The Next Paradigm Shift

<p>It says <a href="http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-09-07/canon-clinging-to-mirrors-means-opportunity-for-sony-cameras.html"> here</a>.</p>

<p>Mr. Lim…</p>

<p>Thank you for the reference.</p>

<p>Unfortunately, that’s the way that sales are going. People are accepting the lower resolution that a digital eyepiece provides vs. an optical eyepiece. This is the same type of thing that happened with computer monitor resolution. Those of us, who had at least 1600 X 1200 resolution, now can only buy a maximum of 1080 pixels high. I went to upgrade to get more than 1200 high, as my monitor was failing, but of course had to take the new 1080 standard, or pay a very high price for the super limited high-end market.</p>

<p>I have full systems for Canon, Minolta, and Contax in 35mm. Although not much of a fan of digital photography, I did buy a Minolta 7D. The colors are great and it’s in great shape, having relatively low use, but it’s time to get more pixels. I also want a full frame that Minolta did not offer. My plan was to buy the successor to the current Sony (Minolta-fit) A900 because, of all the systems I have, the most number of good lenses were in the Minolta line and all of them become anti-shake because it’s built into the camera. It seems as though Sony is through with optical viewfinders, which means I can no longer precisely manual focus when necessary.</p>

<p>Bottom line is, I’m going to be switching to Canon and plan to buy the successor to the 5DII. For me, that means not only do I have to buy the camera, but I’m going to have to buy some new IS lenses to overcome the age-related inability to hold a camera still. I’m also going to have to buy a new flash. Sony paid good money and took some expensive responsibility in order to inherit the Minolta lens fit, system with its built-in market to people like me. Now they go and throw it away.</p>

<p>California’s governor Jerry Brown was also governor many years ago when I lived there. At that time, his political philosophy was for Californians to set their sights lower, lower their expectations, and essentially dumb down. Although he was often referred to as “Moonbeam” Brown for that philosophy, he did get elected. Was he a futurist or a trendsetter?</p>

<p>I see a parallel in going to a digital eyepiece finder. It’s easier, cheaper, and, through advertising, will be seen as more desirable. People are lowering their sights, not only in general, but also in what they will pay money for. People seem much more accepting today of doing it the corporate way, rather than having the corporation respond to the customer. This is quite a change from the thinking of my generation. Can you imagine our temerity in expecting the big corporations to make what we wanted, rather than buying what they wanted to sell us? I guess today’s generation would see us as having had a lot of gall.</p>

<p>I think lowering expectations and dumbing down is actually the paradigm shift. Sony was just the first to take advantage of this social trend in the SLR type market. Most Photonetters are now too young to remember “1984” by George Orwell. It created quite a stir in the late ‘40s or early ‘50s when it was written. It predicted much of what has actually happened in many ways that were simply unbelievable to most of its readers at that time. One of the slogans was, “Less is more.” The actual year of 1984, then far in the future, is now more than 25 years behind us. We have progressed even further than George Orwell predicted. What a shame.</p>

<p>A. T. Burke</p>

<p>P.S. The new Sonys are not true SLRs. Maybe they will coin a new term such as TTLDV (Through The Lens Digital Viewfinder).</p>

<p>There is always room and place for a paradigm shift, and a new product with truely great qualities can change the market fairly significant.<br>

But I cannot help wonder whether this is such a situation. I've seen quite a lot of people going for DSLRs because they wanted better than a compact camera; without actually wanting the size or complexity of a DSLR. In such cases, I think the NEX, m4/3rd or fixed-(zoom)lens cameras with large sensors and good AF performance are a very right answer. Instead of exchangable lenses, you could even weld some '18-200' to it (like many have glued onto their DSLR; I'd like to see the amount of lenses sold per NEX versus DSLRs; I think many stick with one lens). <br />For many other photographers, these smaller cameras are not the answer. There is place enough for both systems. So, a treat to Canon and Nikon, yes. Are they at risk? I don't belief so (*).</p>

<p>The prediction in the article is based on the Japanese market, which always has been more technology-driven, does better for small cameras anyway (Pentax Q system, for example, only available in Japan) and is more "trendy" than the EU and USA. Note that the article does mention it, with other reasons: "<em>The new types of cameras aren’t as popular in Europe and the U.S. because “the big camera makers still haven’t entered market” and “the number of products is too small to draw consumers". </em>But this quote is from a Sony president - he may have a little bias towards believing in the NEX-style cameras. And I simply can't believe the number of products is the problem. I see PENs and NEX's here in every store (EU), they're widely available. If they really were the answer to all our dreams, would the fact that they're Sony or Panasonic stop us from buying them because they're not Canon/Nikon?<br>

So while for sure the NEX-style of cameras will impact the market, the rise in Japan is not necessarily typical for the world-wide market. It most likely will make Canon and Nikon move, but how exactly they'll will respond remains to be seen of course. But I doubt they'll be sitting ducks while Sony takes the cake.</p>

<p>_____<br>

P.S. to A.T. Burke - if I'm not mistaken, Sony uses SLT for cameras like the new A77. Single Lens Translucent, from the top of my head.<br>

_____<br>

(*) Take it with a pinch of salt, since I'm biassed (Nikon DSLR, too large hands to feel comfortable with a NEX or similar camera).</p>

<blockquote>

<p>a new term such as TTLDV</p>

</blockquote>

<p >These are called EVIL cameras, Electronic Viewfinder Interchangeable Lens. The term has been around for a while.</p>

<p >They are a big step up from a compact, without going to the size and weight of a DSLR. I don't see SLR disappearing very soon though, even if the market is diminished. Even APS sensors give a lot more data, and so far the EVF, while good enough for general use, are nowhere near a decent optical finder.</p>

<p >A speculative question might be, whether Canon or Nikon will market their own, and if so whether they will use a standard mount or one of their own.</p>

<p >Incidentally, roll film isn't obsolete, and in the UK most people drive cars with manual gearboxes, so those comparisons struck me as fairly pointless.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Those of us, who had at least 1600 X 1200 resolution, now can only buy a maximum of 1080 pixels high.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>That worried me. I've used iiyama monitors for years, so I went to check their website.<br>

They have 20 to 24 inch monitors at 1920x1080 at prices around £120 in British money, and 17" in 1280 x1080 at about £85, both prices including tax. So I breath a sigh of relief.</p>

<p>Ah, Nikon news - <a href="http://www.43rumors.com/rumors-nikon-system-versus-micro-four-thirds/">http://www.43rumors.com/rumors-nikon-system-versus-micro-four-thirds/</a></p>

<p>I think we're at yet another stage in the transformation of cameras where new technology (or new implementations of old technology, if you prefer) shows us what may lie around the corner for photographic equipment, but has not yet proven itself sufficiently robust and powerful to provide an obvious path for most manufactureres and consumers to jump in. If about-to-be-released cameras like the a65, a77 and NEX7 make a big splash in the market then obviously Canon will have to revise its options and follow suit rather than letting its market share evaporate. Market leaders can afford to wait and let others prove the worth of different tech solutions - or have those others see those innovations bite the dust in the highly unpredictable and rapidly shifting technology/design/marketing environment. Here's <a href="http://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/the_online_photographer/2011/09/sonys-big-risks.html">an analysis</a> that thinks Sony may be making a huge mistake, instead of being part of a paradigm shift.</p>

<p>Sony may be replicating a pattern that was typical for the direct ancestor of its DSLR/DSLT division: Minolta brought a number of technology innovations to the market first throughout its history, like the first generation of autofocus SLRs that sold really well (with the Maxxum 5000 & 7000), but also like APS film cameras which ultimately turned out to be a dead end in the market. Brief dominance in the AF SLR market did not allow Minolta to dislodge Canon and Nikon from their positions as market leaders, not least because the latter quickly followed up with robust AF implementations of their own. On the other hand, diverting so much hope and effort in APS technology may well have played a big role (<a href="http://cameracollector.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=mslrs&action=print&thread=4274">according to some</a>) in the subsequent demise of Minolta as an independent brand.</p>

<p>Personally I do think pellicle + EVF based cameras will break through in the next few years - even though the pleasures of OVF size and brightness are really important to me - because both technologies are certain to undergo rapid further improvements. OVF technology on the other hand has basically remained unchanged for the past decade or longer, and the best we can hope for there by way of future innovations would be truly effective O+EVF hybrid designs - which seem (to me) a likely next wave/shift in the market after (presumably) a few brief years of "pure" EVF dominance.</p>

<p>I really, really enjoy long rants from people who have absolutely no experience with whatever it is that they're ranting about...</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Unfortunately, that’s the way that sales are going. People are accepting the lower resolution that a digital eyepiece provides vs. an optical eyepiece.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>There is a Fresnel lens and a scattering grain pattern or hex ruled pattern in the focusing screen of an SLR that limits your resolution. You would be surprised at how low the actual limit is. But that's only a minor error compared to what comes next...</p>

<blockquote>

<p>It seems as though Sony is through with optical viewfinders, which means I can no longer precisely manual focus when necessary.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Electronic viewfinder cameras, like the Sony, can zoom to insanely high magnifications when you manually focus. It's like having an instant loupe, available full time, without having to screw stuff onto your SLR. I've had a Nikon F5 with a 6x magnifying chimney viewer and screw in "flip up" 2x magnifiers for SLRs including F100, N8008, and FM2. None of this compares to the precision (and the ease of attaining that precision) that I get with the "liveview" mode on my D3 and D90. And those are just first generation liveview systems.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I see a parallel in going to a digital eyepiece finder. It’s easier, cheaper, and, through advertising, will be seen as more desirable.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I guess you're not an engineer. Here, in the real world, a high quality EVF is harder and more expensive than a mirrored SLR. Now, as far as how it would "seem" more reliable...</p>

<ul>

<li>100% frame accurate viewfinder coverage. With mechanical mirror SLRs, that requires precise assembly that let Nikon and Canon get away for decades with only putting 100% finders on the flagship models (Nikon F6, F5, F4, right back to the original F, Canon A1 series, etc.). It wasn't until Oly figured out how to do a 100% finder on a sub $2000 DSLR (the E-1) that Nikon and Canon followed suit and put them on D300, D7000 or 7D level models. But right now, Sony offers more 100% viewfinder models than either Nikon or Canon.</li>

<li>Accurate DOF preview. Because of the scattering characteristics of SLR "bright screens", they can't show you DOF much shallower than f4, even if you've got an f1.4 lens. And, since the screen dims down outrageously at small apertures, you can't really preview f22, either. So, a conventional SLR lets you accurately preview f4-f8, period, end of story. An EVF camera can show you real f1.4 (or even 1.2 or 1.0, if you've got the lenses) DOF, and it can brighten up the view and let you see clearly at f22.</li>

<li>Accurate wide aperture focusing. As I mentioned, the focusing screen of an SLR only picks up a lens's central rays. So, the "deeper than life" DOF makes it harder to manually focus, and, due to the lens's spherical aberation, there is a focus shift between f1.4 and f4. So, an EVF camera that can actually focus at f4, and instantly magnify any part of the image on demand, is the most precise focusing tool you've ever used.</li>

<li>No attention getting mirror noise. That's just one of the reasons photographers specializing in certain events (especially stage and theater) have gravitated to Leica rangefinders for decades.</li>

<li>No mirror slap vibration reducing the resolution of your shots. Starting with the Canon 30D, and now the Sony cameras, there's not even mechanical shutter vibration. They have an electronic first curtain, so the shutter only moves at the end of the exposure, when it's pretty much too late to screw the image up from vibration.</li>

<li>Brighter images.</li>

<li>The ability to overlay any information onto the viewfinder. I used to really dread changing focusing screens when I wanted a grid. Now, you can actually select several different grids. As well as displaying an electronic level.</li>

</ul>

<blockquote>

<p>the best we can hope for there by way of future innovations would be truly effective O+EVF hybrid</p>

</blockquote>

<p>The pellicle mirror is there for the phase detect auto focusing. Apparently they are working at PDAF on the sensor itself and if perfected would render the pelicle mirror obsolete.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Bottom line is, I’m going to be switching to Canon</p>

</blockquote>

<p>It's not my business, really, but I think that eventually you will stay with the Sony system (not because the Canon is bad, but because you might actually prefer the trade-offs of the Sony in the end). I'd say that a fixed mirror is worth having in an SLR. It's only now that it can work properly - without an EVF the drawback would be too much.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>The pellicle mirror is there for the phase detect auto focusing. Apparently they are working at PDAF on the sensor itself and if perfected would render the pelicle mirror obsolete.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>PDAF built into the sensor would make a potentially huge difference in its own right, especially for EVIL cameras like the Lumix G, PEN E and NEX systems, but it wouldn't necessarily have to spell the end of the fixed mirror design and by extension the SLR-like type of camera. Liquid crystal materials already exist that can be switched electronically between almost fully reflective and transmissive states, and using such a <a href="http://www.kentoptronics.com/mirror.html">switchable mirror</a> instead of a static pellicle would allow all kinds of really cool tricks like rapidly oscillating at tunable frequencies between sending the image to the sensor and to a hybrid viewfinder, making the mirror act as a shutter or an internal electronically controlled ND filter, etc etc (see posts towards the bottom of <a href="http://www.photoclubalpha.com/2011/08/26/smoke-and-mirrors-an-idea-for-sony/">this thread</a> in photoclubalpha).</p>

<p>On a different train of thought, the intro from the Bloomberg article reminds me of another point:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Canon Inc. and Nikon Corp., the world’s two biggest makers of high-end cameras, may be missing out on the industry’s biggest technology shift since film rolls became obsolete.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I'm sure it's a mistake to assume that Canon and Nikon don't have very significant technology innovations of their own in the wings. When Sony released the a900 with the explicit hope of catching the attention of a segnificant percentage of pro and semi-pro shooters, Canon responded within a week with the 5D Mk2 and the first appearance of DSLR HD video. This clearly caught Sony off guard and presumably made Canon pros even less likely to consider buying an a900 than the otherwise very similar price, specs and stills performance of both cameras.</p>

<p>What intrigued me at the time was that Canon didn't just parry Sony's potential butting in on "their" full-frame turf, but that it did so by a surprise intrusion into a tech market where Sony dominates the professional segment = HD video. Sony presumably did not anticipate how quickly DSLR video would become popular and may have been taking its pro video segment too much for granted, because it took them another two years to release their first video-capable camera bodies (to the great frustration of a lot of Sony shooters in 2009 and through much of 2010).</p>

<p>But when it finally did implement video in SLR-like cameras, now it was Sony who popped a surprise out of its hat by reinventing one of Canon's past technological experiments = pellicle cameras. Presumably Canon's past experience with commercially unsuccessful pellicle 35mm SLRs has convinced it that pellicle technology is not worth further exploration, and that attitude may still explain its current declared lack of interest.</p>

<p>Of course that doesn't mean the story ends there, it'll be interesting to see how Canon and Nikon will respond with their next countermoves - if indeed all this new upstart technology does really catch on sufficiently to seriously threaten the worldwide market shares of the Big Two.</p>

<p>Mr. Ghantous…</p>

<p>You made a good counterpoint. Yes, at some point, with enough features or something spectacular done well enough by Sony I could probably forgo the optical finder. I just don’t see enough reason yet. Responding to the OP also got me thinking, and I was prompted to take another look at the Internet information on both the 5DII and A900. At this point I’m almost ready to choose “none of the above.” Not because they are bad products but I reconsidered how much I’d get out of a future purchase. Also, I have to consider the slim chance that I will see the successor to either model especially because of the product introduction slow down caused by the earthquake. </p>

<p>I keep forgetting my age. Film is not going to disappear in my lifetime. I shoot a lot of 6x9 and 6x7. I have a Nikon 9000 scanner. That gives me a little more than 115 MP and 95 MP respectively. I also know that both Fuji and Kodak have been dropping their best reversal films and it is only going to get worse. Realistically, that is not going to affect me much. At the beginning of last year I was wondering whether Kodachrome processing or I was going outlive one another. I beat Kodachrome but will not out live the expiration date of the film I would buy today. </p>

<p>Sooooooo. It is probably going to be neither Canon or Sony Digital. </p>

<p>A. T. Burke</p>

<p>Mr. Wisniewski…</p>

<p>What can I say in response to your post above? Perhaps Mr. Anything is overdoing it a bit. So, let me restart.</p>

<p>Sonny…..</p>

<p>You are absolutely right. I’m not an engineer. Although I graduated as an Electrical Engineer in 1941, I have not been one since late 1984 when I retired at 65. Before that I was just an engineering student when, as a student at the USNA I designed and built the radio control unit for Dr. Robert H. Goddard’s later L-C series experimental rockets. Of course 1984 is a long time ago. I’ll bet that most of the satellites that I designed designed in the 1960s, 1970s, and early 1980s have long since quit working and/or are totally obsolete by now. I’m also sure that I’m no longer listed in Marquis Who's Who in Science and Engineering it has been so long.</p>

<p>I also taught in the middle 70s at night. Boy! It was great with the undergraduate students most of whom were filled with promise and a quest for knowledge. I was quickly elevated to where I was teaching post grad level classes. I then dealt with a lot more people like the person you sound like above. Oh, they were bright all right, as they had to have a PHD and five years experience post PHD in the field to be considered for enrolment. They had a lot of good sounding ideas and theories…that did not work out. The thing that soured me on teaching was the enthusiastic arrogance with which they turned mere ignorance into stupidity.</p>

<p>I had the same type of argument, self-righteously put out as fact, like you did about the EV, “Electronic viewfinder cameras, like the Sony, can zoom to insanely high magnifications when you manually focus.” I would have asked them to consider that each pixel they were magnifying was just a processor’s guess at which a light value passed through a single one of four colored filters (two green, one each of red and blue) might be. I’d stupidly respond that perhaps seeing the real thing directly might not be more precise. That kind of answer was beyond their ability to consider. Therefore it was beyond discussion.</p>

<p>I was wasting my time in the same way as if I would counterpoint everything else you said above. I decided it was not worth the effort trying to teach pigs to sing.</p>

<p>“You cannot teach a pig to sing. It is a waste of effort and only angers the pig.”</p>

<p>I quit teaching.</p>

<p>May I open-mindedly counterpoint my own argument?</p>

<p>Maybe I really should refer to you as Mr. Wisniewski. You have placed me in good company, with your answer to Dr. Greenspun when you answered him “I'd give the review an "A" for art, and an "F" for science.” replying to his Canon EF 85/1.2L II USM Lens Review. His resume is here:</p>

<p><a href="http://philip.greenspun.com/narcissism/resume">http://philip.greenspun.com/narcissism/resume</a></p>

<p>Dr. Greenspun is one of the best intellectual hopes that my grandchildren’s generation have. It was such a pleasure corresponding with him some 10+ years ago. If you had really meant to place me anywhere near his category of accomplishment, intellectual capacity, and knowledge I would have probably referred to you as “Sir.”</p>

<p>A. T. Burke</p>

<p> </p>

<blockquote>

<p>I decided it was not worth the effort trying to teach pigs to sing. “You cannot teach a pig to sing. It is a waste of effort and only angers the pig.”</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I really, really have to work on that, myself. Sorry to have angered you.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I quit teaching.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Based on what you've written so far, I believe that you made a wise decision that benefited everyone.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>May I open-mindedly counterpoint my own argument?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>If you are asking for an assessment, I believe that you lack the ability to do so.</p>

<p>Unbelievable! What was intended to interest Sony fans and supporters and geeks have turned out to be a digital vs digital fight much like a film vs digital fight. People, cool off.</p>

<p>If you have looked through the viewfinder of the A55 and shot with it, you will understand that EVF (electronic view finders - yes, I know it's supposed to be viewfinder) are AWESOME! I own a Sony R1. It is one of the first SLR-like EVF cameras, and it is great! I LOVE it, though the other day I doused it in the ocean, and not it's dead.<br>

-<br>

Play with an A55, and you will see the light. Play with a new A77, when they become available, and you will probably see the light even more! Sony makes the A900, with a nice big optical viewfinder. It also has that wonderful "Steady Shot" feature, which any old guy with shaky hands should welcome, because it will let him take still shots even with fixed focal length f1.4 glass! Sony is a true innovator, and just because it's high-tech, don't get down on them for that. Look at video cameras. Electronic viewfinders allow people to see what is going to be, before they shoot (or as they are shooting, in the case of video cameras). How can you have a problem with THAT?!?<br>

-<br>

I plan on getting an A77. I am also going to get a Sigma SD1 (with an optical viewfinder). I just wish the two were combined into one, and the Sony A77 would be coming with that amazing Foveon sensor that the SD1 has.</p>

<p>Unfortunately that's what usually happens with real or perceived paradigm shifts... maybe that's an indication it really might turn out to be real thing :)</p>

<p>Yeah. I've been laughing at folks like that for decades. They hated (yes, that's the right word) built-in light meters, then automatic exposure, then autofocus, then digital. Something new is an opportunity to hate. Of course, there are those who can get obsessed with the new. There's an old Ben Franklin quote, I'll have to paraphrase, because I can't remember it exactly...</p>

<blockquote>

<p>There are two kinds of fool, the one who says "this is old, therefore, it must be good" and the other who says "this is new, so it must be better."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>The wise man judges each new thing on its own merits. I've been using EVFs on industrial and scientific cameras for many years, video cameras even more years, still cameras a bit less time, and I know the merits. Sounds like Scott knows them, too. But there are some who condemn without trying. It's sad, really.</p>

<p>Mr. Lim…</p>

<p>Responding to your post: “Unbelievable! What was intended to interest Sony fans and supporters and geeks have turned out to be a digital vs digital fight much like a film vs digital fight. People, cool off.”</p>

<p>1. Your post did indeed interest Sony fans and supporters and geeks. That is why you got all the responses.</p>

<p>2. Except for the exchange between Mr. Wisniewski and myself that was attack, counter attack, counter-counter attack the conversation was healthy. Even within the exchange, there was information from Mr. Wisniewski that added to the discussion/knowledge base here on Photonet. Even despite Mr. Wisniewski’s opinion of my assertions, there may even be the slightest possibility of some worthwhile information within my posts. Worst case, perhaps it caused someone to consider what I said but still come to an opposite conclusion more firmly due to the additional input, a good thing for him or her.</p>

<p>3. I don’t see the exchange above as a digital vs. digital fight. Mr. Wisniewski made the observation “They hated (yes, that's the right word) built-in light meters, then automatic exposure, then autofocus, then digital.” I was around then too. Without doubting his experience, I would still say that my experience differed from his. Although I observed some expressions of “hate”, most of the negative comments expressed in my presence had to do with the fear that the product leaders would abandon manual exposure, manual focus, and film there by limiting choice rather than expanding choice.</p>

<p>4. I do not see the EVF as bad. I just do not want one for the reasons expressed above. If I had decided to go Canon 5DIII, I would not be the first person who changed their main camera system from one brand to another. EVF has been great for my friend Bob. Retired and pushing 70 he was once a professional photographer. In the last ten years he has had a drastically lower and lower percentage of in-focus shots. A few years ago he bought a mid-range Sony Digital, mostly to be able to use my large Minolta fit range of lenses. As he quit manual focusing or trying to choose auto focus points and started using the Sony more often on full auto and framing with the large back panel EVF more often, his percentage of correctly focused pictures shot up. Photography has gone from a disappointment to a pleasure again for him. I’m glad EVF was available for him! However, it is not for me. I’d like to have a choice and would tend to choose glass.</p>

<p>I’m glad you referred us to the article. It was worth reading. From the responses, others felt the same way whether they liked or disliked the content or agreed with its premise or not.</p>

<p>A. T. Burke</p>

<p>Mr Burke,<br>

You are all welcome.</p>

<p>I see EVF progressing in ways that will make optical obsolete. Imagine infra-red and starlight enhanced vision, for shooting in the dark? Imagine the ability to zoom in the viewfinder (which will be bigger than full-frame one day), so you can see if something is in focus? My Sony R1 did that. I just wished the viewfinder was a higher resolution viewfinder. The A55 fixed that problem. The ability to touch a button and get a magnified view is really awesome! The ability to brighten the view on the fly will increase. In fact, auto-brightness of the viewfinder will probably be introduced, just like auto-exposure was introduced many years ago, and you will have not only a depth-of-field preview button, but a true exposure preview button, which will show depth-of-field AND exposure.<br>

-<br>

When I first bought my Sony R1 years ago, I wrote about it, describing the EVF as something I thought had incredible potential. Imagine a viewfinder that can tilt up? I had one on a video camera years ago. There is no optical viewfinder that I know of that can do that. There are so many wonderful things about EVF, and not that the resolution issue seems to be cured (2.4 megapixels?!?), I think we will see all sorts of amazing enhancements to the EVF concept. I think we will see hybrid optical/EVF cameras too, which have a flip-down EVF (in fact, I think I just read about such a thing on a Fuji or Leica the other day).<br>

-<br>

Yes . . . EVF is the way of the future, and I can't wait for it to come. As far as I'm concerned, IT'S ABOUT TIME! (After-all, video cameras with EVF have been around for twenty years!)</p>

<blockquote>

<p>but a true exposure preview button, which will show depth-of-field AND exposure.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>The brightness and darkness of over and under exposure are already in the M mode of the A55. Is that not what you wanted, Scott?</p>

<p>On another note, the EVF is great for over-40 people who do not want to use reading glasses while shooting but still want to review the images in the field.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>On another note, the EVF is great for over-40 people who do not want to use reading glasses while shooting but still want to review the images in the field.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Actually it would also help over-40s like myself who are nearsighted and who would usually have to take off their personal optics to review photos and pixelpeep on the rear lcd :)</p>