[UlrichSchiegg]

Well put. I have seen zero Sony ILC in the wild since 2007 when I first started looking. I have online friends who shoot Sony, but they are conspicuously absent from tourist destinations and the street here in the Pacific Northwest.

Of course, it could just be a regional thing. I see more film cameras (all makes) than Pentax digital.


Steve

I am not sure that the US is a sufficient big enough market to generalize. Different markets may prefer different solutions.

[Sliver-Surfer]

Agree.&lt;br /&gt;<br />
About the &amp;quot;how the camera sees the image&amp;quot;, I'd say minus any auto-gain function... it's very distracting on my K-01, how is it implemented on the A7?&lt;br /&gt;<br />
The shutter button was moved on the grip in the latest iteration, though... &lt;img src=&quot;https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/images/smilies/wink.png&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; alt=&quot;&quot; title=&quot;Wink&quot; smilieid=&quot;4&quot; class=&quot;inlineimg&quot; /&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;<br />
&lt;br /&gt;<br />
You can switch between view effect and regular screen which is OK to use for some instances like macro work with a manual flash where the camera doesn't have communication with flash. I don't mind where the button is, I guess on the grip is handier for those who prefer video where the view screen is utilized

[LensBeginner]

You can switch between " view effect" and regular screen which is OK to use for some instances like macro work with a manual flash where the camera doesn't cave communication with flash. I don't mind where the button is, I guess on the grip is handier for those who prefer video where the view screen is utilized

Thanks for the info!

[stevebrot]

I am not sure that the US is a sufficient big enough market to generalize. Different markets may prefer different solutions.

Yeah...not too many photographers here...


Steve

[Mikesul]

What is such a big deal over mirrorless? cameras sans mirror have existed for hundreds of years. 35mm format started with mirrorless cameras, and later changed to SLR designs because at the it was quicker and more precise. Mirrorless is to me : a gimmick. there isn't anything fundamentally wrong with SLR cameras.

Mirrorless isn't the future,l it isn't a revolution, it is just different.

LOL, exactly! Love the photo.

[Rondec]

I wonder... If Pentax made two versions of the same camera (say K-3) -- one with a mirror and OVF, the other with an EVF, both priced the same, specs the same, which would sell better? My feeling is that despite the buzz around EVFs, there are still more old school folks who prefer an optical viewfinder.

Maybe it's just that the EVF folks talk the loudest in these sort of discussions.

[monochrome]

I wonder... If Pentax made two versions of the same camera (say K-3) -- one with a mirror and OVF, the other with an EVF, both priced the same, specs the same, which would sell better? My feeling is that despite the buzz around EVFs, there are still more old school folks who prefer an optical viewfinder.

Maybe it's just that the EVF folks talk the loudest in these sort of discussions.

Too logical a question by half.

[Clavius]

What is such a big deal over mirrorless? cameras sans mirror have existed for hundreds of years. 35mm format started with mirrorless cameras, and later changed to SLR designs because at the it was quicker and more precise. Mirrorless is to me : a gimmick. there isn't anything fundamentally wrong with SLR cameras.

Mirrorless isn't the future,l it isn't a revolution, it is just different.

Nothing wrong with SLR cameras. That mirror was a smart really smart solution of looking through the lens in film cameras. A DSLR is something different though. Strange contraptions that claim to be "digital" but have some analogue relics inside them. And when I look through the dark and grainy viewfinder of my K-5... and then through the big bright EVF of the, for example, Nex7, then I can only conclude that it's just simply better. Especially when I switch to movie mode. ☺

[Nicolas06]

I wonder... If Pentax made two versions of the same camera (say K-3) -- one with a mirror and OVF, the other with an EVF, both priced the same, specs the same, which would sell better? My feeling is that despite the buzz around EVFs, there are still more old school folks who prefer an optical viewfinder.

Maybe it's just that the EVF folks talk the loudest in these sort of discussions.

Would think like you... The thing is if your really want an EVF, you have sort of an EVF anyway already with the back screen on all cameras. It is large and has benefit no EVF or OVF has.

Technically it can do EVERYTHING and EVF does:
- focus peaking
- show exposure
- show additionnal information arround or inside the picture (histogram...)

But it has some drawbacks:
- can't isolate the screen from ambiant light
- can't give you the same shooting position as with classical OVF where you put your eyes in the view finder.

I say to everybody that want a camera to get a viewfinder for the occasion where you can't really see the scene because there too much ambiant light.

After EVF/OVF it also a lot of matter of what you do:

I was after the exposure thing, to instantly see in VF the effect of the exposure I choose. But that was theorical, I find that more and more my photos are exposed correctly out of the box. Many time I tweak it, but that's in post process and is more artistic. Work better on a big screen than in camera anyway. As soon as I have recorded the information correctly, there no problem if I change global exposure or maybe highlight or shadows exposure. I have the feeling that the K3 metering exposure really does it's job just fine. And when I see a case where I need more than what the sensor can provide, I don't go for complicated things. I just go HDR, it just works very well, even handled.

Focus peaking is fine... When you don't have good AF. I was not satisfyed 100% by K5 AF where the AF sensor where too big and so it was difficult to focus exactly on what you wanted. Focus peaking was better but still slower. For that EVF would be better. But now I have a K3, this mean that I can select the focus point and it is small enough that it catch exactly what I want. There "only" 27 but for me, that more than enough, maybe already a little too much. What count is the focussing is precise and fast... And it work in dim light too. I have no more real interrest in focus peaking now.

I don't give a shit to preview the rendering or whatever... I'll change it in post processing anyway. I agree that sometime it is good to see if the picture was indeed correct as an indication you didn't make mistake... But on the opposite I really don't like to have the thing popup. I want to see through the view finder exactly as things are in reality. To take a photo should not change that... I prefer to feel like I give an order... but continue to see so I can catch the next moment and avoid to be disturbed.


What would I care still if think could be smaller lighter... If the EVF would mean the K3 version of it would be significantly smaller and lighter, then it would be the argument for me.

That why I was disapointed by Sony offering. I was teached that having shorter register distance helped a lot to have smaller lens design and that OVF made things bigger. While the promises are kept for the body, it is a matter or take standard lenses made for reflex and adding more bulkiness with the converter... or taking dedicated lenses for mirrorless... But what it give you? Yes wide angle are really smaller for APSC mirrorless... And all tele are bigger. On FF it seens that you don't get the wide angle benefit and still get even bigger tele.

More zooms like the 24-70 seems to have the design more difficult in the end and are just average.

Things will evolve I'am sure... The day mirrorless make EVF feel like OVF and optical engineer can make small fast tele lenses, it will be perfect !

[Mikesul]

I wonder... If Pentax made two versions of the same camera (say K-3) -- one with a mirror and OVF, the other with an EVF, both priced the same, specs the same, which would sell better? My feeling is that despite the buzz around EVFs, there are still more old school folks who prefer an optical viewfinder.

Maybe it's just that the EVF folks talk the loudest in these sort of discussions.

The thing is, they would not have the same specs. The mirrorless, EVF equipped camera would have features in the viewfinder which are not available with mirrored cameras. The body would certainly also be smaller. We will always have to deal with tradeoffs. I decided 6 months ago to stick completely with Pentax gear and give up my A6000 and lenses because I believed over all my Pentax gear (especially the lenses and weather sealing) suited me better but there was no question that the mirror less A6000 was a superb camera in most ways, in part because of the excellent EVF.

[reh321]

I wonder... If Pentax made two versions of the same camera (say K-3) -- one with a mirror and OVF, the other with an EVF, both priced the same, specs the same, which would sell better? My feeling is that despite the buzz around EVFs, there are still more old school folks who prefer an optical viewfinder.

Maybe it's just that the EVF folks talk the loudest in these sort of discussions.

My belief, which I say repeatedly, is that

(1) cell phones have already killed the point-and-shoot market; point-and-shoot hasn't quite realized that yet, but they really are "dead cameras clicking"

(2) over time, MILCs will kill the "crop sensor" market. I think that FF DSLRs will remain for various reasons, one being that professionals will want to be recognized as being "special", and the stealth look pioneered by the Canon T-90 yells "special" to them. On the other hand, I believe that various features of the MILC will speak to the rest of us. If the others don't get their acts together, the high quality EVF that Sony has put on the NEX7 and A6000 will put them in the driver's seat. However, I do have to admit that the MILC market has been growing much more slowly than I had expected; I can't believe that availability is the whole issue (afterall, lots of people buy their cameras on-line these days), but inability to see and touch an MILC in many stores may be slowing down acceptance, but I do still believe that it is coming.

[Rondec]

The thing is, they would not have the same specs. The mirrorless, EVF equipped camera would have features in the viewfinder which are not available with mirrored cameras. The body would certainly also be smaller. We will always have to deal with tradeoffs. I decided 6 months ago to stick completely with Pentax gear and give up my A6000 and lenses because I believed over all my Pentax gear (especially the lenses and weather sealing) suited me better but there was no question that the mirror less A6000 was a superb camera in most ways, in part because of the excellent EVF.

I am assuming a state of the art EVF versus a nice pentaprism OVF, with normal data imprinted around it. Assuming PDAF on the sensor, there wouldn't necessarily be that much difference other than the viewfinders themselves. Negatives of EVF in my book are eye strain, lag, and decreased battery life, while obviously there are the benefits of being able to judge exposure from the vewfinder, have focus and metering aids in the viewfinder as well.

I still would probably choose an OVF, but I'm pretty old school.

[Clavius]

We should be realistic here: it's also a fashion-thing. Less and less young people want to carry a big Grandpa-cam around. Not only is it totally uncool, they can't afford it either. It forces them to practice their photography in another way. With a cellphone, point&shoot or other. By the time they can afford it, they're completely used to the alternative.

[eddie1960]

We should be realistic here: it's also a fashion-thing. Less and less young people want to carry a big Grandpa-cam around. Not only is it totally uncool, they can't afford it either. It forces them to practice their photography in another way. With a cellphone, point&shoot or other. By the time they can afford it, they're completely used to the alternative.

to some degree it was always this way, 110 and 126 plastic cams from Kodak for instance were very popular when i was young, a few of us had slrs we saved for but we were not the norm, the norm even by hte 70s was moving to point and shoots of various sorts. Of course the portable cheap camera has long been the mainstream one (Kodak Brownie anyone) just now they are also phones and in many cases perform better than their antique counterparts (I'd certainly prefer an 8x10 from even my iPhone 4s than a 110 neg from a cheapo Kodak (or even a Oly/minolta/.Pentax 110 even though they were much better)

[Mikesul]

I am assuming a state of the art EVF versus a nice pentaprism OVF, with normal data imprinted around it. Assuming PDAF on the sensor, there wouldn't necessarily be that much difference other than the viewfinders themselves. Negatives of EVF in my book are eye strain, lag, and decreased battery life, while obviously there are the benefits of being able to judge exposure from the vewfinder, have focus and metering aids in the viewfinder as well.

I still would probably choose an OVF, but I'm pretty old school.

But if they are state of the art you would not have noticeable lag in the EVF. It is hardly observable now. By the way I am almost as old school as you get - my 35mm days began in the early '60s with a rangefinder and later the Pentax MX.

---------- Post added 11-27-14 at 09:03 AM ----------

We should be realistic here: it's also a fashion-thing. Less and less young people want to carry a big Grandpa-cam around. Not only is it totally uncool, they can't afford it either. It forces them to practice their photography in another way. With a cellphone, point&shoot or other. By the time they can afford it, they're completely used to the alternative.

It may be fashion for some but I wanted the mirrorless for size and weight to carry backpacking and on hikes. At almost 70 the dslrs are getting kind of heavy. I stick with Pentax for the lenses and the, still, superior ergonomics of the bodies. A Pentax mirrorless with K3 controls and toughness would be perfect.