micro APS-C camera... does it mean EVIL?

Started Mar 3, 2009 | Discussions
alanschamber Senior Member • Posts: 1,200
micro APS-C camera... does it mean EVIL?

I mean... I get the concept for not having the mirror. The distance, the quality of lenses that don't have to be retrofocus... and all those things.

But the thing is... do people REALLY want only it to be an EVIL camera?

Would you buy a micro APS-C camera with a rangefinder??? I would. But... who's with me???

Who would never trade a good optical viewfinder for the EVIL concept nowadays??? I think that there are two basic things that would make me stay of that. First... dynamic range of the viewfinder. And second... frame refresh time and noise when the light is low.... as that's the moment that you need a good viewfinder. And that's where that viewfinder fails most.

I must say... that speaking of rangefinder, doesn't mean to forget about the AF. As it's a contrast type... we can easily have a rangefinder with AF.

And... in case you want to use it as a point and shoot... you can always shoot with the LCD.

What you guys think???

Alan.
--
Progress is not possible without deviation from the norm - Frank Zappa
http://www.schamberalan.blogspot.com

xmeda
xmeda Senior Member • Posts: 1,455
Re: micro APS-C camera... does it mean EVIL?

they should build EVF machine with IN-BUILD hi-quality optical element reducing sensor-to-lens distance, so any standard K mount lens will be usable..

with DA limited pancakes and L lenses from Km, it would be interesting pocket camera/backup body.

-- hide signature --

 xmeda's gear list:xmeda's gear list
Casio QV-R40 Casio Exilim EX-Z110 Olympus XZ-1 Olympus Stylus 1s Pentax K20D +31 more
richardplondon
richardplondon Forum Pro • Posts: 10,993
Re: micro APS-C camera... does it mean EVIL?

alanschamber wrote:

Who would never trade a good optical viewfinder for the EVIL concept
nowadays??? I think that there are two basic things that would make
me stay of that. First... dynamic range of the viewfinder. And
second... frame refresh time and noise when the light is low.... as
that's the moment that you need a good viewfinder. And that's where
that viewfinder fails most.

What you guys think???

How about an accessory optical viewfinder, that would fit onto the hotshoe? This would not make the camera body itself any bigger. And you could still buy the exact same camera body - benefiting from massmarket pricing.

This could mark selected focal lengths with low-tech rule lines, maybe one unit for mid-tele and a second for mid-wide. Or, getting a bit more moderne, perhaps dynamic LCD frame masking or even mechanical zooming of this external viewfinder, linked to the lens focal length detected by the camera? And in situations where the EVF or LCD can be used, just clip the OVF off and put it in a pocket.

RP

 richardplondon's gear list:richardplondon's gear list
Panasonic LX10 Pentax K-5 Sigma 10-20mm F4-5.6 EX DC HSM Pentax smc DA 21mm F3.2 AL Limited Pentax smc DA 70mm F2.4 AL Limited +7 more
dvolk Regular Member • Posts: 301
Re: micro APS-C camera... does it mean EVIL?

It would be difficult to use zooms with a non-TTL viewfinder(?). I imagine a lot of people would frown at that, although it's not a problem for me.

A possible solution would be to have neither an OVF or EVF, but to include an OVF with primes, and have zoom lens users buy an optional EVF.

Ursinho73 Regular Member • Posts: 432
Re: micro APS-C camera... does it mean EVIL?

alanschamber wrote:

I mean... I get the concept for not having the mirror. The distance,
the quality of lenses that don't have to be retrofocus... and all
those things.

But the thing is... do people REALLY want only it to be an EVIL camera?

My position is probably the opposite of yours: I find the entire "micro-concept" entirely useless - but I see a lot of potential in the EVIL concept.

The micro mount is just a marketing story made up by companies who don't have any (D)SLR heritage and thus are in the need to justify their market entry (Panny and Samsung).

The only significant technical advantage of a short registration distance is that wide angle lenses don't need to be of the retrofocus type - and even that was only true for film. In the digital age a very short distance between sensor and rear lens element gives more problems than advantages (just look into the Leica M8).

On the other hand, a micro-mount is always a completely new mount system. It makes all your glass either instantly completely useless or at least requiring some half-baked adapter solutions - not want we really want, isn't it?!

The situation with electronic viewfinders is very different. They sport lots of advantages like being bigger and brighter, cheaper and less fragile, having no mirror slap and less noise, no misalignement issues, no viewfinder housing, less weight, all kinds of information overlay possible, etc., etc.

Sure, they (still) have some disadvantages too, as of now particularly in low-light and fast action situations, and therefore, I wouldn't want to switch TODAY - but as technology advances, they will, rather sooner than later, replace optical viewfinders for good reasons. I am sure looking forward to that.

So, do I want a micro-mount without EVIL? No, I want exactly the opposite - an EVIL camera with our good old K-mount, that is.

Regards,
Hannes

Eike Welk Regular Member • Posts: 153
I Would Prefer EVIL

I think an EVIL camera is better than a rangefinder especially in low light. The electronic viewfinder has amplification. Therefore you see the subject better in an electronic viewfinder than in an optical viewfinder. The noise won't be in the final image, so it's not much of a problem.

The only downside is the lower dynamic range of an electronic viewfinder.

However, I would like to see a second image sensor for distance measurement; which would be an electronic rangefinder. In combination with a laser pointer or pattern projector for low light situations, the camera would have very fast auto focus capabilities.

Additionally a camera with two image sensors could record 3D information.

OP alanschamber Senior Member • Posts: 1,200
What about the other way round?

richardplondon wrote:

alanschamber wrote:

Who would never trade a good optical viewfinder for the EVIL concept
nowadays??? I think that there are two basic things that would make
me stay of that. First... dynamic range of the viewfinder. And
second... frame refresh time and noise when the light is low.... as
that's the moment that you need a good viewfinder. And that's where
that viewfinder fails most.

What you guys think???

How about an accessory optical viewfinder, that would fit onto the
hotshoe? This would not make the camera body itself any bigger. And
you could still buy the exact same camera body - benefiting from
massmarket pricing.

This could mark selected focal lengths with low-tech rule lines,
maybe one unit for mid-tele and a second for mid-wide. Or, getting a
bit more moderne, perhaps dynamic LCD frame masking or even
mechanical zooming of this external viewfinder, linked to the lens
focal length detected by the camera? And in situations where the EVF
or LCD can be used, just clip the OVF off and put it in a pocket.

I mean... it's easier to frame with an EVIL if it has the connector in the hot shoe, rather than having the optical viewfinder there. The perspective changes if it's up there... while it doesn't if the EVF is the one that's up.

Even... a camera like the one I said... can have as an accessory in the same box for having that EVF, that mounts in the hot shoe. That way... everyone's happy (but it wouldn't be the case... we know that... I' just saying that it would be perfect)

Alan Schamber.
--
Progress is not possible without deviation from the norm - Frank Zappa
http://www.schamberalan.blogspot.com

OP alanschamber Senior Member • Posts: 1,200
That's not a problem...

dvolk wrote:

It would be difficult to use zooms with a non-TTL viewfinder(?). I
imagine a lot of people would frown at that, although it's not a
problem for me.

We are talking about a 100% electronic mount. So... having a the frames changing the way it looks actually the same way as the angle of view varies, shouldn't be difficult. After all... it's just a couple of leds that change with the information that the camera recieves. Or... it changes just when you half press the shot button. Who knows...

And... I still believe that it would be better to give people a rangefinder camera, but also give them the accessory for having an EVF via the hot shoe.

Alan.
--
Progress is not possible without deviation from the norm - Frank Zappa
http://www.schamberalan.blogspot.com

OP alanschamber Senior Member • Posts: 1,200
Re: micro APS-C camera... does it mean EVIL?

Ursinho73 wrote:

alanschamber wrote:

I mean... I get the concept for not having the mirror. The distance,
the quality of lenses that don't have to be retrofocus... and all
those things.

But the thing is... do people REALLY want only it to be an EVIL camera?

My position is probably the opposite of yours: I find the entire
"micro-concept" entirely useless - but I see a lot of potential in
the EVIL concept.

The micro mount is just a marketing story made up by companies who
don't have any (D)SLR heritage and thus are in the need to justify
their market entry (Panny and Samsung).

The only significant technical advantage of a short registration
distance is that wide angle lenses don't need to be of the retrofocus
type - and even that was only true for film. In the digital age a
very short distance between sensor and rear lens element gives more
problems than advantages (just look into the Leica M8).

On the other hand, a micro-mount is always a completely new mount
system. It makes all your glass either instantly completely useless
or at least requiring some half-baked adapter solutions - not want we
really want, isn't it?!

The situation with electronic viewfinders is very different. They
sport lots of advantages like being bigger and brighter, cheaper and
less fragile, having no mirror slap and less noise, no misalignement
issues, no viewfinder housing, less weight, all kinds of information
overlay possible, etc., etc.

Sure, they (still) have some disadvantages too, as of now
particularly in low-light and fast action situations, and therefore,
I wouldn't want to switch TODAY - but as technology advances, they
will, rather sooner than later, replace optical viewfinders for good
reasons. I am sure looking forward to that.

So, do I want a micro-mount without EVIL? No, I want exactly the
opposite - an EVIL camera with our good old K-mount, that is.

But I'm talking about a rangefinder... there is not misalignement problems, or mirror... the only noise would be the shutter... but it can be reduced, or just taken out as technology advances.

And I know that there are problems with rangefinder lenses and Leica M8... but still is a different way to live photography. The EVIL concept, is trying to replace the DSRL. I am talking about an hybrid that can be a rangefinder, and still make it easily sellable. I mean... all those guys that ever dream about having a Leica M8, or even a Leica... would end up with Pentax, as it's a real rangefinder. And still, it will get the other people to want it, because of the EVIL concept, and the bigger sensor than the micro 4/3s.

Alan.
--
Progress is not possible without deviation from the norm - Frank Zappa
http://www.schamberalan.blogspot.com

OP alanschamber Senior Member • Posts: 1,200
Re: I Would Prefer EVIL

Eike Welk wrote:

I think an EVIL camera is better than a rangefinder especially in low
light. The electronic viewfinder has amplification. Therefore you see
the subject better in an electronic viewfinder than in an optical
viewfinder. The noise won't be in the final image, so it's not much
of a problem.

The only downside is the lower dynamic range of an electronic
viewfinder.

Have you ever shot with a rangefinder? The viewfinder is huge. The amplification is not a problem. And the way that rangefinder focuses, there is no way you can have an out of focus image if you know what you are doing.

It's even a different experience. It's not the same to see the whole scene, than just seeing only the final frame. That's the point of DSRL... the viewfinder. And EVIL cameras would just replace the mirror and put closer the lens to the sensor. But I'm talking about something else. I think that in the near future there is no way that there will be the technology to make excellent EV for every condition. So... I propose to make a camera that has the rangefinder, and can have also as a hot shoe accessory for the EV, to compliment DSRL. The thing is... rangefinder cameras, and also EVIL cameras, are best suited for wide angle lenses. So... people will not throw away their DSRL... but rather buy a body and some wide lenses. If the camera is well designed... I think that every pro, and every serious amateur will end up with one.

However, I would like to see a second image sensor for distance
measurement; which would be an electronic rangefinder. In combination
with a laser pointer or pattern projector for low light situations,
the camera would have very fast auto focus capabilities.

Additionally a camera with two image sensors could record 3D
information.

-- hide signature --

Progress is not possible without deviation from the norm - Frank Zappa
http://www.schamberalan.blogspot.com

Anastigmat Forum Pro • Posts: 12,680
Re: micro APS-C camera... does it mean EVIL?

alanschamber wrote:

I mean... I get the concept for not having the mirror. The distance,
the quality of lenses that don't have to be retrofocus... and all
those things.

But the thing is... do people REALLY want only it to be an EVIL camera?

The definition of an "EVIL" camera is one that does not have a mirror, not because they frame people better. LOL

OP alanschamber Senior Member • Posts: 1,200
EVIL... EV... Electronic Viewfinder (n/t)
-- hide signature --

Progress is not possible without deviation from the norm - Frank Zappa
http://www.schamberalan.blogspot.com

Ursinho73 Regular Member • Posts: 432
Re: micro APS-C camera... does it mean EVIL?

alanschamber wrote:

Ursinho73 wrote:
So, do I want a micro-mount without EVIL? No, I want exactly the
opposite - an EVIL camera with our good old K-mount, that is.

But I'm talking about a rangefinder... all those guys that ever dream about
having a Leica M8, or even a Leica... would end up with Pentax, as it's a
real rangefinder.

Well, maybe you caused some confusion with all your talk about micro(-mounts), EVILs and hybrids. If it is just a plain viewfinder camera your are longing for, than the answer is already given. In the past five to six decades millions of (advanced) photographers voted with their money that viewfinder cameras are inferior to SLRs and nothing more but niche products. Pentax very much spearheaded that development.

Have you ever shot with a rangefinder? The viewfinder is huge.

A viewfinder is huge? In comparison to a SLR? Or the even bigger EV? Certainly not.

EVIL cameras would just replace the
mirror and put closer the lens to the sensor.

It seems that you're mixing the concepts of EVIL (mirror replacement) and micro-mounts (shorter registration distance) here - but they have nothing to do with each other.

So... I propose to make a camera that has the rangefinder,
and can have also as a hot shoe accessory for the EV,

Sorry, but a total of 3 different viewers (optical viewfinder + electronical viewfinder + LCD) seems a bit over the top for a supposedly small camera body.

DSRL. The thing is... rangefinder cameras, and also EVIL cameras, are
best suited for wide angle lenses.

Nope. Electronic viewfinders are not limited to a certain range of focal lengths - only rangefinders are. That's why they are relatively unpopular.

So... people will not throw away
their DSRL... but rather buy a body and some wide lenses. If the
camera is well designed... I think that every pro, and every serious
amateur will end up with one.

Calling that a bit over-optimistic is certainly not an exaggeration.

Bottomline is, that a viewfinder camera - with or without some hot shoe accessory - should be (and quite likely is) on the very bottom of Pentax' priority list. Sorry.

However, if Pentax would introduce a camera body that has the LOOK, SIZE and FEEL of a viewfinder camera (i.e. small, box-shaped with no grip and no viewfinder housing) but with the regular K-mount and through-the-lens viewfinder (EVIL), than they might have created the perfect Limited-body to go with the pancakes.

Regards,
Hannes

LKeithR Veteran Member • Posts: 4,090
Re: micro APS-C camera... does it mean EVIL?

Well, I already use an EV camera (my sigma DP1) so I have no problem with that concept. My biggest issue with the IL part of the acronym would be having to acquire a whole new stable of lenses. I doubt if I'd want to start down that road again.

A general comment on the whole concept of EV cameras: Millions of young people using point and shoot cameras today don't even know what an optical viewfinder is. In 5-10 years when they begin moving to higher level cameras I doubt if they will be at all bothered about not having an optical viewfinder on their camera of choice...
--
Look at the picture, not the pixels...
http://www.lkeithr.zenfolio.com

Sean Nelson
Sean Nelson Forum Pro • Posts: 13,810
Re: micro APS-C camera... does it mean EVIL?

The Panasonic G1 sets the standard for what's possible with an electronic viewfinder. I've tried it and I'm very impressed. It's as large as any viewfinder I've ever used, bright, and much clearer than I expected. It has the advantage of being able to show information like histograms, simulated exposure, etc, and in manual focus mode the automatic magnification of the subject makes it ridiculously easy to focus.

The only disadvantage I can see for this type of viewfinder is its lag time, but I rarely shoot subjects for which that would be an issue.

Sometime in the next few years I expect to be buying one of these, because it's the best viewfinder technology I've seen yet. It sure would be nice if I could buy a Pentax...

OP alanschamber Senior Member • Posts: 1,200
What about in low light???

I mean... there are two places that LCDs and viewfinders use to be bad. First... harsh sunlight... but being a viewfinder, we can forget about that (except for dynamic range). And second... the low light focusing, and low light viewing. I haven't tried the G1 yet, but still most have said that it's not good for that. It even shows noise...

Optical viewfinders... are better in both those situations, and I don't think is gonna change in the near future.

Alan.
--
Progress is not possible without deviation from the norm - Frank Zappa
http://www.schamberalan.blogspot.com

Alan Granger
Alan Granger Contributing Member • Posts: 564
Re: What about in low light???

Sooner than we think, the mirror is going to go away. It's mechanical, it's relatively slow, it's large.Makes shooting video more difficult. And people want video. No need for any pentamirror prism. What we are going to see in the next 3 or 4 years is going to be scary.Such as research being done now on a lens that is in focus at all distances at all focal lengths, with the added ability to allow selective out of focus, somewhat like picking the focus point on an slr.

You already can see some astounding images out of camcorders out of those little bitty sensors.

Also the extreme high effective ISO's seen in some Nikons. Shake reduction. Who will need it?
--

 Alan Granger's gear list:Alan Granger's gear list
Pentax K-5 Nikon D800E Pentax K-3 Pentax smc FA 50mm F1.4 Pentax smc DA* 16-50mm F2.8 ED AL (IF) SDM +6 more
bg2b Contributing Member • Posts: 897
Re: What about in low light???

Depends on the lens you're using. With the slow kit lens, yes it gets dark and hard to see when you turn out the lights, but then again, so did my D40. Stick a fast lens on it, and it's just peachy. Try it for yourself if you get a chance--you might be surprised.

Ursinho73 Regular Member • Posts: 432
Re: What about in low light???

alanschamber wrote:

I haven't tried the G1 yet, but
still most have said that it's not good (...)
Optical viewfinders... are better

Alan, it's usually not very wise to judge things one doesn't really know.

Like many others stated here before, the EVF is already a pretty advanced technology. Only the very best SLRs can still compete - and even that is only true in certain situations.

At last year's Photokina, I had the opportunity to compare a G1 EVF almost side by side to a Leica rangefinder. Believe me, in the total of their characteristics the EVF simply blew away the rangefinder! The few areas where the optical viewfinder (still) holds its ground are not a good enough reason to try to turn back the wheel of time.

Progress is not possible without deviation from the norm - Frank Zappa

True ... and rangefinders were the norm of the first half of the last century. Let's get over it and concentrate on what we want future technologies to do for us.

Regards,
Hannes

OP alanschamber Senior Member • Posts: 1,200
Re: What about in low light???

Alan Granger wrote:

Sooner than we think, the mirror is going to go away. It's
mechanical, it's relatively slow, it's large.Makes shooting video
more difficult. And people want video. No need for any pentamirror
prism. What we are going to see in the next 3 or 4 years is going to
be scary.Such as research being done now on a lens that is in focus
at all distances at all focal lengths, with the added ability to
allow selective out of focus, somewhat like picking the focus point
on an slr.

You already can see some astounding images out of camcorders out of
those little bitty sensors.

Also the extreme high effective ISO's seen in some Nikons. Shake
reduction. Who will need it?

Ever tried to use a low shooting speed for creative purposes? High ISO is not everything.

And no matter how hard they will try... a good pentaprism is never going to be worse than an EV. Bulk??? Yes... but as you have seen... the EVIL concept is more for the low end of the DSRL... to replace them. But in the high end, and a great part of the mid level DSRL... that 's not the case.

Alan.
--
Progress is not possible without deviation from the norm - Frank Zappa
http://www.schamberalan.blogspot.com

Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads