If you have some smart ideas for future cameras you can do two things. 1) Patent them and 2) Send them to 43rumors to see if readers will like it and companies will call you 🙂
This is the text and idea that I got by John Chan:
“As a frequent visitor of your site I would like to share an idea I have of an optional EVF design for a Pen or Lumix.
We all hate the extra tumor created by the VF 2/3/4 above the hotshoe. And we can’t use an external flash when using the optional evf. Functionaly en esthetically we want the range-finder formfactor. Personally I do not need a tiltable evf.
From the manufacturer point of view they want to keep the body-price low and make money with their overpriced accessories.
I am not an technician, but maybe the solution is simple………….Finally we get a more well-balanced design with the M43-mount more in the middle of the body (more retro)
I am curious what you visitors think of this sketch……. You can pick the right moment to put it on your site….if it’s ok.
Regards, John”
Question:
[poll id=”215″]
Thanks John!
If you want me to post your articles or ideas or reviews on 43rumors.com send me the material at 43rumors@gmail.com.
95 Responses
LOL, nice color, but why not an popup EVF. 😉
Maybe they could combine popup flash & evf into a single column.
Brilliant sketch!
I’d go one step further and offer cheap optical VFs for predetermined FLs.
We all know they wouldn’t show real DOF, would suffer from paralax errors, uneven and incomplete frame coverage but for some people the are still the dog’s bollocks.
Keep everyone happy. Hardcore OVF users, cheap users, and EVF cravers.
Oh yeah, optical VFs are right up there with stretch pants, velcro closure shoes and walkers. 😉
Panasonic succeeds in making the first m43 camera with an EVF in line with the top of a compact body free of humps or addons, and then everyone complains and whines about how much smaller the view from this compact solution is than when looking through the enormous “tumor” mounted on the ep5. So yeah, clearly another similarly compact solution is gonna please the crowd to no end.
Too true. If Panasonic has put a bigger EVF on it, the same people who are complaining the EVF is too small would be complaining the camera is too big.
It seems some people don’t have a very good grasp of physics. They want a camera as small as the GM1, with a built-in EVF as large as the EV4, handling as good as the GH3/EM1, but without a large grip (or maybe with a bigger grip, but still in a GM1-size body), a FF sensor, and fast lenses sized like the Pentax Q optics.
Good idea here John.
But if the dummy evf is in a space in the left why not put the evf there with a gap at the rear for the eye piece. Or, as you want it in the centre move the hot shoe to the left and put the dummy and option in the centre.
Or being really radical have three empty areas on the top and the evf, or hot shoe, or microphone in any order one wants singly or all together. Suit left and right eye, flash users and video sound.
Why make it removable? Make it fixed at the storage place on the sketch. What’s wrong with the gx7 design? Just make it more compact and remove pop-up flash.
How could the GX7 be made more compact? Have you handled one?
It’s already been whittled down as much as possible.
I wouldn’t mind it a hair bigger.
It’s cool…but why not just make the camera with a built-in EVF?…not trying to rain on the party.
Yeah at this point you might as well just have it built in.
Why offer the empty cap at all?
Perhaps if you could swap a flash for an EVF (or other module, GPS?), that’d be cool, but swapping EVF for empty cap? Why bother?
Simple – You can combine two separate products into one. To satisfy customers who want a rangefinder style – they can buy the extra accessory. For those who do not wish to use the accessory they get the cost savings of not buying it!
Well you are quite naive. It’s not going to be any much cheaper if the camera is without an integrated EVF. It will cost almost the same for both cases but when it does not include an integrated one you will have to purchase one more overpriced thing. That’s just it (companies exist for earning money) ….
Its the same concept as for the EP5 today – has no inbuilt VF, if you want one, you buy the VF4 viewfinder.
This guys proposal is directly analogous to that except the optional VF has a position reserved for it within the confines of the camera body instead of the hot shoe.
There is nothing naive about that, your ignorant comments show that common sense ain’t so common. Companies exist for earning money and have to remain competitive to do so, they will need to price the camera appropriately if it does not contain the in-built VF and is an optional accessory
Hey,
First I did not mean to attack you in any way. Second I like your concept but if you invented it for any Olympus camera to be cheaper … no way. Yes it could be a bit, a very bit cheaper but it will never be something like: camera – EVF = your camera. They will try to get customer’s money in any other way (and even more). That’s just how business works !
Cheers
Unfortunately, reserving that empty space will make the entire camera bigger, unless you believe there’s just a bunch of air rattling around inside an EP5.
EP5 costs about the same as EM5, with VF4 its even more expensive, even more expensive than EM5 launch price. Olympus’s goal as a company is to make money, over-engineering a new port that only fits an EVF and nothing else and it a useless hole in the camera w/o the EVF for cheapo’s who want to save a few bucks, it simply isn’t going to happen, bringing out new products (like a proprietary EVF that would only fit this design) has R&D costs that can’t be amortized over other products, its delusional to think there would be any cost savings involved, more likely, you would pay a premium for such a product.
These days we have lots of choice in M43 land. Rangefinder style with EVF? Yep, GX7, rangefinder style w/o EVF? Yep, tons of models, SLR style with EVF? Yep, G and GH models, vintage SLR style with EVF? Yep, OMD models, even cinema specific bodies as well like the blackmagic cameras.
If you want to save money and not use an EVF, buy one of the countless rangefinder-style w/o EVF models like the EPLs, etc.
Guest…I thought the exact same thing that you did…it only really makes sense if the is a removable pop-up flash that gets replaced by the VF….that gives a lot of options and then the space is never wasted! We are geniuses!!! ….LOL!
Bob, if its built in it is part of the cost of the camera. If its an option it can be purchased by those who need it. So building it in puts the camera into an expensive range for those that are happy using it like a phone dork. Or those that just want a cheap in the pocket job that can be up-sized / optioned when required.
Except, of course, that the GX7 with built-in EVF is actually cheaper than the DP5 without EVF, so that argument doesn’t seem to work too well.
That’s only market positioning. If there are no options built in but can be added marketing will see it as an entry point not up market. Once ‘things’ are built in the ‘new merc’ flashes in the marketing mind and the price goes up.
Exactly.
A convertible design, like the sketch, would by it’s nature be more bulky and complex than a built-in EVF.
Oh yeah, and more expensive.
So, what exactly is gained here?
First off, the sketch is awesome! Nice work.
It is a cleaver idea, but think that you may as well just put a fixed viewfinder there (otherwise, just wasted space). I can understand why the manufacturer wants to sell an accessory viewfinder for an additional cost, but not sure this is going to work anymore when the competition is released bodies with built-in viewfinders for $650 (current price of NEX-6 body).
It is a great looking sketch.
It’s freedom of choice through modularity (nice way of saying consumer’s version of cost/expense cutting. Make it cheaper by enabling buyer to throw away every parts they don’t need.
Perhaps they can also haggle with Olympus.
Hey, I don’t need those art filters. Could you turn it off and say… give me another $100 discount ? *nice smile*
Removable do that you can use other accessories.
This is an excellent idea. Love it.
Looks like an excellent way to make the body more weak. A nice place for water to collect. You are making the whole thing bigger for those that don’t want an EVF. Why not just make a built in EVF? Using the existing AF2 adapter is just a mess. If you are going to do this, using a new adapter designed for it would be the right solution.
Weaker maybe, but as a fashion accessory, think of the possibilities!
What better place to keep chewing tobacco, snuff, lip gloss, weed or your stash of blow?
Or Oly could make a few extra bucks co-branding with Sephora or Eddie Bauer!
I commend the idea and thinking outside the body.
That said, it seems gimmicky to me. Now if there were other things you could plug into it that would be useful then maybe, otherwise just make two models, one with and one without. Then no worries about loosing it, or gunk getting into the opening.
Maybe you could remove the top and you could take out the EVF and put in a pop-up flash or tilt-able EVF depending on what you were going to shoot and where.
Or…buy a GX7, Nex-7, X-E2…
This looks too compromise design.
E-P5 with evf will be E-P6.
E-P5 will E-PL6.
E-PL5 will be E-PM5.
This line up is much better thinking than suck design.
unfortunately, a design like that would limit how big the LCD screen could be. It’s tough to market a camera with a screen smaller than 3″ these days. having the accessory port needing to be spaced the standard distance below that area would be smack dab in the LCD screen.
I’d rather have the whole top deck or half of it interchangeable, that way it could be taller or a different shape, and have proprietary connectors.
I agree. This drawing does not show the rear of the camera. It is a half-baked idea. Where will the LCD be positioned? Will there be room for rear controls?
BUY.A.GX7
….but…we want Pen build-quality.
Build quality? It’s better and far more comfortable in hand, did you try to handle gx7? Especially side by side
+10
The build quality between the EP5 and GX7 is comparable. The GX7 has much better ergonomics.
The tilting EVF is actually quite nice to use and extremely functional. For instance, Instead of removing my glasses, I can push them down my nose a bit and tilt the viewfinder. Or shooting UP is really easy.
Sometimes people need to think beyond the “norm” and outside the box. Although, most cannot.
No, of course he didn’t handle a GX7. Why would a Oly true believe soil his hands in that way. Every Oly lover just KNOWS that the Pen is better built than any Panasonic could possibly be.
I agree. While the E-P5 feels slightly more solid, its balance is very bad compared to the GX7. When you hold the E-P5 single-handed, it’s as if someone keeps pushing the left side of the camera downwards. The GX7 is perfectly balanced and has a great grip. In fact, it’s the first expensive camera that I felt comfortable enough with to handle it without any kind of strap. There’s just no way you’re going to drop a GX7 accidentally.
Then again, it does have a price tag to match its quality. In the end I picked up an E-PL5 for less than half the money of a GX7.
Well, this hollow-cap idea has been around fro some time. For instance in my Wacom graphic tablet there also was an empty removable cap which i replaced with an add-on wifi module.
‘From the manufacturer point of view they want to keep the body-price low and make money with their overpriced accessories.’
Your idea is flawed for several reasons:
1: Olympus bodies, particularly the P5 isn’t cheap and the problem that needs to be fixed is that it didn’t come with an EVF at the body price in the first place.
2: There is no further room in lower PENs to accommodate a hollow cap. You’d either have to
– enlarge all pens
– exclude lower pens from new gen. EVF usage
– offer every generation EVF with two different mounts.
None of these solutions seems to make sense either economically or technically, esp. if the alternative solution (EVF integration) is so elegant.
3: Unlike Wacom who is a market leader, Olympus isn’t. If you got a big market share, it makes sense to go the ‘expensive-accessories’-route but if you aren’t, increasing core product volume should be a higher priority than making small cash on add ons for a small core product volume. But oh well, it’s not a secret that Olympus marketing department is neither particularly skilled nor successful…
Nice idea and sketch John (I like the body style), but I doubt it would fly. Olympus should just go head-to-head with Panasonic and match the feature set of the GX-7. Even then, some (me, for one), would chose the GX-7 because of the tilting VF alone.
Frankly, I hate the steampunk looks of the VF-2 on my E-PL1, but…..have grown to love the tilting VF. I did a workshop with a Fuji XE-1, which I expected to love, but just couldn’t get comfortable with the fixed VF. Am about to buy an E-M1 because of the PDAF and to bear larger lenses, but I’ll still use the E-PL1 with VF-2 when wandering the streets. It just allows me to frame a scene comfortably….and then wait until the right person moves into that scene. Because I’m not looking directly at them, they don’t feel confronted by me. I’ll probably be one of the few people that will use the VF-2 with the E-M1 also!
I’m also planning on replacing the E-PL1 eventually with a GX-7. As usual, Panasonic will run this model out in 9 months or so, and I’ll pick one up then. I really think Panasonic have got it right with that camera.
Sam your argument is also flawed.
1. The need to build in all the options does not suit everybody. This adds to the cost of the unit, irrespective of fittings that one does not want.
2. The Pen range has a fair bit of room left inside. Size at present is determined by acceptability and handling more than size. Though some measurements cannot change. Mount and sensor and their relativity for example. Towitt the new Pany GM1. Using the GM1 as an example if it were bigger (not a lot) it could easily have 2 spaces in the top for options. If they were standard size and on an internal bus they could allow all sorts of customisation, but maintain a basic cost structure as a starter camera. Room for more pens? Well, epm and epx and a customisable in the middle. That fits.
As for economics I think it it has a real chance , its different. Technically? Absolutly no problem, but you may have to rethink some of your ideas on layout and judging by your comment that would be difficult for you. You ever worked on real micro circuitry?
3, Wacom has a market to itself in reality. But Oly and Pany have proven themselves capable of putting on a new hat and getting stuck in. Oly has probably done more for camera innovation in the past six to eight years than any other company. They do not have to be number one to do it and it does not make them number one either as many of their oh so radical ideas were rejected by reviewers (most of them, including Dpreview) and other companies. Yet find a DSLR without live view and other Oly innovations today. Sonyrumors people have been amazed that CDAF will focus faster than the PDAF of most DSLRs, as shown by the new a7r, they are really amazed, yes, really amazed. But use M43 users have known that for some time.
So I think you may need to rethink your rather staid arguments against John’s ideas.
+1000!
A logical argument? Why are you here? 😉
even the idea is nice I voted NO cause the top model pen deserv inbuilt evf…hope the ep6 will have it…would be nice to see sales numbers of gx7 vs. ep5…but overall is good idea to be different then competitor
fancy would be if by defaul there is simple ovf with view 35mm sold with 17mm kit…ovf like in film cameras…and than you can buy optional evf and change it to use it with whatever lens you have
Good and fun idea. But I would like to get a more compact camera after removing the EVF, which is not impossible. Come on, I know you can do it John 😉
Oh wait, why not also add another optional VF: the OVF. So… you could get:
1. the standard edition, to which I would like to add the possibility to open or close the empty box with little sliding doors, which gives you the possibility to just frame your view á la Kodak Junior 620, no optics or electronics in there.
2. compact high quality OVF
3. compact high quality EVF
The only thing I’m not too sure about: can a high quality EVF be this compact?
Might as well make the viewfinder module plug in on the side of the camera. Like a battery grip, but a plug-in thing on the left side. That way the camera can be made smaller when it is removed.
This makes more sense than the top mounted design shown. It could attach like the little flash for the Olympus Stylus XA mounted.
yes a evf module at the side ala XA flash, it could even contained their own batteries in there
This type of camera design is bad for the consumer. First of all it will be more expensive for the consumer. Second of all, making the evf removable means it will add bulk to the camera because there will have to be a mechanism for removing the evf.
Manufacturers these days make computers with non-removable batteries because this allows for smaller and slimmer designs. It will be the same case here.
This mechanism for removing accessories already exists, its called the hot shoe, and a removable evf also already exists.
The whole reason this idea is even being entertained is because the evf on the hot shoe is considered a “tumor” but remember, that evf is going to look like a tumor but only on the right side of the camera.
Lastly, if having a built in evf on the right side is challenging to design, it’ll be even harder to make a removable one that won’t look like an even worse tumor given that you have to leave a hole in the camera.
Well, there is this little issue of wanting to use an EVF and something called a flashgun. This will be kinda troublesome if both use the hotshoe don’t you think?
I don’t understand why John hating the tiltable evf. It is an option to tilt it , it wont make it bigger by any means. Why remove an option if it has no downside ?
Your future EVF will be google glass.
I’d like to have an EVF with a cable so I could put it on my glasses and would be independent
of the camera position mainly if I use very low or high POV. Wifi often has a time lag.
Not tiltable.
i want an ovf with electronic overlay that is being attached via ap2 port. shouldn’t be much bigger than the vf-1 though.
Absolutely horrible concept. Sorry. Olympus has stubbornly chosen to split their line into either A) have a small body with optional bulky EVF or B) have a bigger body with EVF included. Just get a Panasonic GX7 or jump shit to Olympus X-E2 or Sony NEX-6/7.
In this day and age of high ppi screens on smartphones and wifi tethering, why waste room and $$$ with the viewscreen to begin with?
Build a camera and put the dollars into a nice built in EVF with no viewscreen alltogether. you could then get an optional mount system for various smartphones on the rear (keeping the size down) and have the option for a remote viewscreen if you choose not to mount
Personally I won’t buy a camera without a built in EVF.
I would though buy a camera without an LCD but with an EVF.
The LCD takes up far more room than an EVF and is more easily damaged.
Without the LCD you could have more room for direct access buttons in a much smaller camera.
Could we use Google Glass to work as a EVF in the near future?
Nothing more than a nice drawing trying to have a pop at Panasonic’s gx7 viewfinder. Its nothing clever or indeed nothing worth having.
how are you not going to loose the small size? how would that work? of course that way you don’t get a bump, but that’s all, the size will even be bigger than with the bump (if you make a really small (like the one in this sketch is/would have to be) ad-on evf of course (because all the space at the sides of the bump will also be filled).
a very bad idea sorry.
Making this viewfinder bay will cost quite a bit of money and it will be restricted to just one kind of accessory. I think you would be better off putting a AP2 connection on top of the available accessories so you could stack them in series.
I don’t want an empty space inside a camera body making it larger than necessary as long as it is not used. And I don’t want a camera without a viewfinder in the first place. It may very well be fitted inside that space, but it shouldn’t be detachable.
Sounds like you could just buy a GX7 and get it over with…
Nice sketch, but it wouldn’t work this way. Having the AP2 connector where it is shown in the sketch means no compatibility with existing accessories and a “little” problem with the display, which would already occupy the space where the AP2 connector would go.
I don’t know how large a proportion of customers is supposed to fit in this “we”, but personally the tilt feature is a major, major plus. It’s also in my opinion the master stroke of the GX7.
Exactly. About the only nice thing about add-on EVFs, like the LVF2 on my GX1, is the the tilt feature.
I bet almost every “rangefinder style” camera will have one eventually.
The tilting EVF is a bit like the “wrist rest” on the original Apple PowerBooks, where the keyboard was pushed toward the monitor. It was so simple, no one thought of it, but now almost every laptop sold has shifted the keyboard back.
Nice job, but i voted no because for me the tilting evf is a MUST!!!
I’m just waiting for a medium sized PEN with built-in tiltable EVF ala GX7 and then I will upgrade from my E-PM1 with VF2. Maybe I run over to PANA and get the (smaller?) GX7-follower.
Why is a centered mount better? I think the mount being off center is a lot nicer looking.
Why not simply build the EVF into the space and supply a mini flash module as with E-M’s. As it is the add on EVF and built in flash is a negative, all that stops me from purchasing E-P5, while GX solution seems to flimsy in my eyes.
We NEED tiltable EVF.
I have been an advocate of an EVF for the top of the Pen range for a long time. On record and quite vocal. I still wish to see the top Pen have a built in EVF. However I think the idea of an ‘in body’ options space has a lot of merit. It allows a cheaper build for the basic camera, while allowing more streamlining for pocket fit (no knobbly bits sticking out). If there were 2 such options spaces and a range of options such as EVF, hot shoe, flash, microphone, gps, wifi and so forth a cheap camera could be customised very well.
Look at John’s idea as a fit between the smallest and the top of range pens.
I like his idea a lot, but with a twist: instead of the empty body cap, you can put a removable flash module in there, and leave the top of the camera plate exposed so that the flash can extend up and be used 🙂 So the EVF accessory and also the empty body cap will contain a part of the top camera plate. This way you can also connect an optional stereo microphone accessory,etc.
This is crap. For people (like me) who don’t want a viewfinder, this is wasted space.
For people (like many others) who do want a viewfinder, let’s see how this compare to existing rangefinder options:
– GX7 (cheaper than buying the viewfinder separately and view the EXTREMELY USEFUL tiltable option – the only reason why I may want a viewfinder is if it’s tiltable!)
– PEN: freedom to have viewfinders of different sizes, so if a new technology comes out and is marginally larger, I can use the new viewfinder — with this crap, I can’t
If there is a space for EVF, EVF should be there period. It is not as expensive as an external part with low volume, separate body, separate packaging and distribution.
But I agree, we don’t need tilting EVFs.
Yeah but you could place a replaceable flash module there, instead of the EVF (which I would prefer).
This is a naive idea. When you have a removable evf that fits into a chamber inside the back of the camera, you cannot keep the camera small and compact. Think about it: with such a viewfinder you have five surfaces that need to be covered so the inside of the camera is not compromised. The thickness of these elements alone will make the camera bulkier. And have you seen the size of the VF4? To have a really good viewfinder, the chamber and viewfinder would have to be enormous – and by default, the chamber is emtpy and doesn’t add anything! The design doesn’t make any sense.
What maybe could work is a sort of slide-on viewfinder that goes on the left side of the camera. You would lower the body on the left side, so the vf doesn’t protrude as much. But so far external viewfinders are too bulky to make such a design wortwhile.
I use my tilting EFVs all the time, for me the tilt is the main reason to have the EVF. Maybe I’m weird but on my E-M5 I attach the VF4 and use the tilt feature all the time instead of the built in EFV. For macro work, or on the telescope, or for portraits it lets you look down at the camera instead of having to jam your head in by the camera and of course the EFV is better in sunlight than the tilting screen. I could see the compact EVF as an option of course, but I would not want to lose the tilt option. Maybe if all you take is straight on shots at eye level a non tilting viewfinder would be OK.
I just love the arrogance of people today. Because John Chan doesn’t think HE needs a tiltable EVF, he’s ready to deny everybody that option. “WE don’t need tiltable EVFs” is the height of self-centered arrogance. The whole world doesn’t want what John Chan wants.
And I suspect he’s never used a tiltable EVF, and has no clue as to how useful it can be.
I predict that by the end of next year Olympus will be introducing yet another retro camera, this time with a built-in EVF on the left corner. It will be styled to look even more like the old Pen F bodies, and be called the Olympus Pen-F D EP-1, in keeping with Oly’s love of multiple names for each camera.
To keep the style in line with their retro viewpoint, of course, it will lack the tiltable feature, making it less functional than the GX7 (which will be replaced by a still more functional GX8 shortly after Olympus announces the new Pen.
And for all the “rangefinder” fans out there, let’s not forget the Olympus Pen-F was actually an SLR, not a rangefinder.
I hope so. If they make it as pretty as the E-P5 I will seriously consider it.
You could put alot of other stuff in that “hole”, too.
2nd SD card, extra battery cube, wifi cube, a holographic picture of your grandma…. 😉
Hey, with all those cubes, maybe Oly could resurrect the Flash Cube. That would be truly retro!
Yeah, with different colors on each side. Maybe even with a different “art filter” on every side!
Trippy… 😉
The problem is either you have the extra expense and size of a built-in EVF, or a hotshow which can take only one accessory so you can’t add anything else if you have the EVF.
The answer is to have an adapter for a double hotshoe+electronic connection so two accessories can be attached side by side, perhaps with a moveable/extending mount for one connection. This will require firmware updates to use on existing cameras of course.
I like the idea. You could also use the space to store change or snacks when the EVF isn’t plugged in.
I prefer the built-in flash with EVF in the middle on the hotshoe.
Your mom’s a whore.
who is that jerk to say we dont need tilteable EVF?
You do need a tiltable LCD however… You can’t be so retro that the only attraction are the retro aspects, denying all the digital forward progress…
We DO need a tiltable EVF – even better would be a fully-articulated design.
I do like that your design does not block the hotshoe.