[Rondec]

There are two obvious fallacies here.

(1) The possibility exists that there could be some kind of hybrid viewfinder. This of course would allow "the best of both worlds." EVF for situations that seem to indicate it and OVF for others.

(2) SLRs behave like MILCs when in live view mode. Obviously, shooting with the back screen of the camera isn't ideal, but many people do it. Particularly when you have a touch screen and are on a tripod, it is actually a very comfortable way to shoot. With this in mind, any advancement available to an MILC should be achievable on an SLR in live view.

The issue with Pentax has more to do with their tech savviness. This is the whole reason I haven't been particularly enchanted with the idea that they would head down the MILC path. It takes a lot of R and D to get your MILC functioning at a high level. Early Sony cameras -- even those that had auto focus points on the sensor -- didn't do terribly well with tracking auto focus, had serious lag issues, etc. Pentax as a company doesn't seem to have the ability to max out the specs on their cameras.

[reh321]

My Fuji lenses aren't especially smaller or lighter than the DA lenses I had for my Pentax APS-C kit, though to be fair, they are faster. Kit size and weight is overblown, as most of us aren't doing 14 mile hikes with our gear. For that small minority that does, kit size and weight is going to be of some importance, but for most of us, it's no big deal.

Perhaps “no big deal” for you, but it is for me.
As I approached - then passed - age 70, weight became more and more of a ‘deal’.
My wife initially talked about driving to the county fair {we live just something like six blocks from the fairgrounds entrance}, but then relented when I said I had done my own thinking and would take my “Q” kit this year; this year went OK ….. we will see about next year.

[reh321]

There are two obvious fallacies here.

(1) The possibility exists that there could be some kind of hybrid viewfinder. This of course would allow "the best of both worlds." EVF for situations that seem to indicate it and OVF for others.

(2) SLRs behave like MILCs when in live view mode. Obviously, shooting with the back screen of the camera isn't ideal, but many people do it. Particularly when you have a touch screen and are on a tripod, it is actually a very comfortable way to shoot. With this in mind, any advancement available to an MILC should be achievable on an SLR in live view.

I need a true viewfinder in sunlight. I have a Hoodman which I use with my “Q”.
A hybrid viewfinder would be OK if one truly existed - otherwise, there is no value to me in your suggestions.

[Rondec]

I need a true viewfinder in sunlight. I have a Hoodman which I use with my “Q”.
A hybrid viewfinder would be OK if one truly existed - otherwise, there is no value to me in your suggestions.

You have said that before. There are plenty of situations where you aren't in bright sunlight where you can see the rear screen just fine. If you have an optical viewfinder you can use that for most shooting -- you won't have quite as many auto focus points and using the electronic shutter is a little more clunky, but the point is that it is the click of a button or turn of a dial to pop into live view where your camera functions as an MILC. This is adequate for many people other than reh321.

(Not meaning to sound snarky, it's just hard to have discussions when they are focused so much on what works for you personally, rather than thinking generally about what is possible.)

[reh321]

You have said that before. There are plenty of situations where you aren't in bright sunlight where you can see the rear screen just fine. If you have an optical viewfinder you can use that for most shooting -- you won't have quite as many auto focus points and using the electronic shutter is a little more clunky, but the point is that it is the click of a button or turn of a dial to pop into live view where your camera functions as an MILC. This is adequate for many people other than reh321.

(Not meaning to sound snarky, it's just hard to have discussions when they are focused so much on what works for you personally, rather than thinking generally about what is possible.)

I never asked them to make something for me, but I will spend my money as is convenient for me.

My post was merely a reaction to what you said, nothing more or less - that is what makes a discussion

[jersey]

My Fuji lenses aren't especially smaller or lighter than the DA lenses I had for my Pentax APS-C kit, though to be fair, they are faster. Kit size and weight is overblown, as most of us aren't doing 14 mile hikes with our gear. For that small minority that does, kit size and weight is going to be of some importance, but for most of us, it's no big deal.

Well, I am 40 and I would still like lighter and smaller camera to take into cities or on walks. It is just more convenient to have light and small then big and heavy. I do not mind weight and size of K-3/3 with whatever lenses I choose if I take it with purpose of photographing something. I then haul tripod in most cases or other stuff. But for trips or casual walks when I may, or may not photograph something but want a camera just in case big and heavy just gets in the way.

[Wheatfield]

You have said that before. There are plenty of situations where you aren't in bright sunlight where you can see the rear screen just fine. If you have an optical viewfinder you can use that for most shooting -- you won't have quite as many auto focus points and using the electronic shutter is a little more clunky, but the point is that it is the click of a button or turn of a dial to pop into live view where your camera functions as an MILC. This is adequate for many people other than reh321.

(Not meaning to sound snarky, it's just hard to have discussions when they are focused so much on what works for you personally, rather than thinking generally about what is possible.)

The only place where an EVF has a decided advantage over an OVF is in very low light levels where the EVF can increase brightness, albeit at the expense of noise, to allow for a brighter viewfinder.
That's it. There are no advantages past that.

[Wheatfield]

Well, I am 40 and I would still like lighter and smaller camera to take into cities or on walks. It is just more convenient to have light and small then big and heavy. I do not mind weight and size of K-3/3 with whatever lenses I choose if I take it with purpose of photographing something. I then haul tripod in most cases or other stuff. But for trips or casual walks when I may, or may not photograph something but want a camera just in case big and heavy just gets in the way.

Yes well that takes us back to the 14 mile hikes, doesn't it?

[kwb]

Suddenly I remember that Nikkei did the same thing to Ricoh Imaging in 2017.
Ricoh may close shutter on personal camera business - Nikkei Asia
With regard to the article about RICOH today | Global | Ricoh

[c.a.m]

Mirrorless systems are not always lighter than DSLRs -- the comparison is actually more complicated.

For example, if I were to replace my K-3 Mark III and one of my most-used lenses with a comparable Fujifilm X-T4 kit, the mirrorless system would be heavier:

K-3 III (820 g, including battery and SD card) + DA* 50-135: total 1,500 g
X-T4 (607 g, incl. battery and SD card) + XF 50-140: total 1,600 g.

Or, compare the K-3 III + DA* 300 f/4 (1,875 g) to a X-T4 + XF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6 (1,980 g).

Fujifilm offers numerous excellent, lightweight prime lenses, but longer focal lengths are typically compromised in weight or maximum aperture.

Reflecting back on the theme of this thread, it would be interesting to compare the mass of Nikon DSLR cameras+lenses and similar Nikon mirrorless kits.

- Craig

[reh321]

Reflecting back on the theme of this thread, it would be interesting to compare the mass of Nikon DSLR cameras+lenses and similar Nikon mirrorless kits.

or even comparable Pentax equipment
{materials used and construction methods are so important to the weight}

[Not a Number]

Camerasize.com compares the weights of the bodies only.

Compare camera dimensions side by side
Compare camera dimensions side by side

[gatorguy]

Camerasize.com compares the weights of the bodies only.

Compare camera dimensions side by side
Compare camera dimensions side by side

And this one compares the K3III APS-C to the oft-compared Nikon D500 APS-C. Still have one inbound, but in the meantime, I didn't realize how much more massive the Nikon is.
https://camerasize.com/compare/#873,648

EDIT: The K3III is approximately the same size as Nikon Z5 and Z6 mirrorless, but somewhat heavier. More interesting is that several weeks ago while hiking, I came across another photographer older than me, aka older than dirt. He stopped me to show the Z9 he was toting with a 100-400 (Z-lens?) attached. OMG, what a beastly camera compared to what I was carrying, yet here was a guy well into his 70's happy to make a short hike to wetlands with it. Gosh...
https://camerasize.com/compare/#873,884

[Serkevan]

And this one compares the K3III APS-C to the oft-compared Nikon D500 APS-C. Still have one inbound, but in the meantime, I didn't realize how much more massive the Nikon is.
Compare camera dimensions side by side

Yeah, the D500 is about the size of the K-1. It feels like it was a conscious decision on Nikon's side, to keep it consistent with the FF bodies. I suppose the fact that it was intended to be paired with long, heavy teles also played a part in making the body large.

[Kunzite]

Suddenly I remember that Nikkei did the same thing to Ricoh Imaging in 2017.
Ricoh may close shutter on personal camera business - Nikkei Asia
With regard to the article about RICOH today | Global | Ricoh

I was thinking of that when I first read the article about Nikon. Indeed, Nikkei isn't infallible
But, it's not the same thing:
- Nikon is switching to mirrorless, there's no doubt about this. Regarding their DSLR line's end, the question is not "if" but "when".
- Nikon didn't say they'd continue developing DSLRs