[VisualDarkness]

Fewer mechanical parts also means better potential (but probably not) durability and the potential for higher framerates.

Here, fixed it for you. I don't see it being the case in reality sadly.

[Adam]

Here, fixed it for you. I don't see it being the case in reality sadly.

Not yet at least! Then then again, the first pro mirrorless just came out this month

[VisualDarkness]

Not yet at least! Then then again, the first pro mirrorless just came out this month

As a quote from the Swedish Pentax Service "We have never seen a worn out K-5 shutter", but I'm sure they have seen loads of burned out or physically harmed electronics causing failure.

There's sadly no reason for manufacturers to make things more durable than passing the line where consumers would likely be okay with just upgrade. Look at the old cameras and you can easily see that they worked under a different philosophy, something more like putting pride in the actual manufacturing of products. Now cutting costs and planning for the right amount of longevity seems to be more of the philosophy for consumer goods. It's not like it's hard nor expensive to design most electronics to last like the use of higher grade capacitors, but still that is not done.

If electronics are more durable than mechanics why isn't it true when checking consumer electronics then? If electronics are supposed to get more durable with time, why do modern stuff die before even old stuff that keeps going strong? I simply don't believe that they will up the electronic design when it comes to durability faster than the specs sheet keeps improving so I don't see any increased longevity. The mechanical stuff has to be of a certain level to be reliable, it's easier to cut corners with the electronics.

[JPT]

A DSLR doesn't have any less electronics than a mirrorless camera. In fact it has even more electronic sensors for metering and focusing. But it also has extra mechanical components that can go wrong. A couple of years ago K20D suffered a drop and the mirror got out of alignment. The repair was more than the cost of a K-01, so I moved on. I don't know for sure whether the K-01 would have survived the same drop, but that specific issue could not have happened. So when I mentioned durability, I was thinking about resilience to that kind of accident.

I hope Ricoh has some kind of plan to follow up the K-01 because right now they seem to stepping away from APS-C mirror less altogether (GXR and K-01 not replaced). I think that would be a mistake and I personally would not know what to replace my K-01 with. Just as well it is so reliable!

[hks_kansei]

It would be interesting (but difficult) to see the rough lifetime of each camera based on its electrical compexity.

ie:
K1000 (bare minimum electronics)
ME Super (electronic shutter + metering/control)
SFX (autofocus + auto everything + onboard flash)
DSLR (electronic everything)

[Steve.Ledger]

MIrrorless is supposed to be compact. The K-01 isn't, and that's why it failed.

Mirrorless cameras are supposed to be mirrorless, no-where is it written that they are supposed to be compact.
I'm not sure the K-01 failed and if it did I don't think it has anything to do with the size.

[jon404]

Adam wrote -- "...then again, the first pro mirrorless just came out this month."

Gee, you mean my K-01 wasn't the first pro mirrorless camera? Say it ain't so!

Or I'll have to tell any new customers to wait until I can save up for that Sony!

Actually, I'm retired. But I take pictures for some business friends now and then, and the K-01 works just fine. Not exactly rocket science, to photograph factory buildings, processing lines, and so on. And -- sorry, Canikon lurkers -- just about ANY camera will do just fine, if you can lock spot exposure separately from focus, and if you end up with good sharp images large enough to crop when needed. Like the K-01.

Big secret -- it's about the lighting, really... not the camera so much. K-01 with PocketWizards and a manual Yong-Nuo 560 II flash, and you're off to the races... maybe with one of the new cheap LED light panels to help out. After all, if your client just uses the images for web display, press releases, or for color brochure printing... that 16 MP image is actually overkill!

Let's draw a new line in the sand, Adam -- and hoist a toast to the Pentax K-01, first pro-quality mirrorless camera!

[Clavius]

I just thought of another con. As soon as a MILC is powered up it also activates the sensor to provide it with data for the LCD or EVF. So I would think the sensor of a MILC doesn't last as long as the same sensor in a DSLR. And walking around with a 50mm ƒ1.2 wide open on an activated MILC probably isn't a very good idea either. But that's just guessing. Because then again, I did some video with the 50mm 1.2, which is fun!

[JPT]

And another pro. The size of the EVF is not limited by the sensor size. So some APSC cameras have bigger EVFs than DSLRs and to take it to an extreme, a Pentax Q camera could be made with a huge viewfinder.

I agree that having the sensor on all the time could put more wear on it, but I don't hear many current mirror less user complaining about that kind of failure.

I don't think the K-01 was a huge hit, but it was no bigger a failure than many other cameras that have had big price cuts in the last few years. If Pentax's intention was to get attention, you could argue that they succeeded. In any case, a hoard of DPR commenters shouting "EPIC FAIL" does not mean much in itself.

[jon404]

Here's something else I'd like to understand, if anyone can help. The maximum flash shutter speed is 1/180... sort of like a DSLR. Why so low? Why isn't it like the very fast shutters on the GR... or the Sony RX100? Basically, is it physically possible on a MILC/DSLM to have that fast shutter speed?

Not that it takes away from the K-01's 'Pro' capability, since the expensive DSLRs can't do this either...

[philbaum]

As a quote from the Swedish Pentax Service "We have never seen a worn out K-5 shutter", but I'm sure they have seen loads of burned out or physically harmed electronics causing failure.

There's sadly no reason for manufacturers to make things more durable than passing the line where consumers would likely be okay with just upgrade. Look at the old cameras and you can easily see that they worked under a different philosophy, something more like putting pride in the actual manufacturing of products. Now cutting costs and planning for the right amount of longevity seems to be more of the philosophy for consumer goods. It's not like it's hard nor expensive to design most electronics to last like the use of higher grade capacitors, but still that is not done.

If electronics are more durable than mechanics why isn't it true when checking consumer electronics then? If electronics are supposed to get more durable with time, why do modern stuff die before even old stuff that keeps going strong? I simply don't believe that they will up the electronic design when it comes to durability faster than the specs sheet keeps improving so I don't see any increased longevity. The mechanical stuff has to be of a certain level to be reliable, it's easier to cut corners with the electronics.

When the K5 first came out, i remember reading 2 instances of shutter failure, by photographers who admitted to a fair amount of high speed shooting. I've bought a total of 2 PS cameras and 5 interchangeable lens cameras over the last 10 years and they are all still working. Can't recall any digitial devices that have failed on me but my biggest problem is with battery leakage from non-rechargeable batteries, not with cameras but with flashlights usually. I don't think your premise is correct, IMO.

[Clavius]

As a quote from the Swedish Pentax Service "We have never seen a worn out K-5 shutter", but I'm sure they have seen loads of burned out or physically harmed electronics causing failure.

There's sadly no reason for manufacturers to make things more durable than passing the line where consumers would likely be okay with just upgrade. Look at the old cameras and you can easily see that they worked under a different philosophy, something more like putting pride in the actual manufacturing of products. Now cutting costs and planning for the right amount of longevity seems to be more of the philosophy for consumer goods. It's not like it's hard nor expensive to design most electronics to last like the use of higher grade capacitors, but still that is not done.

If electronics are more durable than mechanics why isn't it true when checking consumer electronics then? If electronics are supposed to get more durable with time, why do modern stuff die before even old stuff that keeps going strong? I simply don't believe that they will up the electronic design when it comes to durability faster than the specs sheet keeps improving so I don't see any increased longevity. The mechanical stuff has to be of a certain level to be reliable, it's easier to cut corners with the electronics.

Just the most recent one of the bunch:
https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/115-pentax-k-5/225499-what-you-dont-want-...d-shutetr.html

I'm guessing that the reason why the Swedish Pentax service doesn't see these shutter repair requests is probably that it is quite obvious that buying a new or second hand body is cheaper then having it repaired. A worn out shutter or mirror mechanism doesn't occur a month after a customer buys it, but after numerous shutter actuations, far past any warrantees.

And just to meet my smartass-comments-quota of the day: We've seen numerous mechanical lens release buttons fall of. Even untill the point that it is a common issue of the K-5. But I've never ever heard of a touch screen button falling off though. And even if such a virtual button does dissappear, a battery-pull and restarting the device probably solves it. (But no, personally I do not want touchscreen buttons on cameras.)

[jethro10]

The original premise is more compact than a SLR, but once the lens is on, there is not that much advantage.

My wife's Sony NEX 3N, with Kit Lens would totally disagree with this comment.
Takes way less space up in her bag than any SLR I've seen by quite a margin.
It's the difference she needs to now take a camera a lot more often.
Compared to her phone, her previous take everywhere camera, the increase in quality is massive.

J

[Clavius]

My wife's Sony NEX 3N, with Kit Lens would totally disagree with this comment.
Takes way less space up in her bag than any SLR I've seen by quite a margin.
It's the difference she needs to now take a camera a lot more often.
Compared to her phone, her previous take everywhere camera, the increase in quality is massive.

J

This is actually why I can't understand why Pentax never did a good job at mirrorless. Imagine a MILC with Pentax build quality and Pentax ability to make really small primes. A sturdy Pentax NEX with DA ltd, specially designed for the shorter registry distance, would be the most compact APS-C system ever.

[philbaum]

This is actually why I can't understand why Pentax never did a good job at mirrorless. Imagine a MILC with Pentax build quality and Pentax ability to make really small primes. A sturdy Pentax NEX with DA ltd, specially designed for the shorter registry distance, would be the most compact APS-C system ever.

I agree. IIRC Hoya was in charge at the time and there wasn't the will to proceed. I didn't buy my Nexs till Pentax decided there would be no follow-up to the K01. The K01 was better built in some respects than the Sony Nex. The base of the K01 is very sturdy with a full plate near the tripod mount. With the Nex, there have some reports of tripod mounts being broken out,esp. on the Nex 6. Buying an L-plate for the Nex solves the problem if one is a frequent tripod user. Nex is still a good camera, but you have to handle it on a tripod with more care than usual.

Pentax seems to be doing very well with the Q, so its not like they can't build mirrorless when they want to :-)