[GeneV]

Yes. A K-mount camera with an EVF is not a crazy idea. There are a number of ways it could be made interesting.

I'd also still like to see a "Super Q" with an EVF and updated 1/1.7 sensor.

Agree about the K mount and EVF. One way to get the best of both worlds is to have the K lens mount with the AF removable so that compact ML lenses and legacy lenses would both work. Getting some PD points into the AF system would also help.

[Pentax K2]

Hi, sale of cameras is well known that the sharp decline are having, it is more not have to see what that according leo SONY left much of the production they have to focus on the sensors.

[Tony Belding]

You may want to ponder this:

Mirrorless Camera Sales In The US Up By 16.5% | Ubergizmo

and this:

Interchangeable Lens Mirrorless on the Rise, Sony at the Top and DSLR Sales Way Down | Resource Magazine

[Clavius]

This is CRT vs LCD monitors all over again. We've arrived at the "denial" stage now. People heavily invested in the "old" tech will justify it by any means possible.

[GeneV]

This is CRT vs LCD monitors all over again. We've arrived at the "denial" stage now. People heavily invested in the "old" tech will justify it by any means possible.

Maybe, but the technology is really just getting there on the best models to rival DSLR. Until I tried the Sony A6000, the AF delays, lack of eye-level finder and quite a few other features made the DSLR far more attractive. Now, the corner has been turned.

[Antonio Marques]

I can't see how it compares to LCDs vs CRTs. Who ever complained about the former? Yes, it took a while for LCDs to reach the quality of CRTs, but ti was always a matter of degree. Here in this case, there is nothing of the sort. A 'mirrorless' camera is just a crippled SLR, not something different. There is nothing it can offer - apart from a difference in size that is necessarily static rather than evolving - that an SLR can't incorporate as well. Each and every thing that you can put in a mirrorless camera to make it better, you can also put in an SLR. If lenses were much smaller, then there might be a point, but modern SLR lenses are not necesssarily that bigger when compared to mirrorless lenses. Lens size ends up being a function of sensor size more than register, and with diminishing returns.

[Tony Belding]

I can't see how it compares to LCDs vs CRTs. Who ever complained about the former? Yes, it took a while for LCDs to reach the quality of CRTs, but ti was always a matter of degree.

The very first time I saw a color LCD, I was blown away by its sharpness and contrast. To me it was obviously superior. However, there were other people who griped about LCD refresh rate and color accuracy for several years. I couldn't even see what they were talking about -- but they were doing different things with their computers.

Here in this case, there is nothing of the sort. A 'mirrorless' camera is just a crippled SLR, not something different.

Crippled???? I have no idea how you figure that.

There is nothing it can offer - apart from a difference in size that is necessarily static rather than evolving - that an SLR can't incorporate as well. Each and every thing that you can put in a mirrorless camera to make it better, you can also put in an SLR.

I don't see any DSLR with an EVF.

When I first learned photography on a 35mm SLR, composing and focusing through the taking lens was a revelation to me. It was the ultimate. This was how I wanted to take pictures. However. . . Unfortunately, today's DSLR optical viewfinders aren't really the same thing. They're relatively small, dim, and lack focusing aids. They're not the ultimate. An EVF works better in dim light (because it gains up the image), gives a better visual impression of exposure, offers focus aids such as magnification or focus peaking, and can overlay more readable info about the camera settings and status. To me, an EVF is obviously better than an OVF in much the same way that first color LCD was obviously better than a CRT.

If lenses were much smaller, then there might be a point, but modern SLR lenses are not necesssarily that bigger when compared to mirrorless lenses. Lens size ends up being a function of sensor size more than register, and with diminishing returns.

I think the size issue is overblown. However. . . DSLRs have seemed to just get bigger and bigger, and lenses to some extent have done so too. They've gotten much bigger than the old 35mm SLR systems that reporters used to carry for portability, not for image quality. Medium format cameras continued to rule the studio, and other situations where traveling light wasn't a priority. Now DSLRs have grown to the size of medium format film cameras, and they've lost some of that easy portability that originally propelled 35mm SLRs to success. What mirrorless systems have done is bring portable systems back down to about the size they used to be.

[reh321]

I think the size issue is overblown. However. . . DSLRs have seemed to just get bigger and bigger, and lenses to some extent have done so too. They've gotten much bigger than the old 35mm SLR systems that reporters used to carry for portability, not for image quality. Medium format cameras continued to rule the studio, and other situations where traveling light wasn't a priority. Now DSLRs have grown to the size of medium format film cameras, and they've lost some of that easy portability that originally propelled 35mm SLRs to success. What mirrorless systems have done is bring portable systems back down to about the size they used to be.

Yes! I don't know how much space is needed for the sensor and SR, but my K-30 feels bloated when compared to my Super Program. Comparing two related film cameras, my old Canon EOS Elan to my mother's older Canon AE-1, at least some of that increase in size seems to have come about when Canon introduced their heat-trapping black rounded bodies, perhaps because that is when the batteries seem to have become much larger and we got the large grips that so many seem to value. I don't know much of the increased lens size is a result of the trend away from prime lenses and towards zoom lenses.

[jethro10]

The very first time I saw a color LCD, I was blown away by its sharpness and contrast. To me it was obviously superior. However, there were other people who griped about LCD refresh rate and color accuracy for several years. I couldn't even see what they were talking about -- but they were doing different things with their computers.



Crippled???? I have no idea how you figure that.



I don't see any DSLR with an EVF.

When I first learned photography on a 35mm SLR, composing and focusing through the taking lens was a revelation to me. It was the ultimate. This was how I wanted to take pictures. However. . . Unfortunately, today's DSLR optical viewfinders aren't really the same thing. They're relatively small, dim, and lack focusing aids. They're not the ultimate. An EVF works better in dim light (because it gains up the image), gives a better visual impression of exposure, offers focus aids such as magnification or focus peaking, and can overlay more readable info about the camera settings and status. To me, an EVF is obviously better than an OVF in much the same way that first color LCD was obviously better than a CRT.



I think the size issue is overblown. However. . . DSLRs have seemed to just get bigger and bigger, and lenses to some extent have done so too. They've gotten much bigger than the old 35mm SLR systems that reporters used to carry for portability, not for image quality. Medium format cameras continued to rule the studio, and other situations where traveling light wasn't a priority. Now DSLRs have grown to the size of medium format film cameras, and they've lost some of that easy portability that originally propelled 35mm SLRs to success. What mirrorless systems have done is bring portable systems back down to about the size they used to be.

Agreed
J

[clockworkrat]

One of the reasons I will probably stick to DSLR for the near future is the OVF. I hear what people are saying about the lack of low-light gain, and I'd love to have a histogram display in the VF, but I actually just like being able to see the framing without having to turn anything on. It's minor, I know, but something that feels good to me and that can't be replaced in a mirrorless system.

I'm sure I'll find myself with a mirrorless in the future and I'll love it for being small and having real-time information such as peaking, histogram, etc.

[Mothballs]

I actually don't much care for Live View as it where. Always feels clunky, and in bright light, you have to crank up screen brightness (Which kills the battery life) or have a hood installed to see anything. It is killer for doing shots from very high or very low angles, however.

EVFs are... Well, they're less troublesome, that's for sure, but teeeny tiny pixels are not much better than an optical viewfinder.



Now, for Video, on the other hand? Live view and EVFs are great! Totally a good thing, what you see is what you end up with.

[WJW]

Any news of mirrorless camera from Pentax which is up there with the likes of Sony and Oly. I am sick of carrying the bulk on my long hikes and almost tempted to jump the gun to Oly / Sony. I think a mirrorless which was right there amongst the top was more needed to capture market share than a full frame (I think I may be touching frayed nerves here)...

Kind of an old thread but I made the switch to Olympus as my main system a couple of years ago. I did just pick up a K-50 to use with a couple WR lenses I had around. Since it has started raining in Texas again I may actually need a camera that can stand the rain.

[plooksta]

I love the small size of mirror less cameras. It's a huge shame the k mount can't be fit on a smaller body. It would be an awesome set up to have a stylish rangefinder style Leica-esque mirror less body along the lines of the X-Pro 1 that took all the Limited lenses. Can you imagine what a system that would be? Gorgeous.

I agree with previous poster. K-01 tanked because of no viewfinder. Suicide.

[magkelly]

As someone who owns DSLR's, M43 cameras and a QS1 the way I see it they all have their place. My DSLRs are my bread and butter and ultimately they're still the type of camera I prefer as I need that capacity given what I do. The QS1 is my stick it in my pocket and carry it around all the time camera. It's basically replaced my old digital pocket cams because it offers me the advantage of tiny camera and tiny lenses. For me with my health issues that a huge thing because the heavier my purse is, and it's heavy enough already, the more my back ends up hurting me. The QS1 kit weighs almost nothing and adds very little weight to my purse.

Honestly I prefer my M43 cameras to the QS1 when you get down to it because with those I do have an EVF, touch focus, and a couple of really stellar digital lenses but the Q is actually more portable for daily use, so usually I do tote it instead. If I could only keep one type of digital camera it would be my DSLR kit but I really do like my M43 cams and the QS1 as well. There are times when my DSLR is a bit too much camera for certain situations. The M43 or QS1 they just fit in better and cause less of a problem, but in terms of my work and my most serious photography they just don't quite cut it.

My clients expect a DSLR and would not like it if I used a M43 camera. M43 cameras, the Q series cams, they're for fun. Serious business that means a DSLR. They all compliment each other very well really but I could not just give up my DSLR's for a M43 or Q kit. A casual hobbyist might be able to, but not me.

[Rondec]

I'm sure Pentax is throwing around mirrorless ideas. For now, they seem to have decided that the Q and GR lines are the ways to go there. It is hard to imagine them throwing over the K mount -- that seems to be who they are, but certainly if they make a mirrorless camera, it wouldn't make a whole lot of sense to keep the k mount. I don't imagine they could make it a whole lot smaller than the K-01 and keep the k mount and honestly, the kx and K-S1 are similarly sized to the K-01.

At the same time, it would be pretty discouraging to see Pentax begin the process of designing a whole new line up of lenses for a new mirrorless mount. I can't imagine how many years that would take. I guess Pentaxians who have a line up of k mount lenses can be forgiven if they don't relish that particular thought.