What puzzles me about OVF versus EVF

DougOB said:

DougOB said:

rbu ……..

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

DougOB said:

Exactly. Thomas Kuhn in "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions" defined the word paradigm. He was also clear that a new paradigm does not replace an old paradigm. It simply allows new things to be done, often at a loss of other things.

Both OVFs and EVFs have their merits. Which is "better" depends on what better means for you.

Doug

Click to expand...

Agreed, if everyone would just admit it comes down almost entirely to personal preferences. Many are using both technologies simultaneously and seamlessly. To say “I prefer EVF” cannot be considered to demonstrate that DSLR and OVF represent outdated technology, “dinosaurs”. To say “I prefer OVF” cannot be expanded to imply I possess some arcane photographic instincts, skills, and perceptive abilities lost on the masses of “sheeple”. It will eventually come down to economics; the cameras people purchase will be the cameras offered. I should not feel threatened if someone has different preferences. I very likely am threatened if not enough people with my preferences purchase those cameras to keep it a financially viable option.

Klaus dk said:

Holger Bargen said:

One question:

When did you have a look through a Pentax OVF designed in the last few years - let's say K1 or K3iii?

You may get an idea why there are people in the world who would never give up the pleasure of having that view for a view through an electronic monitor.

It's a little bit like being part of a live concert instead of watching it on TV ...

Click to expand...

It would be interesting to know when was the last time you looked through an EVF designed and made within the last three years, and which EVF it was?

Click to expand...

Thats right, The last EVF I could look through was one of the first Canon MILC cameras when Canon started the step into this new world. I am sure the situation has much improved and will go on doing so.

However, my view has nothing to do with quality of the EVF but with the general approach. Only live is life - every processing of the original view is an artefact - just a picture of life.

Don't get me wrong: I am not agains EVF in general! They are useful for many things and there are fields where they have clear advantages over OVF.

Nevertheless, the comparison of a live concert and a TV broadcast of it seems to fit at least a little to me.

There are options to make a video event a high end multimedia show where maybe soundquality, the details you can see on the screen and the convenience is much better than for the visitors at the live event. They see less, they hear it worse, they stand in a crowd instead of relaxing on a sofa - but they have a unique kind of fun as only live is true life ...

Klaus dk said:

You might get an idea of why there are people in the world who have changed their mind regarding the use of an EVF.

Click to expand...

Alex Sarbu said:

John_A_G said:

OpticsEngineer said:

If EVF is so great it seems like someone would sell binoculars showing each eye an EVF image. But no one does. You know why? Because it would be second best to what you can get from pure optics.

Click to expand...

If an OVF CAMERA were better than EVF then all the manufacturers would be abandoning mirrorless in favor of DSLR but most are doing the opposite. Why do you think that is?

Click to expand...

Because of "progress", which is not always for our benefit ;-)

Just kidding, sort of. I see you're falling into the incorrect assumption that it's either this or that, a "winning" technology and an "abandoned" one; however, both types of viewfinders have their own strengths and weaknesses, so we should not say one could fully replace the other.

Click to expand...

You can't really have the benefits of the mirrorless but an optical viewfinder. So, yes, a given camera is either one or the other. So, it comes down to whether the benefits of mirrorless outweigh the con of the EVF. In every other way, the DSLR is the inferior product - which is why companies are abandoning it.

Alex Sarbu said:

Why does the EVF "wins"? Because the companies gain more by it. The EVF itself is not important; but a mirrorless can be made cheaper and with better specs than a camera sporting a quick return mirror system. And people would be more tempted to upgrade because it's something-new and not same-old (then they'd find out they have to replace lenses).

The image in the viewfinder doesn't matter at all. Except, for some people it does...

Click to expand...

That's a bit nonsensical. Sony, Canon and Nikon have working relationships with full time professional photographers. They're well aware of what matters - which is why EVFs are constantly being improved.

Alex Sarbu said:

Alex Sarbu said:

The EVF is the necessary evil to make a better overall solution. Which is why we see continuous improvement in that area. I suspect the majority of people going mirrorless who have used a quality OVF would agree EVF is still a weak link but I'm seeing more and more that people are finding the overall solution better.

Click to expand...

There's a place for both EVFs and OVFs, and we should stop thinking "there can be only one".

Click to expand...

What doesn't make sense is for a company to do both - especially in a receding ILC market. Which is why every other manufacturer is going all-in on mirrorless. And why Pentax should stay all-in on DSLR.

Alex Sarbu said:

I am, however, slightly concerned that this bit of diversity is only up to Pentax, and Pentax has to both close the gap and advance the DSLRs in order to stay competitive. And they don't get much support.

Alex

Click to expand...

This is a challenge. In many aspects, mirrorless is the better technology. It's only the viewfinder where DSLR has the advantage. It used to be a large advantage. That advantage is shrinking. Pentax appears to be betting that it will remain a large enough advantage that people who don't already own Pentax gear will require that OVF in their ILC solution. I will admit, I don't know how big an advantage it is - I haven't bothered to try any new cameras, with or without a mirror - my 10ish year old camera is still doing just fine.

DougOB said:

DougOB said:

Just kidding, sort of. I see you're falling into the incorrect assumption that it's either this or that, a "winning" technology and an "abandoned" one; however, both types of viewfinders have their own strengths and weaknesses, so we should not say one could fully replace the other.

Click to expand...

Exactly. Thomas Kuhn in "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions" defined the word paradigm. He was also clear that a new paradigm does not replace an old paradigm. It simply allows new things to be done, often at a loss of other things.

Both OVFs and EVFs have their merits. Which is "better" depends on what better means for you.

Doug

Click to expand...

Doug, this is undoubtedly true from a theory standpoint. However, the ILC market is shrinking. It makes zero business sense for a company to produce both DSLRs and the lenses that go with them and Mirrorless and the lenses that go with them.

It also makes sense, if you're going to build new mirrorless bodies you build a lens mount designed for those bodies. Which is what we're seeing from all the manufacturers that have gone mirrorless. Converters are a temporary stop-gap.

It's that lens/ mount part that really prevents companies moving forward from producing both DSLRs and mirrorless. So, while technically possible to do both, it isn't a good business case to do both.

John_A_G said:

DougOB said:

John_A_G said:

Just kidding, sort of. I see you're falling into the incorrect assumption that it's either this or that, a "winning" technology and an "abandoned" one; however, both types of viewfinders have their own strengths and weaknesses, so we should not say one could fully replace the other.

Click to expand...

Exactly. Thomas Kuhn in "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions" defined the word paradigm. He was also clear that a new paradigm does not replace an old paradigm. It simply allows new things to be done, often at a loss of other things.

Both OVFs and EVFs have their merits. Which is "better" depends on what better means for you.

Doug

Click to expand...

Doug, this is undoubtedly true from a theory standpoint. However, the ILC market is shrinking. It makes zero business sense for a company to produce both DSLRs and the lenses that go with them and Mirrorless and the lenses that go with them.

Click to expand...

Yup, true enough. I had been thinking of adding a bit that this doesn't necessarily impact business decisions. IF EVFs are a better busines decision for manufacturers (greater demand, lower cost) that that's where they will go. OTOH if there is enough (niche?) demand for OVFs then they will also stay.

Doug

John_A_G said:

It also makes sense, if you're going to build new mirrorless bodies you build a lens mount designed for those bodies. Which is what we're seeing from all the manufacturers that have gone mirrorless. Converters are a temporary stop-gap.

It's that lens/ mount part that really prevents companies moving forward from producing both DSLRs and mirrorless. So, while technically possible to do both, it isn't a good business case to do both.

Click to expand...

John_A_G said:

Alex Sarbu said:

John_A_G said:

OpticsEngineer said:

If EVF is so great it seems like someone would sell binoculars showing each eye an EVF image. But no one does. You know why? Because it would be second best to what you can get from pure optics.

Click to expand...

If an OVF CAMERA were better than EVF then all the manufacturers would be abandoning mirrorless in favor of DSLR but most are doing the opposite. Why do you think that is?

Click to expand...

Because of "progress", which is not always for our benefit ;-)

Just kidding, sort of. I see you're falling into the incorrect assumption that it's either this or that, a "winning" technology and an "abandoned" one; however, both types of viewfinders have their own strengths and weaknesses, so we should not say one could fully replace the other.

Click to expand...

You can't really have the benefits of the mirrorless but an optical viewfinder. So, yes, a given camera is either one or the other. So, it comes down to whether the benefits of mirrorless outweigh the con of the EVF. In every other way, the DSLR is the inferior product - which is why companies are abandoning it.

Click to expand...

This is mostly because DSLR design is still stuck in the film era. But there's only one benefit of the mirrorless which cannot be replicated in a DSLR: the short registration distance.

"Inferior product" is mostly marketing. What a better card than appeal to emotion, than playing with people's fear of not being left behind, of not using "inferior products"?

But it has no relevance when comparing the potential of these camera configurations.

John_A_G said:

John_A_G said:

Why does the EVF "wins"? Because the companies gain more by it. The EVF itself is not important; but a mirrorless can be made cheaper and with better specs than a camera sporting a quick return mirror system. And people would be more tempted to upgrade because it's something-new and not same-old (then they'd find out they have to replace lenses).

The image in the viewfinder doesn't matter at all. Except, for some people it does...

Click to expand...

That's a bit nonsensical. Sony, Canon and Nikon have working relationships with full time professional photographers. They're well aware of what matters - which is why EVFs are constantly being improved.

Click to expand...

On the contrary; I'm very much spot on. But perhaps I wasn't clear enough - so if there's some specific point, I'd be glad to clarify.

And - remember the early digital? Much inferior to film, very expensive - yet pros were all over them, because they had this huge advantage: immediacy.

John_A_G said:

John_A_G said:

John_A_G said:

The EVF is the necessary evil to make a better overall solution. Which is why we see continuous improvement in that area. I suspect the majority of people going mirrorless who have used a quality OVF would agree EVF is still a weak link but I'm seeing more and more that people are finding the overall solution better.

Click to expand...

There's a place for both EVFs and OVFs, and we should stop thinking "there can be only one".

Click to expand...

What doesn't make sense is for a company to do both - especially in a receding ILC market. Which is why every other manufacturer is going all-in on mirrorless. And why Pentax should stay all-in on DSLR.

Click to expand...

I guess we agree here.

It also goes against the idea of DSLRs being "inferior products" ;-)

John_A_G said:

John_A_G said:

I am, however, slightly concerned that this bit of diversity is only up to Pentax, and Pentax has to both close the gap and advance the DSLRs in order to stay competitive. And they don't get much support.

Alex

Click to expand...

This is a challenge. In many aspects, mirrorless is the better technology. It's only the viewfinder where DSLR has the advantage. It used to be a large advantage. That advantage is shrinking. Pentax appears to be betting that it will remain a large enough advantage that people who don't already own Pentax gear will require that OVF in their ILC solution. I will admit, I don't know how big an advantage it is - I haven't bothered to try any new cameras, with or without a mirror - my 10ish year old camera is still doing just fine.

Click to expand...

Mirrorless is just a type of digital camera with a register distance short enough that electronic viewfinders are the only (reasonable) option.

What goes against DSLRs is marketing, and the fact that their development is left to Pentax.

Alex

Personal experience an opinion! If you disagree OK simply purchase an optical viewfinder camera [but do not be surprised if you pay more for it in the future] .

True in some rare instances. Not even always true in 2003. I have worked with Bubble finders, Sports Finders, Ground Glass of various types, Assorted range finders, and so on and so forth.

Electronic viewfinders were at least second best back at the turn of the century and have improved so much there is no comparison with todays units.

Todays EVF's are almost equal to or equal to many Optical view finders today and will soon eclipse the best of the best if they have not already. Time to consider change since there are more times than not the EVF is the better of the 2 already. Remember OVF's hold a greater than a 100 year usage advantage and have lost almost all advantages the rest will not take long.

bob5050 said:

GossCTP said:

[...] For a viewfinder, the end product is a photograph. Whether one viewfinder type is prettier to look through is irrelevant to the final image.

Click to expand...

Actually, while the end product of 'photography' might be a photograph, the end product of taking a picture is an image file--which may not even be natively viewable. And taking a picture is the only step where the camera's viewfinder comes into play. Producing something viewable or printable is a secondary step, and might be done either in the camera (to show in the EVF, or record as a jpg or equivalent), or in separate PP software.

The wildly inaccurate 'wysiwyg' claim of MILC ads completely elides the second, post-processing step, and also the fact that a picture may not have any single definitive 'wyg' form, but be subject to multiple treatments for different uses.

Unless we discount post-processing entirely, how can a photographer possibly figure out how to produce the best, most flexible image file if he/she is not even looking at the scene to start with, but rather at an already-manipulated image, limited by both what the sensor can record, and whatever the camera's on-board image transformation software decides or is set to do?

Click to expand...

I'm not sure what you are getting at with "the most flexible image file". If you want the most flexibility, you shoot raw. If that isn't enough, you bracket. It's no different in that regard to a DSLR. If OVFs solved such problems, people wouldn't be chimping or examining raw histograms on DSLRs.

Hmm. Seems to me binoculars aren't used to take images, so sort of don't see the analogy. And telescopes use all sort of ways of seeing.

But why all the pearl clutching of late about OVFs? the market has spoken. I can see the scene with my own eyes, and don't use my Pentax as a telescope (although I do have a cool Vivitar TLA-1 that is an eyepiece that fits on the mount of an old 400mm turning the lens into a spotting scope). I like an EVF because it helps me compose photos and especially video....something that keeps getting ignored here, yet is increasingly important to camera manufacturers. But I guess if you don't like EVFs you REALLY hate external monitors like an Atomos

RJNedimyer said:

Personal experience an opinion! If you disagree OK simply purchase an optical viewfinder camera [but do not be surprised if you pay more for it in the future] .

True in some rare instances. Not even always true in 2003. I have worked with Bubble finders, Sports Finders, Ground Glass of various types, Assorted range finders, and so on and so forth.

Electronic viewfinders were at least second best back at the turn of the century and have improved so much there is no comparison with todays units.
Todays EVF's are almost equal to or equal to many Optical view finders today and will soon eclipse the best of the best if they have not already. Time to consider change since there are more times than not the EVF is the better of the 2 already. Remember OVF's hold a greater than a 100 year usage advantage and have lost almost all advantages the rest will not take long.

Click to expand...

Ah, the over confidence of a true believer!

I would agree that you can expect to pay more for an OVF in the future as it becomes more of a niche feature.

I can also agree that EVFs have improved by leaps and bounds since the turn of the century. I don't think I ever bothered to use the one in my 2004 camera, but I'm quite happy with the one in my 2020 camera.

But have you noticed that the rate of improvement in EVFs has slowed? The better they get, the harder it is to improve them. Just like any technology. Yet Pentax just managed to improve the OVF in the K-3 III.

OpticsEngineer said:

If EVF is so great it seems like someone would sell binoculars showing each eye an EVF image. But no one does.

Click to expand...

Well, they do. There have been lots of pocket scope gadgets from a number of companies.. they often add in other features such as stills capture or night vision capabilities. However, they do need power, so a totally analogues binocular/monocular has an attraction.

OpticsEngineer said:

You know why? Because it would be second best to what you can get from pure optics.

Just my perspective. EVF may do some cool things. Getting rid of a mirror box from a DSLR has some advantages. But EVF is always second best to OVF

Click to expand...

Mark Ransom said:

RJNedimyer said:

Personal experience an opinion! If you disagree OK simply purchase an optical viewfinder camera [but do not be surprised if you pay more for it in the future] .

True in some rare instances. Not even always true in 2003. I have worked with Bubble finders, Sports Finders, Ground Glass of various types, Assorted range finders, and so on and so forth.

Electronic viewfinders were at least second best back at the turn of the century and have improved so much there is no comparison with todays units.
Todays EVF's are almost equal to or equal to many Optical view finders today and will soon eclipse the best of the best if they have not already. Time to consider change since there are more times than not the EVF is the better of the 2 already. Remember OVF's hold a greater than a 100 year usage advantage and have lost almost all advantages the rest will not take long.

Click to expand...

Ah, the over confidence of a true believer!

I would agree that you can expect to pay more for an OVF in the future as it becomes more of a niche feature.

I can also agree that EVFs have improved by leaps and bounds since the turn of the century. I don't think I ever bothered to use the one in my 2004 camera, but I'm quite happy with the one in my 2020 camera.

But have you noticed that the rate of improvement in EVFs has slowed? The better they get, the harder it is to improve them. Just like any technology. Yet Pentax just managed to improve the OVF in the K-3 III.

Click to expand...

One big motivator for Ricoh to improve OVF on K3 III may have been EVF, as EVF has been considerably larger on many MILCs than OVF on older APS-C DSLR.

GossCTP said:

I'm not sure what you are getting at with "the most flexible image file". If you want the most flexibility, you shoot raw.

Click to expand...

Of course. What I'm getting at is that in order to shoot RAW, the MILC photographer has to judge it based on viewing essentially a JPG (either in the EFV or on the back screen), since you can't actually see a RAW. A DSLR user judges it by looking at the actual scene--original DR and all.

I'm not claiming that MILCs are inferior, only that they're much better optimized for size and letting the camera make the decisions.

It's been a while since I looked through EVF, you are making me go out and try it out.

* Apart from that * Can Pentax/Ricoh please make the OVF bigger on the K-1III version of future full frame larger? Are there any FF camera with EVF that have close to 1x magnification as opposed to 0.7 on K-1?

Thanks

--
Eric J - Irek J

bob5050 said:

GossCTP said:

I'm not sure what you are getting at with "the most flexible image file". If you want the most flexibility, you shoot raw.

Click to expand...

Of course. What I'm getting at is that in order to shoot RAW, the MILC photographer has to judge it based on viewing essentially a JPG (either in the EFV or on the back screen), since you can't actually see a RAW. A DSLR user judges it by looking at the actual scene--original DR and all.

I'm not claiming that MILCs are inferior, only that they're much better optimized for size and letting the camera make the decisions.

Click to expand...

You can still see the actual scene with mirrorless. You just look at it before you put the camera to your eye. That was the idea of the original Fuji X bodies - one can set all the perameters before even waking up the camera.

In practical terms, you know if DR is a potential problem with mirrorless because the meter (like all meters) centers up the exposure. If DR is too high the highlights will clip and the shadows will be black. I find OVF more difficult in such situations, as human vision isn't great at determining brightness.

The advantages of OVF for me are battery life and being able to look at the viewfinder for long periods of time. If I were a birder with a good set of lenses, mirrorless would have little appeal to me. Then again, so would FF.

Alex Sarbu said:

John_A_G said:

Alex Sarbu said:

John_A_G said:

OpticsEngineer said:

If EVF is so great it seems like someone would sell binoculars showing each eye an EVF image. But no one does. You know why? Because it would be second best to what you can get from pure optics.

Click to expand...

If an OVF CAMERA were better than EVF then all the manufacturers would be abandoning mirrorless in favor of DSLR but most are doing the opposite. Why do you think that is?

Click to expand...

Because of "progress", which is not always for our benefit ;-)

Just kidding, sort of. I see you're falling into the incorrect assumption that it's either this or that, a "winning" technology and an "abandoned" one; however, both types of viewfinders have their own strengths and weaknesses, so we should not say one could fully replace the other.

Click to expand...

You can't really have the benefits of the mirrorless but an optical viewfinder. So, yes, a given camera is either one or the other. So, it comes down to whether the benefits of mirrorless outweigh the con of the EVF. In every other way, the DSLR is the inferior product - which is why companies are abandoning it.

Click to expand...

This is mostly because DSLR design is still stuck in the film era. But there's only one benefit of the mirrorless which cannot be replicated in a DSLR: the short registration distance.

Click to expand...

hmmm - the focus systems of mirrorless seem vastly improved over DSLR. No mirror black out means continuous focus.

Alex Sarbu said:

"Inferior product" is mostly marketing. What a better card than appeal to emotion, than playing with people's fear of not being left behind, of not using "inferior products"?

Click to expand...

Alex Sarbu said:

But it has no relevance when comparing the potential of these camera configurations.

Alex Sarbu said:

Alex Sarbu said:

Why does the EVF "wins"? Because the companies gain more by it. The EVF itself is not important; but a mirrorless can be made cheaper and with better specs than a camera sporting a quick return mirror system. And people would be more tempted to upgrade because it's something-new and not same-old (then they'd find out they have to replace lenses).

The image in the viewfinder doesn't matter at all. Except, for some people it does...

Click to expand...

That's a bit nonsensical. Sony, Canon and Nikon have working relationships with full time professional photographers. They're well aware of what matters - which is why EVFs are constantly being improved.

Click to expand...

On the contrary; I'm very much spot on. But perhaps I wasn't clear enough - so if there's some specific point, I'd be glad to clarify.

And - remember the early digital? Much inferior to film, very expensive - yet pros were all over them, because they had this huge advantage: immediacy.

Click to expand...

No, you're not spot on - you said "the image in the viewfinder doesn't matter at all" - that's not spot on. It matters to photographers. I know you want to consider yourself more of an expert than people who earn their living wage from photography, but their opinion carries more weight than yours does. But, like professionals in other areas, it's all about the total package not just one component. So, "is the EVF good enough given the gains they get in AF, FPS, etc)

Alex Sarbu said:

Alex Sarbu said:

Alex Sarbu said:

Alex Sarbu said:

The EVF is the necessary evil to make a better overall solution. Which is why we see continuous improvement in that area. I suspect the majority of people going mirrorless who have used a quality OVF would agree EVF is still a weak link but I'm seeing more and more that people are finding the overall solution better.

Click to expand...

There's a place for both EVFs and OVFs, and we should stop thinking "there can be only one".

Click to expand...

What doesn't make sense is for a company to do both - especially in a receding ILC market. Which is why every other manufacturer is going all-in on mirrorless. And why Pentax should stay all-in on DSLR.

Click to expand...

I guess we agree here.

It also goes against the idea of DSLRs being "inferior products" ;-)

Click to expand...

No, if the DSLR was the superior of the two, then all the companies would be producing them instead of mirrorless. I know it doesn't fit your narrative - but Sony jumped to #2 when they focused on mirrorless. Even while Canon, Nikon and Pentax were all still primarily focused on DSLR. They didn't jump to #w when they were focused on DSLR or SLT. People responded to mirrorless and the mirrorless cameras today are better than DSLRs are - except for an OVF. It's going to cost Canon and Sony billions to re-vamp into mirrorless but they are switching. It's a shame they don't know as much as you Alex.

Alex Sarbu said:

Alex Sarbu said:

Alex Sarbu said:

I am, however, slightly concerned that this bit of diversity is only up to Pentax, and Pentax has to both close the gap and advance the DSLRs in order to stay competitive. And they don't get much support.

Alex

Click to expand...

This is a challenge. In many aspects, mirrorless is the better technology. It's only the viewfinder where DSLR has the advantage. It used to be a large advantage. That advantage is shrinking. Pentax appears to be betting that it will remain a large enough advantage that people who don't already own Pentax gear will require that OVF in their ILC solution. I will admit, I don't know how big an advantage it is - I haven't bothered to try any new cameras, with or without a mirror - my 10ish year old camera is still doing just fine.

Click to expand...

Mirrorless is just a type of digital camera with a register distance short enough that electronic viewfinders are the only (reasonable) option.

What goes against DSLRs is marketing, and the fact that their development is left to Pentax.

Click to expand...

No, mirrorless is just capable of doing some things better because there is no mirror in the way - focus is better, more accurate, better frame rates etc. And, of course, it will eventually be less expensive to build. It's why Canon and Nikon decided to follow Sony. As I've said, I'm perfectly happy with my DSLR and OVF. But, that doesn't mean I ignore the reality that mirrorless has shown greater advances than DSLR is capable of. So, the last hurdle is that viewfinder. And will it be good enough? For millions of people it already is. That doesn't mean that DSLR can't still be a niche for those people like yourself that just will never want to (or can't) use an EVF.

Alex Sarbu said:

Alex

Click to expand...

I still prefer using an OVF instead of an EVF mainly for the lag free shooting. Sometimes I have both of my eyes open as I'm seeing what is happening around me & there's no lag with the OVF. When I do that with an EVF camera, it kind of throws me off. Even the newest high end EVFs still have some lag. My guess is that the top of the line EVF's will probably be lag free or have unnoticeable lag by the year 2027 at the earliest, but I'm thinking more by 2030, if manufacturer's can actually make lag free EVF's possible. EVF's are definitely going to get a lot better as time passes by & newer technologies are developed.

But with that being said, mirrorless bodies are more accurate in terms of autofocus & not having to fine tune lenses. It's the one thing that I wish my Pentax bodies had. More accurate focusing & not having to fine tune lenses. Most of the camera manufacturers have left the DSLR scene like Sony or are currently in process of trying to migrate their DSLR users towards mirrorless like in the case of Canon & Nikon. Mirrorless bodies with EVFs are the future & almost everything is heading in that direction whether we like it or not. We can all shout & pout about it, but nothing is going to change. Mirrorless is starting to become the norm & will pretty much be the norm a few years from now.

Hopefully Ricoh continues developing DSLR technology further than what Canon & Nikon could have ever done. They can still incorporate more technologies into their OVF, autofocus systems, & even add further enhancements to their 5 axis IBIS with the possibility of combining in lens stabilization as well. I'll keep buying their wares if they do. :-D

The Squirrel Mafia said:

I still prefer using an OVF instead of an EVF mainly for the lag free shooting. Sometimes I have both of my eyes open as I'm seeing what is happening around me & there's no lag with the OVF. When I do that with an EVF camera, it kind of throws me off. Even the newest high end EVFs still have some lag.

Click to expand...

I've been using EVFs since 2012, shoot Motorsport with both eyes open and have no difficulties regarding lag - it may be that some people are more sensitive, but lag has never stopped me getting pictures.

There is a technique required for EVFs, as instead of the blackout, you tend to get a 'freeze' - the trick is to ignore the freeze and pan on through. I remember having similar problems as a teen with SLR blackout (although I used continuous less with film).

The Squirrel Mafia said:

My guess is that the top of the line EVF's will probably be lag free or have unnoticeable lag by the year 2027 at the earliest, but I'm thinking more by 2030, if manufacturer's can actually make lag free EVF's possible. EVF's are definitely going to get a lot better as time passes by & newer technologies are developed.

But with that being said, mirrorless bodies are more accurate in terms of autofocus & not having to fine tune lenses. It's the one thing that I wish my Pentax bodies had. More accurate focusing & not having to fine tune lenses. Most of the camera manufacturers have left the DSLR scene like Sony or are currently in process of trying to migrate their DSLR users towards mirrorless like in the case of Canon & Nikon. Mirrorless bodies with EVFs are the future & almost everything is heading in that direction whether we like it or not. We can all shout & pout about it, but nothing is going to change. Mirrorless is starting to become the norm & will pretty much be the norm a few years from now.

Hopefully Ricoh continues developing DSLR technology further than what Canon & Nikon could have ever done. They can still incorporate more technologies into their OVF, autofocus systems, & even add further enhancements to their 5 axis IBIS with the possibility of combining in lens stabilization as well. I'll keep buying them if they do. :-D

Click to expand...

John_A_G said:

OpticsEngineer said:

If EVF is so great it seems like someone would sell binoculars showing each eye an EVF image. But no one does. You know why? Because it would be second best to what you can get from pure optics.

Click to expand...

If an OVF CAMERA were better than EVF then all the manufacturers would be abandoning mirrorless in favor of DSLR but most are doing the opposite. Why do you think that is?

Click to expand...

Because ten year old SLRs are perfectly good enough.

In the 1960s we had SLRs with which couldn't give a bright image and calculate exposure at the same time.

In the 1970s (K mount etc) drove everyone to update to get "wide open" metering

In the 1980s a new revision of body and electronics drove people to update to get program and Tv exposure modes.

In the 1990s Autofocus drove people to update , and from the late 80s lens designs improved with the aid of computers and computer controlled machinery produced better lenses.

In the 2000s it was digital.

In the 2010s what ? SLRS could shoot video, had live view. Pentax had been doing stabilization in the body since 2005 or 2006, so Nikon and Canon found they couldn't maintain the lie that in-lens was the only way to do that. Phone cameras have destroyed the market for compacts.

Once we got to 15-20MP who needed more pixels? If Iso 25600 is workable and you have IBIS, AF that works, accurate exposure with enough latitude to cope with some errors, a 500-1000 shot battery - what is going to make you buy another camera ?

For Nikon and Canon MILCs are a way to sell people one last camera and some lenses. It has nothing to do with being better to use, its about squeezing the last bit of revenue out of the volume interchangeable lens camera market while it is still a volume market.

GossCTP said:

The principal difference is that for binoculars, the end product is what they deliver to your eyes. For a viewfinder, the end product is a photograph. Whether one viewfinder type is prettier to look through is irrelevant to the final image.

Click to expand...

Absolutely NOT. If I'm doing any kind of artistic image based on the quality of light falling on a subject, as opposed to so technical photographic task, the quality of what I see in the OVF is completely relevant. If it doesn't look good in the VF, I won't even take the picture.

An EVF is just a target acquisition device, like the eyes of a killer drone. It's there to get a job done, not to provide an aesthetic experience.