I never said anything about reflex. Why would you need a reflex? Mirrorless cameras have no reflex. Slapping an EVF on a camera doesn't need any sort of reflex. I don't recall anyone saying it had to be TTL viewing.
Carry on.
The proposal here is for a SLR camera. Normally you wouldn't need a mirror for a mirrorless camera with EVF, but you would here, because like in other SLRs, we want to send the image to two different locations. 1) a sensor in the roof, and 2) the film in the back. So you need a mirror (either a moving one or a pellicle, moving wastes less light) to send it to two different places.
'Billions'? what are your statistics representing, total units ever sold?
I was citing US dollars, which show that mirrorless is 35x larger of a market than film photography currently. And it's also about 20x larger of a market than digital SLRs. I don't care much about
absolute size versus the peak ever. I'm talking
relative to other cameras, people love mirrorless cameras and EVFs
. The main thing it has going for it that's making it 20-35x more popular than digital or film SLRs is the EVF.
Will they want to add the inconvenience of EVF (form factor, short battery life) in place of the convenience of the OVF?
EVFs are more convenient, not less, which is why they became so popular. Carrying a second battery in your pocket is a slight inconvenience, but it's overwhelmingly outweighed by never being surprised or missing the exposure level of a shot ever again, having full awareness of clipping of shadows and highlights, and by getting powerful focusing assistance in the form of peaking and being able to magnify zoom in for critical focus (on for example a half shutter press or whatever. If you prefer split image prism, an EVF can also be made to do that, but with light amplification unlike an OVF so it also works stopped down or in the dark)
Whether people feel more positive vs negative about EVFs isn't really a debate, it's a fact that they feel positively from the evidence of it sweeping all other camera types in the market. The poll on this was already taken with wallets.
What about a camera that shoots film and digital at the same time?
Yeah I meant to imply that already in the OP, sorry if unclear. Of course if you have a sensor sitting there already, you should also be able to take photos with it, and that would be a big utility clearly.
If you want to make it cheaper, and the main cost is the full frame sensor, you could instead do a half frame film camera + a roughly APS-C ish sized sensor which saves hundreds of dollars, and can still be fully hybrid and still use modern lenses. Including now (dslr not mirrorless) APS-C ones
The easiest configuration would probably be as a TLR
I disagree on this, as this loses all the utility of people being able to use their existing lenses for wide, tight, macro, etc. Canon EOS mount (which anyone can make now that patents expired, including Pentax or a Chinese brand ttartisan etc) has the most adaptability of vintage glass + its own. This also allows image stabilization from lenses, autofocus, etc. without building anything crazy or expensive into the camera itself.
why not a rangefinder concept where the big lens goes to the film and a small lens feeds either an EVF or a back screen? This seems like a doable hybrid?
See reply to the quote just above this: that means you couldn't use your collection of many other lenses you already own and that are way better and more versatile than whatever lens you were going to include.
If you want to make a much cheaper version, I'd opt instead for half frame film, still have a full frame mount, and then your sensor only has to be half frame size which is like 5x cheaper than a full frame sensor.
