[repaap]

I don't do well with EVFs (eye strain and headaches with every one I've used thus far) so I don't know that there is a big difference to me between the A7r III and the A7r IV with regard to enjoyment of their viewfinders. It is the reason that I wouldn't go mirrorless.

With Canon and Nikon looking to dump their SLR mounts some time down the road, Pentax seems the safest best to continue to support and enhance SLR tech.

I hate EVF and love my eyes. There is enough of reason to go with OVF alltheway! Hope that Pentax will stay that way even if pressure is big towards EVF.

[rawr]

Hope that Pentax will stay that way even if pressure is big towards EVF.

They have, I think, been looking at ways to combine both EVF and OVF. Combined EVF/OVF would be ideal, as long as it didn't mean dumbing down one or the other just to get a combined system working.

[Winder]

They have, I think, been looking at ways to combine both EVF and OVF. Combined EVF/OVF would be ideal, as long as it didn't mean dumbing down one or the other just to get a combined system working.

Both Ricoh and Canon have filed patents for hybrid OVF/EVF technology, but it doesn't appear that either is close to bringing one to market. Canon is putting significant resources towards mirrorless and if they thought they could bring the hybrid OVF to market I don't think they would have gone mirrorless.

[repaap]

They have, I think, been looking at ways to combine both EVF and OVF. Combined EVF/OVF would be ideal, as long as it didn't mean dumbing down one or the other just to get a combined system working.

Yes, I agree. As I understood it would combine focusing systems and give better possibility for eye AF etc used in MILC system. Perhaps it is just a curiosity, or then it will be chancing The whole OVF thing in good way. If it will happen..?

---------- Post added 08-18-19 at 08:30 ----------

Both Ricoh and Canon have filed patents for hybrid OVF/EVF technology, but it doesn't appear that either is close to bringing one to market. Canon is putting significant resources towards mirrorless and if they thought they could bring the hybrid OVF to market I don't think they would have gone mirrorless.

Nah, I think that they went mirrorless just because competition(sony) is there. And they had to do it quick.

[Winder]

Nah, I think that they went mirrorless just because competition(sony) is there. And they had to do it quick.

I don't know. It's going to cost Canon a lot of money to develop a new system to compete with Sony. This is going to force Canon to develop an all new system for a shrinking market. Canon is putting out some amazing glass for the new system, but not so amazing bodies so far. As one Canon friend said. The EOS-R isn't the best at anything (AF, resolution, video, fps, DR) but its a pretty solid camera for any Canon user. With the Canon name and marketing they will sell a lot of them.

[repaap]

I don't know. It's going to cost Canon a lot of money to develop a new system to compete with Sony. This is going to force Canon to develop an all new system for a shrinking market. Canon is putting out some amazing glass for the new system, but not so amazing bodies so far. As one Canon friend said. The EOS-R isn't the best at anything (AF, resolution, video, fps, DR) but its a pretty solid camera for any Canon user. With the Canon name and marketing they will sell a lot of them.

Yup! Canon is really trying to offer best solution. And where opticks are now, it really seems good. I’d believe that it is partly because of the competition. And that is how you do it. They should have come up with better bodyto begin with thou

[Rondec]

I don't know. It's going to cost Canon a lot of money to develop a new system to compete with Sony. This is going to force Canon to develop an all new system for a shrinking market. Canon is putting out some amazing glass for the new system, but not so amazing bodies so far. As one Canon friend said. The EOS-R isn't the best at anything (AF, resolution, video, fps, DR) but its a pretty solid camera for any Canon user. With the Canon name and marketing they will sell a lot of them.

Canon has decided that they are going to make special glass for their system. Rather than matching full frame glass, they are glass that is either faster or smaller than typical SLR glass. So they have their f2 zooms and f1.2 primes whereas Sony has attempted to match SLR lenses in terms of speed (I don't know that the FE mount is compatible with faster glass).

In the past, Canon lenses could be adapted pretty easily to Sony to fill in any gaps, but here, it seems likely that adapters will be tough due to the relatively small difference in registration distance between the RF mount and FE mount.

The big thing for each brand is to stand out from the others and Canon has chosen to do so with glass. Considering that most photographers say to consider glass before a camera body, this could stand them in good stead in the long run.

[repaap]

Canon has decided that they are going to make special glass for their system. Rather than matching full frame glass, they are glass that is either faster or smaller than typical SLR glass. So they have their f2 zooms and f1.2 primes whereas Sony has attempted to match SLR lenses in terms of speed (I don't know that the FE mount is compatible with faster glass).

In the past, Canon lenses could be adapted pretty easily to Sony to fill in any gaps, but here, it seems likely that adapters will be tough due to the relatively small difference in registration distance between the RF mount and FE mount.

The big thing for each brand is to stand out from the others and Canon has chosen to do so with glass. Considering that most photographers say to consider glass before a camera body, this could stand them in good stead in the long run.

This to me would make it competing move against Sony. Many many guys with sony has canon lenses(or atleast had).

[Winder]

Canon has decided that they are going to make special glass for their system. Rather than matching full frame glass, they are glass that is either faster or smaller than typical SLR glass. So they have their f2 zooms and f1.2 primes whereas Sony has attempted to match SLR lenses in terms of speed (I don't know that the FE mount is compatible with faster glass).

In the past, Canon lenses could be adapted pretty easily to Sony to fill in any gaps, but here, it seems likely that adapters will be tough due to the relatively small difference in registration distance between the RF mount and FE mount.

The big thing for each brand is to stand out from the others and Canon has chosen to do so with glass. Considering that most photographers say to consider glass before a camera body, this could stand them in good stead in the long run.

The lenses are probably the single biggest reason that Canon is doing what they are doing. Sony's AF and the adapters have gotten so good that you can put Canon glass on a Sony body and in some ways the AF is better on the Sony body. I have loaned my A9 to a friend a couple of time and it performs better with Canon glass than his 5DIV does for still photography. For video work its a different story, but for stills you can put all your Canon glass on an A9 and get excellent AF. I'm not sure how well it works on the A7 series. This is a big problem for Canon. Producing a line of lenses that Sony can't adapt keeps Sony from stealing Canon customers.

There is an adapter that allows Sony lenses to be used on the new Nikon Z-series of cameras.

[Zooland]

Can anyone tell me how 2mm in diameter lens should resolve 108MP please

See this video

Youtu.be

Youtu.be

[RonHendriks1966]

See this video

Turn Your Phone into a Cinema Camera with This Adapter - YouTube

That is the end of mirrorless

[biz-engineer]

I've downloaded 61Mp RAW images shot at ISO640, compared to my images at ISO640 from the K1. Images from the Sony A7RIV are very grainy. I've tried to match K1 images by adding some noise reduction to the 61Mp files, to try to match Pentax K1 image quality levels, the Sony image takes a significant hit on details. Overall IQ for still (both A7RIV and K1 images downsized to 24Mp for side by side comparison), the K1 is about 0.3 to 0.5 stop of SNR better than A7RIV. I expect to see similar results whenever DXO and Photonstophoto will do their measurements. Of course the A7RIV has superior burst rates and video spec, but this seems a step backwards for stills.

[Dan Rentea]

I've downloaded 61Mp RAW images shot at ISO640, compared to my images at ISO640 from the K1.

If the images were not taken in the same conditions at the same time, then you can't draw a conclusion based on some random images. I have images taken at ISO 2000 better than others taken at ISO 1000 with the same camera because there were different conditions (the quality of light was different, etc.).

I still think that if you really want to see a fair comparison, you should rent a Sony A7R IV and make some tests side by side. Comparing random files from internet is far from ideal if you are really interested in seeing the performance of cameras in general.

[biz-engineer]

If the images were not taken in the same conditions at the same time, then you can't draw a conclusion based on some random images. I have images taken at ISO 2000 better than others taken at ISO 1000 with the same camera because there were different conditions (the quality of light was different, etc.).

I've compared image area with similar light levels. And Photonstophoton has published measurements for the A7RIV, that just confirm my impression, the DR on the A7RIV isn't higher than K1 DR, there is even some sort of drop between ISO100 and ISO50.

But, I still see an advantage of 61Mp vs 36Mp, 61Mp much reduced the risk of color moiré, and I can also confirm this buy comparing repetitive image patterns sampled by K1, D850, GFX50 and GFX100. The images from GFX100 are free of moiré, whereas the same image with GFX50 , K1 and D850 does show color moiré. That's because at the 100Mp density on MF or 61Mp density FF, the lens acts as the optical low pass filter relative to pixel pitch.

Depends what we photograph, for models / clothes, the risk of moiré is real, for landscapes not so much.

[Dan Rentea]

I've compared image area with similar light levels. And Photonstophoton has published measurements for the A7RIV, that just confirm my impression, the DR on the A7RIV isn't higher than K1 DR, there is even some sort of drop between ISO100 and ISO50.

Even if the A7R IV will have a 14.2Evs which is 0.4Evs lower than K1, it's almost impossible to see a difference in files in terms of dynamic range. And again, I don't know why you use different images from internet to make a point instead of wait and test cameras side by side if you want the best way to find some answers. If Pentax released a K1 Mark III and someone made the same comparison test as yours and came here with the conclusion that Pentax images have less dynamic range than other cameras, most certainly he wouldn't "survive" to make another test. And I wouldn't blame them because as I said, we seem to live in a period in which reviews and verdicts are ready even the cameras are not yet on store shelves.