[Wheatfield]

Film was "replaced" by digital, not because all the amateurs moved over to digital P&S, but because at one point, all the pros moved over to DSLRs.

Actually, film was "replaced" by digital because the camera manufacturers saw a profit center in digital cameras and realized that film cameras had been taken about as far as they could be.

Being able to hang the word "digital" was a guaranteed win for the camera makers.

[Wheatfield]

Let's face it, no matter how you cut it, the space taken up by the mirror-box is space that is wasted.

What would you do with that space in a K-mount camera?

[MRRiley]

Let's face it, no matter how you cut it, the space taken up by the mirror-box is space that is wasted.

Are you ready to obsolete every lens Pentax ever made to get rid of all that wasted space? Delete it and the register distance changes which means, without an adapter that wastes the exact same amount of space, you can't use any of today or yesterdays lenses on the new teeny tiny marvel.

Of course that. doesn't mean you can't make those adapters... Thats what Oly did for their Micro 4/3rds "marvels" but it sort of indicate that that space isn't exactly "wasted" after all...

Mike

[EricT]

I don't think it'll go away simply because the true viewfinder is better/more flexible than than an electronic one, and because the sensor would likely overheat if LV were used full-time.

Try putting a split-screen in a mirrorless camera

Thread moved to GP.

Are you arguing that an optical viewfinder is more flexible than an electronic one? With an electronic viewfinder you have so many more possibilities. I've already mentioned zooming in and exact depth of field. You can also get more heads-up information, like live histogram and live shutter speed (useful for waterfall shots for instance). I believe we will also see things like hyperfocal distance indicators once more "pro" bodies are made.
I can understand that you argue that optical viewfinders are better in terms of image quality (especially in low light), but I cannot see how you can claim that they are more flexible.

[RawheaD]

Also I'm firmly of the opinion that I shouldn't be required to buy accessories simply to be able to use a camera in the first place.

But that's just being unrealistic. I have news for you. Pentax will probably *never* make an APS-C camera body that is bigger than the K-7. It would be stupid for them to do so, because guess what, 85% of the shooters out there appreciate the small size. K10D and K20D wasn't big because that fit your hands ergonomically; they were big because they couldn't make them any smaller. Now that they can, and they've shown they can make competitive innards as the K-7 at that size/form factor, they will never go back.


So, your option is, buy it and get a grip (lol) to fit your hands, or, go to another system where they still make bulky cameras to save costs. Of course the question then would be "Are you against buying an accessory, but willing to switch an entire system to use it the way you want?" :-)

[Lowell Goudge]

By definition the mirror will never go away from a single lens reflex

Reflex implies a mirror

But an interchangeable lens electronic viewfinder "evil" camera is a possibility

[RawheaD]

Actually, film was "replaced" by digital because the camera manufacturers saw a profit center in digital cameras and realized that film cameras had been taken about as far as they could be.

But how did they come to that conclusion if it weren't for the fact that they saw pros moving over to DSLRs like the 1Ds Mk II? If most pros continued to forego DSLRs because of their inferiority, the camera manufacturers would not have come to that conclusion.

Most pros weren't *forced* to go to digital; they chose to go to digital.

[RawheaD]

Are you ready to obsolete every lens Pentax ever made to get rid of all that wasted space? Delete it and the register distance changes which means, without an adapter that wastes the exact same amount of space, you can't use any of today or yesterdays lenses on the new teeny tiny marvel.

Of course that. doesn't mean you can't make those adapters... Thats what Oly did for their Micro 4/3rds "marvels" but it sort of indicate that that space isn't exactly "wasted" after all...

Mike

There will have to be some kind of a transition strategy, and yes, adapters are one way that the various manufacturers are dealing with that problem. The idea would be, of course, to redesign the lens lineup. It *has* to happen at some point, there's no way around it. You can design lenses that are just as good... in fact, in many cases much better (e.g., non-retrofocus wide angle lenses) with a short-register camera body, and make them smaller, too. Just look at the Leica system.


When you have manufacturer A---let's say Sony---with a full frame / aps-c camera body that is half as thick as a K-7, with a lineup of lenses that are as small as the DA limiteds (but also cover FF), with Carl Zeiss quality glass, and with killer lenses like a 21mm F2.8 Biogon for their lineup, there's no way you can continue to make DSLRs and compete.

This is *especially* true of the current Pentax lineup, which is heavily selling on the compactness of their body + lens lineup, with the K-7 and DA limited primes.

[RawheaD]

While I can understand the attraction of a small body for people who want to put something like the DA40 on one, when you use the DA*16-50 (or something bigger) all you get is something that's really unbalanced and the size of the lens undoes any benefit you got from the smaller body.

The point is, once we all move over to a shorter register body, you can design smaller lenses that are just as good, if not actually better than their D/SLR counterparts. Look at the Leica M-mount lineup. Yes, there will be pains during the transition period, when some people will have little choice but to use their 16-50 + an adapter. But on the other side of the tunnel is going to be a system that is extremely compact AND well balanced.


What was the only downside of rangefinder film cameras? That's right, the "rangefinder". I.e., the fact that you couldn't compose and focus while actually seeing it with your own eyes. With mirrorless/EVF cameras, for the first time, you get to have best of both worlds; the high-quality and compact body & lens lineup of rangefinder cameras, and the ability to actually see & frame your shots without relying on klutzy mechanisms like rangefinders.

[RawheaD]

The M9 is a classic rangefinder design with an optical viewfinder so its not using an EVF.

But it is a "mirror-less" digital camera, so I say it fits the bill. I mean, if the M9 had LiveView (which I think was just stupid for them to not include), what differentiates it from a hypothetical FF mirror-less body from any of the other camera manufacturers?

In fact, all it will be is a function limited version of what other manufacturers will have to offer.

Think about it; the Sony NEX/E-mount system has a register distance that is so short that it can mount not only every single Leica lens ever made (well, almost... there may be wideangle lenses where the rear element will get in the way--need confirmation on this), but also all the cine-lenses, and also maybe even micro-4/3 lenses (!).


If Sony develops the E-mount and makes a full frame body that can mount Leica M lenses with an adapter, AND give the option of purchasing an optical viewfinder turret (with electronic focus confirmation) that people can mount on the accessory shoe, but *also* provide LiveView *and* high quality EVF, then who but the crazy Leica collector type would want to purchase an M9 over such a camera?


I predict that Leica will be forced to add LiveView and EVF to the M9.2 (or M10) in order to compete; thus, making them just higher quality (or, at least, higher priced) mirror-less EVIL cam :-)

[Blue]

But it is a "mirror-less" digital camera, so I say it fits the bill. I mean, if the M9 had LiveView (which I think was just stupid for them to not include), what differentiates it from a hypothetical FF mirror-less body from any of the other camera manufacturers?

In fact, all it will be is a function limited version of what other manufacturers will have to offer.

There's a big difference in the M9 and an EVG 4/3 and the Samsung aps-c thing.

I predict that Leica will be forced to add LiveView and EVF to the M9.2 (or M10) in order to compete; thus, making them just higher quality (or, at least, higher priced) mirror-less EVIL cam :-)

I doubt Leica will go with EVF anytime soon. In fact, EVF is kind of illogical when you think about it. The damn camera is having to take a picture of what you are looking so you can see what you are looking at rather than actually looking at. Its doing away with the mirror box and replacing it with circuitry. Furthermore, the Leica crowd is a different animal.

[RawheaD]

There's a big difference in the M9 and an EVG 4/3 and the Samsung aps-c thing.

Note that I didn't compare the M9 to m4/3 or the NX. I compared it to a hypothetical, full-frame mirrorless camera that could be on the market in the next few years.

I doubt Leica will go with EVF anytime soon. In fact, EVF is kind of illogical when you think about it. The damn camera is having to take a picture of what you are looking so you can see what you are looking at rather than actually looking at. Its doing away with the mirror box and replacing it with circuitry. Furthermore, the Leica crowd is a different animal.

Nope, not really. As long as the time-lag between what you're seeing and what you see in the EVF is minimized, then there is no realistic difference between an OVF and an EVF. The lag is currently there, sure, but it won't be for long.

Besides, if you read my post (I know it was long, but you can try), you would've seen that the hypothetical Sony camera I talked about will give you the option of using an OVF *on top of* LiveView *and* EVF. There is no way you can argue having *only* a coupled rangefinder OVF is better than having the choice between those three.


Also, I also addressed the "Leica crowd". However, you have to understand that Leica makes a lot of money off of people who aren't necessarily part of the "Leica crowd" (I.e., Leica fanboys). These people purchase Leicas because Leica bodies are the only ones that can take full advantage of Leica lenses. In the film days, you had people buying bodies from other manufacturers (e.g., Voigtländer) that are good enough mechanically, and could mount all the Leica lenses, which was the important point.

There are a people who are buying he M9 for the same reason, who would gladly purchase a fullframe EVIL camera from Sony for $2,000 rather than pay Leica $7,000 for the priviledge of mounting Leica lenses on an FF digital camera, especially when the former camera will give them LiveView and EVF, which will help them mount not only coupled Leica mount lenses, but also a whole host of non-Leica rangefinder lenses (Contax RF, Voigtländer, PEN, etc.).

So, if/when such a camera comes out, the question becomes "Can Leica afford to let all those customers go, just to be stubborn about LiveView/EVF?" My prediction is that they can't, and they won't. We'll see :-)