[Pioneer]

There's nothing wrong with an optical viewfinder. The same way there's nothing wrong with shooting film. They're both excellent things. I still own and shoot a film SLR and obviously a DSLR with an optical viewfinder which I likewise enjoy shooting very much. However, these facts do not preclude the other fact that EVF has been advancing far beyond what OVF can provide at its best. EVF allows a great deal of tools for manual focusing that OVF in a DSLR does not. For example: various focus peaking methods, zooming in several times, digital split image focus (Fujifilm). Another lovely thing that EVF provides is the ability to see the live histogram, the usefulness of which cannot be overstated.

EVF is not virtual reality any more than a digital photograph is virtual reality. The image viewed in the EVF is what the sensor is seeing through the lens. I have absolutely no issue using the rear screen on my Pentax Q-S1. Why should I be bothered by an EVF, which is essentially the same thing, but for eye-level usage?

You may not care for EVF, but they are certainly not a gimmick, they've truly come a long way.

I did not say that EVF does not have a place. What I don't understand is why anyone would want to toss out the optical viewfinder all together and substitute something that is second best. But that is what you have asked for. What exactly is wrong with providing the benefits you describe while keeping the benefits of the optical viewfinder?

And if you think for one second that electronic viewfinders are so good, then try shooting with both eyes open. Even with the best EVF units available there is still enough of a delay between the information being provided electronically to one eye and what you actually see with the other that your eye will instantly detect it. In addition there is just no possible way that an electronic viewfinder can provide all the information that your lens is seeing to that tiny screen in an electronic viewfinder. It is physically impossible. So what visual information is being tossed by the camera's computer to provide that view? Further, the Bayer Filter Array is already blocking certain color information that the computer has to extrapolate for so you aren't even getting a truly accurate color display.

Right now I already have Live View on my K5iiS and I can use it to establish critical focus if I want to take the time to do so. In my opinion that is the only major function an electronic viewfinder can provide that may be better than what the optical viewfinder provides. But, in addition to live view (a misnomer actually) I also have a wonderfully clear optical viewfinder that provides me with a 100% view of the image the camera will capture. Amazingly that optical viewfinder can also provide all kinds of additional information by electronically overlaying it in the optical path. I don't own one but I understand that the K-1 also has an amazing optical viewfinder as well as Live View through the back display.

Now you want Pentax to throw that wonderful optical viewfinder away entirely in favor of what you already have available to you on the back of your camera.

Sorry, I am still confused.

[Drinkkeri]

Interesting.

• No black out. this can help tremendously in subject tracking.
• Real time exposure preview, removing the need for "chimping", and better ability to see in low light, as well as with slower lenses.
• Real time focus and highlight peaking. I love this feature with live view on my K-1, but there are many times I wish I could use the viewfinder.

[COLOR="Silver"]

And EVF has distinct disadvantages in my opinion

• Image is never AS IT IS in the scene as it's on backlighted lcd/oled panel
• In low light you get a grainy picture with lower dynamic range
• Stop motion effect in burst mode
• In studio work it's harder to see subtle variations in light than through ovf
• You'll lose your vision in the dark every time you look through the VF
• Poorer battery life

[stevebrot]

Thanks Steve; yes I know. I was just trying to make the point that just because mirrorless is hot right now, doesn't mean DSLRs are doomed...

I have to chuckle a little. I know more people who shoot pinhole than who shoot mirrorless ILC.


Steve

[Kunzite]

As a new owner of the K1 I am a very happy camper with the sheer value in this awesome camera, and it will last me a long time.
As such, I've fantasized a lot about how Pentax could eventually follow up this amazing camera and raise the bar even more.

This is what I think would hit it out of the park:

Key features:
1. Mirrorless:
Bring on the EVF, live focus peaking, and auto eye focus through the viewfinder baby!!
BUT! Keep the K-mount as is, a short flange is a trap. It doesn't reduce overall kit size significantly for FF, and there is already plenty of manual legacy glass for native K-mount + M42. Fragmenting the lens lineup with a new mount would be a huge mistake.

2.Improved auto focus:
I personally think this would an easy bi-product of going mirrorless, enabling much more focus points all across the frame.

3.Improved video:
Not really an issue for me, but I'm sure there are many people who would be more tempted by the Pentax platform, if it was able to cover both their Photo and video needs.

4. X-trans sensor:
Now this is probably a total impossibility, but hear me out.
Fuji has blatantly said they have NO intention of entering the already busy FF market.
Sooo, what if Pentax could manage to license, and bring in the first Full Frame, Mirrorless, X-trans camera?!

None of this is prediction, merely wishful thinking, and my K-1 will probably last me forever anyway!
What are some things you'd love to see?

Let's see...
1. Mirrorless: no way. EVFs just don't work for me - and if you want FF mirrorless, you already have a choice: Sony.
A SLR mount mirrorless is the trap, by the way. It's keeping the SLR disadvantage but giving up on what made that disadvantage a good trade-off.

2. I'm all for a faster autofocus but no, it won't be "an easy bi-product of going mirrorless".

4. Again, no way. IMHO there's no advantage in using an X-trans CFA, and Pentax is under no obligation to "fix" Fujifilm's decision to not go FF.

What I would like to see is a K-1 with improved performance (sort of what the D850 is, compared to the D810). Keep all the things we expect from and love about Pentax; solve the weak points. A next generation AF, faster electronics, larger buffer and faster card write speeds.

---------- Post added 18-12-17 at 10:59 PM ----------

the other fact that EVF has been advancing far beyond what OVF can provide at its best.

That is not a fact; that is propaganda.
Perhaps you're not aware that those manual focus tools are there because without them EVFs are hopeless.

[pinholecam]

Key features:
1. Mirrorless:
>> Yes pls. I want to retire my A7k and use a better thought out Pentax MILC for my manual lenses.
I do think that the market is headed towards MILC too, so it would be good that Pentax has something for this market.

2.Improved auto focus:
>> Should be more accurate with the CDAF.
I have found that Pentax LV CDAF to be actually the better of the DSLR makers, so just hope that it gets even better.
With the new Sony sensors for AF, I think we should expect about the same level of AF performance.


3.Improved video:
>> I don't take video, but I guess enough do to matter.


4. X-trans sensor:
>> Best not to happen.
The X-trans is lots of marketing and not much else.
I have never seen it being any better than any Bayer sensor of the same generation using DPR comparator.
Bayer and pixel shift looks good and more than enough (esp when using RAW Therapee for the pixel shift files)

[sibyrnes]

How much digital latency is there in current EVF? Seems like that would be a huge factor for any action photography.

[Leumas]

How much digital latency is there in current EVF? Seems like that would be a huge factor for any action photography.

Not sure the exact numbers but basically none; high end EVF's I've heard nothing but how awesome they are for action from reviewers.

[Alex645]

How much digital latency is there in current EVF? Seems like that would be a huge factor for any action photography.

Most modern mirrorless EVFs in tests report a lag between 3-22 milliseconds. According to most sources, a lag of 30 ms or less is not noticeable.

Perhaps it's because I'm used to lag only at the speed of light (or the neurons from my retina to my brain), that going from OVF to an EVF, I do notice a lag.

The main argument that EVF lag is not a problem is from the much longer lag times from pushing the shutter release to the shutter opening which is even slower with a DSLR mirror. But that is a lag I've become accustomed to, whereas any viewfinder lag annoys me. It's also nice to not have a lag from sticking your eye to the viewfinder and turning it on.

[Pioneer]

Most modern mirrorless EVFs in tests report a lag between 3-22 milliseconds. According to most sources, a lag of 30 ms or less is not noticeable.

Perhaps it's because I'm used to lag only at the speed of light (or the neurons from my retina to my brain), that going from OVF to an EVF, I do notice a lag.

The main argument that EVF lag is not a problem is from the much longer lag times from pushing the shutter release to the shutter opening which is even slower with a DSLR mirror. But that is a lag I've become accustomed to, whereas any viewfinder lag annoys me. It's also nice to not have a lag from sticking your eye to the viewfinder and turning it on.

The best reviewer is yourself. If you use your camera in such a way that a 22 millisecond viewfinder lag does not bother you then it should work fine. But remember, those are always best case numbers. There will be any number of situations where the lag will be extended for far longer then that. Believe me when I tell you that this lag will drive you to drink sometimes. Viewfinder lag also makes me nauseous and I doubt I am the only one. Literally nauseous (I also experience motion sickness very easily.). If I am trying to follow action, even just my grandkids, to get a candid shot, I shoot with both eyes open so that I can track them. Not everyone shoots with both eyes open so they will tell you there is no lag.This is absolutely not true and your brain can recognize that lag immediately if you work this way. Digital latency does matter and it still exists.

I recognize that this does not bother everyone. Not everyone uses there cameras in the same way. But regardless of that, why would you even agree to put up with this at all if you had the option of getting both an optical viewfinder, while also being able to use the rear display screen to provide more critical focus in static photography. Please forgive me if I am wrong but I cannot believe that anyone is actually using focus peaking or magnification while simultaneously trying to get a shot of their dog jumping for a frisbee. Yet these are the very things people insist are the top reasons that everyone should want electronic viewfinders on all their cameras.

Let me challenge you to do this. If you honestly believe that latency in your viewfinder is not important, while watching the next football or basketball game, check to see how many Fujis or Sonys are being used to photograph the action.

[disconnekt]

And another thought, I highly doubt they will come out with a cheaper/lower spec'ed FF camera, mainly due to the fact it'll kill any sales from the K3II replacement, seeing as people will most likely go "why will I buy a K3III when I can buy the K3FF for $200 more?". It would be better if they price it the same as the K1, that way people will be like "a 36MP or 24MP for the same price, which one do I get?"

[Leumas]

And another thought, I highly doubt they will come out with a cheaper/lower spec'ed FF camera, mainly due to the fact it'll kill any sales from the K3II replacement, seeing as people will most likely go "why will I buy a K3III when I can buy the K3FF for $200 more?". It would be better if they price it the same as the K1, that way people will be like "a 36MP or 24MP for the same price, which one do I get?"

Yeah realistically I only see them producing one FF camera. Over fragmenting the market is what they want to avoid.

[Zivelot]

Aperture ring coupling would be nice on their future FF cameras. Still would not upgrade my K-1 for a long time though. Happy with it as it is.

Key features:
1. Mirrorless:

I don't want a FF mirrorless, for the simple reason that it can't go cold enough. The Olympus EM1 is rated down to -10C, which only begins to cover my needs.

[monochrome]

For the foreseeable future K-1 is the Pentax FF, and will remain the lone FF body until another Sony sensor has fully matured - and the price for same has declined - such that a commitment to sell 300,000 of them over several years to Pentax is a product extension decision, not a production allocation decision. 645 is the Pentax high end FF. APSc flagship pays for the technology improvements we demand.

.:

[MJKoski]

X-Trans sensor is weird concept. Not only does it require special RAW converter to get proper results, it also gives no significant advantages over Bayer-filtered ones. Pixel Shift and Foveon are the real thing in ultimate pixel level quality.