[nosnoop]

I absolutely don't understand this fetish about having Pentax make cameras that are crappier than the ones they make now.

You don't understand because you are not the targeted buyer.
There are many people who want to upgrade but are turned off by DSLR's bulk and size.

[RioRico]

How are 645D sales? Has Pentax devoured anyone's shorts yet?
How are m4/3 sales outside Japan? Any spectacular trends yet?
How many lens lines can Pentax make? Enough for m4/3-EVIL?

Q: Why go EVIL? A: For size, simplicity, cost.
Q: How to keep EVIL small? A: Small lenses.
Q: What's the easy way to start a new product line? A: Outsourcing.
Q: What's the chance that PenHoya will open new factories? A: Zero.

I've read that Hoya has outsourced all Pentax P&S production.
If PenHoya prototypes an EVIL cam, I predict it will be outsourced.
I've read that Hoya's corporate goal is to MAKE PENTAX PROFITABLE.
Will announcing / prototyping an EVIL or FF cam turn the black ink to red?

Another consideration: marketing and markets. I've read that Japanese cam-makers release stuff in Japan that never sees the outside world. How much does PenHoya depend on the outside world for its consumer photo products? Does almost nonexistant USA marketing mean that PenHoya doesn't consider USA an important market? How deeply would any FF or EVIL penetrate the USA market? Is FF made redundant by the 645D? Is EVIL made irrelevant by phonecams? Would Hoya do well to acquire Nokia?

My poll vote: zero.

[Aristophanes]

The issue isn't the mirror, it's the VF. EVF's are simply not up to snuff, especially in low light, very bright light, etc. It could be a very long time before anything approaching an OVF is acceptable to the dedicated prosumer who is looking for more than just a snapshot.

We had these before with rangefinders. We're going to see a Pentax MILC, it's going to be a question as to whether the back LCD or some kludge/inadequate EVF is the frame and focus mechanism (the P&S route of M43 so far), or whether we'll see a real OVF.

As for lens size, my M50/1.7 is teeny. My A50/1.7 is the same but plasticky light. An FF MILC/EVIL is entirely possible, but we will likely require a micro-K-mount to get there.

[Wheatfield]

You don't understand because you are not the targeted buyer.
There are many people who want to upgrade but are turned off by DSLR's bulk and size.

I don't understand because I value good viewfinders. At the moment EVs are not good viewfinders.
Hence my inability to understand.
Why would a person want to buy a piece of equipment that is inherently inferior to what is available now?
Perhaps you could enlighten me?

[JACOBY]

I'm happy just the Pentax is now. My dad would if it's not broke don't bother. And he lived a long vary long happy life

[Pål Jensen]

I absolutely don't understand this fetish about having Pentax make cameras that are crappier than the ones they make now.

It is indeed a complete mystery!

[paperbag846]

I don't think so, yet.

Pentax is positioning themselves as a value brand and to my knowledge, EVIL's aren't really a deal yet. And unless Pentax can figure out a way to use their existing lens lineup on an EVIL, they have a lot of money to pour into R&D, which would prevent them from releasing a competitive EVIL.

Now they have a wicked Prime lineup, so if they can use the K-Mount and APS-C, I think they would. But without that, it would be foolish. Not enough dSLR people will be tempted to buy a whole new lens set, and not a whole lot of point and shooters who are looking for a good deal would be interested in an EVIL when they can buy a K-X and some old glass.

I could be wrong, but I think it's too early for a company as small as Pentax (relatively speaking).

[johnmflores]

Thats nice, but the registration distance hasn't changed, so there is still the issue with either needing a new lens line, which would mean not completing the present one, or else stick users with having to use K mount lenses, which would give absolutely no size advantage.
I absolutely don't understand this fetish about having Pentax make cameras that are crappier than the ones they make now.

K mount bodies weren't always as thick as they are now. This snout-down view of the MX and K-x cameras gives a hint of where the added advoirdupois is coming from:



Assuming that the film plane is in the same place, it looks like the added thickness is coming from the rear display, the SR system, and other electronic components. Could Pentax, with some clever engineering, make an EVIL as thin as the venerable MX? And if they could, could they challenge M43 sizewise while trumping them on IQ?



I sure hope so. Before coming back to SLRs, I had a string of Point and Shoots. Some had terrible displays (Kodak DC260, Sony Mavica), while some where better than average (Canon G2, Ricoh GX100). Both the Canon and the Ricoh allowed me to shoot at interesting angles that would have been difficult or impossible with the viewfinder.

Would an EVIL replace my dSLR? No way. Could it be a formidable compact kit? For sure. Could it sway some Canikon users to add a Pentax and some wonderful limited primes to their kit? Maybe...

[junyo]

The issue isn't the mirror, it's the VF. EVF's are simply not up to snuff, especially in low light, very bright light, etc. It could be a very long time before anything approaching an OVF is acceptable to the dedicated prosumer who is looking for more than just a snapshot.

I keep hearing the faithful pounding that line, but I keep seeing a lot of pros and advanced shooters buying GF1s and EP2s as their 'carry everywhere' cameras, and a lot more general enthusiasm over m43 than anything K mount.

[junyo]

I don't understand because I value good viewfinders. At the moment EVs are not good viewfinders.
Hence my inability to understand.
Why would a person want to buy a piece of equipment that is inherently inferior to what is available now?
Perhaps you could enlighten me?

Because a viewfinder isn't the only component or property of a camera. To make a binary judgement of "inherently inferior" on the basis of a single component is basically completely subjective. It's inferior, inherently or otherwise, only to people who place the utmost value on optical, through the lens viewing. There are large's swaths of the photographic community to whom that doesn't apply.

On the other hand, if your most important criteria is small body size with a big sensor, the NEX platform, followed by m4/3 is objectively superior.

And I voted 0% chance on the poll, because I'm increasingly convinced there is no strategy.

[nosnoop]

I don't understand because I value good viewfinders. At the moment EVs are not good viewfinders.
Hence my inability to understand.
Why would a person want to buy a piece of equipment that is inherently inferior to what is available now?
Perhaps you could enlighten me?

The main factor is that you are accustomed to using optical viewfinder.
Fast forward to the current generation.... where many of the P&S users have never looked through an optical viewfinder before! These group of users may not so impressed by the OVF, and they have been accustomed to using the camera at an arm's length with liveview.

I disagree with your "inherently inferior" description of EVF. It is not.
There are some limitations due to cost factor. But display technology is making leaps and bounds; and in a few years' time, it can easily exceed OVF - at an affordable price. They already have the technology to make excellent high resolution display, it's just not cost effective for a $500 to $1000 camera.

Even at this point, there are some inherent advantages of EVF with mirrorless camera:
100% coverage, and unlimited magnifications
No more front focusing and back focusing. Perfect focus is achievable.
Accurate white balance preview
Potentially better metering using the main sensor - unlimited metering point/zone.
Live Histogram

[Wheatfield]

The main factor is that you are accustomed to using optical viewfinder.
Fast forward to the current generation.... where many of the P&S users have never looked through an optical viewfinder before! These group of users may not so impressed by the OVF, and they have been accustomed to using the camera at an arm's length with liveview.

I disagree with your "inherently inferior" description of EVF. It is not.
There are some limitations due to cost factor. But display technology is making leaps and bounds; and in a few years' time, it can easily exceed OVF - at an affordable price. They already have the technology to make excellent high resolution display, it's just not cost effective for a $500 to $1000 camera.

Even at this point, there are some inherent advantages of EVF with mirrorless camera:
100% coverage, and unlimited magnifications
No more front focusing and back focusing. Perfect focus is achievable.
Accurate white balance preview
Potentially better metering using the main sensor - unlimited metering point/zone.
Live Histogram

And headaches.
Don't forget headaches.

[Aristophanes]

The main factor is that you are accustomed to using optical viewfinder.
Fast forward to the current generation.... where many of the P&S users have never looked through an optical viewfinder before! These group of users may not so impressed by the OVF, and they have been accustomed to using the camera at an arm's length with liveview.

I disagree with your "inherently inferior" description of EVF. It is not.
There are some limitations due to cost factor. But display technology is making leaps and bounds; and in a few years' time, it can easily exceed OVF - at an affordable price. They already have the technology to make excellent high resolution display, it's just not cost effective for a $500 to $1000 camera.

Even at this point, there are some inherent advantages of EVF with mirrorless camera:
100% coverage, and unlimited magnifications
No more front focusing and back focusing. Perfect focus is achievable.
Accurate white balance preview
Potentially better metering using the main sensor - unlimited metering point/zone.
Live Histogram

None of that means it is a superior system for composition. There may be some technical overlays desirable, but things like WB preview are unnecessary as PP in-camera will obviate choice therein. If you're relying on a histogram for exposure verification, you need a better understanding of exposure. The histogram has been over-relied upon precisely because digital sensors blow highlights and eclipse shadows. An OVF is absolutely real time and absolutely real light. By definition, an EVF is processed and digitally interpreted. While there are some advantages, there may some severe disadvantages.

Your biggest assumption is that the current gen have used EVF's via their big brother LCD for framing, and this this is a transferrable through some sort of inertia. Wrong. Take a look at the film industry. They actually go out of their way to (Red) to create ocular OVF's for what is termed "real" framing and composition, real time, real vision, unimpeded by doodads. I've watched surgeons do a scope surgery, and believe me, it's a perfect OVF he's using, not some EVF. I've watched them do LCD monitor surgery as well, but for the nitty gritty, real time, they switch to the ocular for focus and precision.

[Wheatfield]

None of that means it is a superior system for composition.

I was thinking that myself. The reality is, none of what he mentioned is useful compositional tools.
100% coverage, we already have, or close enough to it that the point is moot, unlimited magnification I can get from Liveview, Perfect focus is already achievable, this is a strawman at best, a misdirection at worst, if you don't trust WB, shoot raw and learn a bit about light, check out the metering on a high end Nikon DSLR sometime. I don't think more meter accuracy is all that important, were this point true, which the poster admits may or may not be.
And in the meantime, we get a poorer tool for composing pictures with.

[johnmflores]

I won't argue whether or not EVF is ready for prime time when compared to OVF. All I know is that the world is full of examples where "good enough" beat "better quality". Every product is a compromise. "Cheap. Fast. Good. Pick any two," they used to say in the printing industry. Likewise the camera business.

I for one am willing to sacrifice an OVF in exchange for size and/or weight benefits during those time when size/weight are critically important, i.e., long hikes, limited packing space, etc... For those times when it's not, I'll bring the K20d.

This doesn't have to be an either/or zero sum game.