I tried a mirrorless. Have you?

So my brother-in-law had his new R6 along for Easter. He let me shoot a little with it and his L 85 1.4. Sweet glass, super nice ergonomics with the R6 body. Surprised that the R6 was definitely equal and maybe even superior build-quality wise to my K1.

Then I looked through the viewfinder. Tolerable at best. No dynamic range to the image at all. Everything looked like a cyber nightmare. Ok, so there was no perceptible lag, and I could even tell if something was in focus for the most part. And sure it was bright. Too bright actually. I just really hated it.

So I took his setup and my K1 II with DFA* 50 attached and shot the same scenes with both. The K1 was a joy to compose with. The scene looked beautiful through the lens like it always does. I could see the light.

My brother-in-law loves his new cam, and I do understand why. It's a great piece of kit. But when he says he likes the electronic viewfinder because you see what you're going to get later as a file, I don't understand where that comes from. Those things have no dynamic range! It's not what you're getting in the file later IMO, not even close.

He says that viewfinder is supposed to be a very good one. If that's the state of the art, I may not have a mirrorless for a long time even though I have in fact been eyeing one. 
Have you compared a mirrorless to your k1 or k3 III, and what's your take? If you regularly use both, how does the viewfinder thing work out in practice? Using the R3 had me longing for my K1. But I also long for a lightweight, compact 24 1.4 with eye AF. Looks like I'll never get that in K mount. Is it possible to enjoy both types of systems?

Matt

I had the original A7R, and an NEX7, and tried a Fuji medium format (one of the early releases).

First, I think Nikon's new Z9 may be the best EVF so far, better than the Z6 you tried.

My experience was this: I got along fine with both of my Sony cameras.  It certainly was not like an OVF, but then they carried some other advantages, like focus peaking, seeing the exposure, zebra stripes, and with the A7R an astonishing night vision capability, all while using the viewfinder.  The Fuji I didn't care for---some users are sensitive to flicker with those EVF's and I was one---made it very unpleasant to use.

Your point about the DR is an interesting one, and I'd have to look again.  I finally sold my A7R right at the time I got my K1---I kept the A7R during the first year of my 645Z ownership.  I hardly used the A7R after I got the Z.  The OVF on that camera is fantastic.

The big thing to me , having gone back to OVF's from EVF's, is that with Live View on an EVF camera you can have it both ways.  With an EVF camera it's only an electronic view f the scene.

I definitely prefer a camera with an OVF, but I don't have a problem with a decent EVF. The main thing with mirrorless cameras is their autofocus accuracy & autofocus features like subject detection, eye-detection for humans, animals, & even birds. Since the autofocus system is either embedded into the sensor or they utilize contrast detect, you basically never have to adjust a lens for accuracy like you do with a DSLR. It makes it a lot easier to achieve perfect focus with any native lens. Is the AF 100% accurate & reliable all the time? No, but they nail focus a bit more accurately most of the time than a DSLR.

In the end, both systems have their own set of drawbacks. It ends up being a matter of what the user is willing to to give up in order to get. Some OSPDAF mirrorless bodies suffer from banding. Mirrorless bodies with contrast detect AF kind of suck at continuous autofocus. Mirrorless bodies can lag at times when changing settings since they're almost like a mini-computer. They do offer autofocus modes that most DSLRs can only dream of. DSLRs can suffer from autofocus inaccuracies at times, but you get a real time view with the OVF. Yeah. You give up something for something else.

Though I enjoy shooting my K-50 & K-3II, the few mirrorless bodies that I've used so far have completely blown away the K-3II in autofocus accuracy & speed. All my primes have been adjusted in the K-3II, but there are times where the AF can't seem to nail the focus correctly. But yeah. The EVF can feel a bit weird at times. I guess that one could eventually get used to it, but it's still nothing like an OVF.

I use k1ii and 2 mirrorless systems x and z.

I particularly use k1ii and my wife and my son use x and z.

from my experience with all 3 systems  OVF is a joy to use though why we got the mirrorless because it has better AF and we can buy and sell it easily than Pentax.

it is not the good  or the bad but it is the availability.

alex_virt wrote:

I use a mirrorless Samsung NX30. Very old technology ca. 2014, and it wasn't state of the art even new. No comparison with Pentax optical viewfinders – harsh, contrasty, low DR, and the colours are quite different from the resulting file. However, it has its advantages for manual focusing – magnification and focus peaking.

Another Samsung NX user here ... because of (cheap) availability I've used an NX5, and now an NX11, as a "digital platform" primarily for my Russian r/f lenses, and a few other odd-ball bits and pieces that were difficult/impossible to adapt to my Pentax system,

The viewfinder is "adequate" as a bare minimum compositional aid, but the camera as a whole does a good job of producing good pictures and it is very compact!

I've had opportunity to look through Canon, Nikon , Fujica and possibly other EVF cameras and not been impressed by any of them … it's just not "real"!

Doubtless, they're all capable of producing good images, and if the owners are happy who am I to knock them, but I certainly won't be buying one any time soon

Yes, I use both.  OVF is K5 and KP.  EFV is Zfc and (on loan) Z6ii.  I am primarily a "snapshot" shooter, street, scenics, and some documentary.  All for fun and just for me at this stage of life.

EVF:  I find the Zfc the better "street" shooter.  It achieves focus really fast (and accurate); I can see exposure information more clearly, the whole camera is tiny, inconspicuous, and the 16-50 kit zoom is slower, but equal in quality to the 20/40 and DA Ltd. Pentax lenses I use.  The Z6ii certainly has better ergonomics than the Zfc (which is designed for "style"), and the viewfinder is a bit better, but it has mostly shown me that I don't require a full frame sensor, in fact, I don't like shallower DOF the format provides (not a bokehist here I guess) 

OVF:  Better overall. I agree that the view it presents is more "lifelike."  Also nice that you don't have to turn the camera on to see thru the viewfinder.  It encourages me to operate a bit slower, more deliberately. I like that.  And I'm sure I'd like the new K3iii viewfinder even more.

BOTTOM LINE:  Different systems, different strengths.  I like looking thru the viewfinder of the Pentax better.  But, for me, the Nikon is a "snappier" faster camera to capture a fleeting moment.  I enjoy using both. However, I would be very, very sad if all DSLRs went away.

KL Matt wrote:

So my brother-in-law had his new R6 along for Easter. He let me shoot a little with it and his L 85 1.4. Sweet glass, super nice ergonomics with the R6 body. Surprised that the R6 was definitely equal and maybe even superior build-quality wise to my K1.

Then I looked through the viewfinder. Tolerable at best. No dynamic range to the image at all. Everything looked like a cyber nightmare. Ok, so there was no perceptible lag, and I could even tell if something was in focus for the most part. And sure it was bright. Too bright actually. I just really hated it.

So I took his setup and my K1 II with DFA* 50 attached and shot the same scenes with both. The K1 was a joy to compose with. The scene looked beautiful through the lens like it always does. I could see the light.

My brother-in-law loves his new cam, and I do understand why. It's a great piece of kit. But when he says he likes the electronic viewfinder because you see what you're going to get later as a file, I don't understand where that comes from. Those things have no dynamic range! It's not what you're getting in the file later IMO, not even close.

He says that viewfinder is supposed to be a very good one. If that's the state of the art, I may not have a mirrorless for a long time even though I have in fact been eyeing one.
Have you compared a mirrorless to your k1 or k3 III, and what's your take? If you regularly use both, how does the viewfinder thing work out in practice? Using the R3 had me longing for my K1. But I also long for a lightweight, compact 24 1.4 with eye AF. Looks like I'll never get that in K mount. Is it possible to enjoy both types of systems?

Matt

Sounds like Mirrorless is just not for you.

I have the Canon R6 now and sold all of my Pentax gear to invest more in the Canon ecosystem.  AF is light years ahead for most situations.  Lens selection via adaptors makes it almost as robust if not more so than K Mount (especially if manual focus is fine).  Third party support is basically the same for both.

I have no trouble using an EVF, in fact I have come to prefer it.  I can shoot silently at 20-30 frames a second for birding or events.  I can also slow it down just like a DSLR for landscape work via the LCD panel.

I love Pentax, as id was my first SLR 25 years ago, and I had a K-1 and KP as of this time last year.  But for me, Canon and modern mirrorless gets my money moving forward, and my photos are also better for it alas.

The Squirrel Mafia wrote:

Since the autofocus system is either embedded into the sensor or they utilize contrast detect, you basically never have to adjust a lens for accuracy like you do with a DSLR.

That is a good point - and part of the reason why I'd like to see DSLRs with AF on the main sensor.

With my K-1ii, I have to pretty much calibrate every lens. Works fine after that, but...

Alex

Not the very latest models, though. So yeah, there are a few "latest and greatest" EVFs I haven't seen yet.

Some were quite awful, some decent - but none on the level I'd want to give up on high quality optical viewfinders. And, for me, they're not as comfortable or pleasing in use.

KL Matt wrote:

But when he says he likes the electronic viewfinder because you see what you're going to get later as a file, I don't understand where that comes from.

Marketing, obviously. People are often repeating companies' marketing without realizing it.

Of course, as any good marketing slogan there's a bit of truth behind it. Yes, there's exposure simulation. Yes, the color profile can be roughly approximated by the EVF. Yes, you can see a monochrome image.

But... there are numerous ways in which you won't get what you see (you already mentioned DR). And the problem is, you no longer see what you're photographing; only what the camera can show you - in a hastily captured & processed image.

Which might be fine. Or not.

Alex

KPM2 wrote:

Hello KL Matt

But when he says he likes the electronic viewfinder because you see what you're going to get later as a file, I don't understand where that comes from. Those things have no dynamic range! It's not what you're getting in the file later IMO, not even close.

I think it's good for a JPG and when you will not PP it later. So yes, you see ca.what you get.

I have a question for you that have used modern system cameras with EVF.

In my mind I see three possibilities

1. The view finder might try to show a usable picture, so you can see it and can frame as good as possible. Maybe with possibility to make the image darker and lighter.
2. The view finder might try to emulate an OVF, i.e. if it is darker outside, it is also darker in the EVF. Maybe with the possibility to make the image darker or lighter.
3. The view finder might try to show what you actually get, i.e. if you under expose the image, then it is dark in the view finder.

What do the EVF actually do?

unhappymeal wrote:

Alex Sarbu wrote:

The Squirrel Mafia wrote:

Since the autofocus system is either embedded into the sensor or they utilize contrast detect, you basically never have to adjust a lens for accuracy like you do with a DSLR.

That is a good point - and part of the reason why I'd like to see DSLRs with AF on the main sensor.

With my K-1ii, I have to pretty much calibrate every lens. Works fine after that, but...

Alex

Never having to calibrate a lens is the number one seller of mirrorless for me.

That is the number one reason for me being tempted to switch.

Mike Arledge wrote:

KL Matt wrote:

So my brother-in-law had his new R6 along for Easter. He let me shoot a little with it and his L 85 1.4. Sweet glass, super nice ergonomics with the R6 body. Surprised that the R6 was definitely equal and maybe even superior build-quality wise to my K1.

Then I looked through the viewfinder. Tolerable at best. No dynamic range to the image at all. Everything looked like a cyber nightmare. Ok, so there was no perceptible lag, and I could even tell if something was in focus for the most part. And sure it was bright. Too bright actually. I just really hated it.

So I took his setup and my K1 II with DFA* 50 attached and shot the same scenes with both. The K1 was a joy to compose with. The scene looked beautiful through the lens like it always does. I could see the light.

My brother-in-law loves his new cam, and I do understand why. It's a great piece of kit. But when he says he likes the electronic viewfinder because you see what you're going to get later as a file, I don't understand where that comes from. Those things have no dynamic range! It's not what you're getting in the file later IMO, not even close.

He says that viewfinder is supposed to be a very good one. If that's the state of the art, I may not have a mirrorless for a long time even though I have in fact been eyeing one.
Have you compared a mirrorless to your k1 or k3 III, and what's your take? If you regularly use both, how does the viewfinder thing work out in practice? Using the R3 had me longing for my K1. But I also long for a lightweight, compact 24 1.4 with eye AF. Looks like I'll never get that in K mount. Is it possible to enjoy both types of systems?

Matt

Sounds like Mirrorless is just not for you.

I have the Canon R6 now and sold all of my Pentax gear to invest more in the Canon ecosystem. AF is light years ahead for most situations. Lens selection via adaptors makes it almost as robust if not more so than K Mount (especially if manual focus is fine). Third party support is basically the same for both.

I have no trouble using an EVF, in fact I have come to prefer it. I can shoot silently at 20-30 frames a second for birding or events. I can also slow it down just like a DSLR for landscape work via the LCD panel.

I love Pentax, as id was my first SLR 25 years ago, and I had a K-1 and KP as of this time last year. But for me, Canon and modern mirrorless gets my money moving forward, and my photos are also better for it alas.

Yeah, I agree.

I regularly use both my Pentax DLSR and mirrorless (shot with my Q yesterday). And with an R6 too.

Yes, the R6 is miles ahead of the K-1 and K-3ii in AF. Haven't used the K-3iii.

Of course one can change the EVF brightness. I suppose inexperience with this tech to all sorts of problems. Nor do I "see" a dynamic range problem when I use the R6, but if one doesn't know how to use the EVF I suppose one could blow out everything in its view. And it can be accurate re what's in the final image, although if you shoot raw perhaps not. Again, depends on what the settings are (I once accidentally hit a green slider when setting the profile and things were kind of nuts for a bit). One can do a lot of customization. But an OVF is always a guess.

And I love the manual focus aids in the R6, much better than a K1. It's funny, but the little arrow matching system reminds me of a split screen OVF in a film SLR. Unfortunately it only works with Canon lenses, not adapted Pentax lenses.

The advise to avoid mirrorless is OK, I suppose, but one is going to miss out on a lot of good cameras. Even the Q is fun to use. I love my K-1, and like OVFs for some things, but there are good reasons the OVF is dying out. I hope it's always an option, especially for folks that won't be able to learn to use EVFs, but I'll never limit my shooting to only OVF cameras.