Why not a film camera with an EVF?

[Crimeo]

I fundamentally disagree.
But they do give different results, so I understand why people use them sometimes, and prefer them sometimes.

I see a couple different people not agreeing, yet giving zero ways that an OVF is ever even 1% more accurate in any way...

To be clear, obviously it's more accurate of what the world looks like to a human eyeball, but what we need the tool to do for our craft is to preview what the positive (unedited negative flipped) will look like. If I want to see what the actual world looks like to a human eye, I can simply lower the camera down away from my eye for $0 and no equipment weight.

An OVF improves upon "no camera at all" by showing framing, focus plane, and DOF preview, but an EVF also does these same things + more on top and minus nothing.

 

[George Mann]

What I have suggested is to stick with optical viewfinders, but to add electronic overlays to aid in focusing and composition.

We can even add an evaluative exposure overlay that initiates with a press of a button.

 

[Don_ih]

This isn't worth 4 pages of discussion. Apart from being impractical, it's pointless. I guess it'd be fine for someone who doesn't understand exposure. Even then, it'd be limited benefit.

 

[Crimeo]

This isn't worth 4 pages of discussion. Apart from being impractical, it's pointless. I guess it'd be fine for someone who doesn't understand exposure. Even then, it'd be limited benefit.

Same question to you as others saying something similar: If previews of exposure, color, histograms, etc. are of little to no value, why did EVFs and mirrorless utterly sweep the industry 100%?

Mirrorless cameras save maybe like 100-150g of weight, most people don't adapt vintage lenses, and cost is a pretty silly explanation since they don't even cost less and you are rebuying a whole new ecosystem from scratch. The EVFs were pretty clearly the main benefit --> universally embraced revolution in cameras

And when I go just ask AI summaries or wikipedia or some dpreview summary or anything or mirrorless vs DSLRs, without leading or biasing questions, EVFs are overwhelmingly the number one reason focused on for why the shift. This is also consistent with historical sea change from rangefinders being popular to almost non-existent: better preview of the scene killed them off, entirely just that. What do you claim to know differently from all this?

 

[_T_]

If you read the thread you’ll see that nearly every poster doesn’t want what you’re proposing.

So why doesn’t it already exist? Very little demand. Probably so little demand that you’re literally the first and maybe only person asking about it.

 

[Crimeo]

If you read the thread you’ll see that nearly every poster doesn’t want what you’re proposing.

So why doesn’t it already exist? Very little demand. Probably so little demand that you’re literally the first and maybe only person asking about it.

I didn't post a poll, I asked why. "I don't wanna for my own reasons" isn't really a why answer. And "I don't want it, and my reason is [thing that is objectively not true, like "OVFs preview the image better"]" is not very compelling either.

 

[_T_]

I didn't post a poll, I asked why. "I don't wanna for my own reasons" isn't really a why answer. And "I don't want it, and my reason is [thing that is objectively not true, like "OVFs preview the image better"]" is not very compelling either.

You don’t want to know why. You want to prove to us that your idea is good.

We don’t like your idea

 

[gbroadbridge]

And when I go just ask AI summaries or wikipedia or some dpreview summary or anything or mirrorless vs DSLRs, without leading or biasing questions, EVFs are overwhelmingly the number one reason focused on for why the shift

Because all of those things are positive feedback loops - self congratulatory circular reasoning.

People just like to buy crap, and then have that impulse buy rationalised by someone or anything.

 

[Don_ih]

Same question to you as others saying something similar: If previews of exposure, color, histograms, etc. are of little to no value, why did EVFs and mirrorless utterly sweep the industry 100%?

Easier to make? Fewer moving parts? Focusing with an EVF is terrible - it's fine with an autofocus lens but total crap with a genuine manual focus lens and no focus assist.

Seriously. Mirrorless cameras are simpler and cheaper to make than DSLRs. Just think about it - it's obvious.

And none of those are "sweeping the industry" currently. That industry is all but dying.

Your idea is a fun thought exercise but totally impossible to sell.

 

[Crimeo]

Because all of those things are positive feedback loops - self congratulatory circular reasoning.

People just like to buy crap, and then have that impulse buy rationalised by someone or anything.

Great, so it wouldn't even matter if this was a good product or not by this logic, "people just like to buy crap" and will buy it whether it is or isn't... right? Or do you actually think people prefer good products, not any random object? If so, that brings us back to an actual answer why you don't like EVFs.

Easier to make? Fewer moving parts? Focusing with an EVF is terrible - it's fine with an autofocus lens but total crap with a genuine manual focus lens and no focus assist.

Seriously. Mirrorless cameras are simpler and cheaper to make than DSLRs. Just think about it - it's obvious.

• Easier to make: Irrelevant to the consumer choosing to buy EVFs and mirrorless over OVFs and DSLRs, does not explain them flocking in droves for the former over the latter to the point of 100% market dominance (see last bullet for cost)
• Fewer moving parts: Technically not "irrelevant" but near-zero relevance to the consumer (see last bullet for cost)
• Manual focus: is almost universally cited by any summary as a massive advantage of EVFs, not the other way around. Because of Focus peaking and magnification. Split prisms can also easily be displayed for the same experience as OVFs, and it has been tried (by Fuji), but people apparently don't like them as much as peaking and magnification.
• Cheaper to make: Irrelevant to the consumer unless it's carried through to MSRP, which it isn't consistently. Some are cheaper, some are more expensive. Examples:
  • Canon 6D on release in 2012 cost $2,100 (3,024 after inflation), A Canon R6 cost $2,500 in 2020 on release (3,200 after inflation)
  • A flagship Canon R1 cost $6,299 on release in 2024, the Canon EOS-1D X Mark III cost $6,499 on release in 2020 (7,864 equiv in 2024)
  • A rebel t6 in 2016 on release, cheapo basement beginner's APS-C camera cost $499 on release (686 today), while a canon R100 most beginner aps-c cost 480 in 2023 (504 today). Okay a bit cheaper for that one on the low end
  • And crucially, starting over in a new ecosystem is super expensive with the lenses and would wipe out any savings anyway even if they were all cheaper. Even if you just pick up a couple here or there and get an adapter (adapter also costs $250 or something btw)

A much stronger answer is "because of the like 12 different things EVFs do better"

And none of those are "sweeping the industry" currently.

Obviously I'm referring to % market share. Among people who wanted to buy a cameras, as a group they clearly considered mirrorless way better than DSLRs

 

[gbroadbridge]

Great, so it wouldn't even matter if this was a good product or not by this logic, "people just like to buy crap" and will buy it whether it is or isn't... right? Or do you actually think people prefer good products, not any random object?

I guess it just proves that there are a great many folks out there who place far more weight on the role of a camera in creating a photograph than is actually due.

 

[mshchem]

Because all of those things are positive feedback loops - self congratulatory circular reasoning.

People just like to buy crap, and then have that impulse buy rationalised by someone or anything.

That's for sure! More junk! I will say I don't care what dpreview etc has to say. Some of the "experts" don't know $hit.

 

[mshchem]

People will pay $50 for a roll of Velvia, and $30 for processing and ordinary scans. Same folks aren't going to pay over 2 K for a non-Leica new film camera.

It's the Rolex watch crowd now. Made in Germany.

It would be cool to see. You need volume production.

 

[wiltw]

About 3 million wanted to buy Mirrorless when Sony first coined the term as a means of distanguishin their product from the dSLR and popularizing the weight and bulk reduction (and even though Olympur and Panasonic had products that could be called 'mirrorless' 3-4 years sooner). About 5 Million want to buy them today. Hardly 'taking the industry storm' judging by AAGR, more like 'surviving better than dSLR'.

Many choose not to buy mirrorless because the expense vs. 'perceived benefit' equation does not make sense for them. Quite unlike the demand curve seen in the change from film to dSLR. The perceived benefit of the digital finder suits only a declining number of interchangeable-finder SLRs, which are now mostly owned by those seeking to shoot film with quite affordable old film SLRs that are cheaper to buy than any digital finder retrofit would cost. I cast no aspersion on the product concept, I merely assess the opportunity for its limited viability except to a very small niche...a smaller niche than the digital finder retrofit offered by ImBack.

But what do I know...I only spent a lifetime professionally assessing product marketability and doing everything I could to guide products to broaden their market appeal and maximize their financial return for companies. My last effort took a stalled product and grew it to amost 3x annual unit sales worth $110 Million in annual sales in 5 years..

 

[mshchem]

About 3 million wanted to buy Mirrorless when Sony first coined the term as a means of distanguishin their product from the dSLR and popularizing the weight and bulk reduction (and even though Olympur and Panasonic had products that could be called 'mirrorless' 3-4 years sooner). About 5 Million want to buy them today. Hardly 'taking the industry storm' judging by AAGR, more like 'surviving better than dSLR'.

Many choose not to buy mirrorless because the expense vs. 'perceived benefit' equation does not make sense for them. Quite unlike the demand curve seen in the change from film to dSLR. The perceived benefit of the digital finder suits only a declining number of interchangeable-finder SLRs, which are now mostly owned by those seeking to shoot film with quite affordable old film SLRs that are cheaper to buy than any digital finder retrofit would cost. I cast no aspersion on the product concept, I merely assess the opportunity for its limited viability except to a very small niche...a smaller niche than the digital finder retrofit offered by ImBack.
But what do I know...I only spent a lifetime professionally assessing product marketability and doing everything I could to guide products to broaden their market appeal to maximize their financial success for companies.

Did you assess something cool like Porsche or Ronco Pocket Fisherman?

Why do people want stainless steel kitchen appliances, ugly!

 

[wiltw]

Did you assess something cool like Porsche or Ronco Pocket Fisherman?

Why do people want stainless steel kitchen appliances, ugly!

Yes, the 911 is very much a small niche even compared to the larger niche BMW 3-series/X3. But both are premium priced. The 911 sells to 0.03% (or less) of the US population each year...
Can you convince a company to sell a premium priced new product to those with a low-end photography budget used car buyer, enough to make it worthwhile effort

 

[mshchem]

Yes, the 911 is very much a small niche even compared to the larger niche BMW 3-series/X3. But both are premium priced. The 911 sells to 0.03% (or less) of the US population each year...
Can you convince a company to sell a premium priced new product to those with a low-end photography budget used car buyer, enough to make it worthwhile effort

Porsche really needs to return to air cooled engines

 

[wiltw]

Porsche really needs to return to air cooled engines

Porsche abandoned air-cooled engines primarily to meet strict environmental regulations and performance demands, as air-cooled units could not efficiently manage emissions or high power outputs. Revival...ain't gonna happem. Variable water coolant temperature management is ueful to maximize power vs minimize pollution.

 

[MattKing]

To be clear, obviously it's more accurate of what the world looks like to a human eyeball, but what we need the tool to do for our craft is to preview what the positive (unedited negative flipped) will look like. If I want to see what the actual world looks like to a human eye, I can simply lower the camera down away from my eye for $0 and no equipment weight.

I can visualize a resulting print or slide far more effectively using an optical viewfinder image - which I have decades of experience with - than if presented with the image on what amounts to a very close, very small computer screen.
I expect most reasonably competent film photographers would be in the same boat.
Perhaps you are aiming your product idea at photographers who are only just moving to film from earlier experience with digital cameras with EVFs or nothing but live view on a screen. If so, I don't know whether that will help them with the transition to film or not - I expect it might actually impede the process.
One chooses a viewing system based on how well one uses it to visualize the result.
Histograms and the like are probably useful additions, but not if they get in the way of seeing + visualizing.
Garry Winogrand's line comes to mind:
"I photograph to see what the world looks like photographed"
Optical viewfinders seem to do a bit better job of giving most of us here a bit better of a sneak peek of the result ahead of time.

 

[koraks]

what we need the tool to do for our craft is to preview what the positive (unedited negative flipped) will look like.

I think part of the friction in this thread boils down to a tendency captured here: to regard one's own, personal preferences as universal. Evidently, they aren't. I personally do not need, require or want e.g. a view camera that puts the image upside up and shows it as black and white with a certain transfer curve. I'm perfectly fine with what the ground glass gives me. People who prefer to use a rangefinder camera (the type with an optical viewfinder) appear to be doing just fine without a WYSIWYG preview as well.

Furthermore, I expect it's highly likely that those who photograph on film are more likely to accept or even prefer a viewfinder that does show a facsimile of the final image as printed, projected etc. I believe there are two reasons for this:
1: Some (many) people who use film seem to embrace a degree of unpredictability and surprise when they get to see the images.
2: Some (other) people who use film appear to visualize the result they are aiming for mentally and arguably would be hindered or biased by a machine-made preview that does not interpret the scene on the basis of a human emotional response to it.
Both arguments result in the exact opposite of the requirement as you formulate it.

There will likely also be a considerable group who simply don't need the live preview, but wouldn't mind awfully if it were there, but they're on the whole not willing to pay e.g. $1500 for a brand new camera that has such a feature as they're perfectly happy with their $150 Canon AE1.

Overall, I think the vast majority of film photographers will experience your concept of an EVF-equipped film camera as antithetic or oxymoronic. While your arguments for an EVF as such make sense, the concept of your proposed camera does not hinge on just the presence of an EVF - as I understand it, it's still a camera that takes film. And that automatically means it targets a particular audience, which for the largest part does not appear to have any interest in such a concept. I'm not sure how you expect your reasoning to somehow change that. Do you expect everyone to suddenly go "ooooh, now I understand, how could I've not seen this?"

Camera's with electronic viewfinders have been around for decades now. If there would have been merit to a Frankenstein concept that records on film but uses a digital display to approximate the final image, surely, companies would have invested in it. Fact of the matter is that the concept just doesn't make sense; it doesn't compute. People may like cars and they may like ice cream. That doesn't mean that a car with an ice cream cone for a steering wheel would be a viable proposition.

 

[George Mann]

Porsche abandoned air-cooled engines primarily to meet strict environmental regulations and performance demands, as air-cooled units could not efficiently manage emissions or high power outputs. Revival...ain't gonna happem. Variable water coolant temperature management is ueful to maximize power vs minimize pollution.

Air cooled engines can be made to perform efficiently at high power outputs with enough heat sinking and fan throughput.

The irrational demand for ultra-low emissions is another matter entirely.

 

[George Mann]

Garry Winogrand's line comes to mind:
"I photograph to see what the world looks like photographed"

I believe that he stated that he like the way it looked on B&W film specifically.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

OVF and low ISO on film pushed lens manufacturers decades ago to develop the brightest lenses, like f/1.4 50mm. In darker situations, you needed more light to keep higher shutter speeds and allow you to see a brighter scene through the viewfinder. EVFs reduce the need for brighter lenses, although you're still shooting film if not a digital camera. The push for very bright and expensive lenses has really been eliminated with EVF and high ISO sensors used in mirrorless digital cameras.

 

[koraks]

The push for very bright and expensive lenses has really been eliminated with EVF and high ISO sensors used in mirrorless digital cameras.

That doesn't quite explain the modern f/1.4 - f/1.8 primes we see pop up all the time specifically for mirrorless camera systems.

 

[Don_ih]

Easier and cheaper to make does matter, since the manufacturers are the ones who decide what things get made. And don't underestimate the power of marketing to make something mediocre seem great. You really need to take a look though an actual good viewfinder, like one from a Leicaflex.

Anyway, my main irritation is you don't want to confront the reality of the situation. Cost, market size, availability of target cameras - all these things make the idea a fantasy. And that's separate from the fact that virtually no one would want it, anyway.