[Winder]

Sony goes full mirrorless! A and E-mount! | Mirrorless Rumors

I'm not sure I see the point in going EVIL if you are not going to go smaller. If I have to carry a full-sized camera around then I'll take one with an OVF.

[causey]

Sony goes full mirrorless! A and E-mount! | Mirrorless Rumors

I'm not sure I see the point in going EVIL if you are not going to go smaller. If I have to carry a full-sized camera around then I'll take one with an OVF.

Cost of production?

[Winder]

Cost of production?

One of the costs associated with DSLRs and OVFs is the calibration and assembly of the system. The mirror has to be aligned to make sure it shows 100% and the screen AF points have to be aligned so that they accurately reflect the location of the PDAF points. Then there is the cost of the mirror assembly.....

Sony removed all of this and still charges as much or more than Canon or Nikon. Removing the expensive OVF/prism did not lead to lower prices or better cameras from Sony. They still have not made a camera that rivaled the A900 in terms of handling/operation and user experience.

[Clavius]

Sony goes full mirrorless! A and E-mount! | Mirrorless Rumors

I'm not sure I see the point in going EVIL if you are not going to go smaller. If I have to carry a full-sized camera around then I'll take one with an OVF.

- Brighter VF.
- Seeing more details in the VF.
- Bigger VF, indepentand of sensor format. (An APSC camera could have an FF sized EVF.)
- Eye level VF with histogram.
- Eye level VF with focus peaking.
- Eye level VF with face tracking.
- Eye level VF with zooming during focus.
- Highly accurate CDAF whilst using eye level VF.
- Eye level VF with permanent DOF preview.
- Eye level VF with much better end-result interpretation then OVF.
- No more mirror-slap induced IQ reduction.
- No more flapping mirror that waves dust around the mirror box.
- No more mechanical parts that wear out or just break down.
- No more mechanical parts that wear and spread their own worn particles around the mirrorbox.
- Reduction of production costs.
- Reduction of material costs.
- Reduction of manual labor during production. (calibration)
- Possibility to make VF modular. (Choice in different versions of EVF.)
- Aftermarket possibilities.
- Better focussing with very fast lenses.
- Possibility to see the results of SR in the VF. (A stabilized eye level VF for IBIS cameras.)
- A configurable and customizable eye level VF.
- No more messing around with focus screens and shims and calibration and FF and BF and...
- Possibility for shorter registry distances.
- Possibility for mounting more off-brand lenses.
- Back LCD no longer needed, or can be made optional.
- Extra space for extra features.
- No more need to take the eye away from the viewfinder to adjust simple settings.
- No more need to take the eye away from the viewfinder to check the last picture taken.
- No more possibility for dust in the viewfinder.
- Filming when using the eye level VF!
- Endless other possibilities that can be conjured up by brilliant engineers, once the VF is digital too.

[jogiba]

Since the E mount works with almost any full frame or APS-C lens ever made it has a huge advantage over the A mount. The A mount is the mount Minolta used ( Minolta 7D etc ) with OVF and Sony should have kept the traditional DSLR in the lineup like the full frame A900 DSLR .

[Winder]

- Brighter VF.
- Seeing more details in the VF.
- Bigger VF, indepentand of sensor format. (An APSC camera could have an FF sized EVF.)

I have yet to see an EVF as good as the Sony A900 OVF.

- Eye level VF with histogram.
- Eye level VF with focus peaking.
- Eye level VF with face tracking.
- Eye level VF with zooming during focus.

I have used cameras with EVFs in the past. I never use a histogram. With a good OVF you don't need focus peaking. I have never had or wanted face tracking, and I only shoot with primes, so zooming during focusing is not going to happen.

- Highly accurate CDAF whilst using eye level VF.
- Eye level VF with permanent DOF preview.
- Eye level VF with much better end-result interpretation then OVF.

PDAF is already very accurate and currently faster for some applications.

- No more mirror-slap induced IQ reduction.
- No more flapping mirror that waves dust around the mirror box.
- No more mechanical parts that wear out or just break down.
- No more mechanical parts that wear and spread their own worn particles around the mirrorbox.

Mirror-slap is not an issue on well designed systems and the mechanical shutter is still used on the current EVIL bodies so mechanical wear is still going to happen.... EVF or not.

- Reduction of production costs.
- Reduction of material costs.
- Reduction of manual labor during production. (calibration)
- Possibility to make VF modular. (Choice in different versions of EVF.)

Show me an example of these reduced cost. How much cheaper is a Fuji XE-1 or Olympus OM-D compared to a Pentax K-30?

- Aftermarket possibilities.
- Better focussing with very fast lenses.
- Possibility to see the results of SR in the VF. (A stabilized eye level VF for IBIS cameras.)
- A configurable and customizable eye level VF.
- No more messing around with focus screens and shims and calibration and FF and BF and...
- Possibility for shorter registry distances.
- Possibility for mounting more off-brand lenses.
- Back LCD no longer needed, or can be made optional.
- Extra space for extra features.
- No more need to take the eye away from the viewfinder to adjust simple settings.
- No more need to take the eye away from the viewfinder to check the last picture taken.
- No more possibility for dust in the viewfinder.
- Filming when using the eye level VF!
- Endless other possibilities that can be conjured up by brilliant engineers, once the VF is digital too.

I don't care about HD video. I want a camera for still photography. I don't need 50 different lenses of multiple brands. I need 3-5 lenses to do what I do. I could do away with my rear LCD even on an OVF. All the information I need is on the top LCD.
I don't need to take my eye away from the OVF to adjust simple setting now. Shutter, aperture, ISO are all shown in the current OVF.

I still shoot 50+% film on a Contax 645 and 90% of what is on that list is irrelevant for the purposes of taking pictures.

EVFs will get better. Probably better than OVFs in the future, but I have yet to see any indication that Sony is ready to make that jump. CDAF will get fast enough to compete with PDAF, but Sony has not shown that yet. Simple things like a bride an groom running down the isle is still a challenge for CDAF systems.

[boriscleto]

CDAF will get fast enough to compete with PDAF, but Sony has not shown that yet. Simple things like a bride an groom running down the isle is still a challenge for CDAF systems.

CDAF will never be as fast as PDAF. That is why they are now embedding PDAF sensors on the image sensor.

[Winder]

CDAF will never be as fast as PDAF. That is why they are now embedding PDAF sensors on the image sensor.

CDAF on an Olympus OM-D is already faster than the Pentax K-5 PDAF.

[Clavius]

Show me an example of these reduced cost. How much cheaper is a Fuji XE-1 or Olympus OM-D compared to a Pentax K-30?

Oh, you want a camera with MORE and BETTER features to be cheaper? Sorry, not in this reality.

I don't care about HD video. I want a camera for still photography. I don't need 50 different lenses of multiple brands. I need 3-5 lenses to do what I do. I could do away with my rear LCD even on an OVF. All the information I need is on the top LCD.
I don't need to take my eye away from the OVF to adjust simple setting now. Shutter, aperture, ISO are all shown in the current OVF.

But it's not about you, is it?

I still shoot 50+% film on a Contax 645 and 90% of what is on that list is irrelevant for the purposes of taking pictures.

A bit like air conditioning, dolby surround, automatic shift, all-weather tires, heated seats, electric windows, central locking, alarm, chrome interior, hands free calling, auto-defrosting are all irrelevant for the purpose of driving a car?!? I don't care, it's 2013 and I will not do without those features anymore. Same applies to cameras.

EVFs will get better. Probably better than OVFs in the future, but I have yet to see any indication that Sony is ready to make that jump.

The details in the EVF of a NEX7 are so much better then that in the grainy OVF of a K5. It's bigger, brighter and usable in low light. The only thing could be complained about is speed. So people who shoot racing cars from the side of the track should use something else. The rest is OK.

Simple things like a bride an groom running down the isle is still a challenge for CDAF systems.

It's a challange for Pentax AF anyway, no matter if it's PDAF or CDAF. LOL!

[Winder]

Oh, you want a camera with MORE and BETTER features to be cheaper? Sorry, not in this reality.

Then show me where the cost saving is? Which products do you want to compare?

But it's not about you, is it?

No. Its not, but the only HD video people I know specialize in it and only two of them ever use a DSLR for HD Video.
The majority of the professionals I know don't own or need a bunch of lenses. When I was shooting weddings with my 5D I had the 24-70L, 85L & 135L.... That is it. That is all I needed. With my Contax 645 I probably use 3 of my 5 lenses with any regularity, and my k-5 kit has a 31mm LTD, 50mm & 85mm Sigma lenses.

A bit like air conditioning, dolby surround, automatic shift, all-weather tires, heated seats, electric windows, central locking, alarm, chrome interior, hands free calling, auto-defrosting are all irrelevant for the purpose of driving a car?!? I don't care, it's 2013 and I will not do without those features anymore. Same applies to cameras.

As someone who drives a fully restored 73 Bronco as a daily driver..... I don't care much about those things either.

The details in the EVF of a NEX7 are so much better then that in the grainy OVF of a K5. It's bigger, brighter and usable in low light. The only thing could be complained about is speed. So people who shoot racing cars from the side of the track should use something else. The rest is OK.

I did not think the NEX7 EVF was acceptable and one reason I still use my Contax 645 so much is the OVF. The Pentax K-5 OVF is not very good. There are a lot of reasons I don't like the NEX7. Menus, touch screen, ergonomics, size, EVF, jpeg engine, AF speed.... all of these are poor relative to the cost.

I think the future is mirrorless, but I have yet to see an EVF that I want to work with every day.

It's a challange for Pentax AF anyway, no matter if it's PDAF or CDAF. LOL!

True, but that is just Pentax. Nikon and Canon both handle CAF much better.

[bimjo]

Then show me where the cost saving is? Which products do you want to compare?

You appear to be laboring under the false impression that just because a company can produce an item less expensively than it could previously it will pass those savings on to the consumer.

[Winder]

You appear to be laboring under the false impression that just because a company can produce an item less expensively than it could previously it will pass those savings on to the consumer.

No. That's my point. Companies talk about the lower cost of production, yet we don't see any cost saving in MILC. The K-30 has a lot of features for a lot less than an Olympus OM-D..... and better IQ.

[RonHendriks1966]

Would users miss even the SLT-system?

[pinholecam]

A-mount users need to consider the pros/cons and risks of staying with A-mount.
Not all of them like the SLT route and now they face the chance that A-mount or a DSLR like camera would not even exist for Sony within the next 3-5yrs.
Its not going to happen for this camera, this one will be A99 but w/o the SLR and it makes some sense since if CDAF and hybrid CDAF is as good as what Sony thinks it is, the SLT design is already made redundant. (if rumors are true)
But I doubt that the Sony cameras will remain in its current 'SLR like' design for long, gradually phasing to some sort of NEX or NEX with beefy grip option in the near future.

I see some big claims on the superiority of the EVF.
Having a EVF camera myself and easy access to Sony stores here where I can try the NEx6,7,A99.
They are better than decent, but have their own problems.
1. Tearing when panned a bit faster
2. EVF to real time lag
3. WB and brightness confusion vs real world
4. Totally dependent on power consuming 'turn-on' for the user to gauge if a frame is worth shooting


Some other stuff that may seem cool but not that great/practical in real use :
1. instant review on the EVF - that delays and confuses the shooter more than helping
2. can review w/o taking eye off screen - I do that on my G3 (cause the G3 don't have auto eye detect on/off to switch between LCD/EVF); but peering too much on the screen can detach the user from the environment (and maybe fall off the side walk... not happened to me yet, since I at least stop to peer thru the EVF review )
3, Loads of info on EVF - actually its information over load and seldom relevant when shooting fast
4. Can adjust settings w/o eye leaving EVF - thats already possible for all the important/relevant shooting parameters on any DSLR.

So end of the day, its not the best option yet compared to the OVF.
Some may prefer it over OVF, but as it is now, its a user preference/decision.

[falconeye]

CDAF will never be as fast as PDAF.

A common belief and most probably wrong.

CDAF has more light at its disposal and should outperform PDAF when both systems are driven to the edge of the possible. The embedded PDAF sensels turn useless in low light for a reason, this is a dead end caused by current engineering hurdles to figure out a decent algorithm, to read out sensors fast enough and to shift focus precisely enough.

Not to forget, our very own eyes use CDAF pretty effectively (but close one eye to make sure it isn't PDAF ).

While at it ... of course, binocular viewing (read, 3D cameras with 2 lenses) will be the top performers wrt AF. They won't need a mirror, except if it the type of 3D camera using 1 lens and a splitting mirror.