[Rondec]

I don't either. For me it's a backup thing if I don't have another camera at hand for that. But "Video" brings a lot of nice gimmicks like the GH5 "post focus". Instead of taking a single photo, it records 4k video with a quick focus sweep. Select where you want to place the focus later. Sure, it's only 4k and takes a second not 1/200 but 6k TVs are a reality and 8k are on the horizon and a 8k video mode, better processors and so on making things like this possible in 8k? 8k 16:9 is 33 MPix photos that you can select the focal plane after the shot.

Getting a headache from electronic but not optical viewfinders sucks. Glad I don't have these. Other than that any advantages of keeping a physical mirror?

There is no particular reason that you can't do a lot of the things you mentioned with an SLR in live view. I use the electronic shutter all of the time on my K-1 and K-1 II. It works fine. I use it mainly for tripod work, but certainly it is an option.

As far as the biggest benefits of keeping the mirror, they have to do with battery life and ability to visualize the scene "as it is" -- not just some limited dynamic range EVF thing that indicates what a straight out of camera jpeg will look like. I do a lot of post processing with many of my images and very seldom do my RAW images look like the final image. With pre-visualization, I can look through the viewfinder and compose without ever turning the camera on.

A minor thing the mirror does is to protect the sensor from dust with lens changes in the field. Not a big deal, but my experience is that you end up needing to clean mirrorless sensors more frequently than those of SLRs.

As I mentioned earlier, in order to have an EVF with minimal lag you need a higher end sensor at this point -- one with a fast enough read out. SLR functionality allows you to use older and cheaper sensors for similar or sometimes even better performance. It is pretty clear that Sony has issues with current sensors with long exposure noise and for certain implementations, like astrophotography, some of their cameras are pretty useless. The sensor in the K-1 can't do 20 fps or 4K video, but it is a top end performer from a still photography standpoint.

Often with sensors with faster read out speeds, dynamic range at lower iso isn't as good as well. That is probably the most important thing to me with what I shoot and I would hate to lose an EV of dynamic range just in order to get an extra six or seven frames per second frame rate.

[IgorZ]

Yes but you are talking for yourself and norm is talking in general. One customer is not the market.

---------- Post added 07-09-18 at 06:16 ----------

Mirrorless with mechanical shutter is just a different implementation of a system to take the same photographs. What's upsetting is the way mirrorless "advantages" have transformed over time from being small advantage with drawbacks transformed into bold advantages without drawbacks and finaly "it the future". I can take every single advantage claim of DPR and prove the claim is not true.

I agree that I am talking about myself. We should be careful about making generalized statements about all people using Pentax equipment. In this case in particular given that many people here do have a mirrorless camera in addition to a DSLR.

[zzeitg]

I'm not sure exactly what you mean by this.

Canon changed lens mount when they went to auto focus, so no manual focus lens has ever been usable on any camera manufactured after 1987; this applies to DSLR as well as MILC.

Nikon's path was slightly more tortuous than Pentax's, but as far as I am aware, manual focus lenses have always been usable on all cameras - but I'm not sure about metering. What ever restriction does exist came into being before their MILCs.

Could be that I mixed up 2 different things. I actually bought a lens with M42 mount some time ago. And the seller, a professional photographer, explained that he's selling it, as his new Canon camera model does not support M42 lenses. There was a reason mentioned and I think it was related to some changes in the bayonet. But can't remember the details anymore.

[Mr Bassie]

Let the big boys slug it out, with canon and Nikon entering the market, Sony is almost certain to be the big loser, sharing a market they previously had all to themselves. But the Pentaxians who wanted mirrorless are long gone, probably never to be seen again.

Some of us are still using the K-01.

[TaoMaas]

Some of us are still using the K-01.

Yes, indeed we are...as well as the Q and it's variations.

[richard0170]

I personally would like Pentax to do a mirrorless camera with EVF provided they managed to achieve the following:-
1. APSc sensor - the EVF would appear bigger than an optical viewfinder found on any DSLR. FF does not need EVF as the image is already big enough.
2. Keep the K mount - too many legacy lenses in existence to be pfaffing around with a new mount - the EVF would be beneficial for all those M42 lenses.
3. Keep the price competitive and the build quality high - this is what Pentax are good at - eg K5/3 range and K1
4. Keep the user interface from the current DSLRs. They are good and we are used to it.
I do not care if the video sucks or the AF is not up to the esoteric standards we see from Fuji or Sony. My K3 AF is fine for all I need.
I do not care if there is no LED display. I never use mine on my K3 - why it has one I do not know as there is a much more informative display on the back.
A tilty flippy screen would be nice, as would 2 SD card slots but not essential.
I fully expect Pentax to do none of the above - but I can dream.

[6BQ5]

I personally would like Pentax to do a mirrorless camera with EVF provided they managed to achieve the following:-
1. APSc sensor - the EVF would appear bigger than an optical viewfinder found on any DSLR. FF does not need EVF as the image is already big enough.
2. Keep the K mount - too many legacy lenses in existence to be pfaffing around with a new mount - the EVF would be beneficial for all those M42 lenses.
3. Keep the price competitive and the build quality high - this is what Pentax are good at - eg K5/3 range and K1
4. Keep the user interface from the current DSLRs. They are good and we are used to it.
I do not care if the video sucks or the AF is not up to the esoteric standards we see from Fuji or Sony. My K3 AF is fine for all I need.
I do not care if there is no LED display. I never use mine on my K3 - why it has one I do not know as there is a much more informative display on the back.
A tilty flippy screen would be nice, as would 2 SD card slots but not essential.
I fully expect Pentax to do none of the above - but I can dream.

Let's dream together.

I agree with point #1. APS for a mirrorless would be fine, especially if the rumor of the Samsung sensor is true.

I disagree with point #2. Like Canon and Nikon, I think Ricoh would make a new mount and offer some sort of adapter. In fact, I think any mirrorless offering would be introduced under the Ricoh brand name .K-mount, Pentax, and mirror are all synonymous with each other.

Agree with points #3 and #4.

Video and AF cannot suck. 4k video is starting to become a standard offering nowadays and it seems to greatly affects the market's perception/acceptance of a product. Even the "lowly" Olympus M10 Mk III at $550 offers it. AF must cover almost all the frame and having a super crazy number of point is almost required. Again, look at the M10 Mk III as a comparison point. It has a whopping 121 points.

I still maintain that Pentax should keep doing what Pentax does well and that's a mirror'ed system. Just do it better.

[reh321]

I personally would like Pentax to do a mirrorless camera with EVF provided they managed to achieve the following:-
1. APSc sensor - the EVF would appear bigger than an optical viewfinder found on any DSLR. FF does not need EVF as the image is already big enough.
2. Keep the K mount - too many legacy lenses in existence to be pfaffing around with a new mount - the EVF would be beneficial for all those M42 lenses.
3. Keep the price competitive and the build quality high - this is what Pentax are good at - eg K5/3 range and K1
4. Keep the user interface from the current DSLRs. They are good and we are used to it.
I do not care if the video sucks or the AF is not up to the esoteric standards we see from Fuji or Sony. My K3 AF is fine for all I need.
I do not care if there is no LED display. I never use mine on my K3 - why it has one I do not know as there is a much more informative display on the back.
A tilty flippy screen would be nice, as would 2 SD card slots but not essential.
I fully expect Pentax to do none of the above - but I can dream.

Dreams are nice, but this isn't going to happen

1. If Ricoh were going to do EVF, they would have done it on the GR, and MILC is hopeless without it.

I agree with your other points, but as I already said, without EVF, the whole idea won't work.

[Rondec]

Dreams are nice, but this isn't going to happen

1. If Ricoh were going to do EVF, they would have done it on the GR, and MILC is hopeless without it.

I agree with your other points, but as I already said, without EVF, the whole idea won't work.

I don't think so. The goal with the GR III was to keep size as small as possible while keeping an APS-C sized sensor and adding SR. There will be a hot shoe EVF available for sure, but probably 90 percent of the folks buying the GR III won't use it. On a k mount MILC the size would be somewhat smaller than a traditional SLR, but you could still have it big enough to include an EVF and I think if they did that type of camera it would have an EVF for sure.

[reh321]

I don't think so. The goal with the GR III was to keep size as small as possible while keeping an APS-C sized sensor and adding SR. There will be a hot shoe EVF available for sure, but probably 90 percent of the folks buying the GR III won't use it. On a k mount MILC the size would be somewhat smaller than a traditional SLR, but you could still have it big enough to include an EVF and I think if they did that type of camera it would have an EVF for sure.

The size of a smart phone is determined by the size of the LCD - the camera adds nothing to the linear dimensions and virtually nothing to the bulk. That is the main competition to the GRRRR, which can never take up as little space, so the way to do better is via features .... which is also difficult because of the prodigious computing power possessed by a smart phone. If Ricoh can't see this the advantage they would get by making the camera slightly larger so it would also get the benefits of an EVF, I have no confidence in their seeing the benefits of an EVF in the context of an MILC.