. Who pays list these days? Everything is up for haggling.

Anyway, no FF for me. I'd use it about once a month, if that. Smaller formats win by a country mile for portability and convenience, and for on-screen viewing or printing up to say 12" or !4" there is so little difference it's not worth arguing over. TBH, I think FF is a bit of a con in terms of how the camera companies present it. Fine if you are a professional photographer whose job demands it, but for 90 per cent of everyone else FF brings as many problems as it claims to solve.

[lytrytyr]

One can only hope that Zeiss start re-issuing the ZK series of lenses.

+1

Oh boy how good would a Zeiss ZK 15mm f/2.8 be!

That one is at least available in M42 screwmount:

http://www.zeiss.com/content/dam/Photography/new/pdf/en/industrial_applicati...tagon_2815.pdf

[macman24054]

Having used both OVF and EVF there is no doubt in my mind that a OVF is far and away more superior. I find the lag time of a EVF just annoying and unacceptable.

[C_Jones]

The tools that provide excellent image outcome are there. I don't want to seem blunt, but OVF is enough for my use. Along with the positional rear lcd, I definitely would not be dissapointed.

I see the new FF as an available option to any user who wants the type of performance it is capable of.

[monochrome]

IMHO EVF is a preference item at this time rather than a paradigm improvement. I prefer to see what I am actually aiming at rather than what the electronics system thinks I should be seeing.

[bertwert]

I prefer OVF by miles.
I tried out some EVFs when buying my camera and I just HATED them.

[aleonx3]

I prefer OVF by miles.
I tried out some EVFs when buying my camera and I just HATED them.

Me too, not to mention that EVF uses battery power, therefore, less shot per battery charge.