[philbaum]

But the interesting thing is that actual cine lenses from Zeiss, AARI, Panavision,Angenieux all use mechanical helicoids, none of them have ever produced a lens that focuses by wire for cinematography.

I checked out my Nex kit lens 18-55, the Sony 50 f1.8, and the Sigma 19 for Nex, and the focus ring is by wire for all of these - there is no stop on it. But it doesn't keep going all the way around - it gets really fuzzy and stays at that point until its reversed. Since a lot of focusing these days is AF, it probably doesn't matter a lot, but my preference is to have something tied to the focus ring better. But i assume Sony engineers had a reason for using focus by wire in the specification. Does anyone know how Fuji does their MILC focus rings? Its interesting that Sony and Sigma lenses are built the same way for focus by wire for Nex cameras. For Nex, Sony opened up the specification to third party lens manufacturers. reportedly to make more lenses available.

[whk1992]

Give me a K3 sensor in A6000 body, make it Pentax tough and rule the Mirrorless market for the next decade!

Give me a WR K-01 and price it the same as K-50

[Digitalis]

I don't think those lenses are powered, and the mounts they come in don't have electricity either. And then there's a difference between "videography" and "cinematography", and the gear those use.

Though by the way people talk and act about DSLR video you wouldn't think so.

---------- Post added 12-25-14 at 11:05 PM ----------

Does anyone know how Fuji does their MILC focus rings?

Auto focus lenses for the Fuji X system lenses are basically the same as Sony lenses , wire focusing only.

---------- Post added 12-25-14 at 11:07 PM ----------

focus by wire lenses do have a focus ring, it's just not directly attached to the focusing mechanism.

That's the problem with them, no direct transmission of torque, no tactile feedback indicators of where you are on the distance scale. For me: tactile feedback along with visual feedback is far more powerful than relying purely on visual indicators.

[LensBeginner]

then hypothetically, if I took the mirror out of my Pentax K3 that would make it a K mount mirror less. So there you go people - all those who complain about Pentax not making a mirror less camera, embrace your pioneering spirit and make it yourself! - just pluck the mirror out of your SLR camera and presto - K mount mirrorless!

I don't get it... the K-01 is a mirrorless, no need to fantasize about "making" one (and no need to be snarky about it... have you ever tried one?).
Besides, the new hypothetical FF could actually be a mirrorless.
If northcoastgreg meant lens specifically made for mirrorless cameras, then that's another story...

[kadajawi]

Though by the way people talk and act about DSLR video you wouldn't think so.

---------- Post added 12-25-14 at 11:05 PM ----------




Auto focus lenses for the Fuji X system lenses are basically the same as Sony lenses , wire focusing only.

---------- Post added 12-25-14 at 11:07 PM ----------



That's the problem with them, no direct transmission of torque, no tactile feedback indicators of where you are on the distance scale. For me: tactile feedback along with visual feedback is far more powerful than relying purely on visual indicators.

IMHO DSLR video is leaning towards a cinematic style of shooting. Shallow DoF, manual focus, different lenses, more planned shoots. You can get a rather cinematic look with DSLRs, with traditional video cameras, even professional ones, maybe not so much.

Yup, I want tactic feedback too when focusing.

[Pioneer]

The thing is that live view already has advantages over a traditional SLR viewfinder (which in APS-C cameras is not good). Disadvantages too, but they are getting smaller and smaller. And one day be so small they won't be noticeable.

Manual focus with an APS-C camera? Good luck. I could pull it off easily with an old film camera, but my K-5? Much harder. A good EVF will help with focusing, it is bigger, brighter (especially when coupled to the A7S sensor!), sharper. The lag will go away, the NX1 has shown that. 5 ms or so. Sounds acceptable for most uses. The EVF will give you an accurate representation of the exposure, of what to expect, plus additional information.

I don't like the EVFs I have seen so far, but I have no doubt that they will surpass OVFs.

If you honestly believe that EVF is better than OVF then it is quite obvious that you have never looked through a well built viewfinder. Believe me, what you are getting through most APS-C digital camera viewfinders don't even hold a candle to those that were available in most cameras several years ago.

But, if you are happy with EVF, do yourself a favor and do not look through an LX finder, or one from a Nikon FM2n. Even the viewfinder in the K1000 puts every EVF I have ever tried to shame. Never, never pick up a Pentax 645 or 6x7 and look through the viewfinders, they will swallow you up. Not to mention the finder in a Leica S. Whatever you do, please, never, never ever stare down into the gorgeous, three dimensional, 6x6 viewfinder in a Rolleiflex or Hasselblad.

Sorry, I am convinced, as you are, that EVFs will get better. But no matter how good they get they will still be tiny TV screens that can never equal the real thing. And yes, even light that has been reflected through several prisms and mirrors is still the real thing. The delay caused by those prisms and mirrors is nothing like the delay of the light being absorbed in a sensor, digitized, sent to a small tv screen and then reiterated on that screen so that you can see it again. Not too mention the changes that are made to that view to enhance things in a way that the computer believes you need. Not only is the camera now taking your picture for you, it is now telling you what you are seeing.

[kadajawi]

If you honestly believe that EVF is better than OVF then it is quite obvious that you have never looked through a well built viewfinder. Believe me, what you are getting through most APS-C digital camera viewfinders don't even hold a candle to those that were available in most cameras several years ago.

But, if you are happy with EVF, do yourself a favor and do not look through an LX finder, or one from a Nikon FM2n. Even the viewfinder in the K1000 puts every EVF I have ever tried to shame. Never, never pick up a Pentax 645 or 6x7 and look through the viewfinders, they will swallow you up. Not to mention the finder in a Leica S. Whatever you do, please, never, never ever stare down into the gorgeous, three dimensional, 6x6 viewfinder in a Rolleiflex or Hasselblad.

Sorry, I am convinced, as you are, that EVFs will get better. But no matter how good they get they will still be tiny TV screens that can never equal the real thing. And yes, even light that has been reflected through several prisms and mirrors is still the real thing. The delay caused by those prisms and mirrors is nothing like the delay of the light being absorbed in a sensor, digitized, sent to a small tv screen and then reiterated on that screen so that you can see it again. Not too mention the changes that are made to that view to enhance things in a way that the computer believes you need. Not only is the camera now taking your picture for you, it is now telling you what you are seeing.

I don't believe that EVFs are better than OVFs right now. I do think that, for APS-C at least, they will be better. Not now. Maybe in a year. Maybe two or three or five. But the time will come.


Yes, I am aware of how good say a Nikon FM2n viewfinder is... that was my first serious camera. And yes, I miss that viewfinder, but as far as APS-C goes, a K-5 is as good as it gets. And unfortunately that is not very good. Even FF cameras can't be as good as a FM2, unless you drop the AF. Good luck convincing any product planner to do that, let alone customers. Bringing up an old 645 or Leica S etc. is completely besides the point, isn't it? I'll stick to APS-C, or at most FF, and OVFs are just not convincing, and they can't improve. They are as good as it is possible without dropping AF (or sacrificing AF performance).


The tiny TV screens... TVs now have 4K resolution. That's more than enough for me to stand in front of one, see almost nothing but TV screen and still be unable to see all the small pixels. Eventually that sort of resolution will make it's way into EVFs, though that may still take a while. Also, AFAIK EVFs already have bigger screens (at least it looks like that to the user) than even the best APS-C cameras.


The lag is down to something like 5 ms already in the fastest mirrorless camera on the market. According to reviewers that is pretty much instant.


What you see as a problem with EVFs I see as an advantage. You see what the sensor sees. The dynamic range the sensor sees (ideally... depends on the screen of course, and the processing). It should be possible to show an image that exactly represents what the raw file will contain... the question is if camera makers will create such a profile. You see the exposure that you have dialled in. There is no need to crimp anymore after a shot (I don't, and as a result I've enough photos because I forgot to change back a setting etc.), because even before the shot we can see if the image has fit into the dynamic range of the sensor, if we have exposed properly etc. So it's not so much a representation of the world as it is but a representation of what we will get. Isn't that great? OVFs are very misleading... with film that wasn't too much of a problem, because film has a higher dynamic range. But with sensors...

[DBGrip]

I'd rather have a 7" monitor mounted in the hotshoe, than pretend that the tiny video screen I'm looking at through a hole is actually looking through the lens. I understand the reasons EVF's could assist in some cases. However no sensor, nor film for that matter has the dynamic range of my eye. The viewfinder is for framing. Call me old fashioned but in MOST applications if I'm hunting for the shot I want to look through the lens. I can tell which of my 50's I'm looking through, when I'm actually looking through it, I can't in Live View. Skill in getting exposure and tweaking exposure, through experience, meters and eye, is what makes one a photographer, the more mystery that gets taken out of it, the more the craft deteriorates, and the more the skill gets devalued. Can't "feel" focus by wire.

[Digitalis]

IMHO DSLR video is leaning towards a cinematic style of shooting. Shallow DoF, manual focus, different lenses, more planned shoots.

the problem being that shallow DOF is rarely used for cinematography* - the idea of cinema is to emulate how people see things, and unless you are in the verge of alcohol poisoning no one sees things the way an f/1.2 lens does.

I don't get it... the K-01 is a mirrorless, no need to fantasize about "making" one (and no need to be snarky about it... have you ever tried one?)

Tried a K-01( no I haven't) or a mirrorless? I have worked with the Leica M system for over a decade. And you won't see me chucking DSLRS in favour of it. There are some things that mirrorless cameras simply cannot do. And even if they did it, would defeat the purpose of removing the mirror for a more compact system in the first place.

*for several very good: reasons shallow DOF means the focus pullers job gets a lot harder, image quality from the lens can be severely compromised - coma, Vignetting, astigmatism, longitudinal and transverse chromatic aberration are all worse with lenses with apertures faster than f/2 apertures - the only lens that doesn't have significant problems at wider apertures are certain Leica and Zeiss OTUS lenses - and those are hardly within the financial reach of your common DSLR user.

[Tony Belding]

If you honestly believe that EVF is better than OVF then it is quite obvious that you have never looked through a well built viewfinder. Believe me, what you are getting through most APS-C digital camera viewfinders don't even hold a candle to those that were available in most cameras several years ago.

I learned on a 35mm SLR, a Sears KS-2 (same thing as a Ricoh XR-7), and its viewfinder is wonderful. It's definitely better than any DSLR I've seen thus far. However... That doesn't mean I can brush aside my experience with the Olympus E-M5 and the advantages that the EVF offers. It's different, better in some ways, not so good in others. I know I'd choose either the E-M5's EVF or the KS-2's pentaprism over the K-5 II's view.

The delay caused by those prisms and mirrors is nothing like the delay of the light being absorbed in a sensor, digitized, sent to a small tv screen and then reiterated on that screen so that you can see it again.

I've never found that perceptible on the E-M5. But I don't shoot a lot of action.

Not too mention the changes that are made to that view to enhance things in a way that the computer believes you need. Not only is the camera now taking your picture for you, it is now telling you what you are seeing.

No... This is the key point, I think. It's not telling you what you are seeing. The EVF is telling you what the camera is seeing. And that's a good thing, because it's the camera that has to capture the image with its own sensor. It's not your eye, or your retina, that takes the picture. If I want to know what the scene looks like to my naked eye, I can always lower the camera and look. If I want to know how the camera is interpreting it, then I need some kind of electronic display. It's helpful.

[DBGrip]

No... This is the key point, I think. It's not telling you what you are seeing. The EVF is telling you what the camera is seeing. And that's a good thing, because it's the camera that has to capture the image with its own sensor. It's not your eye, or your retina, that takes the picture. If I want to know what the scene looks like to my naked eye, I can always lower the camera and look. If I want to know how the camera is interpreting it, then I need some kind of electronic display. It's helpful.

You just made this whole argument resolve for me just why DSLR's aren't dying. It clicked... the OVF is telling you what the lens is seeing, the EVF what the sensor is seeing. The medium behind that format is different, I've had a few bodies behind some of the same lenses. I want to look through the lens, I'll figure out how to record it later. I'm not going to deny there are many benefits to having a screen that accurately displays what the sensor records. I imagine the first truly color accurate to recorded output screen would be the one on the back. Why give up the ability to have BOTH? That's why DSLR isn't dying, because people will want to look through their lenses, and see reflected light, not projected light.

Next step in sensor technology will be making them translucent, so we can drop the mirror and look straight through the sensor, through our lenses. OVF Forever EVFs are what reference monitors are for Why waste that OVF space?

[Pioneer]

No... This is the key point, I think. It's not telling you what you are seeing. The EVF is telling you what the camera is seeing. And that's a good thing, because it's the camera that has to capture the image with its own sensor. It's not your eye, or your retina, that takes the picture. If I want to know what the scene looks like to my naked eye, I can always lower the camera and look. If I want to know how the camera is interpreting it, then I need some kind of electronic display. It's helpful.

You are right Tony. This IS the key point.

When I am creating a photograph it is my vision that counts. I need to know that what I am seeing is accurate. Though it is also useful to know what the film or sensor records, it is not really the key issue.

In my world, if I am only seeing what the camera sensor or film is seeing then I am not recording MY vision. I am recording the camera's. The reality for me is that in most situations, the final print will look quite different from what the film or sensor originally recorded, sometimes VERY different.

Not to mention that, when working with digital I am usually recording in RAW. So what the camera is trying to show me is not really what the sensor is seeing at all. It is only the computer algorithm's interpretation of what the camera is seeing.

This doesn't even begin to consider rangefinder photography where what I am looking at isn't even coming through the lens at all.

To you and others this must seem to be a minor point, but to me it really is everything. I want my photograph to be the result of my vision.

I appreciate what you and others are trying to say. For you the EVF provides you with what you want. Unfortunately, for me, and I suspect many others, it does not. It is my eye that sees the picture and my brain that interprets what I see. I don't need the camera to get in the way of that.

[philbaum]

Frankly, i don't know what the fuss is all about. I'm able to take good pictures with Nex cameras and with Pentax cameras. I switch effortlessly between both styles of cameras - evf and OVF.

We are so blessed with such advanced cameras, that if we can't take excellent pictures with either EVF or OVF, then we must be really incompetent shooters.

Also, bear in mind that it doesn't really matter what my preferences are, or what your preferences are; its the marketplace that decides the future designs of cameras. The only thing that you or I decide, is whether to buy or not. And its millions of those decisions that determine camera design.

[LensBeginner]

*snip*

Tried a K-01( no I haven't) or a mirrorless? I have worked with the Leica M system for over a decade. And you won't see me chucking DSLRS in favour of it. There are some things that mirrorless cameras simply cannot do. And even if they did it, would defeat the purpose of removing the mirror for a more compact system in the first place.

Who even said that? mirrorless and DSLRs each have pros and cons.
And you can't take the mirror out of a K-3 yourself (duh).
The K-01 is a mighty fine camera. It's not for long lenses, for instance, but with manual primes it's a killer.

[Rondec]

You are right Tony. This IS the key point.

When I am creating a photograph it is my vision that counts. I need to know that what I am seeing is accurate. Though it is also useful to know what the film or sensor records, it is not really the key issue.

In my world, if I am only seeing what the camera sensor or film is seeing then I am not recording MY vision. I am recording the camera's. The reality for me is that in most situations, the final print will look quite different from what the film or sensor originally recorded, sometimes VERY different.

Not to mention that, when working with digital I am usually recording in RAW. So what the camera is trying to show me is not really what the sensor is seeing at all. It is only the computer algorithm's interpretation of what the camera is seeing.

This doesn't even begin to consider rangefinder photography where what I am looking at isn't even coming through the lens at all.

To you and others this must seem to be a minor point, but to me it really is everything. I want my photograph to be the result of my vision.

I appreciate what you and others are trying to say. For you the EVF provides you with what you want. Unfortunately, for me, and I suspect many others, it does not. It is my eye that sees the picture and my brain that interprets what I see. I don't need the camera to get in the way of that.

I do think it's interesting that people keep saying the EVF sees what the sensor sees, when it shows a representation of a JPEG that you would create if you took a photo. Most RAW files have way more dynamic range and color depth than an EVF can express and so a good optical viewfinder is probably more accurate if you shoot RAW landscapes and plan to post process.