[mecrox]

Certainly the pentaprism in my K-S2 was very nice, especially outdoors on bright, sunny days when an EVF was at its weakest (and an LCD is even worse). However, there’s something I feel gets overlooked too often in the optical-vs-EVF debate…

When I got my first film SLR, it was a revelation. Every camera I had used before that had an optical viewfinder, but none of them had ever given me a view through the taking lens. There was no more trying to estimate the distance and turn a numbered dial to match my guess. Now I could see exactly what I was doing when I focused it, and I had a split prism aid that was like magic. I had a preview lever for the aperture, so I could see the depth of field (if there's enough light, haha!). If I put a filter on the lens, I could see through the filter. If I zoomed or changed lenses, I could see the exact effect of that, not an approximation with some etched lines. It was fantastic.

Using an EVF is just like that—only more so! Now I see exactly what the sensor sees, and more. I also see a preview of what the JPEG engine is going to do with that image, based on my current settings. I see the exposure. I can see the focal depth, continuously. I see the color rendering. If I'm shooting black and white, I can compose in black and white. If I want to crop to 1:1 or 16:9, I can see that in the EVF too. I also have "magical" focus aids more effective than the old split prism. This is the kind of experience that originally fueled the popularity of 35mm SLRs, but taken to a much higher level. It's the kind of thing we would have killed for back then.

The EVF also reflects a change in sensibility in which the frame is no longer a window on the world but a membrane against which the viewer is tested - a not much adapted quote on painting by Antony Gormley. In that sense it’s about engagement via eg variations in colour space and jpeg engine which an OVF cannot show. An older generation often doesn’t get this because they were educated to “see” differently. Their generation was much more one for whom the frame (or canvas) was almost sacrosanct.

So these changes are not just technical but cultural too. Artists express them more astutely than gearhead types.

[photoptimist]

The EVF also reflects a change in sensibility in which the frame is no longer a window on the world but a membrane against which the viewer is tested - a not much adapted quote on painting by Antony Gormley. In that sense it’s about engagement via eg variations in colour space and jpeg engine which an OVF cannot show. An older generation often doesn’t get this because they were educated to “see” differently. Their generation was much more one for whom the frame (or canvas) was almost sacrosanct.

So these changes are not just technical but cultural too. Artists express them more astutely than gearhead types.

And yet it's the country with the second-oldest population on Earth that likes mirrorless so much. Even the "young" Asian countries who have no education on how to "see" prefer DSLRs to mirrorless.

[mecrox]

And yet it's the country with the second-oldest population on Earth that likes mirrorless so much. Even the "young" Asian countries who have no education on how to "see" prefer DSLRs to mirrorless.

Looking backwards yes, because for all but the past half dozen years there were no digital mirrorless ILCs. Looking forwards, no one knows. It’s of little very interest, imho. Cultural and generational change will drive this stuff anyway. Look at the selfie, in which the viewer becomes intrinsic to the artwork. To begin with it blindsided the camera-makers, a cultural change they weren’t expecting. There’s much more going on here than just the tech. It’s all about engagement and involvement. Which form of tech will turn out to do this best?

[photoptimist]

Looking backwards yes, because for all but the past half dozen years there were no digital mirrorless ILCs. Looking forwards, no one knows. It’s of little very interest, imho. Cultural and generational change will drive this stuff anyway. Look at the selfie, in which the viewer becomes intrinsic to the artwork. To begin with it blindsided the camera-makers, a cultural change they weren’t expecting. There’s much more going on here than just the tech. It’s all about engagement and involvement. Which form of tech will turn out to do this best?

The sales data I've been citing is all in the last year so it's long after decent digital mirrorless ILCs appeared.

The selfie is quite an interesting phenomenon but it is one of many and certainly does not dominate. Look at all the flagship ILCs that sell so well despite being so ill-suited for selfies. So it's not "all" about engagement and involvement. Even if a lot of people want selfie cameras and some makers cater to selfie-takers, a lot of other people don't want selfie cameras (and may even disdain cameras marketed for selfies).

It's like the Polaroid camera craze in the 1970s or the Fuji Instax camera craze in more recent years. Instax outsells mirrorless ILCs but no one seems to be clamoring for Pentax to jump on the Instax bandwagon.

This notion of "best" tech is utterly false because there's really a lot of alternative technologies to support a lot of alternative types of users.

[reh321]

Actually, some of the world most famous art photographers still shoot medium / large format film , and Fuji included film emulation in the cameras and that is why they are praised by many. For many years, digital cameras have been delivering inferior images, but used because of easy of development compared to film, and this is still the situation today. Lazyness and versatility won over the quality of aesthetics.

I used Kodachrome for many years, but switched to digital around ten years ago when two things happened in the same short time period
(1) my tests showed SOOC JPEG surpassing Kodachrome {from my perspective, the two are equivalent} at the price level I'm willing to spend at
(2) Kodachrome was ended.

[RobA_Oz]

It's like the Polaroid camera craze in the 1970s or the Fuji Instax camera craze in more recent years. Instax outsells mirrorless ILCs but no one seems to be clamoring for Pentax to jump on the Instax bandwagon.

Fascinating, yet you don’t see many “out in the wild”. I wonder where they’re used, and for what?

[i_trax]

I do not have a slightest desire to buy another mirrorless from Pentax,
have the Q , Qs1 and K-01, that is more than I can handle in mirrorless world.
Pentax please concentrate on improving FF and cropped DSLR's.

[reh321]

I would love a MILC variant of the KP. or even the K-70, but only if it had an EVF, and I have zero expectation that will happen.

[biz-engineer]

The fact that in 2018, the vast majority of people still think of mirrorless as being smaller than DSLR still amazes me. You don't buy a camera, you buy a system (camera+lenses) and I fail to see how a full frame mirror-less camera with lenses is significantly smaller than full frame DSLR with equivalent lenses. Everyone buy a mirrorless because the camera is smaller (although , X-H1 is as large as a DSLR... for the ergonomics), end-up with a big lens to lug around as soon as it's not the f5.6 kit lens. Seeing the camera only at the time of purchase maybe is the psycho trick to get people pulled-in. Get yourself 3 fast lenses to use together with the mirrorless camera, and still have to carry an heavy camera bag and don't forget to forget that you bought the camera for the small size. We as customers, have a G.A.S.crisis, we believe what we want to believe...

[mecrox]

The sales data I've been citing is all in the last year so it's long after decent digital mirrorless ILCs appeared.

The selfie is quite an interesting phenomenon but it is one of many and certainly does not dominate. Look at all the flagship ILCs that sell so well despite being so ill-suited for selfies. So it's not "all" about engagement and involvement. Even if a lot of people want selfie cameras and some makers cater to selfie-takers, a lot of other people don't want selfie cameras (and may even disdain cameras marketed for selfies).

It's like the Polaroid camera craze in the 1970s or the Fuji Instax camera craze in more recent years. Instax outsells mirrorless ILCs but no one seems to be clamoring for Pentax to jump on the Instax bandwagon.

This notion of "best" tech is utterly false because there's really a lot of alternative technologies to support a lot of alternative types of users.

I’m not sure I agree with that because it’s so much a numbers game. The development costs of modern electronics are so enormous that only big sales numbers will suffice. Smartphones have already won by a country mile in some regards. Why? I would guess because they democratic. All you do is press the button. Press another button and your image lands on the internet. No recondite, gnostic knowledge is required to operate one, unlike the button-festooned ILC, with its inch-thick user manual, strange jargon and heavy software requirements by way of RAW developers.

That leaves the ILC. Obviously there is or will be room for different kinds of ILC aimed at different requirements but I was thinking of what will turn out to become the dominant, mainstream form, the kind that is bought by regular folks who want a nice camera. I see hundreds of them on holiday every week in my home town, mostly these days from the Far East. These are the new middle classes of Asia claiming their place in the world. The challenge for the camera-makers is to become more democratic or in future those folks will be holidaying with their smartphone and nothing else.

If cultural changes alter what people think of as photography and what they want from the act of taking a photograph then we should expect the form and nature of the camera to change too. We have to get away from bringing this back down to particular camera brands. In fifteen years we could all be using a brand which doesn’t yet exist.

[reh321]

Seeing the camera only at the time of purchase maybe is the psycho trick to get people pulled-in. Get yourself 3 fast lenses to use together with the mirrorless camera, and still have to carry an heavy camera bag and don't forget to forget that you bought the camera for the small size. We as customers, have a G.A.S.crisis, we believe what we want to believe...

The thing many of you don't seem to realize is that many users don't purchase lenses past a basic one or two or three "slow" lenses. I do have a dozen or so lenses now, but in fifty years of photography, 49 years since I purchased my first adjustable camera, the only lenses faster than f/4 I've ever owned were normal lenses, such as the "A" 50mm f/1.7 that was kitted with my Pentax SLR in 1983.

[UncleVanya]

The fact that in 2018, the vast majority of people still think of mirrorless as being smaller than DSLR still amazes me. You don't buy a camera, you buy a system (camera+lenses) and I fail to see how a full frame mirror-less camera with lenses is significantly smaller than full frame DSLR with equivalent lenses. Everyone buy a mirrorless because the camera is smaller (although , X-H1 is as large as a DSLR... for the ergonomics), end-up with a big lens to lug around as soon as it's not the f5.6 kit lens. Seeing the camera only at the time of purchase maybe is the psycho trick to get people pulled-in. Get yourself 3 fast lenses to use together with the mirrorless camera, and still have to carry an heavy camera bag and don't forget to forget that you bought the camera for the small size. We as customers, have a G.A.S.crisis, we believe what we want to believe...

I shoot a different format in mirrorless. M43 is quite small compared to my Pentax gear with the limitations that are inherent in that trade off. I prefer the optical view but I'm willing to forgo it when size is more important to me.

And big fast lenses on mirrorless ff are quite large.

[photoptimist]

I’m not sure I agree with that because it’s so much a numbers game. The development costs of modern electronics are so enormous that only big sales numbers will suffice. Smartphones have already won by a country mile in some regards. Why? I would guess because they democratic. All you do is press the button. Press another button and your image lands on the internet. No recondite, gnostic knowledge is required to operate one, unlike the button-festooned ILC, with its inch-thick user manual, strange jargon and heavy software requirements by way of RAW developers.

That leaves the ILC. Obviously there is or will be room for different kinds of ILC aimed at different requirements but I was thinking of what will turn out to become the dominant, mainstream form, the kind that is bought by regular folks who want a nice camera. I see hundreds of them on holiday every week in my home town, mostly these days from the Far East. These are the new middle classes of Asia claiming their place in the world. The challenge for the camera-makers is to become more democratic or in future those folks will be holidaying with their smartphone and nothing else.

If cultural changes alter what people think of as photography and what they want from the act of taking a photograph then we should expect the form and nature of the camera to change too. We have to get away from bringing this back down to particular camera brands. In fifteen years we could all be using a brand which doesn’t yet exist.

Kodak's 1892 slogan was "You Press the Button, We Do the Rest." For over the last 100 years, I'd wager that "democratic" cameras have always out-sold technocratic ones. And yet, technocratic cameras have never "lost" to the democratic masses. That gnostic knowledge that so repels the masses, is exactly what attracts a minority of enthusiasts, artists, and professionals. Saying smartphones have won against ILCs is like saying flat walking paths have won against mountain climbing. Yes, the raw numbers incontrovertibly say the masses have spoken and the easy paths have won. And yet the masses have failed to stop a minority who prefer the harder option for some combination of the technical challenge, social status, and the rewards of the view.

ILCs don't need to compete against smartphones today just as film ILCs never really competed against Kodak Instamatics twenty years ago. Except on the edges of their two very different markets, few consider them true substitutes for the other. Instead, ILCs actually compete more with climbing ropes, artists easels, golf clubs, guitars, and the accoutrements of dozens of other skill-based hobbies and associated professions.

The development costs of modern electronics may be high but they are both largely shared and self-regulating. Today's smartphone buyer is paying for a proverbial 99% of the R&D and capital expenses to make next generation sensors, chips, and chip factories. Companies like Pentax don't develop electronics so much as integrate them. And integration is not so expensive. Nor must it be done every day or even every year. We can all see the maturation of ILCs going on right now.

As for the culture of photography, there isn't one. There are many. Cultural change may elevate the selfie and yet astrophotographers will keep taking pictures of the stars, bird photographers will keep taking pictures of birds, etc. etc. Maybe photographers from India will create a new style of hyper-vibrant color photography and yet others will still be taking black-and-white images, sticking with realistic colors for documentary purposes, or even going for muted colors for artistic purposes. No one will win, no culture will dominate. If anything, the internet promotes the fragmentation of culture by enabling members of each cultural fragment to find each other and develop a cohesive community that is detached from the masses. No one is forced to follow every photographer or even follow the most popular photographers on any social media platform, Each individual can pick a culture and ignore the rest if they wish.

[biz-engineer]

I shoot a different format in mirrorless. M43 is quite small compared to my Pentax gear with the limitations that are inherent in that trade off.

That's a sensible choice, agreed.

[reh321]

Kodak's 1892 slogan was "You Press the Button, We Do the Rest." For over the last 100 years, I'd wager that "democratic" cameras have always out-sold technocratic ones. And yet, technocratic cameras have never "lost" to the democratic masses. That gnostic knowledge that so repels the masses, is exactly what attracts a minority of enthusiasts, artists, and professionals. Saying smartphones have won against ILCs is like saying flat walking paths have won against mountain climbing. Yes, the raw numbers incontrovertibly say the masses have spoken and the easy paths have won. And yet the masses have failed to stop a minority who prefer the harder option for some combination of the technical challenge, social status, and the rewards of the view.

ILCs don't need to compete against smartphones today just as film ILCs never really competed against Kodak Instamatics twenty years ago. Except on the edges of their two very different markets, few consider them true substitutes for the other. Instead, ILCs actually compete more with climbing ropes, artists easels, golf clubs, guitars, and the accoutrements of dozens of other skill-based hobbies and associated professions.

The development costs of modern electronics may be high but they are both largely shared and self-regulating. Today's smartphone buyer is paying for a proverbial 99% of the R&D and capital expenses to make next generation sensors, chips, and chip factories. Companies like Pentax don't develop electronics so much as integrate them. And integration is not so expensive. Nor must it be done every day or even every year. We can all see the maturation of ILCs going on right now.

As for the culture of photography, there isn't one. There are many. Cultural change may elevate the selfie and yet astrophotographers will keep taking pictures of the stars, bird photographers will keep taking pictures of birds, etc. etc. Maybe photographers from India will create a new style of hyper-vibrant color photography and yet others will still be taking black-and-white images, sticking with realistic colors for documentary purposes, or even going for muted colors for artistic purposes. No one will win, no culture will dominate. If anything, the internet promotes the fragmentation of culture by enabling members of each cultural fragment to find each other and develop a cohesive community that is detached from the masses. No one is forced to follow every photographer or even follow the most popular photographers on any social media platform, Each individual can pick a culture and ignore the rest if they wish.

And, yet, the 1980's were "special". I have pictures from the the 1970's showing my brother using a 126 camera, my mother using a 110 camera, and a female friend of mine using a 110 camera. By the 1980's, my brother was using a Canon AE-1 program, my mother was using a Canon AE-1 program, and that friend was using a Pentax K-1000. When they went digital, all three went with point-and-shoot. The DSLR market today is clearly reduced from what the SLR market was in the 1980's .... many people who would have used SLR's in the 1980's are using smart phones today, which reduces capital available to the DSLR manufacturers. More people than ever are taking pictures, but that money is not making its way to camera businesses. Pentax and Minolta are no longer independent companies, Samsung has decided to focus on smart phones, and Nikon is having to restructure their business.