[RawheaD]

It's astonishing to see people continue the debate of form factor of *current* EVIL cameras when debating the virtues of the *concept* of EVIL cameras.

Whether or not you think the currentl line of EVILs (Panny, Oly, NEX, etc.) are eronomically inferior to SLRs has NOTHING to do with the basic principle of EVIL cameras per se.

In other words, the fact that you don't like what's out there right now *is not* a good argument against EVIL cameras. Get over it.

EVIL + superior EVF (granted, still doesn't quite exist) cameras is the future. Period. There is absolutely no reason why cameras should/would be confined to the SLR paradigm once the issue of the viewfinder is overcome. Which will happen, sooner rather than later.

In traditional film photography, this is how it broke down:

Pros of SLRs:
1. What you see is what you get, in terms of farming, focusing, and parallax
2. ability to use zoom lenses

Pros of rangefinders:
1. non-retrofocus wideangle lenses
2. shutter response time
3. smaller, lighter body & lenses
4. faster lenses at smaller footprints

With EVILs, you already eliminate both pros for SLRs. You also get most of the Pros for rangefinders, except for #2, where response time is not yet good. And of course the EVF leaves much to be desired.


BUT, check out, for example, the tech specs for the Fuji X100 (it's not really an EVIL camera in the sense that it doesn't have interchangeable lenses, but the argument stands). Shutter response time is awesome, and the viewfinder should be phenomenal. Believe me, the shortcoming of EVILs *will* entirely be overcome in the next few years.

After that, there is *NO* fundamental reason why SLRs should be preferred. *Again*, form factor *is not* an issue. If a professional photographer wants/needs a bulkier body for better ergonomics, it is a non-issue to make such a body under the EVIL paradigm.

YES, lenses will have to be redesigned, and will be redesigned. There is absolutely no question about this. Sony already knows this. Canon and Nikon do, too, but they're gonna have a hard time convincing their users to make the inevitable shift.

Pentax is in a unique position. They can choose to be laggards with Canikon. They can start the shift along with Sony (not a bad deal, what with Pentax using Sony sensors). I predict that any laggard will be the one(s) left behind. The digital camera landscape could be an entirely different scenery 10 years from now.

[bimjo]

[Fogel70]

One interesting thing with lenses designed for EVIL is that they can be used on both video- and photography optimized cameras.

In a few years when interchangeable lens video cameras cost like a entry level DSLR quite a few lenses will be sold to this type of cameras too. And it is another benefit for manufacturers in locking users into their lens mount. If having both a video- and photography optimized camera locked into one mount it will be even more difficult and expensive to jump to another manufacturer.

But it probably be Sony, Samsung and Panasonic that will dominate this market, and smaller players that are specialized on photography will probably struggle to keep up with these electronic giants.

[mlatour]

I had been using a FUJI S9100 with great results for a few years prior to buying a K-x last spring,
Fujicam DSLR-type 'bridge' camera, review: Fujifilm Inepix-S9100-Zoom Review: Overview

and while the K-x does offer better image quality, is faster, and allows to choose lenses
to better suit the situation (I often shoot wide-angle), I really do miss having an EVF like the S9100.

Question for all: With your current DSLR,
how many times while shooting do you stop, point the camera down
and review your pics on the back LCD to confirm you have the right exposure
or focus? (plus judging that in bright sunlight is almost impossible)

With a EVF, if required you simply set your in-camera post-review to display for 1 second after each shot,
wasting a lot less time and effort than the other way, plus never having to point your camera away
from your subject, not even loosing your framing if you're steady.
Your review screen always being 'in the shade', you also get a better idea of your exposure/focus while in bright sunlight.

Without a mechanical mirror/shutter, some other advantages are faster high-speed flash sync,
(often take nice action pics at 1/250+ with my S9100) and less/no moving parts to break.

Perhaps EVIL is not of interest to 'old-school photography traditionalists' but it's most likely
that it will become the evolution of the entry-level/advanced amateur/semi-pro 'DSRL-type' cameras.

As soon as Pentax makes one with hopefully a K mount to use the same lenses I've purchased for the K-x,
and the ergonomics similar to a K-x or S9100... I'll be the first in line to buy one.

Michel
www.coderouge.com

---

Last edited by mlatour; 12-26-2010 at 06:57 PM.

[Ash]

Pros of SLRs:
1. What you see is what you get, in terms of farming, focusing, and parallax
2. ability to use zoom lenses

Pros of rangefinders:
1. non-retrofocus wideangle lenses
2. shutter response time
3. smaller, lighter body & lenses
4. faster lenses at smaller footprints

With EVILs, you already eliminate both pros for SLRs. You also get most of the Pros for rangefinders, except for #2, where response time is not yet good. And of course the EVF leaves much to be desired.

After that, there is *NO* fundamental reason why SLRs should be preferred. *Again*, form factor *is not* an issue. If a professional photographer wants/needs a bulkier body for better ergonomics, it is a non-issue to make such a body under the EVIL paradigm.

This far, even if considering the concept, not the current lineup, of EVIL cameras, there is also no fundamental reason why for an enthusiast an EVIL camera should be preferred.
Cost? Pentax has challenged this in their dSLRs compared to the bigger guns. Even if in the future EVIL is more cost effective than Pentax's dSLR + lens offerings, there is more to it for an enthusiast than cheaper cost.
Size? Similar argument. Pentax's position in creating such nifty new bodies and niche prime lenses make them quite an appealing mix of small size and superior IQ. Unless EVIL cameras and lenses surpass this, I don't see a significant proportion of enthusiasts forsaking their dSLRs for EVILs.
I do see the new technology being attractive to the gearhead and the younger generation of consumers.

[deltoidjohn]

As others have said, debating the future of EVIL cameras while referring to current models is useless. As an idea, EVIL cameras are poised to make massive leaps and gains on the rest of the market.

Looking outside of what is currently offered, there's still a range of ground to be explored with these mirrorless cameras:

1. Almost silent cameras (with DSLR quality)
2. No mirror block - once you put a pro level processor and shutter in there, you could potentially have much faster fps without the bulky mirror in the way.
3. "What you see is what you get" - not only with framing, and focus, but exposure as well. Not to mention live histograms, zebras, peaking or any other manual assist functions.

I'm sure there is a wealth of possibilities out there, and given the stubborn rejection of EVIL cameras by many people on this board and other "enthusiast" photo communites it's no wonder that the companies decided to enter these cameras into the lower end of the market where people are more open minded. Believe me, the massive profits from these current offerings are driving R & D into pro-level EVIL cameras.

I see a future where EVIL cameras are the dominant force at all ends of the market because they have the ability to take the best features of point and shoot cameras, video cameras and DSLR's and roll them up in to one package.

Once they have advanced EVFs to the point they are somewhere near close to as usable as an optical viewfinder, I might have some use for them, but in their present form (I have yet to see one that wasn't garbage), they are of no use to me at all.

Have you used the optical viewfinder on the GH1? Using that thing in conjunction with the focus assist lets me get much more accurate focus than any DSLR viewfinder ever will. Sharp as a scalpal too, with the ability to set it up in quite a few different ways.

Explain 'proper technique' - you know, like how do you hold an EVIL camera at slow shutter speeds? They are ...and always will be... too much like point and shoot cameras to be taken seriously.

You only say that because every mirrorless camera so far has been designed similarly to a point and shoot. What's to say a pro-level m4/3 camera is not on the way already, with a larger body and flawless EVF?

[Wheatfield]

Have you taken a peek through an A55 yet? Fort an EVF, it's pretty darn good.

...but not the same as optical, of course, and wont be until they get one that is somewhere north of 3 million pixels, I believe.

Jason

I believe there is also an issue with latency, where they have some difficulty keeping up with fast subjects.

[Wheatfield]

Have you used the optical viewfinder on the GH1? Using that thing in conjunction with the focus assist lets me get much more accurate focus than any DSLR viewfinder ever will. Sharp as a scalpal too, with the ability to set it up in quite a few different ways.

Yes I have, and I really didn't like it. I found it hard on my eyes.
This obviates any technical advantages it might be able to come up with for me.

You only say that because every mirrorless camera so far has been designed similarly to a point and shoot. What's to say a pro-level m4/3 camera is not on the way already, with a larger body and flawless EVF?

Obliviously, if they can make a flawless one, then it becomes a technology worth looking at. Until then, it isn't.
I hope they do get better actually, the little viewfinders in DSLRs are a PITA as well.
The 645D has a very nice finder.

[Ash]

Looking outside of what is currently offered, there's still a range of ground to be explored with these mirrorless cameras:

1. Almost silent cameras (with DSLR quality)
2. No mirror block - once you put a pro level processor and shutter in there, you could potentially have much faster fps without the bulky mirror in the way.
3. "What you see is what you get" - not only with framing, and focus, but exposure as well. Not to mention live histograms, zebras, peaking or any other manual assist functions.

OK, I did mention previously that it's the concept I'm discussing - I have not even tried an EVIL camera as yet. Point #1 - silence has limited practical benefit. Point #2 - dSLRs can attain burst rates of the order of 10fps. There may well be a maximum to this figure, however what practical gain is there from shooting full-resolution 25fps? Video is mostly limited to HD resolution, which doesn't require 12-16Mp of resolution. Point #3 - optical viewfinder quality may well be rivaled by electronic LCD/LED viewfinders without the need for looking into a small optical window, but again, real-life advantage of live view histograms and other automated features on the electronic viewfinder?

I'm sure there is a wealth of possibilities out there, and given the stubborn rejection of EVIL cameras by many people on this board and other "enthusiast" photo communites it's no wonder that the companies decided to enter these cameras into the lower end of the market where people are more open minded. Believe me, the massive profits from these current offerings are driving R & D into pro-level EVIL cameras.

Perhaps despite the possible developments in EVIL land, I'm still not seeing a real advantage. Doing away with a mirror mechanism, making cameras smaller and enabling video capabilities that can be implemented in a dSLR format anyway are the main absolute advantages - if they're considered as such. I personally hope Pentax remains true to its identity and vintage, maintaining the K-mount and developing EVIL alongside dSLRs rather than replacing it. I'd like to see how the pro Canon and Nikon community respond to the idea of EVIL taking over dSLR formats.

I believe there is also an issue with latency, where they have some difficulty keeping up with fast subjects.

This issue exists now, and is annoying, but is likely to get much better, perhaps even near optical fidelity, in the next few years with the way the technology is growing.

[Fogel70]

Perhaps despite the possible developments in EVIL land, I'm still not seeing a real advantage. Doing away with a mirror mechanism, making cameras smaller and enabling video capabilities that can be implemented in a dSLR format anyway are the main absolute advantages - if they're considered as such. I personally hope Pentax remains true to its identity and vintage, maintaining the K-mount and developing EVIL alongside dSLRs rather than replacing it. I'd like to see how the pro Canon and Nikon community respond to the idea of EVIL taking over dSLR formats.

It will probably be like when SLR was replaced by DSLR. But a bit more complicated as support of old DSLR lenses might not be as good on EVIL system.

Both formats will be sold until sales on the old is so low that there is no profit on it anymore. When sales on DSLR decline, prices will rise and in the end it will probably be no more money for R&D on them.

When sales on EVIL will increase price will be lower, and more R&D money will be spent on them. With more competition prices will fall even quicker and technical development will accelerate faster.

[RawheaD]

This far, even if considering the concept, not the current lineup, of EVIL cameras, there is also no fundamental reason why for an enthusiast an EVIL camera should be preferred.

Seriously? Have you read my post?? I'm an enthusiast. I absolutely crave for the benefits of non-retrofucs wideangle lenses and fast lenses. I would LOVE a Noctilux-like F1.0 lens for a full frame EVIL camera. My favorite camera is a Hasselblad SWC/M. I would LOVE to have a <21mm Biogon lens for a full frame EVIL camera (get working on it, SONY!). Neither of those are practical, or even possible in the case of the Biogon, on an SLR system. This is exactly my point. Having the minimum possible flange focal distance is *always* potentially benefitial for precisely the *enthusiast*, not entry-level users.

[Ash]

Seriously? Have you read my post?? I'm an enthusiast. I absolutely crave for the benefits of non-retrofucs wideangle lenses and fast lenses. I would LOVE a Noctilux-like F1.0 lens for a full frame EVIL camera. My favorite camera is a Hasselblad SWC/M. I would LOVE to have a <21mm Biogon lens for a full frame EVIL camera (get working on it, SONY!). Neither of those are practical, or even possible in the case of the Biogon, on an SLR system. This is exactly my point. Having the minimum possible flange focal distance is *always* potentially benefitial for precisely the *enthusiast*, not entry-level users.

And obviously very passionate about the concept. Sounds good - perhaps I haven't given it the credit due. In any case, I for one would be disappointed if Pentax's first FF camera were to be an EVIL...

[johnmflores]

Pros will turn to EVIL when shutters go global.

[Wheatfield]

I'm sure there is a wealth of possibilities out there, and given the stubborn rejection of EVIL cameras by many people on this board and other "enthusiast" photo communites it's no wonder that the companies decided to enter these cameras into the lower end of the market where people are more open minded.

I think you meant to say " the lower end market where people are less discerning".
At the moment electronic viewfinders are not as good as optical ones on several levels, and discerning photographers won't adopt them until they are as good as optical finders for the metrics that matter to enthusiast/pro photographers.
Right now they appeal to people who like technology for the sake of technology.
This may change, but the electronic finders need to improve a lot before that will happen.

[deltoidjohn]

I think you meant to say " the lower end market where people are less discerning".
At the moment electronic viewfinders are not as good as optical ones on several levels, and discerning photographers won't adopt them until they are as good as optical finders for the metrics that matter to enthusiast/pro photographers.
Right now they appeal to people who like technology for the sake of technology.
This may change, but the electronic finders need to improve a lot before that will happen.

Haha, this is exactly what I meant when I said "stubborn rejection."

What is better in your opinion is very subjective. To me, a professional videographer, the familiarity of an EVF when taking photographs, with all the benefits such as live histogram, focus assist and shutter/DOF preview, is a big advantage and much easier to work with.

For many people new to photography, they will fail to see any advantages to an OVF, even when comparing them side by side.