Does everyone want large bodied, full frame bodies?

[bfitzgerald]

I've 35mm bodies smaller than some APS-C one the challenge is to be able to pack all that stuff into a body. I'd love to get back to 35mm FF but it's too costly right now.
The new Pentax system looks very appealing I think they've done a decent job on that.

[Dusty]

I don't think that the cameras are too big (but them I still have MF and an 4x5 view camera!) for all that's in them. None of the AF models, including the film ones, are as compact as my x700, but it doesn't have to have a focusing motor, large battery pack, live-view, etc., etc., etc.......

As electronic components get smaller and smaller, and consume less and less power, we may see a shaving of the edges on FF DSLRs. I like much more the Sony version of buy the body and add the grip over the Canikon supersized body w/ built in grip.

Dusty

[Dr. Harout]

... I like much more the Sony version of buy the body and add the grip over the Canikon supersized body w/ built in grip.

Dusty

That makes us 2.

[Mr_Canuck]

We're going to see the EVF taking over, I guarantee it. Think of how both amateurs and pro video shooters rely now on EVF or flip out or external monitors for their shooting. It's only a matter of time as they improve, eliminate ghosting, increase resolution and handle low light.

For my part, I like the a850 because of it's viewfinder. As an enthusiast who takes pictures of everything, I would love something smaller however. I am happiest with my smallish 50 macro or 35/2 on the a850. But why would manufacturers go to smaller FF when APSC resolutions are pushing 20mp and the noise management is improving every six months?

There are always a few purists, but lots and lots of others who willingly adapt to technological advances with whatever compromises come with it.

[bfitzgerald]

I wouldn't call OVF users purists. You're still stuck with viewing all this analogue in the end anyway no matter what you do..and EVF will never look natural to some shooters. I completely agree with them. Video is nice but frankly I'm not willing to give up an OVF for it..and you don't have to plenty of video capable DSLR's, live view as well on the back LCD..some folks are never satisfied.

I'd goof about with video but it's really a nice add on rather than an essential requirement. A lot of photographers feel the same. Stills rules and is the most important. I've seen enough wannabe movie director DSLR videos with cheesy music and shallow DOF to last a lifetime. Yawn..it's just another gimmick phase folks are working though. Until of course we get to 4320p extra HD video.

I guess you could call stills shooters purists if you want..reality is video and stills are completely different.

[WaltKnapp]

We're going to see the EVF taking over, I guarantee it. Think of how both amateurs and pro video shooters rely now on EVF or flip out or external monitors for their shooting. It's only a matter of time as they improve, eliminate ghosting, increase resolution and handle low light.

Video is very low resolution at best, way below the resolution of current DSLRs. Thus shooting it can tolerate EVF much easier than stills can.

It will be very bad for stills if the standard for viewfinders is video.

EVF should go back to the drawing board and spend that time and then come reapply for use in high level still photography. Once in a camera they are not upgradable to those future imaginary ones without all the problems.

Walt

[mike2008]

I wouldn't call OVF users purists. You're still stuck with viewing all this analogue in the end anyway no matter what you do..and EVF will never look natural to some shooters. I completely agree with them. Video is nice but frankly I'm not willing to give up an OVF for it..and you don't have to plenty of video capable DSLR's, live view as well on the back LCD..some folks are never satisfied.

I'd goof about with video but it's really a nice add on rather than an essential requirement. A lot of photographers feel the same. Stills rules and is the most important. I've seen enough wannabe movie director DSLR videos with cheesy music and shallow DOF to last a lifetime. Yawn..it's just another gimmick phase folks are working though. Until of course we get to 4320p extra HD video.

I guess you could call stills shooters purists if you want..reality is video and stills are completely different.

The thing you consistently fail to see is that as a tills shooter I want the biggest brightest viewfinder I can get with 100% view so I can accurately compose my shot. If I comppare an A380 with an A33 it would be easier to compose with the EVF based A33 thanks to th elarger bright EVF. It's still photography that has improved at the low end, not video, imo. Well I know I won't convinve you, but I will be very happy with the A55 when it comes. Already we see more and more reportes indicating improved AF and IQ even better than A700. The A77 whenit comes could be a real competitior for the D7000, as opposed to a simple copy (as you were advoacting) which would bomb.

[alphaomega]

Already we see more and more reportes indicating improved AF and IQ even better than A700. The A77 whenit comes could be a real competitior for the D7000, as opposed to a simple copy (as you were advoacting) which would bomb.

I think mike2008 is more right than wrong here. Sony cannot beat CAN/NIK in the traditional DSLR corner. They are trying new concepts. The point is that there are only so many Barry Fitzgeralds in this world and a lot of other potential users that have been brought up on ipods and what have you and are used to EVF type displays in everything they use. I will probably stay with OVF and purchase the A580 next year, but the up and coming long term users are EVF and displays users galore. I thing Sony are on to something. If you cannot beat them at their own game invent your own superior one and invite the public to participate. The so-called upgraders from P&S are all addicted to electronic displays and probably would never desire old type OVFs. It could very well be that Sony have just caught CAN/NIK napping and probably only Canon have the technology to try and catch up. This development is moving more into Panasonic and Samsung territory.

[KevinBarrett]

How does the dynamic range of the EVF compare to the DR of the human eye and what it can see in an optical viewfinder? I foresee many SLR/SLT users being extraordinarily pleased with their Sony SLT cameras because the picture captured is so very much more detailed and pleasing than what they saw in the viewfinder. I don't know whether I should call this clever, cheating, or an accidental/mixed perk.

[Greg Beetham]

Actually KB you know the answer to that one quite well, the human eye has a far greater range than any electronic device, but who is going too remember 'after the fact' back home and having downloaded the images taken earlier if you saw what the device recorded agrees with what the eye could see....if the eye didn't actually see the various scenes/subjects directly in the first place while composing the photo. I guess the best you could say about an EVF is that it might match the capabilities of the recording device more closely than that which the human eye could see through an OVF.
Who knows if we keep inventing ways too remove direct contact with everything the song 2525 might even come true http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Uw7phR9 ... re=related ,we could evolve into some sortof soft round thing with vestigal arms, legs, eyes etc. that resides in a giant humicrib and 'connected' to everything necessary, wow wouldn't that be exciting....then along comes 'visitors' one day maybe and decides soft round things might be good too eat....
Greg

[agorabasta]

A more valid Q about the DR of EVF would be how does it really compare to the DR of a good monitor. A comparison to the DR of printed media would be totally useless - there's no DR to talk about in the prints.

So a good EVF must be a good representation of the image that may be effectively captured, and not of the 'reality' as seen by the eye. That's because the captured image is the thing that you keep. The OVF image, on the other hand, is mere glimpse, no matter how pretty.

[Greg Beetham]

Yes that's more or less what I was saying, only thing is, I am considering it from the viewpoint <-ha, of the actual image being the thing that was desirable enough to photograph in the first place. So THAT'S the capability the designers of cameras should be striving too achieve, capturing the composure as seen by the eye as closely as possible, not an interpretaton by a bunch of electronic gizmos that still doesn't possess the dynamic range of the human eye, therefore as I see it, the advent of EVF's is a good thing for designers, they can sit back and relax a bit now that the photos will in all likelyhood resemble more closely what the eye saw through the VF...er EVF.
Actually why even bother, why not have a complete compressed library of professionally taken photos of everything inbuilt, and when someone takes a photo of something the camera searches through the database and selects the appropriate matching photo to replace your photo with, the camera could automatically do cutting and pasting of people into the pro photos too, just think of the advantages, your holiday snappers would always have perfect weather and perfect composure exposure etc.
Greg

[bfitzgerald]

A more valid Q about the DR of EVF would be how does it really compare to the DR of a good monitor. A comparison to the DR of printed media would be totally useless - there's no DR to talk about in the prints.

So a good EVF must be a good representation of the image that may be effectively captured, and not of the 'reality' as seen by the eye. That's because the captured image is the thing that you keep. The OVF image, on the other hand, is mere glimpse, no matter how pretty.

Ok so nobody makes prints! sigh.
I've a great idea let's make a camera bypasses monitors and just directly makes prints (oh wait we already did that oops)

There are lots of issues with EVF's, accuracy of the display. DR and response. If you gain up in low light you have lost WYSIWYG, if you don't you can't see anything! It can't display a flash shot before it's taken , battery consumption far higher, we've seen sensor overheating as well.
A monitor will never rival the look you get through your eye it's a poor substitute.

I find some posters a bit hilarious on this one, to suggest I'm one of a few OVF users in the world who does not want to use an EVF would be a bit off the mark. There are many who share that view.

[Greg Beetham]

That's another reason why I'm not overly keen on EVF's, the main sensor in a DSLR is big and runs hot and it has too be 'on' all the time, using quite a lot of battery power (power that an OVF doesn't use), there is sensor heating for sure (lifespan reduced?) and battery heating also from the continual power drain. Maybe strolling about with the camera off and only turning it on when taking a shot would be ok, but that doesn't address the photographer on assignment working almost continuously for the duration of an event of some type.
Greg

[agorabasta]

Barry, you must've never heard of soft-proofing? Good monitors can simulate print in everything but resolution. In all other respects they have a better image, period.
Prints serve a considerably different purpose, that's it.

And have you ever peered at some 70in HD plasma in portrait orientation adjusted so that it matches the luminosity of a real scene, with no other lights in the room? From some 4m away it looks like a real passage into the real world behind... Go do that with prints!