[NZ_Ross]

prefer to be optimistic.

I wonder how old the oldest guy on the forum who is still shooting is. I wonder if that would be Hienrich.

As to I with regard to optimism. Maybe you should ask regarding who is the oldest - pop quiz

[yucatanPentax]

As to I with regard to optimism. Maybe you should ask regarding who is the oldest - pop quiz

All I can say is that I've introduced four younger people to Pentax DSLRs over the last few years. Although not huge photography enthusiasts, all are very happy with their purchases. Definitely time to spread the religion.

[Marcus Rowland]

As others have said, the big issue here is viewfinder quality. Up until fairly recently all mirrorless cameras had snags compared to DSLRs - crappy screen resolution in the viewfinder was one common issue, another was slow frame rate. Both of these can also apply to the rear screen, of course, but with that you also have other issues like being unable to see it clearly because there's too much light from your surroundings. By comparison mirror-type DSLRs use the human eyeball with no intervening electronics, which is cheaper and doesn't have any frame rate issues.

Having used SLRs, mirrorless cameras with eye-level electronic viewfinders, and mirrorless cameras where the rear screen is the only viewfinder, my preference is still for the mirror-style SLR, but you have to accept that you're using a camera that's heavier, noisier and more mechanically complex than the others, and doesn't do video easily. I own all three because I'm in the used lens business, and use mirrorless cameras for things like testing old Leica-mount and Pentax 110 lenses since they can be adapted easily. Both of my mirrorless cameras are pretty old, but work well enough for this purpose.

If I had to start from scratch with all-new gear I think I'd probably go with a modern mirrorless camera, something like one of the Canon or Sony e-mount models with a good electronic viewfinder. Both of those can easily mount older lenses designed for their SLRs which is a big plus. I probably wouldn't look at Nikon since their history of mirrorless cameras has been dire. Not sure about Pentax, I'd have to take a look if I was buying. But at the moment this is all hypothetical, since I'm happy sticking to my DSLRs.

[cls]

At the same time, we have seen enough people jump to MILCs to know that their images don't really change that much. Maybe their keeper percentage goes up some, but those who were good photographers with SLRs continue to be good photographers. Those who were so-so photographers do not magically have a significant improvement in their image quality.

The most important part of image production lies just behind the viewfinder.

Indeed. And exactly the debate I am having. I need to updgrade my body for better autofocus and speed (from K20D). Do I stay with an APS-C (K3iii) or get the advantages of a FF system with autofocus and better FPS than the K1 can offer? I am really appreciating the depth of knowledge here on this ongoing mirrorless debate. If Pentax just had a fast FF I wouldn't be having this existential crisis.

[exposeric]

Thank you ehrwien for starting this nice and interesting discussion. I‘m living in more than one world (TLR, RF, view camera) since I‘ve started. I‘ve waited for a Pentax FF MILC (I still do …) Now I‘ve one with a different brand to use some RF lenses, which are too good to be obsolete. It was and is still a challenge for me to get out the best from a non-Pentax digital camera and maybe that’s an advantage for my old brain

A dominance of the one or the other system does not exist for me, probably for the market/industry. All have their advantages, to come back to the subject of the discussion

[bobbotron]

Just a reminder...

Mirrorless cameras predate SLRs. The two approaches have coexisted for more than 80 years for 35mm film and longer for other formats. Over time, the WYSIWYG aspect of SLR photography resulted in greater usefulness for most photographers over rangerfinder/viewfinder/view camera approaches. It has only been since the recent advent of usable and accurate electronic viewfinders that mirrorless digital has been able to provide utility similar to that provided by even the least expensive dSLRs.

Note: I love my mirrorless film cameras, but don't use them where accurate framing or selective focus are required. (Yes, my view camera is capable of both, but that is another beast entirely.)

Note #2: No, I am not forgetting TLR cameras. I own two and like both, but it is probably enough to note that dTLRs have been strangely absent from the market.


Steve

Maaaan, I've always wanted a dTLR. That'd be such a weird and wonderful duck.

[bobbotron]

I want to expand on the DTLR thing a bit. I feel like a real full spec one will never be built, but there are some incredible advantages to the body style in digital, and I think it's a really cool thought experiment.

* shooting as a real, optical TLR, you kind of mary the conveniences of mirrorless and SLRs. Great optical viewfinder, but no mirror mechanism, and no screen to refresh, so you could optimize for fast FPS shooting. This was always one of the awesome parts of TLRs, like a rangefinder you hit the shutter and you can keep seeing the subject, they are never obscured. This is amazing for tracking a subject and just a cool experience
* you could make them like a dslr, where there's a screen you can use optionally for live view or review
* really interesting body shape
* I feel like you could keep it manual focus only, critical focusing with live view or a built in magnifier should be quite accurate
* with a crop sensor it could be a pretty tight package, like the 35mm TLRs of yesteryear
* alternatively you could possibly build in some focus sensor or auto focus as well, it is interesting to think of the engineering here, is the looking or taking lens making the reading? How does that change things?


Modern camera reviews would narrowly rip them apart, but I think if it was done well it would be a heck of a camera, much like any fixed lens oddball digital camera

[Jonathan Mac]

Modern camera reviews would narrowly rip them apart, but I think if it was done well it would be a heck of a camera, much like any fixed lens oddball digital camera

I think you're right but the problem, as always, would be price for something that would sell few copies.

[turbo_bird]

I also saw a salesman sell a soccer mom a $15,000 Canon system to shoot her son's soccer games. I could have set her up for $5k, a third of the price. There are salesmen, and then there are salesman.

I know most people don't want to consider themselves to be heavily influenced by marketing, but the sad fact is, 95% are. And being of the opinion that most salesmen sell you what you need is overly optimistic. Most salesmen sell you as much as they can, whether they could help you get by with something cheaper or not. Half of the job is sizing up your wallet, and taking as much out of it as possible.

As for places like Best Buy or Costco where many buy their first camera, they depend almost completely on manufacturer generated hype to sell gear. A knowledgeable sales person is darn hard to find. And these days the vast majority don't know Pentax at a ll, so if a Pentax is the camera best suited to what you do (as it is for me) there are maybe 5 stores in Canada that have a person who could tell me that.

Look at what happened to Apple after they stopped using the people who didn't recommend their equipment (because they were PC weenies) and opened up their own stores to get around the problem of sales rep bias holding them back. The results speak for themselves.

It's long been known in the marketing industry, that good marketing makes top of the line product unnecessary.

An honest salesman who considers the needs of the customer is rare indeed. I remember shopping for my first stereo about 25 years ago going around to a few different big box stores, and a salesman at one of them asked what stereos I was considering before making a recommendation. I told him one that I had looked at sold by a competitor and how much they wanted for it, and he told me there was no way I was going to get something better for anywhere near that price where he worked, and to go buy the one from the competitor. That will probably never happen to me again.
Kristian

[biz-engineer]

An honest salesman who considers the needs of the customer is rare indeed.

How can a salesman be honest when the buyer isn't. Buyers want to have it all and pay as little as possible. Sellers must oversell what they have to avoid losing money.

[gatorguy]

How can a salesman be honest when the buyer isn't. Buyers want to have it all and pay as little as possible. Sellers must oversell what they have to avoid losing money.

You rarely hear it from the seller's side. Sadly you're kinda right. Good observation sir

[turbo_bird]

How can a salesman be honest when the buyer isn't. Buyers want to have it all and pay as little as possible. Sellers must oversell what they have to avoid losing money.

True for the vast majority of people, hence the Walmart attitude for so much stuff. Then along comes a dollar store that has stuff a little bit crappier and a little bit cheaper. I can't stand those places, and would much rather pay a decent price for a quality product over the lowest price I can find for something that will just barely get the job done. And I've still got the stereo I bought 25 or so years ago. Buying Pentax cameras has been about the same for me, not necessarily the cheapest option, but a quality one that lasts.
Kristian

[normhead]

True for the vast majority of people, hence the Walmart attitude for so much stuff. Then along comes a dollar store that has stuff a little bit crappier and a little bit cheaper. I can't stand those places, and would much rather pay a decent price for a quality product over the lowest price I can find for something that will just barely get the job done. And I've still got the stereo I bought 25 or so years ago. Buying Pentax cameras has been about the same for me, not necessarily the cheapest option, but a quality one that lasts.
Kristian

I have on I bought 50 years ago. It still has couple of tubes in it.