Pentax K-3 optical viewfinder - a TRULY immersive experience

Started 6 months ago | Discussions thread
JeffAHayes
Senior MemberPosts: 1,968Gear list
Like?
Re: Pentax K-3 optical viewfinder - a TRULY immersive experience
In reply to Jim Radcliffe, 6 months ago

Jim Radcliffe wrote:

jamesm007 wrote:

And a OVF can't be beat by a EVF, not even in the near future.

Man.. that sure sounds reminiscent of all those photographers who said that digital would never be able to compete with film. If you weren't around for those discussions some 10 or 12 years ago, you missed a lot of entertaining threads and the often used phrase.. "Digital will NEVER be better than film." Most of those who made that statement are shooting digital these days having quietly purchased a DSLR and accepted the technological advancements. I predict the same will happen with the EVF.

The argument you're discussing above CONTINUES TO THIS DAY about music. I know a number of people who swear both that amplifiers that aren't ALL-TUBE have a tendency to "clip" the wave-forms of the sound, regardless of how powerful their capacitors, etc., are... And especially that CDs will NEVER sound "as good" as vinyl records because of the nature of digital vs. analog, and the digital being little dots (or squares, if you will, that the music moves up and down along to produce volume, pitch, frequency, tone, etc.). Never mind all the terrible scratches, ticks and pops -- and ESPECIALLY low SN Ratio -- vinyl was always plagued with (used to drive me NUTS with soft passages in classical music!), they prefer THAT to a CD because it's all "smooth curves" cut by a needle. But as I explained to my cousin who's one of these folks, it's like with digital photos... once you get to a certain number of "dots or squares" they come so CLOSE to looking like a smooth, rounded line, it's impossible to tell the difference without an electron microscope!

The first CDs were at sampling rates varying from 22 KBPS to 44 KBPS. These days, most of them are something like 198 KBPS, or more. When you have more than NINE TIMES the frequency range of human hearing in the bit sampling rate of a digital music recording there's a pretty good chance NONE of the music is going to sound "clipped."

What's coming next?

Even better EVFs will come next. The technology will continue to get better and better... just as the sensors and micro-processors have.

I'm not arguing, just suggesting that an open mind and a wiser choice of words might be in order.

I think the point he was making, Jim -- and I have to agree with him -- is that a true OVF offers and actual TRUE VIEW of the scene through the lens, with nothing more than a couple mirrors to flip the image around and back right-side-up to the OVF. UNLESS the lens has a polarizer or some sort of gel on it, or is dirty, in theory, at least, an OVF should ALWAYS show the shooter a pretty EXACT representation of what is coming through the lens and what will hit the sensor when the shutter button is pressed and the mirror moves out of the way.

With an EVF, however, there HAS TO BE SOFTWARE INVOLVED. And that software can (and most certainly IS) designed by people to provide certain levels of brightness, luminence, saturation, hues, tints, etc. So what someone views through an EVF may look very different from what "the lens" is seeing. The colors could be different; it could be brighter or darker or any number of things. A GOOD EVF will allow enough user control that the user can tweak it until it shows exactly what he ends up with on the picture every time. But it may take quite some time to get those two in tandem if it's not properly "aligned" to begin with.

This is similar to what reviewers say about the JPEGs produced by different camera brands. Canon, for instance, is known for slightly "brighter" images with a bit more saturation than normal. I'm not sure what they say about other brands, I just know I've seen that said about Canon a number of times, but also that most shooters -- especially amateurs -- LIKE those slightly over-saturated images and that might be WHY Canon does that -- at least with its less expensive cameras. Like some others, I don't think the whole EVF issue is quite "mature" yet.

I DO agree with you that it will continue to mature. But it's at the discretion of whoever decides HOW each EVF interprets its input as to whether or not a particular camera's EVF is ever "spot-on."

Jeff

-- hide signature --

Jim Radcliffe
http://www.boxedlight.com
The ability to 'see' the shot is more important than the gear used to capture it.

-- hide signature --

A word is worth 1/1000th of a picture... Maybe that's why I use so many words!

 JeffAHayes's gear list:JeffAHayes's gear list
Pentax WG-3 Pentax K-5 Pentax K-30 Pentax K-3 Pentax smc DA* 16-50mm F2.8 ED AL (IF) SDM +8 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Post (hide subjects)Posted by
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark post MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow