On 2/11/07 2:00 PM, "P. J. Alling", <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The SLR pentaprism was in some ways an improvement over the optical > viewfinder/rangefinder combinations on cameras like the Leica. But they > weren't an unmixed blessing, as is evidenced by the fact that some > cameras still used them abet for a price. Maybe an all electronic > viewing/focusing system will in some ways be an improvement over > pentaprism, but even with improved electronics I doubt that it will be a > direct replacement, and there will still be room in the market for a > traditional SLR cameras. What worries me is that the major manufactures > will entirely replace pentaprisms with the "improved" electronic > viewfinders only because of design and cost considerations leaving only > very high cost alternatives, or none at all to those who appreciate the > qualities of the old style SLR. This is a very rational opinion and I have to agree with it. Optical viewfinder is indeed a holy grail of SLR, without which it's not even an SLR. But that was when Pentax first devised a usable SLR so many decades ago. A lot of things happened since then, and taking example of Canon's philosophy, it is used only for "viewfinder" in literal sense. It is there for composition and they are apparently telling users to rely on their AF capability. So, their viewfinder lost the original virtues. Pentax, and to some extent Nikon, are still maintaining meaningful viewfinders (probably because of vast number of legacy MF lenses). I do not know if this EVF issue and the elimination of quick return mirror are for user convenience or maker convenience (cost cutting etc). But I wouldn't be surprised if somebody might come up with something revolutionary. To me, the virtue of 35mm derivatives should be the portability. Present DSLRs with prism protrusion and large mirror box are so clumsy. Ken -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
