It took a long time ...

[agorabasta]

agorabasta, probably when they can make an EVF/OVF that doesn't use any power, ...

That 'when' is a yesterday's tomorrow. Just switch the hybrid viewfinder to OVF view and save the juice.

[Greg Beetham]

OVF are 100% a byproduct of PDAF system and not the other way around. This is especially true in digital age where all current DSLRs are stuck with OVF because PDAF requires a mirror to split the light.

This is not a "plus". It's a negative (and at best, to be charitable, a byproduct of AF design).

Do you know what a 'by-product' is? One could say you get the by-product of Cobalt when you smelt Nickel ore, but to say an OVF is a by-product of the PDAF system is incomprehensible....to say the least.
Greg

[Greg Beetham]

agorabasta, probably when they can make an EVF/OVF that doesn't use any power, ...

That 'when' is a yesterday's tomorrow. Just switch the hybrid viewfinder to OVF view and save the juice.

Sounds good, but how good is it in practise? what we need is an auto gain type effect that switches over when the light drops below a preset threshold.
Greg

[agorabasta]

Greg, at this point in history ( ) I do the switch myself. I simply switch between OVF/EVF bodies. Works wonders.

[OneGuyKs]

to say an OVF is a by-product of the PDAF system is incomprehensible....to say the least.
Greg

It sure is PDAF needs a mirror to split the light. Some of the light goes to AF sensor, and the rest is your OVF.

Why do you think SLT cameras have a mirror? Would it not have been nicer if pdaf worked without SLT mirror? It doesn't unfortunately. You are in the same "boat". DSLRs don't have EVF because they don't have a choice. They need a mirror to split the light for PDAF sensor. There is your "answer" why 1D and D3 must only have OVF. They are forced to have OVF. There is no alternative.

[agorabasta]

DSLRs don't have EVF because they don't have a choice.

They sure do have a choice. The OVF light may well be fed into a secondary sensor, just as it is with a3xx/a5xx cams, and then that signal may well be presented on some EVF. No sweat!

[bakubo]

In future models someday, CDAF might be used to calibrate lenses that are off and require micro focus adjustments. Sony can add a feature so that the camera can use CDAF to auto calibrate lenses that have front/back focus issues.

You tell us Sony is unable to do various simple things that other companies can do and now you think they might be able to do this? It has been discussed often before on Canon and Nikon forums though. It would be a nice feature.

[UrsaMajor]

OVF are 100% a byproduct of PDAF system and not the other way around. This is especially true in digital age where all current DSLRs are stuck with OVF because PDAF requires a mirror to split the light.

This is not a "plus". It's a negative (and at best, to be charitable, a byproduct of AF design).

I consider these comments to be either examples of very poor command of the English language, or examples of surprising ignorance.

The reason that I say this is that I - along with millions of other people - was using Optical View Finders (OVF) for over 30 years prior to the appearance of the first mass-production auto focus (AF) system - and the OVF entered widespread commercial production more than 20 years before my first usage.

A byproduct is something that occurs as a result of some other action. I fail to see how an OVF can be considered a byproduct of something that did not exist until more than 50 years later.

With best wishes,
- Tom -

[Dusty]

OVF are 100% a byproduct of PDAF system and not the other way around. This is especially true in digital age where all current DSLRs are stuck with OVF because PDAF requires a mirror to split the light.

This is not a "plus". It's a negative (and at best, to be charitable, a byproduct of AF design).

Okay you wet-behind-the-ears, newbie! Let me inform you that I have old, mechanical OVF cameras that pre-date the thought that cameras will one day use any type of automatic focusing system.

For you to say that OVF is a byproduct of PDAF shows that you know NOTHING about what you are talking about. If you had a brain, you'd know that it's now time to shut up!

Dusty

[Greg Beetham]

It seams that you have not had the Sony 28-75 f2.8 in your hands. It is built like the Zeiss lenses, while the KM ain't bad, but it doesn't feel as "professional" grade lens. That (and not the SAM that you dislike) is what make the Sony a 800$ lens.

I do respect the fact that you don't want Video DSRLs and the fact that you find SAM useless -but the example you are providing is not accurate. Nor what someone else said about SAM lenses been noissier than screw drive lenses: I did try side by side the Zeiss 85 f1.4 against the SAM 85 f2.8 and the Zeiss doesn't AF faster and sound like a tractor.

I think we are in the middle of a roundabout where Sony is still deciding about DSRL and SLT -every one somehow related with Sony I spoke with in the last 6 months is not sure of what the next 7 series camera will be SLT only or a DSRL sister will hit the shelves at the same time.

In any case, I don't think we will see any other pure DSRL-non-video camera. From any maker.

Regards

I thought pretty much the same up until Sony came up with the CZ16-80, there was nothing wrong with the optics but the build quality left a lot to be desired, some were ok but there were a lot that weren't, it was a lottery on whether you got a decent copy or not; they lost a lot of cred with me on the point of guaranteed professional standards with that lens; comparing that to my experience of outlaying my hard earned for the Minolta MD's and KM AF lenses (all bought new) I have I can say that I haven't been lumbered with a bad copy in any of them, and that to me is evidence of a level of professional conduct.
Yep you could be right about the future of DSLR's, it's video time, and there again my old fashioned approach is to regard the invasion of video into a dedicated still camera system of being of no benefit to taking stills whatsoever. There is the exception of Live View, that IS an enhancement but the interface is or was a bit klutzy, and other parts of the interface suffered because of it, so too me unless it can be included without harming anything else why have it.
Greg

[Greg Beetham]

to say an OVF is a by-product of the PDAF system is incomprehensible....to say the least.
Greg

It sure is PDAF needs a mirror to split the light. Some of the light goes to AF sensor, and the rest is your OVF.

Why do you think SLT cameras have a mirror? Would it not have been nicer if pdaf worked without SLT mirror? It doesn't unfortunately. You are in the same "boat". DSLRs don't have EVF because they don't have a choice. They need a mirror to split the light for PDAF sensor. There is your "answer" why 1D and D3 must only have OVF. They are forced to have OVF. There is no alternative.

Um, having an EVF isn't an advantage over a good OVF, so far it isn't, the best you could say about an EVF is it's an advance sideways.
Greg

[OneGuyKs]

DSLRs don't have EVF because they don't have a choice.

They sure do have a choice. The OVF light may well be fed into a secondary sensor, just as it is with a3xx/a5xx cams, and then that signal may well be presented on some EVF. No sweat!

yes, but that won't be the main sensor so you lose WYSIWYG factor

[OneGuyKs]

Okay you wet-behind-the-ears, newbie! Let me inform you that I have old, mechanical OVF cameras that pre-date the thought that cameras will one day use any type of automatic focusing system.

For you to say that OVF is a byproduct of PDAF shows that you know NOTHING about what you are talking about. If you had a brain, you'd know that it's now time to shut up!

Dusty

Note I said that in the digital age. Obviously you can't have electronic viewfinder with films. Why do you think most p&s and camcorders don't have OVF? Because they don't have PDAF that requires OVF. Yes, it's a byproduct after all, in digital age.

"If you had a brain "

let me check

"It's now time to shut up!"

No thank you.

[pakodominguez]

Note I said that in the digital age. Obviously you can't have electronic viewfinder with films. Why do you think most p&s and camcorders don't have OVF? Because they don't have PDAF that requires OVF. Yes, it's a byproduct after all, in digital age.

still doesn't make sense...

[OneGuyKs]

Note I said that in the digital age. Obviously you can't have electronic viewfinder with films. Why do you think most p&s and camcorders don't have OVF? Because they don't have PDAF that requires OVF. Yes, it's a byproduct after all, in digital age.

still doesn't make sense...

What does't make sense?

If we had main sensor based PDAF 10 years ago that worked well, we would have tons of DSLRs with EVF today. As it is, you need an "OVF" because the light needs to be directed towards the AF sensor.