M 4/3rds alternative by Samsung

[jonoslack]

VF at the bottom, wouldn't it?

I think a 'bottom' based viewfinder is a wonderful idea.

 

[Jorgen Udvang]

One question is if there will be an adapter allowing AF with K-mount lenses. That would give users access to all the Pentax Limited primes with full functionality. It would obviously require an in-body AF-motor. Maybe not so likely anyway, but who knows...

 

[Jorgen Udvang]

I think a 'bottom' based viewfinder is a wonderful idea.

I've tried that: sometimes, I wanted the flash on top of my Rollei 35. If I can find it, I'll send it to you for testing, Jono :grin:

 

[jonoslack]

I've tried that: sometimes, I wanted the flash on top of my Rollei 35. If I can find it, I'll send it to you for testing, Jono :grin:

My family say that I always talk out of my bottom. I also have one of those nice rollei 35 (my wife gave me one for a wedding present all those years ago - but it doesn't work anymore).

 

[Jorgen Udvang]

My family say that I always talk out of my bottom. I also have one of those nice rollei 35 (my wife gave me one for a wedding present all those years ago - but it doesn't work anymore).

Neither does mine The good thing about that is that it doesn't matter that it's the cheap, silver T version anymore. At the bottom of the drawer, it's just as good as a non-working, cool, black S.

 

[johnastovall]

Well.... they had to place the viewfinder somewhere, and with an LCD almost as large as the camera, the only way was to extend the camera in one direction or the other. It would have looked awkward with the VF at the bottom, wouldn't it?

Put on the left side. No reason it has to be on top. And shrink the LCD other than for a histogram and menus, we aren't watching HD movies on it.

Or if you really want to get innovative feed LCD image to a set of VR glasses like a HUD and don't even have it on the camera.

We really need to get away from the 19th century model of the camera with a lens in front and ground glass in back. We need to look at distibution of on the user's body voice command control via Bluetooth just like my phone, VR glasses, camera one place and the image storage in your pocket. Preview on a wrist attached display just like some small UAV's do now. Why have to have the imager in you hand.

 

[Jorgen Udvang]

Put on the left side. No reason it has to be on top. And shrink the LCD other than for a histogram and menus, we aren't watching HD movies on it.

Or if you really want to get innovative feed LCD image to a set of VR glasses like a HUD and don't even have it on the camera.

We really need to get away from the 19th century model of the camera with a lens in front and ground glass in back. We need to look at distibution of on the user's body voice command control via Bluetooth just like my phone, VR glasses, camera one place and the image storage in your pocket. Preview on a wrist attached display just like some small UAV's do now. Why have to have the imager in you hand.

I agree, but the market is conservative. Many consumers with photographic ambitions want a camera that looks "professional". Bragging rights are very often the reason for buying an SLR.

 

[Ranger 9]

I think a 'bottom' based viewfinder is a wonderful idea.

So no doubt you are a fan of the David White Co.'s line of Realist cameras, 35mm stereo rangefinder cameras which had the viewfinder on the bottom? Made a lot of sense given the huge width of a stereo camera -- kept it out of the way of your nose. If I recall correctly, they used film-plane focusing, too. Not surprising that David White wouldn't be constrained by tradition, since they didn't have roots in the camera business: their main field was making surveying instruments.

Meanwhile, back in the glory days of 'Pop Photo' as a serious magazine with long articles ('60s? '70s?) I recall reading a piece by one of their big-name writers (Norman Goldberg?) called "Are They Building Cameras Upside-Down?" He argued that 35mm SLRs, in particular, would make much more sense if designed with the finder on the bottom: no interference between nose and camera back, and greater steadiness by bracing the camera back against the forehead. (In fact, I've sometimes used this as a trick for hand-holding at marginal shutter speeds: turn the camera upside-down, brace it against your forehead, and you can often get away with shooting one or two steps slower than you would otherwise.)

I also agree with John A. that there's no reason to stick with traditional layouts now that the electronic-viewfinder genie is out of the bottle. In fact, in a previous thread I posited a camera with a lens assembly that you'd hold and aim like a flashlight, communicating wirelessly (via Bluetooth?) with a viewfinder that you'd hook over one ear, like a cell-phone headset.

 

[Guy Mancuso]

Guess you guys are ahead of me. Guess i will delete my post than. LOL

 

[gDallasK]

Well.... they had to place the viewfinder somewhere, and with an LCD almost as large as the camera, the only way was to extend the camera in one direction or the other. It would have looked awkward with the VF at the bottom, wouldn't it?

I agree. We need to get beyond viewing the bump as a faux pentaprism - it's obviously necessary to accommodate the elecronic viewfinder somwhere on the rear of a body which is already crowded with a big lcd and various buttons and wheels.

If you really wanted to get rid of the bump you could mount the viewfinder in the upper left corner of the real panel. But then you'd immediately run into accusations of creating a "faux rangefinder" look. And of course you'd risk irritating "left-eyed" photographers.

Maybe the answer would be an optional plug-in electronic viewfinder which could sit on the top plate. In fact, I'm sure somebody has already done this (though I can't remember who ....).

 

[johnastovall]

I agree. We need to get beyond viewing the bump as a faux pentaprism - it's obviously necessary to accommodate the elecronic viewfinder somwhere on the rear of a body which is already crowded with a big lcd and various buttons and wheels.

If you really wanted to get rid of the bump you could mount the viewfinder in the upper left corner of the real panel. But then you'd immediately run into accusations of creating a "faux rangefinder" look. And of course you'd risk irritating "left-eyed" photographers.

Maybe the answer would be an optional plug-in electronic viewfinder which could sit on the top plate. In fact, I'm sure somebody has already done this (though I can't remember who ....).

I'm a "left-eyed" photographer and in 40 years having the view finder on the left with the Leica M's has never been a problem.

I would rather have a Faux-rangefinder look than the Hump. Also this drive for larger and larger LCD's is starting to look as silly as the Megapixel race.

The Ricoh G-xxx models have the plug in EVF.

 

[monza]

The Samsung faux hump essentially confirms the reasons behind the Panasonic faux hump. They are marketing a 'bridge' camera and to reach their intended market and sell it for the price they want to demand, they believe (rightly or wrongly) that it must look like a serious camera, not a point and shoot, and serious cameras for the past 40+ years have had humps.

That said, they could flatten the hump but then the camera would be longer. That hump is not just empty space.

 

[Ranger 9]

I don't want to risk interrupting the momentum of a group catharsis, but the "faux hump" does furnish a good place to put a pop-up flash that provides a reasonable amount of height.

 

[johnastovall]

I don't want to risk interrupting the momentum of a group catharsis, but the "faux hump" does furnish a good place to put a pop-up flash that provides a reasonable amount of height.

A pop-up flash is something else I can do without or make it a tiny thing that hides inside the camera body like the one on the G-RDII and put a switch on it to turn it off so one can just forget it's there.

 

[johnastovall]

The Samsung faux hump essentially confirms the reasons behind the Panasonic faux hump. They are marketing a 'bridge' camera and to reach their intended market and sell it for the price they want to demand, they believe (rightly or wrongly) that it must look like a serious camera, not a point and shoot, and serious cameras for the past 40+ years have had humps.

That said, they could flatten the hump but then the camera would be longer. That hump is not just empty space.

Last 40 years? I don't remember any humps on the Leica M's.

 

[trisberg]

Last 40 years? I don't remember any humps on the Leica M's.

I thought that was the reason they offered the Visoflex, so the Leica M would be taken seriously

 

[Ben Rubinstein]

Clip on viewfinder makes more sense to me, why do we need the hump? Choose whether you want a viewfinder period depending on transportation needs. These are just small SLR's, the G1 isn't actually that small IMO. Where oh where is that tiny pocket camera that Oly showed as mockup back at photokina? That's what I want 4/3rds to be, for the G1's size I'll get an Xti and better IQ.

 

[Diane B]

I have an XTi--put a Canon lens on it (even the smallest prime) and its quite a bit bigger and heavier than the G1. I also don't want a clipon viewfinder that I have to keep up with--I don't love 'the hump' but just don't worry about it. Makes no difference in handling--just 'image'.

 

[Ranger 9]

For the G1's size I'll get an Xti and better IQ.

That's what I need -- a camera that can raise my IQ! Maybe if I buy two of them, I can get into Mensa...

 

[Ben Rubinstein]

Thing is that once it won't go in a pocket then a bit more size doesn't make that much difference...