[GUB]

and probably good enough as long as drives are available to read them.

I don't see that as an issue. a turntable a tracking laser and a receptor (without researching actually what is involved) -- is it that beyond being home built?
And i was thinking about obselets software today. In the case of an optical drive it is surely a string of zeros and 1 s and based on one of a handful of scripts. Wouldn't it be possible for a computer to reverse design a code?

[MarkJerling]

Yikes, this is pretty bad.
South African family in triple homicide had been in Timaru for just a week | Stuff.co.nz

[Kiwi645hauler]

Just read this... OUCH but i hate to say it, pretty on the money as far as where the market has actually gone
Pentax: Two Years Ago, You Got it Really, Really Wrong

[GUB]

Yikes, this is pretty bad.
South African family in triple homicide had been in Timaru for just a week | Stuff.co.nz

Life's pressures
I suspect they are all victims

[GUB]

Just read this... OUCH but i hate to say it, pretty on the money as far as where the market has actually gone
Pentax: Two Years Ago, You Got it Really, Really Wrong

Maybe - but I think if they had run with the trendies they would be in even more dire straits now.
Interesting how he would like a m42 camera at the end. Doesn't he grasp that those who love the legacy glass would tend to prefer it on an authentic body.
I use the old glass constantly and mimic the evf experience with a lcd viewfinder much of the time - but it would be a sad day to move away from that dslr feel.

[MarkJerling]

Just read this... OUCH but i hate to say it, pretty on the money as far as where the market has actually gone
Pentax: Two Years Ago, You Got it Really, Really Wrong

So, the premise is that dslr = bad, mirrorless = good. Everyone else = brilliant, Pentax = dumb as rocks. Time will tell.
I'm sure I'm not the only person who can't stand looking at / through an electronic viewfinder and who finds looking at the object I'm photographing with a dslr a much more pleasant experience without eye fatigue, lag and a pixelated view much like looking through leadlight.

Of course, this is a Pentax enthusiast photography forum so you may find a bit of push back.

[bobD]

I don't see that as an issue. a turntable a tracking laser and a receptor (without researching actually what is involved) -- is it that beyond being home built?
And i was thinking about obselets software today. In the case of an optical drive it is surely a string of zeros and 1 s and based on one of a handful of scripts. Wouldn't it be possible for a computer to reverse design a code?

Then marvel at this...
Booting from a vinyl record – BOGIN, JR.

[Kiwizinho]

Yikes, this is pretty bad.

My wife and I know so many families who are struggling for various reasons at the moment. I think it can be particularly hard for migrants, as they don't have established support networks, but even for someone like myself whose ancestors arrived here in 1842, because I'm an introvert, and work from home, I need to work to make sure I have people I can turn to, or things that I can do to reduce stress.
Having a garden (no matter how messy) and a camera are a couple of simple pleasures I find are a great help in maintaining a good state of mind.
My wife struggled for a number of years when she moved to NZ.
One thing we've both observed is families are often afraid to talk about issues they're facing for fear of being judged until it escalates into something that gets authorities involved.

[richandfleur]

So, the premise is that dslr = bad, mirrorless = good. Everyone else = brilliant, Pentax = dumb as rocks. Time will tell.

Of course, this is a Pentax enthusiast photography forum so you may find a bit of push back.

I nearly wrote this earlier but held back, being a biased (but still very friendly) crowd and all.

I view the D in DSLR as being for dumb, given all the smarts and analytics/ tracking etc that comes with feeding a computer a full time sensor image. This refers to the device, not the buyer!!! Overall not a popular opinion here of course 😂

I can’t see DSLR (unless in mirrorless live view mode) ever achieving that level of face/eye detection and exposure adjustment and tracking etc.

Now from a purist experience where you want to get involved in all aspects of the shot (putting aside the debate of the auto exposure and shutter speed etc modes) then the DSLR still has its place.

The mirror/optical viewfinder offers a different experience but good IQ, sensor stabilisation, lens adaptability etc can be had from multiple styles and brands nowadays.

---------- Post added 09-17-21 at 04:54 PM ----------

I’d be very worried about optical discs delaminating their plastic over time. Many CDs we had from the early days don’t play anymore, if you find a player.

Heck even had a bunch of usb sticks and an sad drive die lately. Not fun.

[Kiwi645hauler]

So, the premise is that dslr = bad, mirrorless = good. Everyone else = brilliant, Pentax = dumb as rocks. Time will tell.
I'm sure I'm not the only person who can't stand looking at / through an electronic viewfinder and who finds looking at the object I'm photographing with a dslr a much more pleasant experience without eye fatigue, lag and a pixelated view much like looking through leadlight.

Of course, this is a Pentax enthusiast photography forum so you may find a bit of push back.

Mark, I am a Pentax enthusiast myself as well, dont get me wrong, I love an SLR with a big bright Glass Viewfinder, but i do fear their days are becoming numbered.
And i will say, i was a big skeptic about Mirrorless cameras initially myself, working in Photographic retail and during the initial MILC releases seeing the initial performance i was not impressed with many things about them, LCD finders, AF, LCD Lag were all among the big pains. Initially lens selections were not great as well.
But things started to turn the corner when Panasonic teamed with Oly on a standard lens mount and communicaitons, so there is a big range of lenses, Sony started releasing lenses and now have 40+ natives, plus SIgma, Tamron and others are all now producing lenses for mirrorless systems. Sure CaNikon put a pinky toe in to see where the market was going with the EOS M and the Nikon 1 series, but they were look we are in the market ranges. Sony only really got serious with the A7II and A6000 cameras and it took off from there..
I hate to say it but has truly changed and heading down the mirrorless highway,
Why? Easy, Canon & Nikon committing to Mirrorless systems fully. Canon now has 30 odd lenses in the RF mount already and more coming, Nikon will have 20+ Native Z mount lenses available by the end of the year plus the millions of EF & F mount lenses that can be used via Native Canon & Nikon adapters. Canon had their latest R3 at the Tokyo Olympics, and it is a mega beast, 24mp full frame sensor able to capture & write near on 30fps stills with AF & Tracking.... Plus 4K 120fps Video.... Sure its aimed at Pro sport shooters & media creators, but.. Even the base R is 24mp full frame, produces 4K video & 5fps stills in a body thats over $1k cheaper than the K-1. I think we will see even the likes of Panasonic & Sony start to struggle with market share as Canon & Nikon start to gain ground lost in the initial shift.
Ricoh need to get on the bullet train and get in the market, or i fear they will end up as a foot note in photography...

Another way to put it, i have sold 2x traditional DSLR cameras in the last 2 years, both Pentax's every other ILC camera in the large number we have sold has been a mirrorless
Sorry if thats a bit heavy, but that is what i have seen from the inside of the industry (Hell even Hasselblad have a mirrorless system in the X1 series)
H

[NZ_Ross]

Another way to put it, i have sold 2x traditional DSLR cameras in the last 2 years, both Pentax's every other ILC camera in the large number we have sold has been a mirrorless
Sorry if thats a bit heavy, but that is what i have seen from the inside of the industry (Hell even Hasselblad have a mirrorless system in the X1 series)
H

And one of those was to me Hayden, thank you very much for arranging it, and I am very happy. I also have the Panasonic G9 for my work videos, and I have also travelled internationally with the G9. It has a very good EVF, is fast shooting, and has all sorts of tricks up it's sleeve for both stills and 4K video.

So, why did I pay a lot of good money for another APS-C DSLR? I will admit I thought about it for about half a year, and had a couple of serious looks at FF MILC systems. In the end I decided that I liked using a optical viewfinder for my hobby - which is generally travel, cityscapes, and landscapes. I am intending to do a lot more bird photography over the next few years too. With the exception of the bird photography, none of the rest of what I generally shoot requires eye tracking AF.

I understand why people buy MILC, and also that will be the future. I also think there will be a small ongoing niche market for DSLRs, just as there is a small ongoing niche market for Rangefinders. Just how small and how niche is I guess what we will find out over the next decade.

I now have a camera for my hobby that I will enjoy using for the next 7-10 years, and if I get the itch for a FF MILC I can always purchase one at that point. In terms of the Panasonic G9 I have of course looked at moving up to the Panasonic S5, but decided not to, as the M43 size, weight and quality lense combination is still compelling for my current requirements. I don't gain anything I need for the cost of the upgrade, and the G9 EVF is significantly better the the S5 EVF.

I continue to believe it is 'horses for courses' whilst also observing that all the major development and technical progression is happening in the MILC part of the market.

If I was a professional photographer, then of course my analysis and calculus would be different

[zkarj]

I believe it is inevitable that I will own a MILC and a fully electric car. Both of those things will happen when the respective technology reaches a point where I don't have to compromise on my wants and needs. In the case of the cars, they still need to nail sufficient range at a reasonable price and travel time (either bigger batteries or super fast, ubiquitous charging). In the case of cameras, they still need to nail the feel of TTL vision.

I have a screen on my phone that is of such resolution that I don't see the pixels — if I am holding it at a reasonable distance. In the case of an EVF, it's going to have to be super dense because the distance from my eye will be very short. That screen on my phone is backed by a ridiculously powerful bunch of silicon (more power than many PCs, and some of it dedicated to optical processing) and I can still see lag in the camera app as plain as day. I was listening to someone talk about the state of the art in consumer VR recently and they were describing how even the slightest lag can lead to motion sickness, because our bodies are incredibly fast at processing information. If you move your head and the world you're seeing doesn't move at the same speed, your brain knows. I don't think I'd get motion sickness from an EVF, but it would nevertheless be very obvious and disconcerting. It may not matter to landscape or portrait shooters but birds and planes are my forté. It's hard enough to snap a piwakawaka when you have speed-of-brain vision.

But wouldn't it be super clever if someone came up with a way to provide both a direct feed to the sensor and a pure optical path at the same time? Modern sensors can make do with a lot less light than their predecessors, what if 1/2 of the light were reflected to an OVF and the remaining 1/2 allowed through to the sensor? I don't know if there is an analog means of amplifying light for the OVF but with good enough sensors it may be the case they can accept substantially less than half.

[Kiwizinho]

I'm sure I'm not the only person who can't stand looking at / through an electronic viewfinder and who finds looking at the object I'm photographing with a dslr a much more pleasant experience without eye fatigue, lag and a pixelated view much like looking through leadlight.

I came back to Pentax from a couple of Fuji bridge cameras with EVFs in the early days, and at that stage EVFs were a pain. I'm sure they've improved considerably since then (I bought my last one in 2009), but I really like the ability especially combined with quickshift, to be able to preview things without even turning the camera on.

[Kiwi645hauler]

I believe it is inevitable that I will own a MILC and a fully electric car. Both of those things will happen when the respective technology reaches a point where I don't have to compromise on my wants and needs. In the case of the cars, they still need to nail sufficient range at a reasonable price and travel time (either bigger batteries or super fast, ubiquitous charging). In the case of cameras, they still need to nail the feel of TTL vision.

But wouldn't it be super clever if someone came up with a way to provide both a direct feed to the sensor and a pure optical path at the same time? Modern sensors can make do with a lot less light than their predecessors, what if 1/2 of the light were reflected to an OVF and the remaining 1/2 allowed through to the sensor? I don't know if there is an analog means of amplifying light for the OVF but with good enough sensors it may be the case they can accept substantially less than half.

EVF's are developing all the time, using the new EOS R3 by Canon as an example, the less than 1" LCD EVF has 5.76 million dots and a 120fps refresh rate, while providing 100% frame coverage at .76x magnification and a 23mm eye relief.. Taking the E out of the EVF, that 100% coverage .76x mag is what most of us dream of in an SLR viewfinder...

As for the hybrid E/OVF Fujifilm use a Hybrid E/OVF in their X-Pro cameras, in their flagship X-Pro 3, the OVF is a 0.5x magnification, and the EVF is a .5" 3.6 million dot screen with 5000:1 contrast, but it is still a range finder style camera.
To try and split light for a combined EVF/OVF is a tough one, Sony kinda tried it with their SLT technology in the A77, A99 and A55/56 SLR's by using a fixed translucent mirror that directed 10% of the light to the EVF sensor. All it really did was cut out light going to the sensor and made the processor rely on more amplification to get the same effective light gathering on the imaging sensor.
The big thing for something like that to work well, would need a camera with a full frame sensor but the pixels themselves and the light wells to capture the light would need to be massive, to the point where resolution on the sensor would likely be about 3.5 - 5 million pixels. (back in 2004 Pentax's stillborn MZ-D used a 6 megapixel sensor)

One way to look at the EVF thing, your LCD/LED TV does not have the refresh rate that the tiny EVF screen in that EOS R3 as most TV's in the Full HD /4K range are somewhere in the 50-100hz or 50-100fps range..
I find no isses with my now 3 year old Olympus OM-D E-M 1 Mk II EVF which is a 2.35 million dot and about 65hz refresh rate.
unfortunately, the EVF thing is rapidly becoming an out of date argument in the photo world

[Kiwizinho]

But wouldn't it be super clever if someone came up with a way to provide both a direct feed to the sensor and a pure optical path at the same time? Modern sensors can make do with a lot less light than their predecessors, what if 1/2 of the light were reflected to an OVF and the remaining 1/2 allowed through to the sensor? I don't know if there is an analog means of amplifying light for the OVF but with good enough sensors it may be the case they can accept substantially less than half.

Interesting concept. Beamsplitters have been around for a while, but I don't know if there would be enough light for both the viewfinder and the sensor. I'm no engineer, so I don't know if it would possible to create an electrically switchable mirror that could alternate between transparent and reflective at a high refresh rate so that both the viewfinder and sensor could be alternately fully illuminated. It would avoid the issue of pixilation in the viewfinder, as it would still reflect an analogue image, just the whole mirror transmission or reflection would be rapidly switched. I have no idea if this would work or even be technically possible. If it could work, it could result in fewer moving parts as rather than moving the mirror physically it would just be switched to transmit rather than reflect light electronically. Electrically switchable glass does exist, but I don't know what refresh rate it is capable of, or whether it's possible to achieve electrically switchable reflectivity.