[Kombivan]

If they discontinue the SLR what will they do for a camera, introduce a small lcd screen for a viewfinder as I love looking through the lens and a move like that could potentially corupt photography if we have to rely on software to creale / edit images as we shoot them, without the ability to check the image before clicking. Then there is the problem of eye sight for senior photographers you see I need reading glasses but I can still see perfectly through the camera lens via a mirror so looking at a lcd screen I would need specalised glasses to see the image if we have to rely on a lcd screen. The reason I can still see through a lense is I'm looking at a image at a distance but a LCD screen is close up I prefer not to use my glasses while taking photos.

But the EVF-electronic viewfinder (small lcd screen) already exists, they and others, have already done that.

[ChristianRock]

I prefer to look through a glass pentaprism as well. Thankfully Pentax still puts those in their cameras.

(I don't particularly care what Nikon/Canon/Sony/etc do, to be honest, I get what I want out of my Pentax system. I feel bad for those on the constant upgrade train, because they have to buy into a whole new system because of the mount change.... or perhaps I don't, really )

[biz-engineer]

If they discontinue the SLR what will they do for a camera, introduce a small lcd screen for a viewfinder as I love looking through the lens and a move like that could potentially corupt photography

Looking thru an electronic view finder give a different feeling as you are used to with an SLR, it's just a matter of getting used to it. Won't corrupt photography, as you can adjust exposure levels, avoid clipped highlight on a mirrorless camera better than with an SLR.

if we have to rely on software to creale / edit images as we shoot them, without the ability to check the image before clicking.

That's the other way around. SLR shows you a real life 3D representation thru the lens, but that's not what will the image will look like after the shoot because the image will be 2D. Mirrorless show you in the viewfinder the image exactly as it will be after your press the shutter button, this is what Pentax calls "live view" on Pentax cameras.

The reason I can still see through a lense is I'm looking at a image at a distance but a LCD screen is close up I prefer not to use my glasses while taking photos.

That's not a problem because the electronic viewfinders of mirrorless cameras include the equivalent of close-up reading glasses, you do not need glasses more on a mirrorless camera than you need on an SLR.

[Rondec]

Looking thru an electronic view finder give a different feeling as you are used to with an SLR, it's just a matter of getting used to it. Won't corrupt photography, as you can adjust exposure levels, avoid clipped highlight on a mirrorless camera better than with an SLR.



That's the other way around. SLR shows you a real life 3D representation thru the lens, but that's not what will the image will look like after the shoot because the image will be 2D. Mirrorless show you in the viewfinder the image exactly as it will be after your press the shutter button, this is what Pentax calls "live view" on Pentax cameras.


That's not a problem because the electronic viewfinders of mirrorless cameras include the equivalent of close-up reading glasses, you do not need glasses more on a mirrorless camera than you need on an SLR.

I think the point is that before you capture an image or post process it, you need to previsualize the image. This can be done without a viewfinder at all, but many photographers use the viewfinder to explore a scene. If you are using an EVF, you see a jpeg representation of the RAW image, but I would think that this could certainly affect your previsualization of the image in that you aren't seeing a scene, but rather the canned jpeg processing that your camera has applied already.

I suppose you can still shoot RAW and as long as you don't blow the highlights, you can do exactly the same things with the post processing with an MILC versus SLR. I think the challenge is that you may not have the same target you are shooting for.

[R.Miller]

The reason I can still see through a lense is I'm looking at a image at a distance but a LCD screen is close up I prefer not to use my glasses while taking photos.

Everybody is different. With the Pentax I have to take the reading glasses off and look through the viewfinder and put them back on to see the back screen. Using the m43 mirrorless Lumix camera, I leave the reading glasses on and just use the rear screen. Much easier for me personally. It does have an EVF that is not bad if I want to go that route.

[biz-engineer]

I think the point is that before you capture an image or post process it, you need to previsualize the image. This can be done without a viewfinder at all, but many photographers use the viewfinder to explore a scene.

I disagree on this. For example, we can't see with bare eyes how an image will be shot with a 20mm lens. Looking thru the OVF (thru the lens) give a representation closer to what the image will be like one captured by the sensor (or film), but it's still 3D, as the OVF shows the depth of near to far objects in a scene. The EVF (or back LCD in live view mode of DSLR) give the closest representation of the image that will be recorded by the camera as the EVF image is already boiled down to 2D before it's shown. The EVF (2D) removes the feeling of direct connection with the subject (life like 3D), that's what Ricoh claims and they are right, but they don't mean that SLR finder gives a WYSIWYG preview.

---

Last edited by biz-engineer; 07-27-2022 at 06:40 AM.

[reh321]

I think the point is that before you capture an image or post process it, you need to previsualize the image. This can be done without a viewfinder at all, but many photographers use the viewfinder to explore a scene. If you are using an EVF, you see a jpeg representation of the RAW image, but I would think that this could certainly affect your previsualization of the image in that you aren't seeing a scene, but rather the canned jpeg processing that your camera has applied already.

I suppose you can still shoot RAW and as long as you don't blow the highlights, you can do exactly the same things with the post processing with an MILC versus SLR. I think the challenge is that you may not have the same target you are shooting for.

Or you can use the image the camera produces, as I did with slide film.
I use the viewfinder to compose, then leave it to professionals.
I tried one of the first ‘Z’ cameras during Nikon’s “dog-and-pony” introductions and saw nothing wrong with it.
I’m sure I could use it in sunlight, it had no lag {I asked a store employee to walk briskly}, and it had no noticeable flickering {the employee said they had LCD lighting}. The only issue from my perspective was the price.
I think people here are entirely too judgmental, but as long as they keep Pentax in business …..

[volley]

I disagree on this. For example, we can't see with bare eyes how an image will be shot with a 20mm lens. Looking thru the OVF (thru the lens) give a representation closer to what the image will be like one captured by the sensor (or film), but it's still 3D, as the OVF shows the depth of near to far objects in a scene. The EVF (or back LCD in live view mode of DSLR) give the closest representation of the image that will be recorded by the camera as the EVF image is already boiled down to 2D before it's shown. The EVF (2D) removes the feeling of direct connection with the subject (life like 3D), that's what Ricoh claims and they are right, but they don't mean that SLR finder gives a WYSIWYG preview.

Are you sure about the 3D/2D difference with OVF and EVF? I'm not so sure ...
For 3D vision we need two eyes (and the distance between them) and somehow I can't manage to get both eyes behind the viewfinder at the same time.
And when you look through an OVF of a DSLR you look at the picture the lens projects on the mirror. And that is pretty much 2D, isn't it?

[cdw2000]

There are advantages and disadvantages with both systems, it depends on what matters to you. The OVF provides better real-time feedback of the scene, but won't necessarily show you what the final image will look like - especially exposure-wise. But for some this may be an enjoyable part of the experience hearkening back in a small way to film cameras when you didn't know if you got the focus or exposure right until the film was developed (obviously for digital cameras the wait time is only a matter of seconds since you can review your images on the rear screen). Also for dark scenes, it is sometimes difficult to see through the OVF, especially if you have vision problems. Of course, this can be overcome by using Live View in these cases.

The EVF will give you a better idea of what the final image will look like exposure-wise, but there is a small amount of lag from what is going on in the scene to when you see it through the EVF (newer cameras have made this acceptably short, but there is still some). The downside is that the EVF is not presenting the image at the full resolution that the sensor can achieve (may be possible in future cameras, but not there yet), so verifying what is in focus might be a little more difficult than with the OVF, however the advantage is that with the EVF, the camera is always focusing at the sensor plane rather than through a mirror/image splitter with separate focusing sensor that can be the source of error. You can also do focus-zoom and focus peaking through the EVF, which you can only get on the DSLR if you resort to Live View.

[reh321]

Are you sure about the 3D/2D difference with OVF and EVF? I'm not so sure ...
For 3D vision we need two eyes (and the distance between them) and somehow I can't manage to get both eyes behind the viewfinder at the same time.
And when you look through an OVF of a DSLR you look at the picture the lens projects on the mirror. And that is pretty much 2D, isn't it?

I have monocular vision - my entire life I have used only one eye at a time, as did my Dad, as does my brother, and as does my daughter. My daughter jokes about her driving, but we all do it. As far as I know, my father still had a driver’s license when he died at age 93. The brain is a wonderful thing.

[Rondec]

I disagree on this. For example, we can't see with bare eyes how an image will be shot with a 20mm lens. Looking thru the OVF (thru the lens) give a representation closer to what the image will be like one captured by the sensor (or film), but it's still 3D, as the OVF shows the depth of near to far objects in a scene. The EVF (or back LCD in live view mode of DSLR) give the closest representation of the image that will be recorded by the camera as the EVF image is already boiled down to 2D before it's shown. The EVF (2D) removes the feeling of direct connection with the subject (life like 3D), that's what Ricoh claims and they are right, but they don't mean that SLR finder gives a WYSIWYG preview.

As volley says, unless you have binocular vision, you are seeing 2D, regardless of shooting through an EVF or OVF. An SLR viewfinder clearly does the opposite of what you see is what you get. Maybe that's the point for those of us who enjoy post processing and achieving a vision for an image. For people who shoot SOOC jpegs, EVF really is WYSIWYG.

[biz-engineer]

I think the OVF was necessary for film cameras because film technology couldn't provide image preview other than via a structure of mirror and lens to see through the lens. When light sensitive digital sensors made their way into cameras, the early compact cameras used the electronic sensors directly for focusing , light metering and image preview, while DSLR makers chose to keep their film SLR architectures because contrast detect AF of the CCD sensors wouldn't perform well (too slow) compared to PDAF in SLR cameras. What followed was two decades of using SLR architecture and SLR lens mounts, just because of the unresolved AF problem. Once the dual pixel PDAF was invented on CMOS image sensors, the "on sensor" PDAF problem was solved and there was nothing in the way of dropping the mirror architecture for a direct , more simple camera design. What's now done in FF mirrorless cameras is nothing different from what was done for compact camera right from the beginning, simple and direct architecture, showing the photographer a preview of what the image will be like once captured digitally.

---------- Post added 27-07-22 at 16:19 ----------

And when you look through an OVF of a DSLR you look at the picture the lens projects on the mirror. And that is pretty much 2D, isn't it?

I don't think so , because I compared both looking thru the OVF of my DSLR and looking thru EVF of an EOS R, Z7 , GFX50S etc.. In an OVF, in optics, a flat mirror is not a projection screen, the mirror just redirect the light and has no other effect optically. No image projection happens in an OVF, OVF is an optical path like a lens.

---------- Post added 27-07-22 at 16:25 ----------

Maybe that's the point for those of us who enjoy post processing and achieving a vision for an image

Your reasoning is what's called motivated reasoning. There is nothing you can do with an OVF that you can't do with an EVF. Post processing of a RAW file has nothing to do with using a DSLR or a MILC, you can process RAW files from a MILC as much as you like to do it when captured with a DSLR.

[ProfessorBuzz]

I think the OVF was necessary for film cameras because film technology couldn't provide image preview other than via a structure of mirror and lens to see through the lens.

Keep in mind the history here - the LCD flat panel technology that ultimately led to the EVF didn't exist in commercially viable panels until about 1998, eventually killing off the CRT in about 10 years.

When light sensitive digital sensors made their way into cameras, the early compact cameras used the electronic sensors directly for focusing , light metering and image preview, while DSLR makers chose to keep their film SLR architectures because contrast detect AF of the CCD sensors wouldn't perform well (too slow) compared to PDAF in SLR cameras.

I disagree. The issue is the digitization rate of the detector - how fast you can get the pixels values off the sensor into memory and then onto a display. In 2005, the Kodak KAI-11000 CCD was equivalent to a 35mm full frame of film, and it took about 10-30 seconds to download the entire chip. It could not keep up with the slightest motion of the subject.

[Rondec]

I think the OVF was necessary for film cameras because film technology couldn't provide image preview other than via a structure of mirror and lens to see through the lens. When light sensitive digital sensors made their way into cameras, the early compact cameras used the electronic sensors directly for focusing , light metering and image preview, while DSLR makers chose to keep their film SLR architectures because contrast detect AF of the CCD sensors wouldn't perform well (too slow) compared to PDAF in SLR cameras. What followed was two decades of using SLR architecture and SLR lens mounts, just because of the unresolved AF problem. Once the dual pixel PDAF was invented on CMOS image sensors, the "on sensor" PDAF problem was solved and there was nothing in the way of dropping the mirror architecture for a direct , more simple camera design. What's now done in FF mirrorless cameras is nothing different from what was done for compact camera right from the beginning, simple and direct architecture, showing the photographer a preview of what the image will be like once captured digitally.

---------- Post added 27-07-22 at 16:19 ----------


I don't think so , because I compared both looking thru the OVF of my DSLR and looking thru EVF of an EOS R, Z7 , GFX50S etc.. In an OVF, in optics, a flat mirror is not a projection screen, the mirror just redirect the light and has no other effect optically. No image projection happens in an OVF, OVF is an optical path like a lens.

---------- Post added 27-07-22 at 16:25 ----------


Your reasoning is what's called motivated reasoning. There is nothing you can do with an OVF that you can't do with an EVF. Post processing of a RAW file has nothing to do with using a DSLR or a MILC, you can process RAW files from a MILC as much as you like to do it when captured with a DSLR.

What you say works both ways. For me, photography begins with vision and because I haven't figured out EVFs well enough, I guess, I find that my vision is stunted because my memory of the scene is what the tiny jpeg projected at me of the scene looks like. Maybe it is exactly the same as what I see in my OVF, but it doesn't feel the same.

My post processing is based on my memory of the scene I visualized, not on the tools at my disposal.