There are plenty of people who switch, but many times they do so for the wrong reasons and they end up switching more times in the future. If you aren't satisfied with Nikon, there isn't any particular reason why you should be more satisfied with Sony, Fuji or Canon, unless there is a specific lens you need. Pretty much all of the brands out there make nice lenses and cameras at this point. Canon's are a bit weaker at base iso, but I think they are very workable.

---------- Post added 03-14-19 at 05:47 AM ----------

It may be nice, but it is 1900 dollars and 950 grams. I guess I'm spoiled because I shoot with the FA 135 f2.8 which of course is significantly slower (with regard to aperture), screw driven, weighs 375 grams, and cost me 350 dollars. It's pretty sharp to me, but I use it for portraits of my kids and I don't really need to be able to count chocolate chip cookie smudges in their pores. I guess I'm not sure, in practice, how much better images something like the Sony G Master would give me (although I am looking forward to the DFA *85).

The words 'Did that lens just break my wrist? Should I go to the hospital and get a splint." Not tom mention that our in the forest yesterday with the K-1. It never stops focus confirming, I finally just gave up and shot without waiting for it to stop, even on stationary objects. That lens is always entertaining.

And despite not locking focus, it never-the-less takes images that are in focus.



You just have to get used to shooting while the AF drive is turning.

Well said!

There are some objective performance differences between DSLRs and MILCs but they don't drive the choice of camera universally in one direction or another.

Objective Advantages of DSLR:

1. VF Lag: DSLRs have zero lag between the lens and the photographer's eyeball. MILCs have significant lag created by pixel signal integration (shutter speed), sensor readout time, image processing pipeline delays, and the EVF display frame rate. (This creates eyestrain and headaches in some percentage of photographers.)
2. Sensor Temperature (=Noise): DSLR sensors stay cool while MILC sensors run hot because the sensor runs continuously in MILCs. This also makes MILC battery life worse.
3. Sensor Artifacts: DSLR sensors are optimized for one job: the image. MILC sensors have some % of pixels dedicated to AF, their imaging properties aren't the same, and this can create artifacts.
4. AF Sampling Rate: DSLRs can sample the AF sensor extremely rapidly with near-zero latency. MILCs are limited by the frame rate and pixel pipeline latencies of the main sensor.
5. VF Scene Dynamic Range: DSLR show the full optical dynamic range of the scene whereas MILCs show a view with clipped whites and blacks due to the limitations of the EVF display and sensor.

Objective Advantages of MILC:

1. AF Pattern: MILCs can have AF points spread across the entire frame. With their current design, DSLRs can only have AF points in the central area.
2. AF calibration: MILCs require less or no AF calibration and are not prone to misalignment. DSLR AF may require calibration and the sensor can be knocked out of alignment.
3. Exposure Metering: MILCs meter from the full imaging sensor exposed directly from the lens. DSLRs have a separate sensor exposed through the focusing screen that makes it prone to error if light comes in the viewfinder and requires lens-specific calibrations for accuracy.
4. Processed Image Preview: MILCs typically render the scene using the exposure, WB, and filter settings of the final image (reducing the chance of botched settings). DSLRs don't.
5. VF Scene Bokeh: MILC EVFs show the full bokeh of the scene with the current aperture setting (which may be full-open or closed). DSLR OVFs only show bokeh to about f/4 (or narrower).

The larger point is that each photographer’s subjective opinion about the different objective performance dimensions will drive their individual decision.

The simple fact that a DSLR can be used in MILC mode but a MILC cannot be used in DSLR mode would seem to imply that MILCs cannot drive DSLRs to extinction. Future DSLRs can offer the best of both worlds while MILCs can only offer the best of one world.

This is objectively true, but does not address the level(s) at which unit sales of formats stabilize; minimum units per platform to support the number of manufacturers in each; and changing demographics over time (assuming younger buyers dismiss an ILC altogether in favor of connected devices).

While I know big, professional glass drives size of all cameras up, MILCs can be much smaller than DSLRs. Ricoh could make a MILC version of the GR with pancake lenses that is much smaller than the smallest DSLR. Other manufacturers have cameras in that general form factor. While there are disadvantages to tiny cameras in ergonomics and usability, there are many advantages of the camera you always have in your pocket, especially if it has a large sensor.

Good points.

The minimum viable volume for a camera platform depends primarily on the total fixed costs such as R&D, tooling, factory assets, marketing, and overhead. Fortunately, the growing power of engineering design tools, flexible manufacturing systems, and contract manufacturers would seem to be reducing the minimum units per platform. Of course, incumbent camera makers with big factories might have a rough time adapting to low-volume outsourced production.

The demographic issue is interesting but seems misleading in that it implicitly assumes that all "young buyers" are the same.

Few can argue that smartphones won't dominate the vast majority of photography (with a lowercase "p"). That's already happened. However, I doubt that professional and enthusiast photographers will settle for smartphone cameras just like I doubt that professional and enthusiast musicians will settle for smartphone audio recordings and MP3. Dedicated users of any technology want, need, and can justify dedicated tools that offer higher performance, more features, and better ergonomics than what comes on even the best smartphones.

Photography (with an uppercase "P") will continue to use ILCs although ILCs will probably gain better connectivity.

I should have been more clear. I don’t assume all ILC buyers will die and not be replaced by the next generation. In fact, though I learned on a school Spotmatic, I was perfectly content to use an Instamatic and Flashcubes right through college, I moved up to an ILC at college graduation. My grandmother’s present was a KX, K50/1.4 and AF200 flash (I think an S, not a T). I still have the camera and lens. I suspect at least some PhoneTogs will move up over time.

MILCs can be thinner than SLRs. That's about it. If you look at a KS-1 or kx, they are quite as small as many mirrorless APS-C cameras on the market today, the difference is that they have a prism hump and are thicker due to the mirror and K mount registration distance. Put a DA 20-40 or DA 18-50 lens on a K-S1 and you have a package that is every bit as small as any mirrorless APS-C camera with a zoom lens.

I would argue that the issue is that small size isn't the goal, good ergonomics are. Sony cameras like the A6500, while small, aren't particularly enjoyable to use due to questionable ergonomics. None of these cameras is going to fit in your pocket, they all need some kind of dedicated pack to carry them, particularly if you take more than one lens (part of the point of an ILC in my opinion). Pentax has chosen not to shrink their cameras down to the bare minimum because they have found that tiny cameras don't actually sell more and good ergonomics do.

Why does the Ricoh GR series exist, and why does Ricoh continue to make it? Would the GRIII be improved with a mirror box and prism? Would the GR sell better if it had a K-3-sized grip for better ergonomics?

The GR III is a Ricoh camera, not a Pentax camera. It also has a fixed lens and is not an ILC. It has no viewfinder. It will never have to balance a lens that is bigger than its 18mm f2.8 fixed one. It will not have flashes mounted on it or flash benders. Few people use it as their sole camera, but more as an add on to their existing ILC gear.

I can't really see that it adds much to this particular discussion about MILCs versus SLRs and their particular sizes or more generally, Pentax's plans going forward.

Nice story!

Across the entire span of photographic history, there have always been a great mass of causal photographers who were perfectly content with their Kodak box cameras, brownies, instamatics, pocket 110s, polaroids, and now smartphones. There's no shame in being content with a simple mass-market camera -- they can take great pictures because great pictures are more about great compositions of great subjects than about great gear.

However, in every generation and every era there are a percentage of causal photographers who decide they want more: more control, more functionality, more pixels, more IQ, more ISO, more focal lengths, more macro, more studio lighting, etc. Maybe they've reached the limits of their smartphone's capabilities. Maybe the ergonomics of the phone aren't great for a whole day's shooting. Maybe they want to emulate some other great photographer. Maybe they like the idea of going retro. Maybe they think better gear will make them a better photographer. And maybe they don't want to look like they are just another PhoneTog when they taking pictures in public or at an event.

So how will a more serious PhoneTog differentiate themselves from the sea of iPhone-waving masses? They'll get a "real camera" and that almost inevitably leads them to ILCs. And from their first ILC (probably a cheap entry-level model or maybe a cheap used film camera), they'll graduate to an other ILC and then another and then another and then ... In that process, they'll learn whether they like EVFs or OVFs, whether they want a small-body camera or a large-body camera, whether they prefer one brand's user interfaces over another's (e.g., Sony vs Pentax). Some may even find that they love all kinds of cameras -- different tools for different purposes -- and end up buying multiple systems with a mix of the latest and the legacy gear.


The number of causal photographers in the world is at record levels thanks to: 1) smartphones (1.5 billion sold per year!), 2) social media (which motivates people to use their camera), and 3) the billions of people who are becoming middle class consumers in China, India, etc. As good a smartphones are, they can never satisfy 100% of the photographic needs of the 3 billion people that have smartphones. If only 1% to 2% of smartphone users get one "real camera," that's an install base of 30-60 million real cameras. And if some of those 1-2% upgrade their first real camera, buy a second camera, replace a broken camera, etc., it's easy to imagine quite a decent rate of annual sales.

I was responding mostly to photoptimist's comment "The simple fact that a DSLR can be used in MILC mode but a MILC cannot be used in DSLR mode would seem to imply that MILCs cannot drive DSLRs to extinction. Future DSLRs can offer the best of both worlds while MILCs can only offer the best of one world."

You may not think that small size is a feature, Pentax may not be developing small camera, but it's not a universal opinion that small is a bug. And a small mirrorless can always be smaller than any DSLR.

You are right that some prefer small cameras. And in the competition to produce the smallest possible camera (with the largest possible sensor), MILC has the advantage.

You may not think that large size is a feature, but it's not a universal opinion that big is a bug, either. And in the competition to produce a fullest-featured 1000 gram (or larger) camera with the greatest possible functionality, a DSLR(w/ MILC mode) design provides additional features over the MILC-only design.

Some people want small cameras and some people want big cameras. No one size fits all -- there's probably several size classes spanning 250 gram pocketables to multi-kilogram MF tripod beasts. No trend is going drive either big cameras or small cameras to extinction. Small cameras will probably go MILC but a percentage of large cameras will be DSLR.

I agree with almost all of that. I don't think there's anything wrong with large cameras. You can pack more capabilities or ergonomic features into a larger body. But there are certainly situations where something the size of a K-1 or even a KP with a 70-200 is either too unwieldy or just prohibited. Like many sporting events, or theaters. If you're walking around a city on vacation you probably don't want a pro-level FF DSLR with an f/2.8 zoom. My go-to in that situation is my K-3ii with the 40LTD, but even with that I'm sometimes thinking the phone will have to do because there are times I don't want to haul around things I can't fit in my pocket.

If someone handed me $5000 and told me I had to spend it on camera gear I'd buy either a GRIII or a small MILC just for a such situations. I'd keep shooting with the K-3ii, and possibly/probably buy the APS-C flagship successor from Pentax, but I'd love the flexibility a small camera brings.

I think lots of folks like small cameras but that’s only half the story, some modern lenses are huge. In a recent interview a Sony representative said the are “listening to customers requests for smaller lenses”.