Not pushing, just a reality that mirrorless is going to take over what has been around for 100 years already. You can't stop technology advancements just because you oppose to them.

Take the Amish they still drive horses and use carriages while the whole world is already using cars for years.

The EVF implemented in the 2004 Konica-Minolta A2 was also a revolution in those days...

m43 has been using EVFs from the beginning of that format and Fuji from 2011. Samsung from around 2012. Other companies used EVFs before even that. So I have no idea where you are getting the "Sony's thing" from.

Helpful tip for anyone reading this: The EVF, Live view, and histogram are showing your raw data capture as it would appear given your current jpeg settings (this is for fuji but I can't see why it wouldn't be the same for others). I've set mine to represent as close to the full dynamic range of raw data captured as possible, but there is no viewfinder/histogram that will just show your raw data that I know of. So the good news here is that you can tweak your jpeg settings to tailor your evf to your liking. I go for for a flat profile with low contrast and high dynamic range (similar to log shooting in video). This means that most of my photos look dull and grey until I edit them, but it gives me a better idea of what raw data I actually captured, which is helpful when there are heavy highlights or shadows involved. If your EVF hurts your eyes after a while, you can lower the contrast and sharpness in your jpeg settings and that might help.

People did use to complain about getting headaches from CRTs, though. And even now, many complain about the use of PWM in some LCD and OLED displays.

And if you think 20 fps is enough, you must never have used a 120 fps display. I have, and the difference with 60 is definitely noticeable.

24fps is “enough” for film thanks to the motion blur.

But incandescent lighting has much more inertia than the LEDs used in LCD backlights, so the amplitude of the flickering is much smaller.

For example, you can see in this video: https://youtu.be/9HUrYoqxQpw that the light level never actually goes to zero—one 50th of a second is not long enough for that to happen. For LEDs, though, it is, as can be seen in this measurement of a random Acer monitor: https://i.rtings.com/images/reviews/monitor/acer/gn246hl/gn246hl-backlight-large.jpg

@mrpuggy Film has been traditionally shown at 48fps, with each 24fps frame illuminated twice. Back when this wasn't done was the time of the "flicks".

"The fact that 24Hz (ie film) gives what most people perceive as totally smooth motion tells you something..."

24hz does not give *smooth* motion. 24hz gives *movie* motion, which people are accustomed to.

Completely different things, and everybody can easily discern videos at twice that rate. They're just not that used to it.

It was on our list of candidates, but we left it out as it was a field sequential EVF, which bothers a lot of people with the 'rainbow effect'.

To be fair, a picture of the GH1 does flash by as field-sequential EVFs are mentioned.
Didier

The video is about great moments, field sequential EVFs are just moments.

@DarnGoodPhots.
The G1 EVF was an audacious leap forward. From the review:

"Possibly the biggest barrier to acceptance of the idea of a non-reflex 'SLR' has been the lack of an electronic eye-level display that can come close to offering the clarity of a traditional mirror, focusing screen and pentaprism/mirror system.
...
We've certainly been impressed by the unit. There's still the slight color 'tearing' if you move your eye too quickly (something common to all field sequential viewfinders we've tried), but the sharpness, resolution, refresh rate, brightness and color are excellent. The real revelation is when you try it next to the Olympus E-420 (using our tried and tested method of putting a camera up to each eye); the G1's viewfinder image looks huge (it's at least 50% larger), and a lot brighter"

How soon they forget.

I never experienced this "tearing" so I guess I was lucky to get the full benefit of that EVF.

@Jochels even when you save the result as raw, an EVF is still much closer to the result than an OVF. E.g. when you change white balance, iso, shutter speed, or many other settings, an OVF shows you none of the effects on the result. However, an EVF shows you real-time feedback of your settings! Worlds apart!

I don't know why the facts offended you.
If I posted anything inaccurate or misleading, please let me know and we can correct it and set the record straight.
If you are just upset and attacking me over facts you dislike and don't want anyone to know, well, that is the definition of trolling.

Are you denying the Sony Flagship (according to Sony's own site) has an LCD display that is a good generation behind a camera from 2014? I am sure you know OLED is better technology.

α7R IV has a 5.76m dot OLED viewfinder...
regards

You are confused, Sony's recently announced flagship has a 5.76Mdot EVF and a 1.44Mdot LCD. It's lower end cameras are a bit compromised though.

My apologies for some confusion. I was talking about the recently announce A6600 APSC "premium" camera. The A7R4 has a wonderful (best or near best) EVF, but the A6600 has one from before 2014 it seems,

α6600 "premium" E-mount APS-C camera
https://www.sony.com/electronics/interchangeable-lens-cameras/ilce-6600
The flagship APS-C mirrorless camera officially replaces the Sony a6500,

Some flagship there.

GH4 was released half a year before NX1 and I think it had the very same specs...But it is not a Sony. This is not Sony trolling, if anything it is dpreview trolling but I think it is fair criticism.

Dorian-Gray: Where is it described as flagship? I don't see it in the press release and can't find it on Sony's website either. Dpreview used those words, but it might be just their interpretation.

While it might be disappointing that Sony did not feature the A6600's body better, it's still just their (lower) mid-range camera. The NX1 was the best camera Samsung had ever produced.

Kolyy..let's not get into semantics. Look at the price and where it fits in Sony's APS-c range. That and the fact that 5 years have passed and the argument Dorian makes is still valid.

Semantics is to use the word "flagship" in order to evoke expectations of the most technologically advanced product. The A6600 is mid-range in the Sony line-up and thus it is compromised in some features.

You might make the same argument about the A7 III, which also uses a 2.36Mdot EVF and a 1Mdot LCD. Is it a also generation behind NX1? The point is that these are adequate for the purpose, even if not class leading. Most customers will probably not care. If you want better screens, you have to pay a premium for the high-end products at Sony. You might not like that and some people might decide to switch brands if screen quality is a very high priority for them. To me it's an acceptable compromise, as I rather compromise on the screen than, for example, sensor quality, IBIS, autofocus or size.

And one more thought - the fact that Samsung had to put bleeding edge technologies in a $1500 camera, while Sony can demand a $3000+ price for its premium products may have something to do with the current situation, in which Sony is still selling cameras, while Samsung left many years ago.

Dorian-Gray: your comments were perfectly valid. It was pretty clear to me that you were talking about the A6600. This camera is Sony's APS-C flagship, as stated by Sony themselves, and the NX-1 was Samsung's APS-C flagship. So an apples to apples comparison. In 5 years' time, these particular specs have not been improved on at all in this case. Whether this indicates that the NX-1 was way ahead of its time, or whether Sony are 'holding back' shall we say, is a matter of opinion.

Where is it stated that it is the APS-C "flagship"? I am honestly curious, because I can't find such a description directly from Sony.

Ok, it's not semantics by the true definition of the word, it's a play with the meaning of the words, let's call it a word trick or a strawman. Like this: If you are a real man you'll have no problem jumping off this building. Analogously: It's a flagship, so it should have this or that.

The rest is not subjective in the slightest, it's the description of Sony's long term business strategy as I observe it. Those who paid attention should not be surprised that Sony has not including bleeding edge screens in the A6600.

Look at all these guys making excuses for the 6600's retroness.

Jonby, SLR-style bodies will always have room for a larger EVF so if you want a true apples-to-apples comparison you can't compare SLR-style EVFs to Rangefinder-style EVFs.

I get lots of hits when I google "The iPhone is the best camera".

@kolyy
DP Review called it the flagship apsc camera from Sony as it is the top of the line APSC camera that Sony produces, in the same way as the D500 is the flagship APSC camera from Nikon and the NX1 was the flagship model from Samsung.
Sonys website calls it "Premium E-Mount APSC camera" which infers that it is the top of the line APSC model from Sony. The comparison with the technolgy available in the NX1 is perfectly valid.

Ca Pi, since the EVF is WYSIWYG, how does it not accurately represent exposure for you?

The alternative (OVF) doesn't represent the exposure *at all*.

Its because the Z6 EVF does not always use the apperture the camera takes the shot with, which is a design feature that I think many wish they could switch off.

Sounds bad. With Nikon one should deactivate "active d-lighting" and disable automatic "picture control" if one wants consistent close to raw previews. If you still experience this then it is big design flaw in my eyes.

But the EVF is old as sin in digital photography. Sony had pretty decent split focus ones back in 2003. It's just that EVFs now refresh decently and are installed on single lens interchangeable systems.

Wouldn't the lack of a mirror be the greatest achievement in mirrorless photography.

Richard, call it an "occupational hazard." No matter what you do, someone will accuse you of being on the take. I remember when you were accused of being a Sony hater. Today some say you are a Sony fan. The same is true for Olympus and Canon too. The die-hard gearheads simply cannot believe that it is possible for a company to make better cameras than they did ten years ago.

I will confess that I've been more positive about Sony cameras as they've got better.

But I believe the Sony forum hates my reviews because I continue to point out flaws that they've learned to live with. Sometimes you just can't win.

We all win Richard, as Sony actually listens to feedback. Keep on keeping on, sir!
Btw no fan of Sony

Chris and Jordan joined DPReview last year creating their own DPReview TV series. DPReview TV ≠ DPReview articles. They haven't been bashing EVFs for ten years. Do you mean DPReview collectively? If yes, then that's odd. Because it's not relevant to this video, perhaps post this comment on one of their articles? And if not, then you're wrong automatically. How do you know they hate EVFs, hm? Quite a ludicrous comment to be perfectly honest.

I will certainly give big credit two thumbs up to Sony for their small pop up EVF that they somehow fit into the small RX100 line. The addition made that line better. They are optional to use so those that don't like them (Ricoh GR users, Fuji XF10 users?...I have both) can forget they are there. The new Canon G5X II benefits by having the same design. Small camera with an EVF. I wear glasses now and have no trouble using it. Delicate? My RX100 IV was purhased in 2015 and the EVF is in perfect condition.

The point is.... why does the brand of EVF matter?

Until the day comes when you have a modular camera that can accept components from competing manufacturers, you will be forced to buy the entire camera as it is. If you want a different style of EVF, you will have to buy a different camera.

But we're talking about suppliers, not manufacturers. It's probably fair to assume that Sony's camera division will generally buy its EVF panels from whichever division of Sony makes them, but every other camera maker can pick and choose a supplier.

@shigzeo: but if what one wants to know is whether the display is OLED or LCD, why not ask that directly?

(And what is more “natural” about LCD?)

That reply is a joke, to my joke. How dare you not take a joke!

We got refresh rate instead of resolution in the M1X. At least it’s antialiased, but I will say it’s about as easy to track subjects in it as my D4 is. Thanks to it being progressive, not interlaced.

Terrible Photographer, Nice to see someone that knows a bit about what matters in a display.

If only these EVF wernt 12 years behind what they could/should be.

The OVF in the em1s made me return the body. That can be remedied, Olympus

What about the Sony F717, F828 ?

Hear hear, as far as I know the F717 also pioneered a mixed focus mag and FOV screen where you didn't have to completely divorce one from the other. They did this by putting the magnification inside a small square inside the main frame. Too bad Sony no longer do that and have separated the functionality.

It’s not about closed loop or open loop. It’s about “in focus relative to what?” The image plane or the PDAF sensor plane.

EVFs enable mainstream adoption of Mirrorless technologies. But it is the on-sensor PDAF technology that really solved the MicroAF problem.

Yep. My point is so is the traditional DSLR PDAF. The problem is it’s closed loop to the PDAF sensor which is above the mirror box, not the image sensor which is behind it.

@Steve
Probably wouldn't bother using sound waves for AF. I've seen the future and its not very popular