Pentax FF Dead, Maybe

Personally I really like EVF's. It's not comparable to looking at an lcd screen at all, as it's not affected by ambient light. The one on my Nex 5N is superb, it gives a perfectly clear image, plus it gives you a view of what the sensor is actually capturing rather than what the eye sees. For IR an EVF is really the only sensible option, but I'd also be perfectly happy with one on a normal camera. A FF mirrorless camera would in fact be preferable for me to a DSLR. Times move on and the technology improves, and EVF's, to my mind, have no disadvantages yet many advantages.

One huge disadvantage of EVFs is you can't quickly look through the camera without switching it on. They also lag when panned. The colour balance can be dreadful. They don't all have enough resolution.

A good pentaprism gives a superb, real world image that is sharp, crisp and unwavering.

However, for those who want an EVF they exist aplenty.

Optical viewfinder every time.....I just wish they had built one into the Q

Nikon and Pentax both have patented hybrid displays...

The best EVFs are light years away from the almost unusable kind of thing you get in a mass market bridge camera.

The new generation used by Sony, Olympus, Fuji, et al in their system cameras is pretty good to work with - often offering a larger screen than APSC OVF and very useful for showing what final exposure will look like (if you set them up that way). The viewfinder in something like the X5 simply doesn't compare...it's horrid.

But even the best EVFs do still have a short time lag, which can be an issue for rapidly moving subjects, and they are not best suited to continuous shooting. But for many people who've not tried them, they may be surprisingly good and offer some major advantages.

The experience is nothing like shooting with a rear LCD and shouldn't be confused with that.

Which is maybe what is meant by the 'hybrid camera' in the link you posted earlier (Don).

The big problem with the rear LCD and possibly an EVF is
that it uses a different aperture to what you are using
on the lens..... so DOF could be miles out. You could have
f/1.4 on the lens and LV is using f/11

This also makes focusing difficult.

--

A big driver of this will be the video component, as that essentially uses live view every time. If that is the focus there is simply no need for a mirror/optical viewfinder at all.

I'm in the camp too that I prefer an optical viewfinder and I personally also don't think that it necessarily adds that much bulk either. All the mirrorless options I've seen are definitely smaller, but they're not compact size by the time you put the lenses on. Yes if it's a prime native to that camera mount, but no if you're using an adapter to put your pentax lens on it.

As above I think the solution I'd want is a wide angle to telephoto compact. And heck, why not make that full frame size if it helps with the wide angles etc. But yeah for me, I need a compact with good image quality and video capability, to be my portable camera much like cell phones are becoming, but with better image quality. And then the 'proper' DSLR with Optical Viewfinder. That would work for me

not sure where you're going with this one Algi, since the exact same thing is true of an OVF unless you kick the DoF Preview in. Arguably an EVF is better for this, since it can use a longer exposure/higher ISO to capture the DoF Preview image and thus avoid the dark viewfinder associated with that function on an OVF.

Don't get me wrong, even having looked through the highly impressive EVFs on recent Olympus's I still wouldn't give up my Pentaprism willingly, I just don't think this is a useful line of argument.

I guess the problem for me is that recent developments have tended to add features that are of no real interest to me. Video leaves me cold and super fast shooting has no appeal. I appreciate that I may be in a minority, but I just want a camera that in combination with good glass provides the best possible IQ.
I think we are getting close to the limit with cropped sensors. Yes I'm sure high ISO performance has a way to go, but a quick analysis of my exif data shows 90% of my shots are between ISO 100 and 400.

I have a suspicion that some of the recent improvements are a result of in camera processing of the RAW file. In other words RAW files are not really RAW. I freely admit I have no proof to support this statement, but the point I want to make is that I want my RAW files to be RAW. I want to be in control of any post processing.

This reminds me in someway of video recorders and the plethora of useless features manufactures added
when all users really wanted was a machine that recorded TV programmes with good fidelity.

Apologies for the rant like tone of the post.

Regards Steve

RAW files have never been totally 100% RAW as a certain amount of processing is needed to make sense of the Bayer grid info and merge it into a full colour image at every pixel site.

Of course, but there's a sensible threshold with this surely? Is anyone that much of a RAW purist in that they want control of the low level processing done to turn the electronic signals come from the sensor into the non processed basic picture?

Absolutely, it would take the concept of geekiness to new stratospheric heights. The only question is raises is how much this initial processing affects the final result. I've often said I like "Pentax colour", which is fine in terms of the JPEG output, but perhaps it's also already embedded into the RAW file as well, to some degree.

Certainly IMHO Pentax make more of Sony sensors than Sony do themselves.

Sure, but then we're getting into the realms of choosing a particular camera which provides an output that excites us.

Even a lens imparts some initial "processing" that affects the final result and people choose lenses with that in mind.

If people want total control over everything then their only option is to design and build a camera and lenses themselves which is suited to their personal particular needs. Otherwise they have to leave some of the "photon to digital data" conversion to others and buy the camera/lens hardware which most resonates with their vision.

The scenario of worrying about what is going on between photons and the RAW File is taking things to the nonsensical level IMO. People have to be sensible and accept a camera's basic image data for all practical purposes includes some post sensor data management and processing before a RAW file is outputted.

I am in agreement with you both on this, I have no desire to get back to 'photons'. I should have chosen my words better. It is a question of degrees and amount of processing that takes place.

Regards Steve