On 5/3/2014 7:50 PM, Bill wrote:
On 03/05/2014 5:20 AM, P.J. Alling wrote:
On 5/3/2014 7:04 AM, Bill wrote:
On 03/05/2014 4:46 AM, Zos Xavius wrote:
Truth! LOL! From what I've seen the on sensor PDAF implementation
compliment contrast detection more than anything and are still not on
the same playing field as a dedicated PDAF block. Of course, these
things will only improve with time and the writing is certainly on the
wall. Why design a complex optical pathway to a sensor when you can
just put the same bits right on the imaging sensor? Its only logical.
I'll personally keep shooting DSLRs with OVFs until they go away
forever personally.
Pick up an original Minolta Maxxum 7000 sometime and look at what was
state of the art for AF 30 years ago.
I think the people who are being derisive about on sensor PDAF are
being more than a little clueless thinking that what it is now is as
good as it will ever be.
Three months ago I was saying the same thing as you about OVFs, and
then I picked up a Fuji X-T1.
bill
A lot of people bought crappy technology and spend a lot of money to get
to the place we are today.
The point being, it wasn't crappy technology, it was revolutionary.
bill
The new EFVs are better than acceptable, the best are easily on par with
OVFs. However I tried out a number of cameras with earlier EVFs and
until quite recently they were just bloody awful. To evolve to the
point where EVFs are this good a lot of people bought those cameras with
bloody awful viewfinders, just because they were revolutionary, but not
because they were good.
--
A newspaper is a device for making the ignorant more ignorant, and the crazy,
crazier.
- H.L.Mencken
--
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.
