[OrchidJulie]

But tawny port reduces the chance of all disease and illness. And, overall, increases the chance of living a happier, more fulfilling life.

The scary part -- to me -- is that there are people who believe that stuff...read it in NYT, has to be true...

[pschlute]

I have used many resources over the years to research photographic products. Last place I would look for advice would be a mainstream "newspaper".

If one were feeling unkind, perhaps they would ask the author how well printed newspaper media is doing these days ?

[Des]

I think many of the old tech/new tech analogies from the past break down here. It's not exactly analogue v digital (records v CDs, carburettors v EFI, film v digital), except for the difference between EVF and OVF, which is only one part of the difference between MILCs and DSLRs. Nor is it exactly basic electronics v high grade computing (flip phones v smartphones), except that viewfinder AF is more computational with MILCs - the real computing grunt (image processing) is much the same. But the whole comparison is framed as old tech v new tech, and that's enough for most consumers, because new is better, right?

People getting their first ILC are overwhelming getting MILCs now. That's understandable, because it's where the new product is going to be. Although for the bargain-conscious, there will be some great buys in used or discontinued DLSR gear.

But what about the larger base of existing DLSR users? If camera makers manage, over a period of 5 years or so, to persuade the majority of existing DSLR users, in difficult economic times, to dump their gear and get a whole new system, which in most instances will make no difference to the quality of their images, it will be one of the great triumphs in the history of marketing.

[panonski]

It seems PENTAX - RICOH is coming to get blown out of the Photographers / Videographers Scene - faster then they hope......

-
And yes..... It was well known - what will happen in this sector.

-
I really dont know - if they could / or not - develop successor of K-01 - till today - but I'm kind of - pretty sure - they could do.

-
I'm stick with their equipment - and have a lot of stuf - but also I'm aware - that their "choosed DSLR path" is maybe a wrong turn for them - in the new world.
-
for now -
as almost everybody here - Im not in VIDEO SECTOR - because if I would be in it - I'm 100 % sure - that I will change the system completely

---

Last edited by panonski; 12-07-2022 at 02:12 PM.

[swanlefitte]

As far as I am aware no new DSLR other than the k3iii has been released since 2018. Am I missing one?

[jersey]

I think many of the old tech/new tech analogies from the past break down here.

It is not exactly analogie, but it also is. There will be no, or even there already is no developement of DSLR relate tech. If everyone makes DSLR then there is "sharing" of ideas. One company does something, it is good, other follow. And so on. With one company left all advancement and ideas are on them. And how it ends we see with Leica and rangefinders.

Imagine that there is new way of auto focusing, 3x better, faster, more accurate then PDAF. It ends as part of sensor of course cause MILC. You think Pentax will be able or/and willing to develop same or similar tech as separate sensor working with mirror? And what about costs of it? Will Ricoh pay?

How much cassettes, carburetors etc advanced after they were replaced and made into enthusiasts items?

I am not saying that Pentax will not advance at all. It probably will, though I doubt much. I think K-3 Mk III is the top of Pentax tech developement, and from now on we will just see small evolutions but no revolution. K-1 Mk III and new 645 if we ever see them will be most likely borrowing from it, and we do not even know if all as price of new pentaprism may be too high for bigger sensors. Pentax may become Leica in more ways then just being niche brand.

It already is an enthusiast brand that just have some leftover pros using it. But those will retire and there is little reason for new photographers to get DSLR from niche brand.

Even Pentax knows this and presents DSLR as sort of art/relax tool in its evidence videos about DSLR and MILC.

[mikesbike]

But what about the larger base of existing DLSR users? If camera makers manage, over a period of 5 years or so, to persuade the majority of existing DSLR users, in difficult economic times, to dump their gear and get a whole new system, which in most instances will make no difference to the quality of their images, it will be one of the great triumphs in the history of marketing.

I believe this is exactly what is going on. I think we have reached a very high level of diminished returns for any real advantage in getting new gear, so the marketing has been to convince otherwise. Some manufacturers are getting desperate to convince people interested in photography that something new and significantly more useful has arrived with the newly developed gear- which is very expensive and requires expensive lenses to work with the new gear. One sales pitch has been the smaller, lighter aspects of mirrorless. But the reality is, much of the new gear is not that much smaller for the formats- APS-C and FF, and once one of those new lenses is mounted, what the owner is toting is not much different at all.

Yes, the latest phones can work wonderfully for picture-taking. But can they do everything a full-size, full-spec dedicated ILC can do? Absolutely not. The laws of physics kind of get in the way at times.

There are advantages and some disadvantages to both technologies, DSLR and mirrorless, as discussed. As to the marketing of the mirrorless technology, just look at the prices! The marketing emphasizes (and I believe exaggerates) the advantages of this new gear to justify the very large cost, while mostly ignoring any advantage of the older technology. In reality, most photographers would do just as well with a good DSLR and comparable lenses, all of which cost significantly less. I find it quite interesting, that for example Nikon's best MILC models, the Z 7 II and the Z 9 both use the same sensor as Nikon's best DSLR- the D850. If I were shooting Nikon, I would be looking more towards the less expensive D850, and lenses for it might be less also.

The D850 has been selling at $3,000 USD and then even this still being less than the new mirrorless, but now the D850 is reduced by $500 to "only" $2,500. I still think of that imaging test between the D850 an the Pentax K-1 II where the Pentax camera was shown to be capable of even better image quality!! All this makes me look upon what I have with great appreciation, and for the more reasonable prices!! A new Pentax K-1 II can be had for $1,800 with free shipping!

No doubt, the mirrorless models bring some updates in video or something, but I'll bet the D850 would also deliver more than acceptable results. I think the emphasis on video with these cameras is making it seem like a big deal, so photogs who only sometimes do video are thinking, they really should have the latest "just in case" they might need it. OTOH, I have seen people shooting very good-looking video clips with their smart phones at a fraction of the cost!

---

Last edited by mikesbike; 12-07-2022 at 04:51 PM.

[Alex645]

As far as I am aware no new DSLR other than the k3iii has been released since 2018. Am I missing one?

There were six plus the K3iii and soon to be released KF:

2019: Canon Rebel SL3, Canon 90D, Nikon D6

2020: Canon T8i, Canon 1DX iii, Nikon D780

2021: Pentax K3iii

[Rush2112]

Follow the money. It will solve all debates and questions about intent, truth, lies, and everything inbetween. Shill sites need money, camera companies need money, the sales of mirrorless are a fraction of what DSLR sales used to be and the used market is robust along with those married to their DSLR's. I smell panic and money behind it all.

[phat_bog]

my opinion on this article :
we have our own lobbies here in Europe too, but they do things and act less out in the open like they do and act in the US.
imo, if you care about your eyes and your brain, avoid any close interaction with electronic viewfinders, unless it is for very short usage or need it for short usage in for research purposes (microscopes).
photographers in the digital era, we already spend enough time in front of computer screens, EVFs is just too much.
electronic viewfinders are bad for photographers' brains and eyes, and that's enough for me to stick with OVFs , with DSLR and with telemetric cameras.

[Pål Jensen]

It is not exactly analogie, but it also is. There will be no, or even there already is no developement of DSLR relate tech..

The only specific DSLR tech is the mirror and the prism. All else is the same tech as in any digital camera. A DSLR is an interchangeable lens camera with an optical finder. That's a feature....

[luftfluss]

If one were feeling unkind, perhaps they would ask the author how well printed newspaper media is doing these days ?

Similar to DSLRs, I'd imagine...

[Kunzite]

For some of you, it seems like your dislike for the new wave of mirrorless cameras borders on visceral, almost anathematic.

So I ask:

• Did you buy a CRT television once flat screens arrived?
  
• Did you buy a new Blackberry once smartphones came on the scene?
  
• Do you still drive a car with a carburetor?
  
• Are you still buying CDs for your Walkman?

Facetious questions? Sorta. But while it is okay to embrace, love, cherish, and use what you have, it does not make sense to stick your head in the sand about the coming of the new.

Facetious? Those are insults, plain and simple.
You're barking at the wrong tree. The issue here is not that our choice is "obsolete" and we're not appreciating mirrorless "as we should" (or, to quote you, "sticking our heads in the sand" - which isn't very polite either). The issue is well represented by your "questions": we dare to choose differently, and we're being punished for it.
We're asked to absolutely love mirrorless and to reject the DSLRs, and we're insulted and called names if we don't.
And by the way, the tabloid quoted on another topic calls offering DSLRs - and, by extension, still choosing DSLRs - "foolish". Think about it: being told your choice is "foolish". Being told your choice is bad, ill informed, and generally stupid.

I would ask instead:
- Is it fine to use a classic watch rather than a smartwatch?
- Is it fine to read a paper book from time to time?
- Is it fine to listen to classic music?
- How about going for a walk instead of a scooter bike? The latter is objectively faster, right?

And, specifically for you: since you say we are "sticking our heads in the sand", what on Earth are we supposed to do about mirrorless?
My answer is: nothing we don't want to. What is yours?

[jersey]

The only specific DSLR tech is the mirror and the prism. All else is the same tech as in any digital camera. A DSLR is an interchangeable lens camera with an optical finder. That's a feature....

Yes, that is the feature. It is also a hinderance. All advancement for AF, subject recognition, probably len technology when (not if, when) glass is replaced will be based on assumption that sensor gets all data possible constantly and there are no separate sensors or mirror in between. Even if it will be possible to replace imaging sensor with dedicated one technology wise you think Pentax will have money to do it alone?

Yes, you can use LV but then why even bother with DSLR?

I know that current narration is that MILC where made to make more moeny for manufacturers. But think about it - would Sony be able to get that far with DSLR when it comes to it's camera software? Obvious answer is no. Could Nikon Z9 be made with mirror. No.

DSLR is feature like rangefinder. It is for people who want it. For anyone elses MILC is the way to the future.

[Pål Jensen]

Yes, that is the feature. It is also a hinderance. All advancement for AF, subject recognition, probably len technology when (not if, when) glass is replaced will be based on assumption that sensor gets all data possible constantly and there are no separate sensors or mirror in between. Even if it will be possible to replace imaging sensor with dedicated one technology wise you think Pentax will have money to do it alone?

Yes, you can use LV but then why even bother with DSLR?

I know that current narration is that MILC where made to make more moeny for manufacturers. But think about it - would Sony be able to get that far with DSLR when it comes to it's camera software? Obvious answer is no. Could Nikon Z9 be made with mirror. No.

DSLR is feature like rangefinder. It is for people who want it. For anyone elses MILC is the way to the future.

All this can be implemented in a DSLR. There is no such thing as mirrorless tech. Why buy an SLR? Because you want to use an optical viewfinder primarily as an compositional tool. That is to view reality and translate it into a photograph in your minds eye before making an image. Thats how great photography is made...