[BigMackCam]

there is a substantial difference between a real view and a artificial glowing flat computer screen.
...
LCDs are neither windows nor viewfinders.

I completely agree. And yet, there are situations where an EVF can be a highly advantageous tool; preferable, even, for some situations and photographers.

Optical viewfinders can't raise the brightness to useable levels in lower-light scenarios; show an adequately-bright DOF preview in anything less than good lighting; magnify a specific area of a subject to allow ultra-precise manual focusing, overlay a live histogram, etc. etc. Sure, you can do those things with live view on some cameras, but it's nothing like so friendly in use.

I'm not saying Sony's EVFs are great. I'm not even saying EVFs generally are great. I'm just saying that for some photographers, they work well. As always, it's a case of using the best tool for the job at hand, and to suit the preferences of the individual. You don't like EVFs - that's fine, but many people do. It's all good

If you can work within the constraints their approach imposes, they are very capable tools.
I know a couple of landscape/adventure photographers who use the system with great results. They aren't complaining.

Precisely

---

Last edited by BigMackCam; 04-19-2017 at 03:16 PM.

[D1N0]

I didn't see this thread probably because it is hidden from me because of my ignore list

[Winder]

I prefer the K-1 OVF, but ultimately its about the images. If Sony can truly deliver AF performance like they claim it will be a winner. Eye locking AF is a big deal for portrait and wedding photographers. 24MP is plenty for people photography and guys shooting 1000 images at a wedding or sporting event really don't want that many. If the camera is as fast as they claim, they will sell an awful lot of them.

[Tony Belding]

I'm not saying Sony's EVFs are great. I'm not even saying EVFs generally are great.

OK, I'll say it. EVFs generally are great. And Sony's EVFs are great. Pentax's EVF allergy has been a source of irritation to me for a while now. IMHO, exposure preview is the killer feature of EVFs. Who wouldn't want to see the image that their camera is going to actually capture?

However... It was always a case of pros and cons. EVFs were better at some things, OVFs were better at others. Now we're being told that the Sony A9's EVF is higher resolution and substantially brighter than the ones in the A7 series, plus there's no blackout. If we can take that at face value, then there's no longer much reason for anybody to prefer an OVF. The pentaprism becomes obsolescent.

[BigMackCam]

OK, I'll say it. EVFs generally are great. And Sony's EVFs are great. Pentax's EVF allergy has been a source of irritation to me for a while now. IMHO, exposure preview is the killer feature of EVFs. Who wouldn't want to see the image that their camera is going to actually capture?

However... It was always a case of pros and cons. EVFs were better at some things, OVFs were better at others. Now we're being told that the Sony A9's EVF is higher resolution and substantially brighter than the ones in the A7 series, plus there's no blackout. If we can take that at face value, then there's no longer much reason for anybody to prefer an OVF. The pentaprism becomes obsolescent.

Well, I like EVFs too. And I especially like Sony's. That said, I do prefer the natural look of a viewfinder when conditions allow and I'm shooting with AF lenses. Perhaps it helps fool me into thinking I'm using a traditional camera instead of a computer with sensors and a lens attached But, even in those situations where I'd prefer an OVF, I rarely have any problem using an electronic one. Given how well I get on with my Hassy HV and Sony A7II, I'm looking forward to trying an A9

[surfar]

OK, I'll say it. EVFs generally are great. And Sony's EVFs are great

Yes, although I don't own a Sony.....But I do own Fuji /Olympus /Samsung /Panasonics with EVFs....all good.

[Winder]

I don't mind the EVF that much. I do favor the K-1 OVF when the light is good, but the EVF has real advantages for many applications. I'm looking forward to the reviews. This time next year I hope to have one in my hands if the camera performs as I hope.... Which they never do.

[clackers]

IMHO, exposure preview is the killer feature of EVFs. Who wouldn't want to see the image that their camera is going to actually capture?.

(Shrugs shoulders). Put your K-1 into Live View and Manual Mode, and you get this, if it's that important.

It's important to very few people, I'd suggest.

Herb Ritts was so good as a photographer back in the film age he could shoot commercially without taking a polaroid first - he just knew the exposure by looking at the scene in front of him.

[D1N0]

It can already be compared at camerasize.com
Compare camera dimensions side by side

Sony being Sony I am sure they have messed up this camera at some crucial point.

[photoptimist]

My reservation is more based around the exact same quality requirements that I apply to all the full format viewfinders at home, which traditionalists call "house windows".
While for the same price I can nearly get same size LCDs with resolution higher than what my eyes can resolve, there is a substantial difference between a real view and a artificial glowing flat computer screen. Anybody even discussing that is invited to buy a penthouse appartment and then swap it with a cellar appartment with screens.
LCDs are neither windows nor viewfinders.

Hmmm... An OVF isn't a penthouse window, it's just a different kind of cellar space that contains a camera obscura projection on to a ground glass focusing screen. That projection contains only a fraction of the light captured by the lens because of the half-silvered mirrors used in any camera with AF, the inefficiencies and scatter in focusing screen, and the limitations of the eye-piece optics to capture and redirect light from the focus screen to the eyeball. If you don't believe me (and you should never believe random folk on the internet), then point a second camera into the eyepeice of an OVF and take a meter reading -- it will be about 2 or 3 stops darker than the direct view of the scene.

It's hardly the direct view offered by house windows unless your windows are heavily tinted and slightly fogged.

Sure, an EVF has even more stuff between the lens and eye which introduce lag, contrast changes, etc. but an OVF introduces it's share of artifacts, too.

[mee]

I'm not a big fan of their stuff but I have seen many very nice images created with it. If you can work within the constraints their approach imposes, they are very capable tools.
I know a couple of landscape/adventure photographers who use the system with great results. They aren't complaining.

That can be said for every brand camera... including Pentax.

[mattb123]

That can be said for every brand camera... including Pentax.

Which doesn't make it any less true.

[biz-engineer]

What we now see more clearly from the big picture of the camera industry: control of the sensor tech is very strategic part of the value chain. That separates Canon and Sony from others. Sony being on the leading edge, implementation of BSI + stacked memory on a 24x36 is not easy piece (3D TSV), if they are still able to get decent manufacturing yield, kudo to Sony semicondutors (Actually, the sensor tech does not come from Sony camera, most of the job being done by Sony semiconductors). Canon may have to catch-up but depending on what they have in house, aligning with Sony may be very costly. Now, for the remaining Nikon (Ricoh Pentax?), they'll have to wait for Sony Semicon to open up the tech for them. Yet, Nikon shows what can be done with DSLR with the D500... This A9 announcement make me think I'm going to be very happy with less, meaning that in the future, I may simply buy discounted second hand gear that's not up to the performance of the latest Sony camera, and let others dump their dollars into the new tech.

[GateCityRadio]

My reservation is more based around the exact same quality requirements that I apply to all the full format viewfinders at home, which traditionalists call "house windows".
While for the same price I can nearly get same size LCDs with resolution higher than what my eyes can resolve, there is a substantial difference between a real view and a artificial glowing flat computer screen. Anybody even discussing that is invited to buy a penthouse appartment and then swap it with a cellar appartment with screens.
LCDs are neither windows nor viewfinders.

That's your opinion.
There are many who like EVF's. With an EVF I can have much more info in my viewfinder. With an EVF I can zoom in to make sure my focus is accurate. With an EVF I can have focus peaking in the viewfinder. With an EVF I can actually see image previews without trying to chimp at a washed out LCD screen.

I think this falls more into "I've always used an OVF, even if the EVF has its advantages I'm going to continue to use an OVF because change is scary"

Hmmm... An OVF isn't a penthouse window, it's just a different kind of cellar space that contains a camera obscura projection on to a ground glass focusing screen. That projection contains only a fraction of the light captured by the lens because of the half-silvered mirrors used in any camera with AF, the inefficiencies and scatter in focusing screen, and the limitations of the eye-piece optics to capture and redirect light from the focus screen to the eyeball. If you don't believe me (and you should never believe random folk on the internet), then point a second camera into the eyepeice of an OVF and take a meter reading -- it will be about 2 or 3 stops darker than the direct view of the scene.

It's hardly the direct view offered by house windows unless your windows are heavily tinted and slightly fogged.

Sure, an EVF has even more stuff between the lens and eye which introduce lag, contrast changes, etc. but an OVF introduces it's share of artifacts, too.

^ on point.

[Dan Rentea]

That's your opinion.
There are many who like EVF's. With an EVF I can have much more info in my viewfinder. With an EVF I can zoom in to make sure my focus is accurate. With an EVF I can have focus peaking in the viewfinder. With an EVF I can actually see image previews without trying to chimp at a washed out LCD screen.

I think this falls more into "I've always used an OVF, even if the EVF has its advantages I'm going to continue to use an OVF because change is scary".

I'm one of the people who doesn't like EVF's. With an EVF I get headaches after 15 minutes due to a sensibility I have on my eyes. It's one of the reasons I'm not interested in mirrorless.

Regarding this camera as a competitor to Canon/Nikon flagships, there are 2 big problems which Sony will have to adress:

1. the lack of fast super tele lenses (400mm f2.8, 600/800mm f4, etc.)
2. the lack of general support for pro's (service and lenses/accesories for big events like the Olympics)

Let's also see how this new Sony camera handels in rough conditions and how it will balance with big and heavy lenses. If the battery will last for 150-200 shots when the camera is used at -10 degrees... you got the idea.

The specs on this Sony camera are impressive and this is a good thing because Canon/Nikon will have to:
- either put some effort in inovating their DSLR line more than usual
- either release some mirrorless cameras with high end specs

I wonder how soon Canon/Nikon and even Pentax will respond to these new releases from Sony, Fuji, Oly?! I'm not sure that we will see some good news this year from Canon/Nikon or Pentax, but the next year should be interesting...