I know I should no longer interfere with PentaxForums, but nevertheless I think this is important, especially for us fond of using a Pentax camera. Why I do not think a hybrid viewfinder is a good idea is that switching between OVF and EVF is not very pleasant for the most important human instrument for taking pictures: the eye. An OVF delivers a clear picture of the scene, while an EVF always shows some distortion due to being a small monitor. Your eye needs time to adjust to the way the scene is shown in the viewfinder. I love the way Pentax is keeping on being a real hybrid camera. In one way it is and remains a real SLR and in the other way it is a true mirrorless camera when using live view. If you switch from OVF to the back-lcd you do not have the problem of adjusting to the tiny monitor with your right or left eye. Because you use both eyes you hardly have to adjust. (Although this week I did something odd: switching from OVF to LCD and then closing my left eye and put my right eye against the LCD.) I rather have a true mirrorless like the K-01because it is optimized for use with only a back LCD. Another drawback of the hybrid viewfinder could be that the viewfinder gets a bit crowded with all the information, it would take my mind of the composition and it might distort the composition because info overlayed might be over essential details for the composition.

[dms]

I find an adjunct optical finder (e.g., Voigtlander) works well for theatre work, on my dslr w/ wider angle lens. (I use for FF equivalent of 35mm and sometimes 28mm.) The optical finder lets me see/ anticipate what's coming into the frame.

[pcrichmond]

In my style of shooting I see a real advantage for the hybrid VF described by the OP.
When shooting UV or IR (because of the density of the filters) I have to use a hood over the LCD/LV to achieve focus.
Ergonomically the K1 would be much easier to hold if I could switch the prism VF for visible to invisible light photography.
I doubt I would pay extra for such though, as Pentax already offers both EVF (LV) and OFV with the camera.

Why I do not think a hybrid viewfinder is a good idea is that switching between OVF and EVF is not very pleasant for the most important human instrument for taking pictures: the eye.

Agree whole heartedly. When shooting strictly with the hood in LV I find my eyes tire much quicker than when using true light through the OVF.
If I would like to see any changes to the OVF it would be the split prism focus screen reintroduced and that is just a remanence of my age.

[zapp]

What can you do with a hybrid viewfinder that cannot be done with a single finder plus rear display for live view and replay alone? That is the question.

Fast subject tracking in an optical finder.
Information overlay sounds nice, but what is really missing.
Speed up fps and reduce vibration caused by mirror slap by showing a live view image during burst.
Brighten up a dark scene.
Focus magnification and peaking for small/difficult objects.

I hope this feature is either inexpensive to implement or someone has a killer idea.

---

Last edited by zapp; 07-24-2020 at 10:10 AM.

[tvdtvdtvd]

To define a “hybrid viewfinder”, what I mean is a viewfinder with all the functionality of a traditional SLR OVF, but which can switch over to a full EVF mode at the user’s command. I think that is what most people understand by the term. If we are talking about more sophisticated information (peaking, histogram, etc.) overlaid on a traditional OVF, I don’t include that.

TL;DR.

I guess I don't read enough tech speculation, (tech spec fiction? ), as your first definition is NOT what I expect from a hybrid VF. However, that second statement,
(highlighted in bold), is very much what I would expect from a hybrid VF. Not sure how much light has to be lost in order to capture this information but I'll speculate that
suitably sophisticated tech can keep it to a minimum.

[vector]

all I'd really like with my DSLR viewfinder is the ability to consistently achieve accurate focus with fast, manual focus lenses, through the OVF, without having to fit an after-market, third-party focusing screen.

It already is possible. I do it all the time with my Samyang 85 1.4 and 35 1.4. It is the same as focus fine tuning your af lenses but with a little inconvenience. The camera will remember settings for the AF lenses but not manual lenses so you have to use "Apply All" in the Fine Adjustment menu. The painful part is that when you take your MF lens off the camera you need to set this back to "Apply One". So I fine tune all my MF lenses and keep a list of the focus adjustments for each one on my phone and apply them when I put the lens on. This way the focus indicator is just as accurate for MF as it is for AF. I have pretty good success with this even photographing my kids. The only difference then between AF and MF is that you are turning the focus ring rather than camera but the focus indicator is just as accurate.

[stevebrot]

With the mirror down for reflex viewing, a true hybrid viewfinder is, well, impossible. If one means dual-purposing the optical viewfinder as an eye-level EVF, that might be doable, but perhaps not a good idea.

For clarification, neither the D750 nor the Canon products offer such.


Steve

---

Last edited by stevebrot; 07-24-2020 at 11:22 AM.

[stevebrot]

I find an adjunct optical finder (e.g., Voigtlander) works well for theatre work, on my dslr w/ wider angle lens. (I use for FF equivalent of 35mm and sometimes 28mm.) The optical finder lets me see/ anticipate what's coming into the frame.

Sport finders are also useful in the same sense. Silly as it seems, there are times when it works better to NOT have true framing.


Steve

[stevebrot]

It already is possible.

BMC pretty much wrote the book on that technique, FWIW.


Steve

[house]

To the op. The latter, optical viewfinder with rich overlay, is what I term hybrid ovf.

I personally turn off all but focus point in my viewfinder. A nice clean image is great. There are however a few things that evf helps with and it would be great to solve for DSLRs.

1. Manual focus aids
2. Exposure clipping aids

The former can be solved optically or digitally. The latter only digitally. A question for mirrorless users is then.

Do people chimp on milcs?

If people still chimp milcs only point 1 above is of interest.

[vector]

BMC pretty much wrote the book on that technique, FWIW.

Haha, oh well at least I am reminding all the other readers. Some folks will read his comment and think accurate AF in the viewfinder is not possible at all. I see comments griping about it too often, so I decided this time to respond. It's not perfect, still uses the f2.8 AF points like the AF lenses do, but it's also not terrible and can work quite well.

---------- Post added 07-24-20 at 01:04 PM ----------

Do people chimp on milcs?

I think the answer to that is a resounding YES!

MILCs with focus aids, billions of AF points, and fast silent motors still can't always account for movement of the subject or photographer. With my X-T1 in the EVF I can manually focus really well using focus peaking but sometimes even though the peak highlighting is all over my desired focus point, I press the shutter and look and find the focus is just beside it. Same as sometimes happens on my OVF pentax cameras with MF or AF. So MILCs are not some magic fix all for focus issues even though they may be more accurate, have more points, and have focus aids.

[BigMackCam]

It already is possible. I do it all the time with my Samyang 85 1.4 and 35 1.4. It is the same as focus fine tuning your af lenses but with a little inconvenience. The camera will remember settings for the AF lenses but not manual lenses so you have to use "Apply All" in the Fine Adjustment menu. The painful part is that when you take your MF lens off the camera you need to set this back to "Apply One". So I fine tune all my MF lenses and keep a list of the focus adjustments for each one on my phone and apply them when I put the lens on. This way the focus indicator is just as accurate for MF as it is for AF. I have pretty good success with this even photographing my kids. The only difference then between AF and MF is that you are turning the focus ring rather than camera but the focus indicator is just as accurate.

BMC pretty much wrote the book on that technique, FWIW.


Steve

Haha, oh well at least I am reminding all the other readers. Some folks will read his comment and think accurate AF in the viewfinder is not possible at all. I see comments griping about it too often, so I decided this time to respond. It's not perfect, still uses the f2.8 AF points like the AF lenses do, but it's also not terrible and can work quite well.

Yes, I'm familiar with that approach I appreciate the good intentions, though

The "problem" with this approach ("problem" in quotes, because it's a technical limitation rather than a flaw), is that even with properly calibrated AF fine tuning, the focus confirmation will light within a small range rather than one precise "in focus" position. To achieve the best focus accuracy, you have to rock the lens' focus ring back and forth to find the limits of that range, then set it at the estimated the mid-point. With a bit of practice, it's certainly possible to be acceptably and repeatedly accurate, but I'd love to have an OVF that offered greater precision in manual focusing...

[stevebrot]

To achieve the best focus accuracy, you have to rock the lens' focus ring back and forth to find the limits of that range, then set it at the estimated the mid-point.

Something that the automated PDAF system does not appear to do, despite having the same problems.


Steve

[BigMackCam]

Something that the automated PDAF system does not appear to do, despite having the same problems.

Indeed. I've mulled over that many times, wondering how it can be different. I assume there must be some processing and/or communication from AF lenses (focal length and distance related, perhaps?) when in AF mode that allows the camera's automated PDAF routines to more accurately calculate the necessary focus setting... but I'm just guessing.

[house]

Someone somewhere said that pdaf determines the distance and runs the focus to this point. Cdaf racks the focus back and forth to find correct focus based on contrast. It runs past peak focus, notices and steps back. The latter sounds very much like manual focus.

This comment was in regards to screwdrive focus. Suggesting its inaccurate for cdaf due to lag in the gears. I don't know how the focus dot lights up in relation to this but just a thought that it might be related.