Just another argument in favor of a FF DSLR from Pentax. bigger and
brighter viewfinder.
On 1/29/2014 1:30 AM, Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote:
I don't believe in the notion that EVFs are primarily intended to be cost
reduction. At the present time, they represent the second most expensive single
component in these cameras, the primary imager sensor itself being the first
most expensive. Inexpensive pentaprism viewfinder technology is very very
mature and not particularly expensive. Pro-grade pentaprism viewfinder cameras
do carry a hefty bit of premium based on the cost of the reflex viewfinder.
In this regard, the Olympus E-M1 is very interesting… It replaces the E-5
model, shrinks the whole package in size/weight by about 30%, same build
quality, has an improved sensor, better responsiveness, and the viewfinder is
(to my eyes at least) substantially improved. And it does cost $400 less MSRP
than the E-5 did on introduction …
The real key is that EVFs are superior to reflex finders for formats that are
smaller than 35mm FF. There are too many losses in illumination and viewfinder
quality stemming from the reduction in focusing screen area. The Pentax K5/K3
have one of the best reflex viewfinders in the APS-C space, and how many times
do people here wish for something bigger/brighter/etc to match their old 35mm
film SLR? Simple physics precludes it … the illuminating source in an APS-C
100% coverage reflex viewfinder is only 45% the area of the 35mm format camera,
so you're losing a little more than half the area, and thus half the light
transmission.
G
On Jan 28, 2014, at 8:07 PM, P.J. Alling <webstertwenty...@gmail.com> wrote:
We haven't seen a lot of cost reduction so far from using EVFs. Take for
example two roughly equivalent cameras an EVF Olympus OM-D EM-1 at 16mp and the
K-5II. The cameras spec sheets are very similar, weather sealed, Magnesium
alloy bodies, With really about equal IQ, both have weather sealing available
battery grips, The Oly has arguably one of the best EVFs on a m43 camera, the
Pentax one of the best OVFs on an APS-C DSLR. MSRP at introduction for each was
within $100.00 of other.
Now admittedly when you look at FF cameras, the Sony A7 twins sell for
considerably less than the Nikon D800 and D610 but based on some of the reviews
I've read, I think that Sony may have cut some corners in the imaging train to
achieve those numbers, but where you can see roughly equivalent cameras one
with an EVF and one with an OVF that have roughly the same build quality and
image quality, they seem to sell for roughly the same price, and I expect they
have roughly the same profit margin per unit.
There are distinct advantages to both types of viewfinders, which I don't think
I have to go into, you can prefer the advantages of either or use both or hate
both and use Leica, if you can afford it.
No matter what the advantages or disadvantages of EVFs may be, they will not
replace OVFs until the manufacturing complexity and cost of a good EVF is
significantly lower than a good Pentaprism OVF and based on pricing, which is
the only real data I have, I think that using an EVF just replaces one source
of cost and type of manufacturing complexity with another.
The thought that EVFs have to be better, or even equal to OVFs as a user experience, to
replace them isn't really an issue. I don't like EVFs all that much, but I've looked
through the OM-D EM-1 viewfinder, as far as viewfinder quality is concerned, that EVF is
"good enough" now, for most applications.
As I said I don't like 'em, but if EVFs offered a big enough manufacturing
advantage Pentaprism viewfinders would be gone tomorrow.
--
J.C. O'Connell
hifis...@gate.net
--
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow
the directions.
