[reh321]

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.

Interesting enough, the compact camera I had in 2007 had an optical viewfinder - basically like the Instamatic I had in the 1960’s.

[AfterPentax Mark II]

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.

If you can look through the viewfinder without glasses you use the diopter correction to see a sharp image in the OVF. I wear glasses and I cannot look through the OVF without my glasses although my correction is not that high. And you usually hold a mirrorless or a DSLR in LV mode at arms length at the most and so the LCD does need to be close up. In an EVF it works the same as with an OVF and I like the EVF very much because they can give all kinds of extra information a DSLR cannot. Like showing you to what extent you are zooming. And I like the bright- and clearness of the EVF very much. The reason I still use a Pentax branded camera has to do with money, it is cheaper to buy a new body now and then, then starting all over again with a new system. Between DSLR and a "mirrorless with EVF" there is actually not that much difference. It does not matter if you get the image projected with the help of a mirror or if you get it from the sensor, in both cases you see an "indirect" image. And the image on the SD-card might differ a little bit from what you saw in the viewfinder. By the way you do not look through the lens, you look at an image projected on a screen that you use to focus (with manual focusing) so it is not so different from what you see at the viewfinder in a mirrorless.

[Wheatfield]

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.

Apparently, mirrorless cameras are all the rage these days. My understanding is that most of the objections you bring up have already been solved.

[StiffLegged]

…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.

Looking through the OVF of a DSLR, you are looking, via the eyepiece and pentaprism, at the image projected on the focussing screen.

[luftfluss]

"what are canon and Nikon thinking"?

They are thinking about making money.

[thibs]

Pissing on Pentax was one thing.
Now biz is trying to convert everyone to the new MILC religion.

Sorry but to me the line is crossed.
Bye bye. Boriscletoed.

[Fogel70]

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.

There is no difference in viewing an EVF or an OVF, the both have optics for compensating the close distance. If you haven't noticed there is a LCD in an OVF too with lot of information that you can read if you have the diopter adjusted correctly.

[Pål Jensen]

IThere is nothing you can do with an OVF that you can't do with an EVF. .

Yes, there is. You can use a DSLR as binocular substitute without using electricity. I do it all the time. You can compose an image without using electricity and take all the time you need. Every great photographer will tell you that the image is (pre)visialised in the mind before taking the image, not visualized on a low-res screen to see what might work....

[reh321]

Yes, there is. You can use a DSLR as binocular substitute without using electricity. I do it all the time. You can compose an image without using electricity and take all the time you need. Every great photographer will tell you that the image is (pre)visialised in the mind before taking the image, not visualized on a low-res screen to see what might work....

I do my pre-visualization without looking into the viewfinder.
I visualize with my eyes looking directly at the subject - not looking through a viewfinder.
I found that even my Q-7 gave me enough of a view to spot my aiming points.
I may spend fifteen minutes planning my shot, less than a minute of it with the camera to my eye.
By the time I lift the camera to my eye, I am ready to frame the photo and shoot.

[biz-engineer]

Looking through the OVF of a DSLR, you are looking, via the eyepiece and pentaprism, at the image projected on the focussing screen.

I knew something was missing in my reasoning. Thank you for reminding me. Oh yes, the focusing screen, or a mini ground glass

---------- Post added 27-07-22 at 21:34 ----------

Pissing on Pentax was one thing.

I would never do that.

Now biz is trying to convert everyone to the new MILC religion.

I prefer DSLR before I have "invested" in the lenses already. That said, MILC has merits as well.

---------- Post added 27-07-22 at 21:39 ----------

Yes, there is. You can use a DSLR as binocular substitute without using electricity. I do it all the time.

That's true. I also preview shots sometimes , without switching on the camera. I also use live view more and more, because I shoot often on tripod, and I also like to shuffle digital filters to preview how an image would look like e.g. in black & white with / without IR filter, or with a film reversal style, because sometimes a composition is reinforced by a certain look, I like to preview, analyze, think, before I shoot, live view is a good tool for "pre-processing" my shots before I take them.

---------- Post added 27-07-22 at 21:46 ----------

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.

I tend to use live view more, as I like to "pre-process" my exposures. By pre-viewing how an image will look like, I have less files on my SD cards and more "keepers". Post processing is another step to improve / reveal a composition. Ansel Adams (according to inteviews, books) considered his knowledge of both film latitude and his print processing tricks to make exposure decisions. I use the OVF when shooting hand held and/or sunny weather, although K1 LV outdoor settings makes LV usable in bright light.

---------- Post added 27-07-22 at 21:47 ----------

I do my pre-visualization without looking into the viewfinder.

How do you do with ultra wide or supertele lenses? Are you still able to visualize with your mind's eye?

[mlag]

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.

Isn’t there a diopter correction on the view finder on most modern camera’s to avoid this reading glass problem?

As long as you are the single user, or don’t accidentally change it (every auto focussed picture suddenly looks bad in viewfinder) under the rubber eyepiece, it works fine and should see both sharp.

[reh321]

How do you do with ultra wide or supertele lenses? Are you still able to visualize with your mind's eye?

On occasion, I am forced to the wide end of my Sigma 10-20mm lens because of what I saw before I ever looked through the viewfinder; I hate those moments because of the distortion that results if I tilt the lens. I do use a DA 1.4X TC with my 55-300mm PLM lens; I have found that scanning the scenery as though I were a sea captain with a monocle doesn't work for me.

[R.Miller]

Isn’t there a diopter correction on the view finder on most modern camera’s to avoid this reading glass problem?

As long as you are the single user, or don’t accidentally change it (every auto focussed picture suddenly looks bad in viewfinder) under the rubber eyepiece, it works fine and should see both sharp.

Yes. Without glasses the viewfinder view using the diopter is fine, but I shoot TAv a lot and walking through a forest you can have a lot of light and dark areas that you quickly move through when hiking. It's easier to look at the rear screen and adjust the dials then constantly looking through the viewfinder. At least for me it is.

[C_Jones]

I like looking at the real image with the DSLR viewfinder.

[R.Miller]

Technically you are looking at an image that was reflected a few times and focused before it got to your eye...