Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
10-02-2021, 08:05 AM - 2 Likes   #61
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter




Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Gladys, Virginia
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 24,276
QuoteOriginally posted by BigMackCam Quote
I hope I haven't made you feel you're to blame for your struggles with EVF, Vincent. I like to think I'm receptive of all the opinions folks have about OVFs and EVFs, and simply consider myself fortunate that I like and can use both (even though OVFs are, by far, my favourite)...
No. But there often seem to be two assumptions -- that photos turn out better because EVFs and that they work for everyone.

QuoteOriginally posted by UncleVanya Quote
Bear in mind that there are many advances in EVF tech. Over time the lag and refresh and dynamic range have improved. The problems with using any given EVF may not generalize to the latest and greatest. The latest and greatest technology often tricked down to become commodity tech later. So if EVF doesn’t work for you now, someday it might. That doesn’t mean you have to embrace it, but it might be comforting to think that it may be a problem that resolves in the future. And so far OVF remains viable at least with Pentax.
Maybe so. As I said, some of this stuff just doesn't work very well for me. I don't think I'll ever be able to stomach VR and something about having a tiny TV screen close to my eye ball seems to give me trouble pretty quickly, even the A9 I tried not so long ago.

Fortunately, I don't think Pentax is going to stop making SLRs any time soon, so I should be able to continue with them for awhile and in 10 years folks will only be shooting with their phones anywhere (Yay computational photography!) and so I expect half the camera brands to vanish anyway.

10-05-2021, 08:00 AM   #62
Site Supporter
Site Supporter




Join Date: Apr 2021
Location: Twickenham & Munich
Posts: 26
QuoteOriginally posted by The Squirrel Mafia Quote
Is the era of DSLR cameras coming to an end?

^ Don't mean to stir the pot, but it is an interesting read.


At the way things are moving in the camera industry, Pentax will more than likely end up being the only purveyor of DSLR cameras in the future.
I guess I am coming at this from a different perspective as I never saw the point of DSLRs. When I finally moved from film to digital, I chose to go mirrorless. It became more and more clear to me that the main SLR players first saw DSLRs as a way to keep their user base and grow their revenues, then they wanted to hold back their mirrorless technology to preserve their DSLR revenues and user base, even when many of the earlier problems were solved and it became clear that a digital viewfinder was the best way to understand the digital image that you were taking of the analog subject in front of you (admittedly less of a problem for professional photographer who will them manipulate RAW than amateurs who will use the camera’s JPEG). So I went with a mirrorless vendor without a DSLR play from the start (and my Pentaxes are all film). I have no doubt I missed out on some cool devices in the meantime (though I still took some great photographs) but I think that I have been proven right in the end (and now do not have another migration to go through)
10-05-2021, 08:23 AM   #63
New Member




Join Date: Aug 2013
Posts: 17
Beside a Pentax K1 I also use a Panasonic G9. The viewfinder of the G9 is larger than the one in my K1. When the resolutions of the viewfinder increases above the 5MPix for me the experience will be equal to a optical finder.

Mirrorless bodies are cheaper to make, hence the margin for the manufacturer will rise what is needed in a shrinking market.

So Pentax will soon have 100% marketshare in the DSLR market, what is nice but new bodies will be relatively expensive compared to mirrorless. I am still a happy user of Pentax though 😀
10-05-2021, 10:37 AM   #64
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter
Canada_Rockies's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Sparwood, BC, Canada
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 12,200
The only reason I have gone to DSLR from SLR is because the film development has become redundant in most markets. I am using a K3, but the best camera for me in feel was the KX. I didn't like the MX because the finder readout was in steps rather than analog. My age might be a factor.

10-05-2021, 01:41 PM - 3 Likes   #65
Senior Member




Join Date: Jun 2020
Posts: 191
QuoteOriginally posted by smcrae Quote
I guess I am coming at this from a different perspective as I never saw the point of DSLRs. When I finally moved from film to digital, I chose to go mirrorless. It became more and more clear to me that the main SLR players first saw DSLRs as a way to keep their user base and grow their revenues, then they wanted to hold back their mirrorless technology to preserve their DSLR revenues and user base, even when many of the earlier problems were solved and it became clear that a digital viewfinder was the best way to understand the digital image that you were taking of the analog subject in front of you (admittedly less of a problem for professional photographer who will them manipulate RAW than amateurs who will use the camera’s JPEG). So I went with a mirrorless vendor without a DSLR play from the start (and my Pentaxes are all film). I have no doubt I missed out on some cool devices in the meantime (though I still took some great photographs) but I think that I have been proven right in the end (and now do not have another migration to go through)
Unfortunately, I have to disagree with you. The D-SLR, especially after the cameras hit 20-24MP mark, have been a far greater improvement over film than mirrorless will ever be over the D-SLR. Digital Manipulation of images can bring out beauty in scenes in ways that a film user simply cannot. And even for what the film user can do, it takes a LOT of dark-room skill to achieve an objectively inferior result in most cases. To me the ONLY advantage of film today, is the vastly different shooting experience to digital which is very refreshing once you have had your fun with your gear.

With the advent of the D-SLR, the process of photography jumped leaps and bounds. Just look at all the software that has come up in the last 20 years during the digital age. Look at the amazing pictures people have taken now, that no one could dream of on film. Archiving these images became a breeze. You can get 120MP pictures out of a 36MP sensor, thanks to digital. Lastly, a photographer has "more" control over the image, even in camera and after in D-SLR, thus allowing so much more room for creativity, and that much greater an opportunity to see everyday things around you with a new eye and render beautiful images. By not jumping aboard the D-SLR train, you did lose out a lot on letting your creativity flow through the camera into a photograph. Maybe part of the reason you find mirrorless systems good is because you never had extended experience with the amazing D-SLRs produced in the last 8-9 years or so.


The mirrorless, over the D-SLR, is a tradeoff at best. Sure, they have "caught up" today in many respects. And sure, the extra AF points coupled with features such as eye-tracking are useful in some specific situations. The amount of marketing hype around mirrorless, especially the push from youtube "influencers", was just marketing money at work. There are no clear advantages of a mirrorless over a D-SLR big enough to make shooting on them a vastly different experience. I asked this question at the beginning of this thread, and the answers coupled with my own research and exploration made that clear.


The digital viewfinder is simply a tool to understand what exposure the final image will be at. I kind of know that already in most situations, since the camera is great at metering. Features like focus peaking are great, but I have them in my D-SLR too.


The mirrorless is really not a revolutionary technology in its own right - it is actually removal of some "very" expensive parts (relative to BOM) that needed to be manufactured for every D-SLR camera. While this does allow some innovations in autofocus and other areas, until computational photography comes to camera bodies, there will be little to no situation that a D-SLR cannot handle but mirrorless can. Compare this to the many kinds of situations which an SLR cannot handle but digital SLR can.
10-06-2021, 02:20 AM   #66
Site Supporter
Site Supporter




Join Date: Apr 2021
Location: Twickenham & Munich
Posts: 26
QuoteOriginally posted by brainwave Quote
Unfortunately, I have to disagree with you. The D-SLR, especially after the cameras hit 20-24MP mark, have been a far greater improvement over film than mirrorless will ever be over the D-SLR. Digital Manipulation of images can bring out beauty in scenes in ways that a film user simply cannot. And even for what the film user can do, it takes a LOT of dark-room skill to achieve an objectively inferior result in most cases. To me the ONLY advantage of film today, is the vastly different shooting experience to digital which is very refreshing once you have had your fun with your gear.

With the advent of the D-SLR, the process of photography jumped leaps and bounds. Just look at all the software that has come up in the last 20 years during the digital age. Look at the amazing pictures people have taken now, that no one could dream of on film. Archiving these images became a breeze. You can get 120MP pictures out of a 36MP sensor, thanks to digital. Lastly, a photographer has "more" control over the image, even in camera and after in D-SLR, thus allowing so much more room for creativity, and that much greater an opportunity to see everyday things around you with a new eye and render beautiful images. By not jumping aboard the D-SLR train, you did lose out a lot on letting your creativity flow through the camera into a photograph. Maybe part of the reason you find mirrorless systems good is because you never had extended experience with the amazing D-SLRs produced in the last 8-9 years or so.


The mirrorless, over the D-SLR, is a tradeoff at best. Sure, they have "caught up" today in many respects. And sure, the extra AF points coupled with features such as eye-tracking are useful in some specific situations. The amount of marketing hype around mirrorless, especially the push from youtube "influencers", was just marketing money at work. There are no clear advantages of a mirrorless over a D-SLR big enough to make shooting on them a vastly different experience. I asked this question at the beginning of this thread, and the answers coupled with my own research and exploration made that clear.


The digital viewfinder is simply a tool to understand what exposure the final image will be at. I kind of know that already in most situations, since the camera is great at metering. Features like focus peaking are great, but I have them in my D-SLR too.


The mirrorless is really not a revolutionary technology in its own right - it is actually removal of some "very" expensive parts (relative to BOM) that needed to be manufactured for every D-SLR camera. While this does allow some innovations in autofocus and other areas, until computational photography comes to camera bodies, there will be little to no situation that a D-SLR cannot handle but mirrorless can. Compare this to the many kinds of situations which an SLR cannot handle but digital SLR can.
All true. But I look at it the other way round. All the benefits you list for DSLRs are there with mirrorless too. My Olympus OM-D EM-1 has everything a DSLR has, except for the mirror (OK, a smaller sensor, but that is a trade off for size/weight, which I like as it makes the camera a comparable to my Pentax S2). With a good enough EVF, I find still it hard to understand what the benefits of the DSLR are would be, compared to an identical device that has an EVF not a mirror.

And I agree about the benefits of digital over film, but people are increasingly going back to film for reasons of nostalgia. I think the same thing will happen with DSLRs - but then they will want old bodies and lenses, not new ones.
10-06-2021, 02:46 AM   #67
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
jersey's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2017
Location: 3City agglomeration
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 767
Well, there is physiological bonus of different focus Point for your eye with OVF and EVF but that important only for people who have wither eye issues or their eyes get easily tired when focused on monitor close to the eye.

There is also an artistic bonus of composing against real scene and not digital representation of it. But other then this I think there are no benefit that DSLR has over mirrorless camera.

10-06-2021, 04:04 AM   #68
Senior Member
DeKay's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2018
Photos: Albums
Posts: 176
QuoteOriginally posted by smcrae Quote
I find still it hard to understand what the benefits of the DSLR are would be, compared to an identical device that has an EVF not a mirror.
Call me old fashioned but I find the advantage of an OVF is the satisfaction of knowing that the photo turned out as I envisioned it in my head whilst looking through the lens. Whereas using an EVF just seems like taking “screen shots” on a monitor and claiming creative control.
10-06-2021, 04:59 AM - 3 Likes   #69
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter
BigMackCam's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: North-East of England
Posts: 16,963
QuoteOriginally posted by smcrae Quote
All true. But I look at it the other way round. All the benefits you list for DSLRs are there with mirrorless too. My Olympus OM-D EM-1 has everything a DSLR has, except for the mirror (OK, a smaller sensor, but that is a trade off for size/weight, which I like as it makes the camera a comparable to my Pentax S2). With a good enough EVF, I find still it hard to understand what the benefits of the DSLR are would be, compared to an identical device that has an EVF not a mirror.
And there's the rub: Nothing offers a pure, unadulterated optical view like an optical viewfinder. No matter how good the EVF, it's not going to look or work exactly like an optical viewfinder. Yes, I know the latest EVFs are excellent. At the encouragement of a few members, I recently tried a Sony A7R MkIII, and the viewfinder is awesome - for an EVF. But, despite what those members told me, to me it still feels like an electronic rendition (albeit a very good one) of the scene. Now, that offers some key advantages that an OVF can't... but the over-riding disadvantage for me, the one it will never - IMHO - overcome, is that it feels like an electronic view, and that results in a different shooting experience.

I use both mirrorless and DSLR cameras for my hobby, and enjoy using both. I'm not a "fan boy" for Pentax or any other brand... but whilst I understand why some folks prefer EVFs, I genuinely prefer the optical viewfinder on my K-3. There are occasions where I'll choose to shoot my A7 MkII instead - when using adapted manual focus lenses, for example - but I prefer to shoot a DSLR when the situation allows.

Ricoh is banking on a majority of its Pentax customers feeling the same as I do, or for other reasons preferring an OVF. I think the majority of our forum members like their OVFs...
10-06-2021, 05:50 AM - 2 Likes   #70
Senior Member




Join Date: Jun 2020
Posts: 191
QuoteOriginally posted by smcrae Quote
All true. But I look at it the other way round. All the benefits you list for DSLRs are there with mirrorless too. My Olympus OM-D EM-1 has everything a DSLR has, except for the mirror (OK, a smaller sensor, but that is a trade off for size/weight, which I like as it makes the camera a comparable to my Pentax S2). With a good enough EVF, I find still it hard to understand what the benefits of the DSLR are would be, compared to an identical device that has an EVF not a mirror.

And I agree about the benefits of digital over film, but people are increasingly going back to film for reasons of nostalgia. I think the same thing will happen with DSLRs - but then they will want old bodies and lenses, not new ones.
Yea but its not like camera manufacturers kept anything hidden by "not giving mirrorless earlier" as was mentioned in your reply. In fact, they are now pushing mirrorless when a DSLR is already adequate - which is at best a trade-off. More product variety the merrier, no doubt, but my point was - from film to digital: Notable improvement, huge strides in how the tool could be used for photography. So it would have made perfect sense to switch from film to digital even in 2013. However, in 2018-2019, switching from DSLR to mirror is an iffy decision. It offers almost no advantage in 90% of situations. Instead, it offers a tradeoff between the real-time viewfinder, battery life, etc. for things like autofocus. There is absolutely no DSLR user today, who will feel "compelled" to switch because of any innovation in the mirrorless world as it stands today. There is simply not that much innovation. The product of dedicated camera has not changed nearly as much DSLR -> Mirrorless as it has from Film -> Digital. For most of us, there was no reason to "have to do another upgrade" to mirrorless. In fact on this thread you'll find how many of us, and Pentax itself feels Mirrorless is not that much of an upgrade to begin with, except in very specific situation. Additionally, by this logic, even the switch to mirrorless was redundant as the the next incremental innovation that is on the horizon, say computational photography camera bodies, will make your current purchase redundant.


However, back in the days where digital was replacing film, one could infact make many compelling arguments as to why digital workflow was better.


Of course, if someone did for some reason wait to go digital until 2020, either format is fine as you can create fantastic images with both DSLR and MIrrorless. They are essentially the same product - a dedicated camera. Actually you can create fantastic images with an iPhone 6 (flickr has many stunning examples) so it was anyway never up for debate as to which digital tool could do the job.

As to people going back to film - it is mostly because its a refreshing experience not because film is has any objective benefits for a photographer today in terms of letting creativity channel onto a picture. Same reason people drive vintage cars - just a new experience to seek and enjoy.

Last edited by brainwave; 10-06-2021 at 06:04 AM.
10-06-2021, 10:03 AM - 2 Likes   #71
Site Supporter
Site Supporter




Join Date: Jan 2017
Location: Near Charlotte NC
Photos: Albums
Posts: 576
"Mirrorless" is a step backward in my opinion; the opposite of rangefinder to SLR.
Recent DSLRs are capable of "mirrorless" function- which may have a use for/in some aspects of photography- so why not have Both capabilities in one camera ???
10-07-2021, 05:03 AM   #72
Site Supporter
Site Supporter




Join Date: Apr 2021
Location: Twickenham & Munich
Posts: 26
QuoteOriginally posted by BigMackCam Quote
And there's the rub: Nothing offers a pure, unadulterated optical view like an optical viewfinder.
Yes something does. Just lift your eye up and look over the camera :-)

OK, that was facetious, but to me the question is: which gives you the best impression of what is going to be captured in the digital image (as opposed to what is in front of you). As well as a potential saving in size and weight and a reduction in camera vibration.

OK, the reality is certainly that some people are going to passionately prefer optical viewfinders while others (like me) prefer electronic. In all probability the majority don’t care or forget pretty soon which they are using.

The cynical voice in my head sees this as the inverse of the problem where dominant DSLR manufacturers didn’t create cutting edge mirrorless cameras (without viewfinders) to protect their market. Now, they can’t think of any new features that will convincing people they need a new DSLR, so convincing them to move to mirrorless is their way of continuing to have a large enough market to sell into.

---------- Post added 10-07-21 at 05:12 AM ----------

QuoteOriginally posted by smcrae Quote
Yes something does. Just lift your eye up and look over the camera :-)

OK, that was facetious, but to me the question is: which gives you the best impression of what is going to be captured in the digital image (as opposed to what is in front of you). As well as a potential saving in size and weight and a reduction in camera vibration.

OK, the reality is certainly that some people are going to passionately prefer optical viewfinders while others (like me) prefer electronic. In all probability the majority don’t care or forget pretty soon which they are using.

The cynical voice in my head sees this as the inverse of the problem where dominant DSLR manufacturers didn’t create cutting edge mirrorless cameras (without viewfinders) to protect their market. Now, they can’t think of any new features that will convincing people they need a new DSLR, so convincing them to move to mirrorless is their way of continuing to have a large enough market to sell into.
Incidentally, I agree with pretty much everything being said here about how great DSLRs have been and that there is little technical benefit to going mirrorless. But the driver is marketing and it seems to me unlikely the market will be strong enough to change the manufacturers mind. Anyway, in the real world, there is nothing wrong with continuing to use the DSLRs already available if you want to. Just like there is no reason for the majority of buyers to holdout because the option they are being offered is mirrorless. Opinions expressed in a forum about a future situation and what people end up doing are not necessarily the same thing (I always remember hearing Martin Parr say he was one of the biggest advocates of prime lenses and always used one, until he tried a Zoom and now it is the lens always on his camera). It is not a technologically necessary transition, from a photographers perspective, but it is one that will happen anyway.
10-07-2021, 05:29 AM - 1 Like   #73
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter
BigMackCam's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: North-East of England
Posts: 16,963
QuoteOriginally posted by smcrae Quote
Yes something does. Just lift your eye up and look over the camera :-)
Sadly, that doesn't work for anything other than a "normal" lens, and doesn't give you the framing either

QuoteOriginally posted by smcrae Quote
OK, that was facetious, but to me the question is: which gives you the best impression of what is going to be captured in the digital image (as opposed to what is in front of you). As well as a potential saving in size and weight and a reduction in camera vibration.
A rhetorical question, obviously, and in many situations the answer is equally obvious - an EVF, of course... but, that assumes you want to see the digital capture in your viewfinder. Part of the enjoyment, art and challenge of photography for many folks - I believe - is viewing the scene through the lens with their eyes and visualising how the techniques and settings they're using will translate to the captured image. It's part of the creative process, a bit more difficult and less instant than using an EVF, in a similar fashion to how film was less immediate than digital.

I don't deny that mirrorless cameras offer several advantages for those who either prefer or are just as happy with an electronic viewfinder; and, as I already mentioned, I happily use mirrorless cameras when they suit a specific use-case better than a DSLR.

QuoteOriginally posted by smcrae Quote
OK, the reality is certainly that some people are going to passionately prefer optical viewfinders while others (like me) prefer electronic.
Bingo. We agree on this ...

QuoteOriginally posted by smcrae Quote
In all probability the majority don’t care or forget pretty soon which they are using.
... but not on this.

With respect, I think you under-estimate how many folks prefer one to the other. Again, I get on fine with both, so there's absolutely nothing stopping me from selling my DSLR gear and working only with mirrorless... except that I really enjoy the experience of shooting with an optical viewfinder; the sense of anticipation for seeing how well the captured image matches my visualisation, satisfaction when I get it right, and a little disappointment - quickly displaced by motivation - when I don't. That's where much of my enjoyment in photography stems from... but I don't presume that's how it is - or should be - for everyone. We're individuals, and different things make us tick. There's enough room - and, thankfully, equipment choices - to accommodate us all

Last edited by BigMackCam; 10-07-2021 at 10:14 AM.
Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
authors, autofocus, buffer, camera, cameras, clothes, custom, dslr, evf, feature, focus, future, image, information, mirror, mirrorless, pentax, photographer, photography, post, profile, settings, skill, systems, traveler, uniwb, video, viewfinder
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Imaging Resource article on IBIS luftfluss General Photography 0 07-30-2020 08:16 AM
Imaging Resource's CP+2018 interview with Ricoh Imaging Kunzite Pentax News and Rumors 93 04-18-2018 11:12 PM
Imaging Resource: Ricoh’s “Multi-Imaging Technology” pairs a K-1 with a Theta S EssJayEff Pentax News and Rumors 16 03-03-2017 12:05 AM
Imaging Resource Article on Ricoh Pixel-Shifting mgvh Pentax DSLR Discussion 26 03-30-2015 05:03 AM
Imaging Resource Article on Ricoh Aero Bright II Lens Coating mgvh Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 5 03-25-2015 12:16 AM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 04:14 AM. | See also: NikonForums.com, CanonForums.com part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top