On 2/11/07 12:32 PM, "Adam Maas", <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The real issue with EVF's isn't resolution or refresh rate. Those are > both merely engineering issues. The real issue is lag. EVF's are > inherently laggy. Optical viewfinders inherently aren't. > > I see EVF SLR-type bodies being successful on the low-end of the DSLR > market. But the lag issue will kill them on the pro and semi-pro markets > (The former because it causes problems, the latter because of the former). When I said refreshing rate, I was talking about lag. Sorry if I misused the terminology. Industry has been well aware of these problems, but they apparently have been researching this quietly. For example, organic LED has no lag and very little power consumption, although I do not know if that's the direction they are going. Bur EVFs which have been used to date are rudimentary just to satisfy certain segment of class, obviously not appropriate for DSLR. And as long as DSLRs use mirrors and clumsy mirror box etc, there was absolutely no reason to abandon optical finders. But if mirror return mechanism is gone, expensive prism be3 eliminated, enough space created in body, new mount/lens design possibility opens and display/zoom in/zoom out could be easily achieved by electronic viewfinder. However, you are right. When we discuss any possibility of EVF, we are obviously not referring to those being used on some of "neo-DSLR" etc. We are now talking about "perfect" EVF. This is given in this discussion. Even if the EVF is just "near perfect" at this point, but the elimination of return-mirror would give us more benefits, I would seriously consider and embrace it. Development of finders alternative to optical one seems to be a tide. Ken -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
