# Canon EOS-A1 with Hybrid EVF? [CR1]



## Canon Rumors Guy (Dec 21, 2013)

```
<div name="googleone_share_1" style="position:relative;z-index:5;float: right; /*margin: 70px 0 0 0;*/ top:70px; right:120px; width:0;"><g:plusone size="tall" count="1" href="http://www.canonrumors.com/?p=15324"></g:plusone></div><div style="float: right; margin:0 0 70px 70px;"><a href="https://twitter.com/share" class="twitter-share-button" data-count="vertical" data-url="http://www.canonrumors.com/?p=15324">Tweet</a></div>
<strong>Hybrid EVF Coming to EOS?


</strong>There is a new rumor floating around about the next high end, and high megapixel camera from Canon. Apparently this camera will have a hybrid EVF, optical for stills and electronic for video purposes. Megapixel count is said to be 35mp or higher, though the exact number isn’t known.</p>
<p>The moniker for the camera? The EOS-A1, though it’s unknown if that’s just the prototype name.</p>
<p><strong>CR’s Take

</strong>I’m sure there will be a time when Canon starts to experiment with different solutions for the viewfinder in cameras. If the above technology is an actual thing Canon is testing, I’d expect to see it in a Cinema EOS DSLR first. Perhaps such a feature that could differentiate it from its standard EOS cousin? Speaking of which, we have been told to expect a new Cinema EOS DSLR in 2014, and most likely at NAB in “development” form.</p>
<p>A grain of salt on this one, this is a rumor from another web site.</p>
<p>Source: [<a href="http://www.canonwatch.com/canon-rumor/" target="_blank">CW</a>]</p>
<p><strong><span style="color: #ff0000;">c</span>r</strong></p>
```


----------



## ScottyP (Dec 21, 2013)

So it would be a mirrorless camera?


----------



## rs (Dec 21, 2013)

ScottyP said:


> So it would be a mirrorless camera?


Hybrid viewfinder. To me that means switchable between electronic and optical. Optical can be either a rangefinder style or SLR style.

I'd guess it's a DSLR.


----------



## dryanparker (Dec 21, 2013)

Not sure I understand the correlation between a flagship studio camera and a switchable Optical/EVF. If I'm doing studio work and need the EVF feature, I'd much prefer Live View. Am I alone here?

Seems EVF makes a lot more sense on smaller cameras, particularly mirrorless or rangefinders.


----------



## surapon (Dec 21, 2013)

" The moniker for the camera? The EOS-A1, though it’s unknown if that’s just the prototype name."
No, That new smart Camera should call " EOS-EA1 ( Excellent A-1), NOT Old AE-1( Program)---No, Why not EOS-A1, Because, if the Next Mark , such as MK II, They can not call " EOS-A2E" ( And I already have Canon A2E 16-18 years ago.---Ha, Ha, Ha ).,
Just want to have FUN. Before I spend more money for Canon Company again, with in Next 6 Months.
Surapon


----------



## keithcooper (Dec 21, 2013)

dryanparker said:


> Not sure I understand the correlation between a flagship studio camera and a switchable Optical/EVF. If I'm doing studio work and need the EVF feature, I'd much prefer Live View. Am I alone here?


As an architectural photographer, it might sometimes be helpful to have a -good- EVF available outdoors. Much easier to see at full magnification, without needing my glasses, for critical focus with movements. LV rarely cuts it for me once I'm working out of the studio. Of course if I took my glasses with me more often, it would help ;-)

That said I don't have any issues with '1 series' optical viewfinders as they are (particularly with the range of focusing screens available)


----------



## traveller (Dec 21, 2013)

Seems to me that the 1D C is s bit crippled as a video camera without an EVF. A hybrid OVF/EVF would also be a great addition to a high mega pixel flagship stills camera, for critical focusing tasks.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Dec 21, 2013)

Another Retro Camera (A-1) to copy Nikon? I really doubt if Canon would cripple a camera to the extent that Nikon did.

Canon did have a Hybrid viewfinder patent, as I recall. Its been a couple of years back. Now with the dual pixel system, it mike make sense.


----------



## mkabi (Dec 21, 2013)

I'm interested in the Cinema Camera... Bring on the 7DC...
By the way, the haters of video... remember the C100 has a native ISO of 850.
Imagine what you can do as photographer with a Native ISO of 850 and 21 MP. Just saying.


----------



## zim (Dec 21, 2013)

Canon Rumors said:


> Apparently this camera will have a hybrid EVF, optical for stills and electronic for video purposes.



Phew... Thank goodness I'll never be able to afford this, I hate to think that I'd never use half the functionality in something so expensive :
Love the name though ;D


----------



## RGomezPhotos (Dec 21, 2013)

I think the 'A1' is just a prototype designation.

EVF? Well, okay. It's going to happen sooner or later. As long as it's implemented well.


----------



## Lawliet (Dec 22, 2013)

mkabi said:


> By the way, the haters of video... remember the C100 has a native ISO of 850.
> Imagine what you can do as photographer with a Native ISO of 850 and 21 MP. Just saying.



It also gives you just 2MP - about 8 times the sensitive area per pixel. So much for magic photomultiplication due to video.


----------



## mkabi (Dec 22, 2013)

Lawliet said:


> mkabi said:
> 
> 
> > By the way, the haters of video... remember the C100 has a native ISO of 850.
> ...



You're right, but your thinking along the lines of 1080p and the minimum requirements it needs inorder for that to be satisfied.

My thinking is this... you see how the DSLR was normally intended for photography, but with the addition of video with Full HD or Ultra HD, its made it easily accessible for aspiring filmmakers and independent filmmakers to make their dream videos/movies come true.

All the same rules and techniques of photography (with some exceptions) can be used onto video.
Inadvertently, photography or digital photography has made an impact on video.

But why can't canon say, okay... lets do the opposite now.... Film is really just 24 frames or pictures per second, right? What if in the future, they produce that prototype camera that is able to shoot 24, 30, 60 and/or 120fps, and its 100MP with Native ISOs of 1600?

You have a movie at 16K resolution, and you can stop it at any frame and turn it into a picture/poster/billboard.


----------



## Lawliet (Dec 22, 2013)

mkabi said:


> What if in the future, they produce that prototype camera that is able to shoot 24, 30, 60 and/or 120fps, and its 100MP with Native ISOs of 1600?



That camera would require sensor cells about 16times of the current ones. At the same time you have about 4 times the cells. I.e. each side is sqrt(16)*sqrt(4)=8 times as long, we're talking about a sensor the size of a large format film/plates and lenses large enough to cover it. To have a real light collecting advantage said lenses would have to be faster then the current ones, while DOF gets thin as a razorblade. They used f/64 for a reason. There might be practical problems with that.
NB: The QE of current silicon doesn't allow for much higher sensitivity as we're already close to counting single photons. Unless we're getting more photons we're de facto stuck.


----------



## jrista (Dec 22, 2013)

I am not much of a fan of EVFs (at least, so far), but I would be very interested in a hybrid EVF. There is no doubt that, if they can reach their technological pinnacle, that an EVF has a lot to offer. Simultaneously, there are things an OVF offers that an EVF never will. Having the option to switch between the two, at will, depending on your needs, in a single camera body? 

*SIGN ME UP!!* ;D 8)


----------



## jrista (Dec 22, 2013)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> Another Retro Camera (A-1) to copy Nikon? I really doubt if Canon would cripple a camera to the extent that Nikon did.
> 
> Canon did have a Hybrid viewfinder patent, as I recall. Its been a couple of years back. Now with the dual pixel system, it mike make sense.



I seriously hope not. I have no problem with a retro look, and a stills-dedicated camera...but the Df probably has the worst thought out control system on the planet. Stacked dials? 

I don't suspect Canon will, either. I've been digging around the net looking up Nikon history. One thing Nikon does, that Canon doesn't (or at least, not nearly as much of) is release unique and interesting camera models. Nikon has done this for years, probably even decades. They even have a 24karat gold plated camera with real lizard skin grip...it LOOKS truly amazing, it's worth around *$20 grand*, and there are only like 2000. It's intriguing, it's interesting, it certainly makes the fans rave...

...but, I have to ask: If Nikon did not expend so much time, effort, and money developing frivolous one-off camera models that intrigue the mind and senses, but otherwise don't actually offer any truly compelling advances, and instead invested all that time, effort, and money being a more financially and competitively stable company...would Nikon be Canon's greatest threat today?


----------



## mkabi (Dec 22, 2013)

Lawliet said:


> mkabi said:
> 
> 
> > What if in the future, they produce that prototype camera that is able to shoot 24, 30, 60 and/or 120fps, and its 100MP with Native ISOs of 1600?
> ...



So you're saying its a pipe dream? Like the flying car...
But what about that guy that figured out how to slow it down to the point of taking pictures of photons... was it 1,000,000 fps?


----------



## sanj (Dec 22, 2013)

Bring it on!


----------



## jrista (Dec 22, 2013)

mkabi said:


> Lawliet said:
> 
> 
> > mkabi said:
> ...



You do realize that "taking pictures of photons" isn't really what the femtocamera does, right? It actually takes millions of frames through a microscopic slit, basically time-slicing the movement of millions of separate pulses of light. It can't actually record the motion of light waves in a single "frame"...it has to take hundreds of millions to billions of frames, which are then processed via very specialized software, in order to make an actual video clip. The device is rather large, bulky, power hungry, and is unlikely to ever look anything like a normal camera. I suspect it will eventually be shrunk in size, and probably packaged into scientific grade devices where such high speed "photography" could be immensely useful for scientific purposes. But there isn't going to be a million fps digital camera capable of actually taking anything that even remotely resembles a "picture" one millionth of a second long on the market any time soon...  :


----------



## mkabi (Dec 22, 2013)

jrista said:


> mkabi said:
> 
> 
> > Lawliet said:
> ...



What would I do with a million fps camera? Nothing.
But I'm talking about the possibility that some day there will be a camera both stills and motion based that we won't care that it does both.


----------



## jrista (Dec 22, 2013)

mkabi said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > mkabi said:
> ...



The needs of motion based photography are different than the needs of stills based photography. You can always have a better stills camera if you focus on making a better stills camera. Just because you can capture a thousand frames per second at high resolution doesn't mean that any one of those "frames" will be acceptable as a still photograph. 

Sure, we can have both, but you can have better of each if you dedicate research to both independently.


----------



## mkabi (Dec 22, 2013)

jrista said:


> mkabi said:
> 
> 
> > jrista said:
> ...



I beg to differ...
Have you heard of the saying that it takes 10,000 pictures to get 1 good shot?

I'm sure that they are independently researched, but they come together so well...

How many of us complain that our cell phones can play music, surf the net and host a bunch of applications?
How many of us complain that a phone should be a phone and all the others should be separate?

Why is it that you hate video so much? Do you not watch any movies, home made and otherwise?
People here in this forum say that if they want video, they would get a camcorder or a video camera.... 
So if you go on vacation, you would rather carry 2 different bodies and shoot stills with one and video with another? 

Also, how many camcorders allow us to change lenses? As I said before, video is in every way like stills... I want wide angle, medium and close ups, even macro shots. I want shallow depth of field, creamy bokeh in my video. Can a regular camcorder provide that for me?

They say that the AA filter is giving them a softer image, so give me a shot that you are proud of... and tell me why the AA filter got in the way of your shot.


----------



## AvTvM (Dec 22, 2013)

@mkabi: all you and your video buddies need are better videocams/camcorders. So please go and ask manufacturers for better videocams. If you think Canon's C-### videocams are grossly overpriced or lacking in performance and features then ask Canon to make better ones and cheaper ones Or get yourself a full-frame sensored Sony Camcorder with interchangeable lens mount for less than 3k. Unlike any DSLR it is perfectly suited to capture videos.

But please do not try to force ever more video-optimized crap upon stills photgraphers who may occasionally like to WATCH a film or video but have no desire whatsoever to MAKE videos/films with their cameras.

I have been unwantingly using "video-enabled" cameras for more than 10 years now. I had to pay for those video features that was forced upon me with no option to leave it out. And in all those years I have never ever captured anything other than a 15 second test clips with them, just to see if a new camera is fully functional.

I am also NOT interested in a video-optimized hybrid-EVF camera. What I want is a Sony A7R-killer from Canon: a very compact, "stills-optimized" mirrorless camera with the best possible-IQ FF sensor (hi res, high DR, low noise up to very high ISO), an excellent AF-system [5D 3 or better], contemporary connectivity features [WiFi, GPS, Radio flash controller] and a highly efficient, easy to use "stills-oriented" user interface. Video? Well, yes - as a LiveView feed. 

And instead of Hybrid EVF/OVF I want a truly hi-end EVF only. 4k resolution, no discernible lag, no black-out.


----------



## Orangutan (Dec 22, 2013)

AvTvM said:


> I have been unwantingly using "video-enabled" cameras for more than 10 years now. I had to pay for those video features that was forced upon me with no option to leave it out.



For the benefit of any new readers, this myth has been debunked in several other threads. 

And we now have empirical evidence against the myth: the Nikon Df costs around $1000 more than the comparable D610, a video-enabled DSLR.

So video enthusiasts, please subsidize my next DSLR!


----------



## unfocused (Dec 22, 2013)

Orangutan said:


> AvTvM said:
> 
> 
> > I have been unwantingly using "video-enabled" cameras for more than 10 years now. I had to pay for those video features that was forced upon me with no option to leave it out.
> ...



You beat me to it. I am so tired of threads devolving into the same basic arguments over and over again. I am even more tired of people repeating myths that are contrary to the facts.


----------



## jrista (Dec 22, 2013)

mkabi said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > mkabi said:
> ...



Well, first off, I disagree that it takes 10,000 photos to get 1 good one. I would say the ratio is more along the lines of 100 to 1 for an average photographer, and considerably less than that for a skilled photographer. That argument generally implies that the photographer doesn't matter, and that if you capture enough frames, a good photo will happen by chance. Possibly, but that is most certainly NOT what having a good stills camera is all about. 

The opposite, actually. A good stills photography camera is all about making it easier to get a good shot EVERY time, not once every ten thousand shots! I could probably rest my argument on that alone...but...

Cell phones are not artists tools (not by design.) *By design*, a cell phone, or as they are more appropriately called these days smartphones and phablets, are *multipurpose devices*. Of course we don't complain that they can do a lot of things...that is what they are designed to do. They aren't meant to be the best still photography camera money can buy, nor will they ever be. They are meant to be general purpose devices that allow you to augment their functionality in a wide variety of ways via apps so you can COMPUTE ON THE RUN. Sorry, but I don't see any analogy between a smartphone and a camera. One is designed for computing, the other is designed for art. 

Regarding me "hating" video, don't put words in my mouth! I really dislike that! I have in no way said I hate video! On the contrary, I would love to make videos of the nature I photograph. It is just impractical to try and do both stills photography and cinematography at the same time, and do both well. As I said before, the two have different core goals, and therefor need equipment tuned for different purposes. I mean, I CAN take photographs with my Lumia 920, and they are pretty nice...but they are always lacking, even when I put in all the effort I have into making them as good as possible. Sure, my Lumia 920 can take video as well, but movies aren't about video...movies are about storytelling, and using the facets of optics to portray that story in a beautiful way. I WANT to do video...but to achieve the kind of storytelling through motion picture that I want, I need to dedicate time and equipment to it. To that end, if/when I get into it, I'll buy a camera actually designed for cinematography.

As for vacation...I wouldn't bring along high end equipment. I'd bring along something like an EOS-M instead. Vacations aren't professional photography or cinematography outings, they are vacations...time to spend with the family, sightsee but not necessarily spend hours photographing each sight, etc. I could take family videos and decent photography with that one tiny little camera, and still have the option to change lenses for different needs. But the needs of a vacation are radically different from the needs I have for my photography, or the needs I would have if I truly wanted to put together a quality movie of the natural world I photograph. I would indeed lug along both separate stills and cinema cameras if I intended to do both, however I'd keep such trips separate from "vacations." 

To be quite frank, I feel, as a photographer, that my explicit needs HAVE been glossed over by Canon in some ways. I feel as though if they dedicated some more effort to making a better stills camera, they would, and it would be on the market faster. The simple fact of the matter is I KNOW they are sharing resources, developing some stills technology but even more cinematography technology, and that as a stills photographer, I'm not getting as much from Canon as I used to. Your lofty vision of video cameras that can be ideal for both stills photography and cinematography, assuming it is possible, is a VERY LONG, LONG way off. Decade or two at least. Sorry. but I'm not willing to wait that long for the mere _possibility _that something like a 10,000fps "camera" that can produce video or stills, _might _eventually appear.

Sorry, but there could be immediate value to Canon investing a few more resources into stills specific photography research, the results of which could be seen soon, rather than decades down the road. I don't hate video, but I would rather it not be the primary focus of research for stills photography devices. I would rather we not have this endless march towards hybrid devices. I think Canon could produce both better stills cameras AND better cinema cameras by dedicating research teams to both, keeping the two separate. The Cinema EOS line, while not a bad start, still lags far behind the competition, just like their stills cameras are. Companies like Red are already pushing 20 stops of dynamic range...Cinema EOS is still stuck at less than 12. They have to deal with extra crap to blend the two technologies together, and I think that is sapping energy from both as individual technologies.


----------



## jrista (Dec 22, 2013)

Orangutan said:


> AvTvM said:
> 
> 
> > I have been unwantingly using "video-enabled" cameras for more than 10 years now. I had to pay for those video features that was forced upon me with no option to leave it out.
> ...



The extra cost of the Df is probably 90% artificial, simply tacked on because of the cameras "prestige" as a retro-styled, completely manual device. From an actual cost standpoint, I would be surprised if the Df actually cost more to make than the D610. 

So sorry, but I don't think that argument really holds any water, at least from the standpoint of demonstrating that video enthusiasts are subsidizing still photography advances. That would be speculation, at best.


----------



## Orangutan (Dec 22, 2013)

jrista said:


> Orangutan said:
> 
> 
> > AvTvM said:
> ...



Why do you dismiss the importance of this? There is strong demand, but from a very small market. As Father Guido Sarducci taught us decades ago, it all boils down to "supply and demand." Add to this the cost of distributing marginal R&D across the total sales volume, and you can't help but have a higher-priced device.

Again, I urge you not to think of this as an engineering problem, that's the wrong approach; pricing is a business problem, not an engineering problem.

And yet one more thing: imagine the support costs for any manufacturer when the flood of calls come in from n00bs who inadvertently bought the cheaper, stills-only model, and are wondering where the [email protected]#$% the video button is. A niche camera must be higher-priced to keep the n00bs from buying it. As an example, why is the D800E more expensive than the D800? This is not generated by engineering; if it were, the D800E would be cheaper. It's driven by business/marketing/support decisions.

BTW, I do 99% stills, and often forget I have video on my body. I really should play with video more.


----------



## AvTvM (Dec 22, 2013)

Orangutan said:


> Again, I urge you not to think of this as an engineering problem, that's the wrong approach; pricing is a business problem, not an engineering problem.



Even if all the video crap in DSLSr would really be "for free" (which it is not) I *still* would like to have a choice. And no, I am not interested in agrossly overpriced, useless UI retro Nikon DSLR (Df) but much more so in a a 5D IVs ... "video-free" in a Sony A7 sized body.


----------



## dgatwood (Dec 22, 2013)

AvTvM said:


> But please do not try to force ever more video-optimized crap upon stills photgraphers who may occasionally like to WATCH a film or video but have no desire whatsoever to MAKE videos/films with their cameras.



The thing is, though, the statistical majority of photographers who buy DSLRs are not pros. They're people who just want a great camera to take pictures of their kids, take pictures of their trips, etc. Those folks want video functionality, not because they want something that's great for video, but because they know they'll occasionally want to be able to capture video and won't want to carry a separate device.



AvTvM said:


> I am also NOT interested in a video-optimized hybrid-EVF camera. What I want is a Sony A7R-killer from Canon: a very compact, "stills-optimized" mirrorless camera with the best possible-IQ FF sensor (hi res, high DR, low noise up to very high ISO), an excellent AF-system [5D 3 or better], contemporary connectivity features [WiFi, GPS, Radio flash controller] and a highly efficient, easy to use "stills-oriented" user interface. Video? Well, yes - as a LiveView feed.



IMO, putting a full-frame sensor in a mirrorless camera makes little sense, because none of the mirrorless lenses are capable of providing coverage for a full-size sensor. So unless they add yet *another* incompatible lens form factor, you're only going to get to use that extra surface area if you're using a full-size EF lens, and even then, only with an adapter that inherently degrades IQ compared with a standard body.

And the only advantages a mirrorless body would have over a traditional FF body would be the thickness and the ability to use it with EF-M lenses, but if you actually tried to use EF-M lenses, you'd have to settle for lower resolution unless they make an insanely high-resolution FF chip (and if they do, I'd place bets that you'll see it in a 1D body long before you see it in a mirrorless).

BTW, if the camera has to support video for live view mode anyway, the extra effort needed to record that video is basically zero. So it's a real benefit for most folks, and costs you nothing.


----------



## rs (Dec 22, 2013)

AvTvM said:


> Orangutan said:
> 
> 
> > Again, I urge you not to think of this as an engineering problem, that's the wrong approach; pricing is a business problem, not an engineering problem.
> ...


I'm trying to think of anything that goes into making a good video DSLR that makes it either more expensive or inferior as a stills camera compared to a stills only model.

From a hardware point of view, things are different. It's bought us sensors which can run for longer before they overheat; this is good for long exposures too. It's come hand in hand with live view; this is great for landscape and macro. It's bought us live view AF and flip out screens; ok, not much use for me in stills, but grabbing overhead shots are now more likely to work out. It's bought some manufacturers (and Canon with ML) peaking; great again for landscape and macro. And it's also bought us in some cases (5D3, but not 6D, 1D X or 70D) sensors which offer perfect down sampling to video resolutions; for photography, the 5D3's sensor is a big step up over the 5D2, even if some people are jealous of the D800's resolution or it's DR. It's bought us STM lenses; no match for USM, but a step up over the buzzy micro motors. A hybrid EVF could assist with photography if manual focusing, and for checking exposure/DR. 

Software costs money to develop. But once developed, it's essentially free to manufacture. So while including video increases the development costs of the software, the additional sales it generates potentially lowers the cost of the camera.

Additional video tax is avoided by crippling the video recording time to under 30 minutes.

So are photographers really held back by video enabled DSLR's?

edit: It's also helping drive forward the data throughput of sensors, camera processing and storage; all of this development done partly by Canon and partly by other companies (ARM, SanDisk etc) gives more headroom for the MP/FPS compromise on top end stills cameras.


----------



## jrista (Dec 22, 2013)

Orangutan said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > Orangutan said:
> ...



I agree with you on the bit about using price to filter out noobs. But that wasn't really the point I was trying to make.

I'd also offer that the only reason noobs expect a video button and would complain if it was missing is because someone, somewhere along the line, thought it would be a good idea to put one there. Personally, I think it would have been better if cameras just stayed cameras, and camcorders or cinema cams stayed what they were. Sometimes segregation is a useful tool.

Anyway, the point I was trying to make has nothing to do with price (hence the reason I brought up the notion that the Df really can't fundamentally cost more than the D610). My point is that there IS a technical side of things here. Time, effort, money are being invested in figuring out ways to blend video and still photography technology. Canon was the pioneer, they were very successful with the 5D II, then they decided to make Cinema EOS. I thought Cinema EOS was a GREAT idea, and I had hoped it would reduce the amount of effort they put into developing video technology (i.e. DPAF) for still photography cameras. 

I think DPAF has longer-term viability for mirrorless, so I don't have anything against that technology per-se, but it's initial release was most definitely video driven. Sadly, I think we could have had a higher resolution sensor with more DR instead of DPAF, and stills photographers who use DSLRs would have been immensely happy about that...but, instead, we got DPAF. It doesn't really do the vast majority of DSLR photographers any good, so, here we are, waiting ANOTHER CYCLE, for something to really, solidly improve on the still photography side of things with Canon. 

That's my point. I really could have used a 7D II this year. Instead, the 7D Next (or whatever it is going to be called) replacement has been pushed. The reason? Oh, well, it sounds like it's going to get a crapload of VIDEO features, instead of a crapload of stills features. Is that going to be useful to me? Is that going to be worth the $2000+ that I have to pay, in order to subsidize features for a smaller group of users who actually want an APS-C sized frame for video purposes (and I'd offer that group is REALLY SMALL...in my experience video users really prefer the FF format as it is more cinematic, with thinner DOF/better boke for any given focal length and the like), and get...maybe +2fps

There is a technical side here, one which I don't think can be ignored. There isn't anything I can do about it, I know that. I can't help but think, though, that it is dragging out still photography improvements out an extra generation, two, farther and farther out into the future where...good grief, I might as well just bite the bullet and buy a _*Sony*_ device for christ sake, and get an A7r with EF adapter (as much as I loath Sony electronics...cheap junk, has been since the 90's.) Thing is, every report indicates that A7r AF is very lackluster with EF lenses, overall support is just ok, etc. Not exactly what I'm looking for...


----------



## jrista (Dec 22, 2013)

rs said:


> AvTvM said:
> 
> 
> > Orangutan said:
> ...



Can sensors run longer before they overheat? In my experience, that doesn't seem to be the case, at least when doing stills photography. When using live view, particularly in the very cold winter weather we have here, the camera still shuts it off when the sensor starts to heat up. That can be as short as 10 minutes at times, which is absolutely no better than my now very old 450D. Focus peaking isn't explicitly a video feature, and I don't know that it was video that brought it to the table...I think it was more simply that EVF's offered the opportunity to do it easily, so they did. Flip out screen reduce sealability against weather and dust, which is a drawback for professional still camera gear...personally, I refuse to buy any DSLR or mirrorless that has an articulating screen, simply not worth it given the environments I frequently shoot in. The logic to bin pixels for video downsampling is unnecessary for RAW photography, and is one of the key areas where I think integrating video and still camera technology is costing still photographers. 




rs said:


> Software costs money to develop. But once developed, it's essentially free to manufacture. So while including video increases the development costs of the software, the additional sales it generates potentially lowers the cost of the camera.



The stills firmware features for Canon cameras are highly refined. They needed an update for the 61pt AF system, but beyond that, any cost invested in developing video firmware features is one of the primary factors where time, effort, and money are drained from advancing still photography features. That R&D cost still exists, and still must be recouped, so still photographers are paying for features they don't need. This right here is one of the key factors that frustrates me about blended video+stills cameras...there IS an extra cost, even if it doesn't require a per-camera cost, the R&D was spent, they were spent on features that most photographers seldom use, and the R&D costs are recouped via each camera sale...so we, stills photographers, are paying for features we have little or no use for, while concurrently NOT getting features or technological improvements we could indeed use or benefit from.



rs said:


> edit: It's also helping drive forward the data throughput of sensors, camera processing and storage; all of this development done partly by Canon and partly by other companies (ARM, SanDisk etc) gives more headroom for the MP/FPS compromise on top end stills cameras.



The data throughput from a video sensor does not need to be as high as with a stills camera. Video needs far more limited resolution, and the best video quality is attained by binning on the sensor at the pixel level. That technology is absolutely useless for a still photographer, who expects every single pixel to provide the highest level of quality. It takes a lot less time to read out video that has been binned to 2x sampling or 4:2:2 on the sensor, than to read out each and every one of those pixels. Only if/when RAW video readout is added will video truly start to push the data throughput envelope. So, on the contrary, it is the endless march towards higher resolution native RAW image readout at ever higher framerates that is driving data throughput, image processing, and storage. The 1D X needed dual DIGIC5+ because to read out 19.1mp full sensor frames (including the masked pixels) at 14fps, you needed 500mb/s total throughput. Video, binned right off the sensor, needs about a quarter that amount of throughput.


----------



## dgatwood (Dec 22, 2013)

jrista said:


> I'd also offer that the only reason noobs expect a video button and would complain if it was missing is because someone, somewhere along the line, thought it would be a good idea to put one there. Personally, I think it would have been better if cameras just stayed cameras, and camcorders or cinema cams stayed what they were. Sometimes segregation is a useful tool.



Only if by "put one there" you mean "put one in their cell phone". Most people generally assume that a high-end camera should be able to do anything that a cheap cell phone camera can do, and if that assumption is broken, those people get unhappy.  And, of course, there are really good reasons for cell phones to be able to handle video—video chat, for example—so supporting video in cell phone cameras was pretty much inevitable, which made video modes on DSLRs equally inevitable.




rs said:


> And it's also bought us in some cases (5D3, but not 6D, 1D X or 70D) sensors which offer perfect down sampling to video resolutions ...



That really isn't much of a benefit, BTW. IIRC, it does make some algorithms slightly simpler, but only slightly. And it often results in incorrect assumptions that lead to big mistakes, such as using line-skipping algorithms, which inherently cause fascinating moiré effects and thus are not generally considered to be acceptable methods of downsampling except for draft-quality rendering purposes.



jrista said:


> The data throughput from a video sensor does not need to be as high as with a stills camera. Video needs far more limited resolution, and the best video quality is attained by binning on the sensor at the pixel level. That technology is absolutely useless for a still photographer, who expects every single pixel to provide the highest level of quality.



Except that you're likely to be using the same hardware-binned readout for live view mode or for the EVF in a mirrorless camera up until the moment that you actually take the shot, so it really isn't correct to say that it is useless for a still photographer unless you also consider both live view mode and mirrorless cameras to also be useless.


----------



## Orangutan (Dec 22, 2013)

jrista said:


> That R&D cost still exists, and still must be recouped, so still photographers are paying for features they don't need. This right here is one of the key factors that frustrates me about blended video+stills cameras...there IS an extra cost, even if it doesn't require a per-camera cost, the R&D was spent, they were spent on features that most photographers seldom use



First, I think you overestimate the amount of engineering necessary to integrate video into stills. This was being done with P&S cameras as early as 1996 when film was still dominant, and was very common in P&S cameras well before it came to DSLR's. Sure, there's got to be some extra cost, but not very much.

Second, this is why I said above it's best not to think of it as an engineering issue. If you consider video to be a universally-demanded aesthetic feature it all makes more sense. Sales would be lost without it these days, so the R&D must be done; I just hope to spread the cost thinly across a large market, and accept as much crossover as we can get from it.

And as regards the belief that Canon could devote their attentions to other stills-specific features (resolution, DR) were there no need to waste it on video R&D, I'll repeat what I've said several times in previous threads. There's no reason to believe Canon doesn't already have this tech, but have chosen not to put it into products. As long as the current products/features/capabilities sell well, there's no reason for Canon to build new fab plants and spend a lot of money continuing development to the point of sales-readiness. I'd be willing to bet at least 37cents that when the market demands higher DR (through lost sales to other brands), Canon will have a comparable product on the market inside a year.

Of course, this would all be moot if the major governmental regulatory bodies would tell the camera industry to come up with universal mounts for APS-C, FF and MF (analogous to micro 4/3). When consumers can freely interchange bodies and lenses from different vendors, we'll have market pressure to push advances very quickly.

Finally, to get us back on the topic of this thread, a hybrid EVF/OVF is exactly what's needed to ease the transition away from OVF. EVF *will* eventually supplant OVF, except in retro designs, it's just a matter of time. Until then, a hybrid would be an excellent way to use the strengths of each.


----------



## zim (Dec 22, 2013)

dgatwood said:


> Only if by "put one there" you mean "put one in their cell phone". Most people generally assume that a high-end camera should be able to do anything that a cheap cell phone camera can do, and if that assumption is broken, those people get unhappy.  And, of course, there are really good reasons for cell phones to be able to handle video—video chat, for example—so supporting video in cell phone cameras was pretty much inevitable, which made video modes on DSLRs equally inevitable



I would have thought that 'most people' would buy a high end DSLR exactly because it doesn't do what a smartphone does.


----------



## jrista (Dec 22, 2013)

Orangutan said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > That R&D cost still exists, and still must be recouped, so still photographers are paying for features they don't need. This right here is one of the key factors that frustrates me about blended video+stills cameras...there IS an extra cost, even if it doesn't require a per-camera cost, the R&D was spent, they were spent on features that most photographers seldom use
> ...



It's an interesting perspective. Canon did bring definite stills improvements with the 1D X and 5D III, don't get me wrong. It's just that the 7D replacement was due a while ago, and a 1Ds III replacement is long overdue as well...and the vast majority of advancements we hear about from Canon are on the video front. It just makes me wonder. Will the 7D II be some video beast, or will it actually bring a better AF system (instead of reusing the decidedly jittery 19pt one), will it improve dynamic range (which, I would offer, a LOT of photographers REALLY DO WANT!), and will it increase resolution to a meaningful level FOR STILLS photographers (or, will it instead, be an exceptionally modest increase because that better benefits video sampling?) 

The business case is interesting, but it FEELS like Canon is focusing a hell of a lot more on video, and still photographer features are languishing, a lot.



Orangutan said:


> And as regards the belief that Canon could devote their attentions to other stills-specific features (resolution, DR) were there no need to waste it on video R&D, I'll repeat what I've said several times in previous threads. There's no reason to believe Canon doesn't already have this tech, but have chosen not to put it into products. As long as the current products/features/capabilities sell well, there's no reason for Canon to build new fab plants and spend a lot of money continuing development to the point of sales-readiness. I'd be willing to bet at least 37cents that when the market demands higher DR (through lost sales to other brands), Canon will have a comparable product on the market inside a year.



LOL, 37 cents.  

I think the sentiment for more dynamic range already exists. It certainly seems to exist both here on CR and on DPR, and the statistics published by DXO certainly raise a lot of hairs around photography forums. People are asking a lot of questions, a lot of people ARE starting to at the very least add other brands to their kits, and things like the A7r have certainly created a stir in Canon circles. Canon hasn't responded yet, in fact they have remained particularly quiet about the DR issue...I don't think there has been one mention of dynamic range, even though Canon has mentioned they are working on improving IQ. 



Orangutan said:


> Of course, this would all be moot if the major governmental regulatory bodies would tell the camera industry to come up with universal mounts for APS-C, FF and MF (analogous to micro 4/3). When consumers can freely interchange bodies and lenses from different vendors, we'll have market pressure to push advances very quickly.



Oh, I certainly hope that does _*NOT*_ happen. There is too much government regulation these days, and history has demonstrated that when governments begin to regulate beyond the bare necessities (i.e. maintain safety, ensure financial security, address environmental concerns), they DIMINISH the capacity of companies to innovate (which is the ultimate result of competition). Every federal standard from the US government has been a monstrosity of epic proportions, unabashedly complex, difficult to deal with, difficult to comply with, usually requiring years more effort on major projects and significant increases in cost (I've had to deal with a number of overbearing US regulations as a software engineer, things like HIPPA, and on more occasions than not, those regulations resulted in the abandonment of major initiatives in favor of patching existing systems. I won't lay all the blame on governments, other standards can be overbearing as well...EDI was always a PITA to deal with as well.)

If an international standard for camera mounts was introduced, it would limit the ability of individual manufacturers from developing improvements or changes to their mount as necessary to support continued innovation. The EF mount, while it still uses the same bayonet attachment as it did in the 80's, has had a number of electronic improvements over the years to support better lenses, better and faster AF systems, increased power supply from body to lens, etc. Such changes would take significantly longer to not only design, but get approved, get through draft phases and eventually finalized, such that they could be employed. The chances of other companies explicitly meddling with one successful companies ability to innovate increase as well. I think governments regulating or taxing the maximum length of time video can be recorded is ludicrous. It serves for no other purpose than as an additional revenue stream, and in every other way limits the ability of companies to innovate and compete. Sometimes even the environmental concerns get in the way...the requirement in Japan that forced Canon to design a new battery for the 5D III...their prior batteries were pretty environmentally safe, especially when people disposed of them correctly (which on average, at least here in the states, people generally take care of their battery disposal pretty well). (Not to mention the fact that an official Canon battery seems to last forever...I've drained and recharged my 7D batteries so many times I'm wondering why they still work...)

I truly hope that governments stay the hell out of camera mounts. I think their intrusion via regulation would only stifle innovation and limit progress. It would do nothing to improve the situation for individuals who have years (or even decades) of investment into brand-specific lenses, and in fact could leave them with a large collection of glass that is no longer usable on future cameras from their preferred brand if, due to the standards body, the registration distance doesn't support an adapter without affecting infinity focus.

I think competition is best served by letting companies compete, not by regulating the crap out of all the minutia of their business. 

/soapbox 



Orangutan said:


> Finally, to get us back on the topic of this thread, a hybrid EVF/OVF is exactly what's needed to ease the transition away from OVF. EVF *will* eventually supplant OVF, except in retro designs, it's just a matter of time. Until then, a hybrid would be an excellent way to use the strengths of each.



I agree, a hybrid O/EVF is a good stepping stone. Personally, I'd prefer that a hybrid is where the buck stops...I don't ever want to lose my optical viewfinder, even despite some of the benefits of an EVF. So long as I can switch between the two at will...forever, I'd be a pretty happy guy.


----------



## Orangutan (Dec 23, 2013)

jrista said:


> It's an interesting perspective. Canon did bring definite stills improvements with the 1D X and 5D III, don't get me wrong. It's just that the 7D replacement was due a while ago, and a 1Ds III replacement is long overdue as well...and the vast majority of advancements we hear about from Canon are on the video front. It just makes me wonder. Will the 7D II be some video beast, or will it actually bring a better AF system (instead of reusing the decidedly jittery 19pt one), will it improve dynamic range (which, I would offer, a LOT of photographers REALLY DO WANT!), and will it increase resolution to a meaningful level FOR STILLS photographers (or, will it instead, be an exceptionally modest increase because that better benefits video sampling?)
> 
> The business case is interesting, but it FEELS like Canon is focusing a hell of a lot more on video, and still photographer features are languishing, a lot.


The Nikon D400 is overdue, and the D800 has sold well, but not tremendously well. This may suggest that Canon's market analysis has been sound. I'm also looking at the 7D2 (or whatever it's called) as a possible purchase; however, Canon's sales have been good relative to the other brands so their marketing department may not give me the 7D2 I want.


> I think the sentiment for more dynamic range already exists.


Yes, everyone wants more DR, but are they willing to change their purchasing decisions to get it? At some point the answer will be yes, but so far it isn't.



> Orangutan said:
> 
> 
> > Of course, this would all be moot if the major governmental regulatory bodies would tell the camera industry to come up with universal mounts for APS-C, FF and MF (analogous to micro 4/3). When consumers can freely interchange bodies and lenses from different vendors, we'll have market pressure to push advances very quickly.
> ...



Notice that I'm not saying governments should dictate the standard, just tell the companies to set one. I don't see how setting a physical connection standard and an interface standard would impede innovation. 



> I agree, a hybrid O/EVF is a good stepping stone. Personally, I'd prefer that a hybrid is where the buck stops...I don't ever want to lose my optical viewfinder, even despite some of the benefits of an EVF. So long as I can switch between the two at will...forever, I'd be a pretty happy guy.



My pet hope is that the antiquated mirror assembly will be replaced by a trichroic prism so we can have triple-sensor modules. That would eliminate the need for a Bayer filter and its problems (light loss, loss of spatial resolution)


----------



## jrista (Dec 23, 2013)

Orangutan said:


> > Orangutan said:
> >
> >
> > > Of course, this would all be moot if the major governmental regulatory bodies would tell the camera industry to come up with universal mounts for APS-C, FF and MF (analogous to micro 4/3). When consumers can freely interchange bodies and lenses from different vendors, we'll have market pressure to push advances very quickly.
> ...



Have you ever been involved in a standards body? I worked for a large educational company for about five years. I had to participate in a number of standards bodies on standards that rapidly grew well out of proportion for the original purpose they were intended to serve. Once standards (inevitably) grow that large, you end up with deadlock and lagging progress, since no one can agree on what features to include where, how they would interact, then you have extensibility which is the bane of every technical software standard...bleh.

Standards, which always require a standards body to describe, far more often than not result in stagnation, rather than innovation. There are a few times when standards bodies do well, but it is a relatively rare occurrence. The W3C is a great example of a standards body that causes standards to lag, and eventually forced the industry that depended upon their standards to simply change how they viewed and used them: Perpetually evolving recommendations, implement what you can, when you can, according to the standard, and ignore what is too convoluted or overbearing to deal with (could you imagine THAT for a camera mount standard?!?! )

And again, there is more than simply impeding innovation...if governments mandate that companies get together and build a standard mount, governments are forcing companies to break their own standards, many of which have established histories decades old, compatibility that stretches back 60 years or even farther. It would take years for any such new standard mount to become useful, during which time customers who have established collections of lenses for one mount or another (or even a few) are in limbo, stuck buying adapters that may only partially work, may not work well at all, or may incur some other penalty such as the loss of infinity focus. 

Then, you have to deal with the inevitable case of modifying the standard to support improvements. Additional communications or power channels to support some innovation company X wants to apply. You have to go through the whole process again, spend all the time and effort bickering over minutia, all the while Company X is stalled on their attempts to provide value to their customers, and...YES...gain a competitive edge. By the time the standard finally reaches a ratified stage, quite possibly after years, is it still even a valuable improvement? Or, by that time, have they devised a newer and better way of achieving the same thing? Did they simply work around he problems of the existing mount? Did they semi-proprietize the mount for their own purposes, utilizing existing features in a non-standard (but nonetheless not disallowed by the standard) manner to achieve their goals? Bleh.

The benefit? That you can use lenses on different brands of cameras. That's pretty much it, although as it stands, for most mirrorless cameras, and on Canon DSLRs in particular, that ability already exists, and some fairly refined adapters for a number of popular and/or very old & established mounts exist (assuming someone actually really wants that ability...I'd offer that people are probably far more concerned about dynamic range than the ability to easily interchange lenses across camera brands.) 

Whether it is governments defining the mount, or simply governments demanding that companies develop a standard mount, I think it is unnecessary, and MIGHT only result in some good things after a very long, drawn out, complicated process of standards discussion, debate, gridlock, and eventual production of something that could very well not be as effective or efficient as brand-specific mounts were before. 

Well, I'm rather passionate about this subject. I've had experience with standards bodies, and not even one single experience was good. Standards bodies are just a 'nice' name for "inevitable gridlock" and "excessive complexity machine". I've seen the disaster that too much or improper government regulation can be (good example would be the energy crisis of California around 2000, and the expanding disaster that is Obamacare, and god, I could get into so many others...) 



Orangutan said:


> > I agree, a hybrid O/EVF is a good stepping stone. Personally, I'd prefer that a hybrid is where the buck stops...I don't ever want to lose my optical viewfinder, even despite some of the benefits of an EVF. So long as I can switch between the two at will...forever, I'd be a pretty happy guy.
> 
> 
> 
> My pet hope is that the antiquated mirror assembly will be replaced by a trichroic prism so we can have triple-sensor modules. That would eliminate the need for a Bayer filter and its problems (light loss, loss of spatial resolution)



Trichroic prisms and three monochrome sensors would be intriguing. I know that has been tried in the past with CCD sensors for video cameras. Did the technology fall out of grace for some reason? I think there may be more innovative ways of solving the light problem. Was it Panasonic that designed a microprism splitter to replace color filters? They gained a considerable amount of sensitivity that way, and increased resolution by a about 50% (instead of three pixel types, you only have two.) 

I've also read about LCTF, or liquid crystal tunable filter, usually used in more advanced and inevitably manual endeavors, like high end color calibration or professional deep sky astrophotography. I've wondered whether the technology could be adapted to the nano scale, allowing full spectrum sensitivity at every pixel without the need for a prism. For any given exposure time, simply allot one third of it to each of the primary colors and do a read after each third's exposure (or, hell, you could even support more than three primaries, or alternative primaries, or shift the filter to infrared, whatever.) A prism is only going to give you about 1/3rd of the light for each independent sensor anyway, so I don't think there would be any different in light gathered per color channel, and you would still gain the benefit of capturing all wavelengths at every pixel...so you get your full resolution. 

Even if we increase true sensitivity by a stop, that still wouldn't be enough for an EVF to be effective in true low light situations. During summer, I like to photograph the herons and other night birds at some of the local watering holes. With night adjusted vision, I can see pretty well to frame my subjects with the OVF. Live View is riddled with extensive noise over what is largely a black scene (ISO 3200 and fraction of a second shutter speeds.) Here is an example (I love this time of day...it's usually absolutely still, very dark, but still light enough to see a little by, VERY quiet, except for the occasional splash of a Black-crowned Night Heron nabbing a fish):






_*Night Heron at Night*: Canon EOS 7D + EF 600mm f/4 L II | 1/6s f/5.6 @ ISO 3200 | Lifted by 1 stop (and +50 shadows) in LR_

Similarly, with night adjusted vision, I can find and frame stars with the OVF on my 7D (which is admittedly a fairly DIM OVF...the FF 5D III has a much brighter OVF) with relative ease, where as with live view, I might only be able to pick out a few of the absolute brightest stars...I can't even see the Pleiades with live view, so I can't imagine an EVF (being much smaller with less light emitting power and dynamic range) being any better. While they are fewer than the situations where either an EVF or OVF will do, there are still plenty where an OVF is the only way. Hence my intrigue with a hybrid...it wouldn't limit me in any way.


----------



## dgatwood (Dec 23, 2013)

jrista said:


> Trichroic prisms and three monochrome sensors would be intriguing. I know that has been tried in the past with CCD sensors for video cameras. Did the technology fall out of grace for some reason? I think there may be more innovative ways of solving the light problem. Was it Panasonic that designed a microprism splitter to replace color filters? They gained a considerable amount of sensitivity that way, and increased resolution by a about 50% (instead of three pixel types, you only have two.)



It's still frequently done in high-end pro video gear, last I checked, but there's a reason the mass-produced, low-end gear isn't built that way. You have three times as many chips that might be bad, plus the alignment must be exact, or else you got a terrible image. It's a bit more fragile and a lot harder to build.


----------



## Lee Jay (Dec 23, 2013)

jrista said:


> I am not much of a fan of EVFs (at least, so far), but I would be very interested in a hybrid EVF. There is no doubt that, if they can reach their technological pinnacle, that an EVF has a lot to offer. Simultaneously, there are things an OVF offers that an EVF never will. Having the option to switch between the two, at will, depending on your needs, in a single camera body?
> 
> *SIGN ME UP!!* ;D 8)



Me too. EVFs suck, but are necessary for video and helpful when doing manual focusing. I'd love the 7D2 to have a hybrid viewfinder.


----------



## jrista (Dec 23, 2013)

dgatwood said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > Trichroic prisms and three monochrome sensors would be intriguing. I know that has been tried in the past with CCD sensors for video cameras. Did the technology fall out of grace for some reason? I think there may be more innovative ways of solving the light problem. Was it Panasonic that designed a microprism splitter to replace color filters? They gained a considerable amount of sensitivity that way, and increased resolution by a about 50% (instead of three pixel types, you only have two.)
> ...



I really wonder if something like LCTF could be miniaturized and embedded into a sensor. Technically speaking, that should allow the full amount of light per pixel, but not necessarily with the same kinds of issues that layered sensor designs like Foveon have. With the increased real sensitivity, EVFs should be that much better in low light.


----------



## scottburgess (Dec 23, 2013)

I could see Canon using the "A-1 D" designation as both an homage to the great A-1 and to connect a new camera to the past. That particular body makes sense as a starting point for a retro-look advanced amateur digital body. It could explain a change of name for the 7D line. And if that were a new 35Mp APS-C with a decent autofocus system, I would consider buying one as our backup/extra magnification body.

Nothing but speculation, of course. But it is fun to think about.


----------



## tron (Dec 23, 2013)

I couldn't care less for an EVF. If this rumor is trueit looks like - we do not know for sure - that Canon are putting resources in everything but the single most important thing: The improvement of their sensors. Or to rephrase my thought by replying to the Thread title the following: As long as they improve their sensors ... a lot :


----------



## AvTvM (Dec 23, 2013)

all those woul would "love to get a hybrid viewfinder" .. .could you elaborate in a little more detail, how exactly you would like to have that implemented?

e.g.
* optical rangefinder with EVF overlay (Fuji X-Pro1 style) with or without optical parallax correction .. if yes, to what focal lengths and focus distances?

or 
* fixed, semitransparent pellicle mirror (Sony SLT, Canon EOS RT) style? 

or ... what else?

Willing to accept and swallow all the "unwanted effects"? 

Let's face it, time is ripe for EVF. All that's needed is just one more little push ... a higher res [why not 4k?] OLED display with no discernible lag [lets say less than 3ms - or any other number you consider good enough] and no blackouts between shot. POf course combined with 100% mechanics free, vibration-free global shutter (electronic). 


Anybody unwilling to accept EVFs will be relegated to using OVFs as long as those will be available in old-style "niche" DSLRs. Similar to analogue film cameras.


----------



## jrista (Dec 23, 2013)

AvTvM said:


> all those woul would "love to get a hybrid viewfinder" .. .could you elaborate in a little more detail, how exactly you would like to have that implemented?
> 
> e.g.
> * optical rangefinder with EVF overlay (Fuji X-Pro1 style) with or without optical parallax correction .. if yes, to what focal lengths and focus distances?
> ...



An EVF needs more than 4k to be good enough. An EVF with a viewfinder size the same as a 5D III and the maximum eye relief possible in a mirrorless body would need 12,000 PPI (I did the calculations for that here on CR a number of months ago) in order for the pixels to be invisible to the naked eye for viewers with the highest visual acuity (which is around 20/10, according to my ophthalmologist, who has given me 20/10 eyesights with contacts.) That results in pixels that are so small, they filter out some red light wavelengths at the longer end of the spectrum. 

The best EVF's today have around 2600 PPI, so we are a LONG way off from achieving the necessary pixel pitch required to render pixels invisible. That, to me, is the tipping point. When I look through an EVF and see image, rather than a matrix of pixels, then I'll finally be willing to make the move. But making functioning pixels that are only 700nm in size? I dunno, reading about Sony's 2600 PPI EVF and the technological advancements behind it, it sounded like just that was a pretty amazing feat. 

So, I'll happily take some kind of hybrid OVF/EVF. In absolutely NO way would I consider a rangefinder style viewfinder with parallax error to be acceptable. I expect such a hybrid to offer me the exact same advantage I have now with an OVF, so TTL for sure. I see no reason why Canon couldn't develop some kind of Color Transmissive LCD, similar to their current two-bit Transmissive LCD, that would overlay the pentaprism. In EVF mode, the mirror would lock up, providing a black backdrop, allowing the full benefit of a color T-LCD that should look/work just like any normal LCD. No reason it couldn't be OLED from an actual pixel technology standpoint, Samsung has already demonstrated transmissive OLED displays. Whatever the technology, though, that's what I would expect. True OVF when the mirror is not locked up, and a full color EVF when it is.


----------



## AvTvM (Dec 23, 2013)

Sony TruFinder EVF used in A99, NEX-7 and A7/R to my knowlegde is 0.5" OLED @ 1024x768 (XGA) RGB. 
If I made no mistake using Pythagoras, that calculates as 2560 ppi [if c=0.5" and a:b = 4:3 then -> a=0.4", b= 0.3" -> 1024/0.4=2560 or 768/0.3=2560] 
Viewed from a distance of about 1 inch (if at all). 
Should be plenty resolution for any human eye, no matter what eyesight, or not?


----------



## jrista (Dec 24, 2013)

AvTvM said:


> Sony TruFinder EVF used in A99, NEX-7 and A7/R to my knowlegde is 0.5" OLED @ 1024x768 (XGA) RGB.
> If I made no mistake using Pythagoras, that calculates as 2560 ppi [if c=0.5" and a:b = 4:3 then -> a=0.4", b= 0.3" -> 1024/0.4=2560 or 768/0.3=2560]
> Viewed from a distance of about 1 inch (if at all).
> Should be plenty resolution for any human eye, no matter what eyesight, or not?



Visual acuity of a person with 20/10 vision is 1/87th of a degree (less than 1 arcminute). There is no way that 2560ppi at less than 1" is enough. Not even remotely close. I derived the formula and did the calculations here on the forum once before, I'll see if I can find that post. For 20/20 vision (1/60th of a degree, or 1 arcminute) at just under half an inch would need at least 5000ppi to barely reach that point where pixels are just on the edge of not visible. I figure 5700ppi would result in an EVF screen that, at less than 1" eye relief, would just look like an image, rather than a bunch of pixels that make up an image. For me, though, 5700ppi isn't enough, I can easily see the pixels at 0.5" (and I know there are some mirrorless cameras where the viewfinder eye relief is less than an inch, maybe even as little as just under a half to 1/3 inch for some models), which is where 12,000ppi for 20/10 vision comes into play.) With 20/10 vision (contacts or my glasses in) I can easily see iPhone Retina display pixels at several inches (and I can see my Lumia 920 pixels as well, which have a slightly smaller pitch than even the iPhone Retina).

Since more and more often people with corrective lenses have better vision (unless their uncorrected vision is particularly bad), achieving the necessary resolution for 20/10 vision is only fair and appropriate. I think the basic formula I derived for required PPI at any given distance is:

1/(P * D)

Where P is a constant (for 20/10, I think it is 0.0002, 20/20 is 0.00022 I believe), and D is the distance. All units in inches. So at 1" eye relief, you would need 1px/(0.0002" * 1") = 5000ppi. At just under half an inch, you would need 1px/(0.0002" * 0.4") = 12,500ppi.


----------



## mkabi (Dec 24, 2013)

jrista said:


> mkabi said:
> 
> 
> > jrista said:
> ...



Lets agree to disagree, because I don't want to take every line and create a counter argument to it.


----------

