Just speculations on mirrorless and Pentax

sealight · 07-30-2018, 03:56 PM

no fan so far of mirrorless, not sure that will change at some point- maybe just when there's no other choice left....

donpjt · 07-30-2018, 04:08 PM

i really don't care what camera I use, as long as I can get it within a reasonable price for the body and have good lens compatibility. Rest of it is just a slight learning curve to move from EVF to mirrorless. That said, I prefer using FF cameras, the weight doesn't really bother me and I love the handling on these much better. You could never have a proper handling on the camera if you have a 70-200 2.8 body with VR. You'd have to hold the lens and that would not be ideal for me..

awscreo · 07-30-2018, 04:10 PM

I don't mind either type of camera honestly. I happily used my MFT kit when I had it, now I'm using a DSLR kit and I'm happy with it too. In terms of pure tech innovation, I think mirrorless is probably easier to work with and has larger future potential. But, how long would that take, and would result be significantly better than the same generation DSLR? In terms of weight - when I just got the K-1, I never thought it'd be a big deal. But after taking my kit to few cities and outings, I bought a GR2 to have a light option for casual photography.

pakinjapan · 07-30-2018, 04:18 PM

My speculation; they will have a surprise for their 100 birthday?

I want a FF but not a heavy one. and it doesn't have to be a mirrorless.

"If they can stick a FF sensor and the shake reduction in side a K3 body size, cut all the un-necessary things", (may be a wifi unit in there? ) I will be more than happy to abandon my FF mirrorless dream.

I don't mind mirrorless at all. I like the idea that I can digital zoom-in in the viewfinder to check my focus before shoot. The real real problem for me is the size and weight of FF body. but If I get the give away K1, I will use it!

Last edited by pakinjapan; 07-30-2018 at 04:29 PM.

surfar · 07-30-2018, 05:12 PM

Originally posted by DeadJohn

Conjecture on one possible full frame future: In 10 years

All humans will have the option of the BEC(bionic eye camera).Inserted easily, it takes a shot with a blink of the natural eye thats programmed by the mandatory micro chip thats inserted in all humans(as per the laws of the ruling AI Robots that control everything on earth).

Humans only have to sit in front of a laptop screen and all captured images are automatically transferred.

GregL65 · 03-06-2019, 12:09 PM

I was wondering how much weight I could save just on my main walkaround if I went to mirrorless, without sacrificing sensor size. I have a K-5 II and a Tamron 17-50/2.8. 760g + 430g = 1190g. But I like the KP and plan to upgrade to it when used prices come down below US$500. That would be 703g + 430g = 1133g.

So I searched BHPhoto for APS-C mirrorless system medium zoom f/2.8 lenses. There was exactly one -- the Fujifilm 16-55/2.8. I was pleased to see it's weathersealed; the Tamron is not (when it's raining I put on the Pentax 18-135). But the weight is 655g. Hm. That means that the body would need to be significantly lighter than 1133g - 655g = 478g for that switch to make sense. It's $900, about what I paid for the Tamron and the Pentax 18-135 together, and the Tamron has come down in price since then.

So I searched again for what Mirrorless APS-C bodies Fujifilm offers. The X-E3 is lightest at 327g. At first I was going to pass on it for not having an EVF, but then I learned it does in fact have an EVF. Total weight 327g + 655g = 982g, a savings of 151g or about 13.3%.

That isn't really a compelling amount of weight savings. And it would cost $700 + $900, a lot more than I paid for the K-5 II + the Tamron.

I'm not familiar with Fujifilm body offerings; would I be sacrificing anything I value by going to the X-E3? I put them through DPReview's comparison tool. Hm, I'm surprised to see that the X-E3 doesn't have image stabilization. But that isn't terribly important to me because subject motion is usually my limiter. No TAv mode nor sensitivity priority, but I usually use aperture priority. But wait, it's not weather-sealed?!? That's a deal breaker.

So I looked again, this time filtering on weather-sealing. The X-T3 is 440g and $1,299. That's a savings of only 38g, or 3.4%. I'm not sure I'd notice the difference. And still no image stabilization. And viewfinder magnification is only 0.77x. There would be advantages, of course; especially better video. But overall I'm not sure I'd make that switch even if I could do it for free, and I certainly don't want to pay $1,200 + $900 for that.

So to reduce weight when I want to, I'm thinking of adding the 52g Pentax 40mm XS. Long-term, maybe the 119g 21mm and the 130g 70mm; keeping one of them in a pocket would keep it's weight off my shoulder. Other options, which I already have, are the 195g FA 35/2 and the 180g F 28/2.8.

Alternatively, the Fujifilm X-E3 and the 78g 27/2.8 (and still using the Pentax w/18-135 when it's raining). At $450 for that lens, the total would be $1,150. At 327g + 78g = 405g compared to 703g + 52g = 755g, that's a savings of 350g or 46.4%. And it would have the advantage of better video than the Pentax. But I don't want to pay $1,150.

The older X-E1 is 350g, still a weight savings of 43.3%. I see the X-E1 can be had for under $200 in good condition, and the 27/2.8 used in good condition for under $200, so total under $400.

Sony has the APS-C a5100 which is only 283g. The 69g 20mm pancake is wide for walkaround and doesn't get great marks for image quality, but the 140g Sigma 30/2.8 sounds good, for a total weight of 423g. That's a bit heavier than the X-E1 with the 27/2.8, and with more menu-diving. So I'll pass on Sony.

Another option for a high-quality lightweight walkaround would be the Sony RX100, Mark III, IV, V, or VA. Their weights are 290g - 299g. But even the old Mark III is running nearly as much as an X-E1 plus a 27/2.8. For a 1" sensor compared to the X-E1's APS-C sensor.

So maybe there's an X-E1 and 27/2.8 in my future. But at around $100 used in good condition, I'll probably go to the Pentax 40mm XS first.

UPDATE:

For now, I've brought my old F 28/2.8 out of semi-retirement. With collapsible rubber hood. I used to use a Leica MiniLux with 40mm lens; the focal length worked well for me and 28mm on APS-C is similar. I'm going to leave the 28mm on the K-5 II for general walkaround for a while and see how it goes. 250g less than the Tamron 17-50/2.8, on the K-5 II it's 21% less weight total.

**ThorSanchez** · 03-08-2019, 09:00 AM

Originally posted by GregL65

I was wondering how much weight I could save just on my main walkaround if I went to mirrorless, without sacrificing sensor size. I have a K-5 II and a Tamron 17-50/2.8. 760g + 430g = 1190g. But I like the KP and plan to upgrade to it when prices used priced come down below US$500. That would be 703g + 430g = 1133g.

So I searched BHPhoto for APS-C mirrorless system medium zoom f/2.8 lenses. There was exactly one -- the Fujifilm 16-55/2.8. I was pleased to see it's weathersealed; the Tamron is not (when it's raining I put on the Pentax 18-135). But the weight is 655g. Hm. That means that the body would need to be significantly lighter than 1133g - 655g = 478g for that switch to make sense. It's $900, about what I paid for the Tamron and the Pentax 18-135 together, and the Tamron has come down in price since then.

So I searched again for what Mirrorless APS-C bodies Fujifilm offers. The X-E3 is lightest at 327g. At first I was going to pass on it for not having an EVF, but then I learned it does in fact have an EVF. Total weight 327g + 655g = 982g, a savings of 151g or about 13.3%.

That isn't really a compelling amount of weight savings. And it would cost $700 + $900, a lot more than I paid for the K-5 II + the Tamron.

I'm not familiar with Fujifilm body offerings; would I be sacrificing anything I value by going to the X-E3? I put them through DPReview's comparison tool. Hm, I'm surprised to see that the X-E3 doesn't have image stabilization. But that isn't terribly important to me because subject motion is usually my limiter. No TAv mode nor sensitivity priority, but I usually use aperture priority. But wait, it's not weather-sealed?!? That's a deal breaker.

So I looked again, this time filtering on weather-sealing. The X-T3 is 440g and $1,299. That's a savings of only 38g, or 3.4%. I'm not sure I'd notice the difference. And still no image stabilization. And viewfinder magnification is only 0.77x. There would be advantages, of course; especially better video. But overall I'm not sure I'd make that switch even if I could do it for free, and I certainly don't want to pay $1,200 + $900 for that.

So to reduce weight when I want to, I'm thinking of adding the 52g Pentax 40mm XS. Long-term, maybe the 119g 21mm and the 130g 70mm; keeping one of them in a pocket would keep it's weight off my shoulder. Other options, which I already have, are the 195g FA 35/2 and the 180g F 28/2.8.

Alternatively, the Fujifilm X-E3 and the 78g 27/2.8 (and still using the Pentax w/18-135 when it's raining). At $450 for that lens, the total would be $1,150. At 327g + 78g = 405g compared to 703g + 52g = 755g, that's a savings of 350g or 46.4%. And it would have the advantage of better video than the Pentax. But I don't want to pay $1,150.

The older X-E1 is 350g, still a weight savings of 43.3%. I see the X-E1 can be had for under $200 in good condition, and the 27/2.8 used in good condition for under $200, so total under $400.

Sony has the APS-C a5100 which is only 283g. The 69g 20mm pancake is wide for walkaround and doesn't get great marks for image quality, but the 140g Sigma 30/2.8 sounds good, for a total weight of 423g. That's a bit heavier than the X-E1 with the 27/2.8, and with more menu-diving. So I'll pass on Sony.

Another option for a high-quality lightweight walkaround would be the Sony RX100, Mark III, IV, V, or VA. Their weights are 290g - 299g. But even the old Mark III is running nearly as much as an X-E1 plus a 27/2.8. For a 1" sensor compared to the X-E1's APS-C sensor.

So maybe there's an X-E1 and 27/2.8 in my future. But at around $100 used in good condition, I'll probably go to the Pentax 40mm XS first.

UPDATE:

For now, I've brought my old F 28/2.8 out of semi-retirement. With collapsible rubber hood. I used to use a Leica MiniLux with 40mm lens; the focal length worked well for me and 28mm on APS-C is similar. I'm going to leave the 28mm on the K-5 II for general walkaround for a while and see how it goes. 250g less than the Tamron 17-50/2.8, on the K-5 II it's 21% less weight total.

To me, size is as important as weight. I love a limited like the 40mm on my K-3ii. I can just barely fit that into a coat pocket, but it's not truly pocketable. One of the reasons I'm interested in a future mirrorless would be so that I have a pocketable option, that also has the flexibility of larger lenses when necessary. It would be nice to have a high-quality camera with flexible lens selections but not always have to carry a backpack and a BlackRapid sling.

Look at this comparison. I know a lot of people get caught up in ergonomics and how they need a larger camera for comfortable shooting, but Ricoh GRs sell pretty well. I used a Canon Elph for 10 years and never once thought I wanted a much larger body.

**clackers** · 03-08-2019, 03:53 PM

Originally posted by GregL65

I was wondering how much weight I could save just on my main walkaround if I went to mirrorless, without sacrificing sensor size. I have a K-5 II and a Tamron 17-50/2.8. 760g + 430g = 1190g. But I like the KP and plan to upgrade to it when prices used priced come down below US$500. That would be 703g + 430g = 1133g.

So I searched BHPhoto for APS-C mirrorless system medium zoom f/2.8 lenses. There was exactly one -- the Fujifilm 16-55/2.8. I was pleased to see it's weathersealed; the Tamron is not (when it's raining I put on the Pentax 18-135). But the weight is 655g. Hm. That means that the body would need to be significantly lighter than 1133g - 655g = 478g for that switch to make sense. It's $900, about what I paid for the Tamron and the Pentax 18-135 together, and the Tamron has come down in price since then.

So I searched again for what Mirrorless APS-C bodies Fujifilm offers. The X-E3 is lightest at 327g. At first I was going to pass on it for not having an EVF, but then I learned it does in fact have an EVF. Total weight 327g + 655g = 982g, a savings of 151g or about 13.3%.

That isn't really a compelling amount of weight savings. And it would cost $700 + $900, a lot more than I paid for the K-5 II + the Tamron.

I'm not familiar with Fujifilm body offerings; would I be sacrificing anything I value by going to the X-E3? I put them through DPReview's comparison tool. Hm, I'm surprised to see that the X-E3 doesn't have image stabilization. But that isn't terribly important to me because subject motion is usually my limiter. No TAv mode nor sensitivity priority, but I usually use aperture priority. But wait, it's not weather-sealed?!? That's a deal breaker.

So I looked again, this time filtering on weather-sealing. The X-T3 is 440g and $1,299. That's a savings of only 38g, or 3.4%. I'm not sure I'd notice the difference. And still no image stabilization. And viewfinder magnification is only 0.77x. There would be advantages, of course; especially better video. But overall I'm not sure I'd make that switch even if I could do it for free, and I certainly don't want to pay $1,200 + $900 for that.

So to reduce weight when I want to, I'm thinking of adding the 52g Pentax 40mm XS. Long-term, maybe the 119g 21mm and the 130g 70mm; keeping one of them in a pocket would keep it's weight off my shoulder. Other options, which I already have, are the 195g FA 35/2 and the 180g F 28/2.8.

Alternatively, the Fujifilm X-E3 and the 78g 27/2.8 (and still using the Pentax w/18-135 when it's raining). At $450 for that lens, the total would be $1,150. At 327g + 78g = 405g compared to 703g + 52g = 755g, that's a savings of 350g or 46.4%. And it would have the advantage of better video than the Pentax. But I don't want to pay $1,150.

The older X-E1 is 350g, still a weight savings of 43.3%. I see the X-E1 can be had for under $200 in good condition, and the 27/2.8 used in good condition for under $200, so total under $400.

Sony has the APS-C a5100 which is only 283g. The 69g 20mm pancake is wide for walkaround and doesn't get great marks for image quality, but the 140g Sigma 30/2.8 sounds good, for a total weight of 423g. That's a bit heavier than the X-E1 with the 27/2.8, and with more menu-diving. So I'll pass on Sony.

Another option for a high-quality lightweight walkaround would be the Sony RX100, Mark III, IV, V, or VA. Their weights are 290g - 299g. But even the old Mark III is running nearly as much as an X-E1 plus a 27/2.8. For a 1" sensor compared to the X-E1's APS-C sensor.

So maybe there's an X-E1 and 27/2.8 in my future. But at around $100 used in good condition, I'll probably go to the Pentax 40mm XS first.

UPDATE:

For now, I've brought my old F 28/2.8 out of semi-retirement. With collapsible rubber hood. I used to use a Leica MiniLux with 40mm lens; the focal length worked well for me and 28mm on APS-C is similar. I'm going to leave the 28mm on the K-5 II for general walkaround for a while and see how it goes. 250g less than the Tamron 17-50/2.8, on the K-5 II it's 21% less weight total.

Yeah, savings in cost and weight can be marginal.

If you walkaround with a KP and the DA21 and DA40 pancakes that does most of what your current combo does.

mee · 03-08-2019, 10:54 PM

I want the Samsung NX2 in K mount. 28 to 30 MP sensor with a dual pixel autofocus system, Exynos 9810 processor allowing for 4k at 120fps, 15 fps mechanical shutter, and way more electronic..

Of course this was vague rumor on a third rate site for a camera that never was released before Samsung nuked the entire lineup. But I like the idea of Ricoh buying rights and parts and making a mirrorless crop with it. Both video and autofocus issues would likely be resolved.

If they bought rights to that Samsung 16-50mm f/2.0-2.8 variable lens as well, it would make a nice kit that wouldn't take a whole lot of work to launch (versus ground up).

beholder3 · 03-09-2019, 05:12 AM - **1 Like**

Originally posted by 08amczb

So where is the mirrorless future proof ... camera (or at least development)?

Look at Olympus and Panasonic. There you have your "future proof" cameras.

Look at sales of any sort of ILC. It is a dying type of device. Watch Nikon, Sony, Canon, Fuji struggle.

As a photographer and not a nerd I do not care too much about "mirrorless" or not, I care about ergonomics, joy of use, image quality versus price point - all together is : quality.

The makers have a totally different view on it and their interests are not mine, often quite the contrary.

As a happy consumer and not just a paid service provider I can be totally relaxed for years to come. If they all fold, then that is it.

reh321 · 03-13-2019, 07:44 AM - **1 Like**

Originally posted by donpjt

i really don't care what camera I use, as long as I can get it within a reasonable price for the body and have good lens compatibility. Rest of it is just a slight learning curve to move from EVF to mirrorless. That said, I prefer using FF cameras, the weight doesn't really bother me and I love the handling on these much better. You could never have a proper handling on the camera if you have a 70-200 2.8 body with VR.You'd have to hold the lens and that would not be ideal for me.

That is how I learned to hold a camera 50 years ago, and how I hold one today. {I'm not sure what 'VR' has to do with this, but IBIS makes handling the camera so much easier}

normhead · 03-13-2019, 08:14 AM

I really can't discuss this with people who don't understand that many have an aesthetic preference for DSLRs.

Quote:

No need for separate AF and AE sensors, the main sensor can do all of this.

I don't care. It;'s inside the camera.

Quote:

No need for AF adjustment, the main sensor always can check it with contrast detection.

I've needed to do an AF adjustment with one non-Pentax lens in 10 years. A non stater over here. With 3 bodies an 20 lenses, this IMHO is not a selling point for a camera.

Quote:

It's lighter, the prism is big and heavy.

If you're a 120 pound weakling that's a big consideration.

Quote:

Shutter lag can be totally eliminated. If the (future) sensor captures continuously, then the camera can save the image taken when you pushed the button or even before you pushed the shutter button.

If and only if. if pigs could fly we'd have to spend a lot more time looking up.

Quote:

Any custom overlay can be added to the viewfinder image. Focus peaking, histogram, under/overexposure warnings..

.

To much info. I like what I have. I even hate it when the histogram obscures the bottom half of the image when chimping.

Quote:

Exposeur can be simulated. (I like it when I half press the shutter button)

Unless you're going to a 27 inch monitor you can't even tell what's in focus on those little EVF screens.
You do understand every Pentax has a backcreen that shows you what's in focus and can show under and over exposed area. Available on an OVF when needed. Where as an EVF doesn't have an OVF when needed.

Quote:

Low light manual focus is easier with "correct exposure" viewfinder image

Unless things have changed in the years since I last looked through one, low light performance of an EVF is truly appalling compared to an OVF.

To, me, you're selling cool aid, and I'm not buying.

I'm not sure why EVF and mirrorless proponents feel the necessity to compare to DSLRs. I guess when you're top dog, every one wants to compare what they have to what you have. For some reason, I have never felt the urge to go on an anti-mirrorless speculation. Yet we see this kind of pro mirrorless anti DSLR stuff all the time. I'd have no problem with pro-mirrorless, I don't see the point in claiming it's better than DSLRs, if the one thing DSLR users care about is not having to view the nature they are experiencing on an electronic screen. Reality is preferable to me.

Nothing a mirrorless proponent says will ever overcome that one limitation. To be dominant, the new system has to be better at everything. That's never going to happen. If the thing you care about is for you the most important part of your photographic experience, the bells and whistles are unimportant.

IMHO mirrorless is all bells and whistles.

reh321 · 03-13-2019, 08:30 AM

Originally posted by normhead

I really can't discuss this with people who don't understand that many have an aesthetic preference for DSLRs.

I do understand your preference. I do wish that you could understand my preference. A hybrid viewfinder could satisfy both of us.

Quote:

Shutter lag can be totally eliminated. If the (future) sensor captures continuously, then the camera can save the image taken when you pushed the button or even before you pushed the shutter button.

Originally posted by normhead

If and only if. if pigs could fly we'd have to spend a lot more time looking up.

Some smart phones have this capability already. It would be a real blessing for someone with my reflexes. On multiple occasions i have had my camera trained on a bird waiting for it to take off, not knowing whether it will leave now or three minutes from now. Yes, if I were using a camera with a deeper buffer, I could start a burst and hope that it took off sometime during that burst - but with my luck, it would probably take off just after my buffer filled, no matter how deep the buffer was. With the type of "circular queue" described in the words you quoted, the camera would store images recorded even before my slow reflexes pushed the shutter button, and might actually catch the moment that caused me to react. To me this has a genuine practical use - it is not a bell or whistle.

**ThorSanchez** · 03-13-2019, 09:02 AM

Originally posted by reh321

To me this has a genuine practical use - it is not a bell or whistle.

Almost all the features in any camera beyond pushing the shutter and having a basic image recorded are part of a big gray area where personal preference defines what's a must-have and what's a superfluous bell/whistle. We often see pixel shift and astrotracer and composition adjust defended as necessary and innovative features, while EVF and pre-buffering are decried as inferior solutions or wastes of resources. Tough, weather-sealed cameras are a must have, unless you're looking for an APS-C prime... then that's not that important.

Many here at Pentax Forums have chosen to draw their line in the sand at the feature level their current Pentax camera and lenses have. And many or most of them will move that line when the next Pentax body is released.

photoptimist · 03-13-2019, 09:03 AM

Originally posted by reh321

I do understand your preference. I do wish that you could understand my preference. A hybrid viewfinder could satisfy both of us.

Exactly!

A hybrid VF brings the best of both DSLR and MILC worlds with 1) the aesthetics, eye-friendliness, energy-savings, and noise(heat)-avoiding properties of an OVF with 2) the digital-preview/review, image enhancement, overlays, and blinkie/sparklie feedback on exposure and focus of an EVF. I'd love to be able to use an OVF for composition and shooting but get to see a quick digital review of each shot without taking my eye from the view finder. I'd only use full MILC-mode sporadically.

Sure, a DSLR with a hybrid VF might be more complex and expensive, but I'm looking for the best camera, not the cheapest camera I can find.

03-06-2019, 12:09 PM	#21
GregL65 Forum Member Join Date: Jul 2011 Location: Bellevue, WA Posts: 63	I was wondering how much weight I could save just on my main walkaround if I went to mirrorless, without sacrificing sensor size. I have a K-5 II and a Tamron 17-50/2.8. 760g + 430g = 1190g. But I like the KP and plan to upgrade to it when used prices come down below US$500. That would be 703g + 430g = 1133g. So I searched BHPhoto for APS-C mirrorless system medium zoom f/2.8 lenses. There was exactly one -- the Fujifilm 16-55/2.8. I was pleased to see it's weathersealed; the Tamron is not (when it's raining I put on the Pentax 18-135). But the weight is 655g. Hm. That means that the body would need to be significantly lighter than 1133g - 655g = 478g for that switch to make sense. It's $900, about what I paid for the Tamron and the Pentax 18-135 together, and the Tamron has come down in price since then. So I searched again for what Mirrorless APS-C bodies Fujifilm offers. The X-E3 is lightest at 327g. At first I was going to pass on it for not having an EVF, but then I learned it does in fact have an EVF. Total weight 327g + 655g = 982g, a savings of 151g or about 13.3%. That isn't really a compelling amount of weight savings. And it would cost $700 + $900, a lot more than I paid for the K-5 II + the Tamron. I'm not familiar with Fujifilm body offerings; would I be sacrificing anything I value by going to the X-E3? I put them through DPReview's comparison tool. Hm, I'm surprised to see that the X-E3 doesn't have image stabilization. But that isn't terribly important to me because subject motion is usually my limiter. No TAv mode nor sensitivity priority, but I usually use aperture priority. But wait, it's not weather-sealed?!? That's a deal breaker. So I looked again, this time filtering on weather-sealing. The X-T3 is 440g and $1,299. That's a savings of only 38g, or 3.4%. I'm not sure I'd notice the difference. And still no image stabilization. And viewfinder magnification is only 0.77x. There would be advantages, of course; especially better video. But overall I'm not sure I'd make that switch even if I could do it for free, and I certainly don't want to pay $1,200 + $900 for that. So to reduce weight when I want to, I'm thinking of adding the 52g Pentax 40mm XS. Long-term, maybe the 119g 21mm and the 130g 70mm; keeping one of them in a pocket would keep it's weight off my shoulder. Other options, which I already have, are the 195g FA 35/2 and the 180g F 28/2.8. Alternatively, the Fujifilm X-E3 and the 78g 27/2.8 (and still using the Pentax w/18-135 when it's raining). At $450 for that lens, the total would be $1,150. At 327g + 78g = 405g compared to 703g + 52g = 755g, that's a savings of 350g or 46.4%. And it would have the advantage of better video than the Pentax. But I don't want to pay $1,150. The older X-E1 is 350g, still a weight savings of 43.3%. I see the X-E1 can be had for under $200 in good condition, and the 27/2.8 used in good condition for under $200, so total under $400. Sony has the APS-C a5100 which is only 283g. The 69g 20mm pancake is wide for walkaround and doesn't get great marks for image quality, but the 140g Sigma 30/2.8 sounds good, for a total weight of 423g. That's a bit heavier than the X-E1 with the 27/2.8, and with more menu-diving. So I'll pass on Sony. Another option for a high-quality lightweight walkaround would be the Sony RX100, Mark III, IV, V, or VA. Their weights are 290g - 299g. But even the old Mark III is running nearly as much as an X-E1 plus a 27/2.8. For a 1" sensor compared to the X-E1's APS-C sensor. So maybe there's an X-E1 and 27/2.8 in my future. But at around $100 used in good condition, I'll probably go to the Pentax 40mm XS first. UPDATE: For now, I've brought my old F 28/2.8 out of semi-retirement. With collapsible rubber hood. I used to use a Leica MiniLux with 40mm lens; the focal length worked well for me and 28mm on APS-C is similar. I'm going to leave the 28mm on the K-5 II for general walkaround for a while and see how it goes. 250g less than the Tamron 17-50/2.8, on the K-5 II it's 21% less weight total. Last edited by GregL65; 03-09-2019 at 12:21 PM.

03-13-2019, 08:14 AM	#27
normhead Pentaxian Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Near Algonquin Park Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 40,451	I really can't discuss this with people who don't understand that many have an aesthetic preference for DSLRs. Quote: No need for separate AF and AE sensors, the main sensor can do all of this. I don't care. It;'s inside the camera. Quote: No need for AF adjustment, the main sensor always can check it with contrast detection. I've needed to do an AF adjustment with one non-Pentax lens in 10 years. A non stater over here. With 3 bodies an 20 lenses, this IMHO is not a selling point for a camera. Quote: It's lighter, the prism is big and heavy. If you're a 120 pound weakling that's a big consideration. Quote: Shutter lag can be totally eliminated. If the (future) sensor captures continuously, then the camera can save the image taken when you pushed the button or even before you pushed the shutter button. If and only if. if pigs could fly we'd have to spend a lot more time looking up. Quote: Any custom overlay can be added to the viewfinder image. Focus peaking, histogram, under/overexposure warnings.. . To much info. I like what I have. I even hate it when the histogram obscures the bottom half of the image when chimping. Quote: Exposeur can be simulated. (I like it when I half press the shutter button) Unless you're going to a 27 inch monitor you can't even tell what's in focus on those little EVF screens. You do understand every Pentax has a backcreen that shows you what's in focus and can show under and over exposed area. Available on an OVF when needed. Where as an EVF doesn't have an OVF when needed. Quote: Low light manual focus is easier with "correct exposure" viewfinder image Unless things have changed in the years since I last looked through one, low light performance of an EVF is truly appalling compared to an OVF. To, me, you're selling cool aid, and I'm not buying. I'm not sure why EVF and mirrorless proponents feel the necessity to compare to DSLRs. I guess when you're top dog, every one wants to compare what they have to what you have. For some reason, I have never felt the urge to go on an anti-mirrorless speculation. Yet we see this kind of pro mirrorless anti DSLR stuff all the time. I'd have no problem with pro-mirrorless, I don't see the point in claiming it's better than DSLRs, if the one thing DSLR users care about is not having to view the nature they are experiencing on an electronic screen. Reality is preferable to me. Nothing a mirrorless proponent says will ever overcome that one limitation. To be dominant, the new system has to be better at everything. That's never going to happen. If the thing you care about is for you the most important part of your photographic experience, the bells and whistles are unimportant. IMHO mirrorless is all bells and whistles. Last edited by normhead; 03-13-2019 at 08:32 AM.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Speculations on the new D-Fa large diameter standard zoom	Stavri	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	58	09-26-2015 05:58 AM
K-7 Speculations (moved over from review section)	sctybear	Pentax DSLR Discussion	15	05-07-2010 05:48 PM
K30D/K300D speculations and new lenses	ogl	Pentax News and Rumors	355	01-24-2009 11:49 PM
Suggestion: "Speculations on the Future" forum	mattdm	Site Suggestions and Help	3	10-19-2007 10:54 AM
Your Speculations? (on the Hoya-Pentax Issue)	RiceHigh	Pentax News and Rumors	37	06-16-2007 03:08 PM

07-30-2018, 03:56 PM	#16
sealight Forum Member Join Date: Apr 2016 Location: Arjeplog Posts: 93	no fan so far of mirrorless, not sure that will change at some point- maybe just when there's no other choice left....

07-30-2018, 04:08 PM	#17
donpjt Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2014 Location: Houston, TX Photos: Gallery Posts: 190	i really don't care what camera I use, as long as I can get it within a reasonable price for the body and have good lens compatibility. Rest of it is just a slight learning curve to move from EVF to mirrorless. That said, I prefer using FF cameras, the weight doesn't really bother me and I love the handling on these much better. You could never have a proper handling on the camera if you have a 70-200 2.8 body with VR. You'd have to hold the lens and that would not be ideal for me..

07-30-2018, 04:10 PM	#18
awscreo Veteran Member Join Date: May 2016 Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 2,722	I don't mind either type of camera honestly. I happily used my MFT kit when I had it, now I'm using a DSLR kit and I'm happy with it too. In terms of pure tech innovation, I think mirrorless is probably easier to work with and has larger future potential. But, how long would that take, and would result be significantly better than the same generation DSLR? In terms of weight - when I just got the K-1, I never thought it'd be a big deal. But after taking my kit to few cities and outings, I bought a GR2 to have a light option for casual photography.

07-30-2018, 04:18 PM	#19
pakinjapan Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2012 Location: Tokyo Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,041	My speculation; they will have a surprise for their 100 birthday? I want a FF but not a heavy one. and it doesn't have to be a mirrorless. "If they can stick a FF sensor and the shake reduction in side a K3 body size, cut all the un-necessary things", (may be a wifi unit in there? ) I will be more than happy to abandon my FF mirrorless dream. I don't mind mirrorless at all. I like the idea that I can digital zoom-in in the viewfinder to check my focus before shoot. The real real problem for me is the size and weight of FF body. but If I get the give away K1, I will use it! Last edited by pakinjapan; 07-30-2018 at 04:29 PM.

07-30-2018, 05:12 PM	#20
surfar Pentaxian Join Date: Jan 2015 Location: mid nth coast,nsw Photos: Gallery Posts: 6,144	Originally posted by DeadJohn Conjecture on one possible full frame future: In 10 years All humans will have the option of the BEC(bionic eye camera).Inserted easily, it takes a shot with a blink of the natural eye thats programmed by the mandatory micro chip thats inserted in all humans(as per the laws of the ruling AI Robots that control everything on earth). Humans only have to sit in front of a laptop screen and all captured images are automatically transferred.

03-08-2019, 09:00 AM	#22
ThorSanchez Site Supporter Join Date: Dec 2012 Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 2,807	Originally posted by GregL65 I was wondering how much weight I could save just on my main walkaround if I went to mirrorless, without sacrificing sensor size. I have a K-5 II and a Tamron 17-50/2.8. 760g + 430g = 1190g. But I like the KP and plan to upgrade to it when prices used priced come down below US$500. That would be 703g + 430g = 1133g. So I searched BHPhoto for APS-C mirrorless system medium zoom f/2.8 lenses. There was exactly one -- the Fujifilm 16-55/2.8. I was pleased to see it's weathersealed; the Tamron is not (when it's raining I put on the Pentax 18-135). But the weight is 655g. Hm. That means that the body would need to be significantly lighter than 1133g - 655g = 478g for that switch to make sense. It's $900, about what I paid for the Tamron and the Pentax 18-135 together, and the Tamron has come down in price since then. So I searched again for what Mirrorless APS-C bodies Fujifilm offers. The X-E3 is lightest at 327g. At first I was going to pass on it for not having an EVF, but then I learned it does in fact have an EVF. Total weight 327g + 655g = 982g, a savings of 151g or about 13.3%. That isn't really a compelling amount of weight savings. And it would cost $700 + $900, a lot more than I paid for the K-5 II + the Tamron. I'm not familiar with Fujifilm body offerings; would I be sacrificing anything I value by going to the X-E3? I put them through DPReview's comparison tool. Hm, I'm surprised to see that the X-E3 doesn't have image stabilization. But that isn't terribly important to me because subject motion is usually my limiter. No TAv mode nor sensitivity priority, but I usually use aperture priority. But wait, it's not weather-sealed?!? That's a deal breaker. So I looked again, this time filtering on weather-sealing. The X-T3 is 440g and $1,299. That's a savings of only 38g, or 3.4%. I'm not sure I'd notice the difference. And still no image stabilization. And viewfinder magnification is only 0.77x. There would be advantages, of course; especially better video. But overall I'm not sure I'd make that switch even if I could do it for free, and I certainly don't want to pay $1,200 + $900 for that. So to reduce weight when I want to, I'm thinking of adding the 52g Pentax 40mm XS. Long-term, maybe the 119g 21mm and the 130g 70mm; keeping one of them in a pocket would keep it's weight off my shoulder. Other options, which I already have, are the 195g FA 35/2 and the 180g F 28/2.8. Alternatively, the Fujifilm X-E3 and the 78g 27/2.8 (and still using the Pentax w/18-135 when it's raining). At $450 for that lens, the total would be $1,150. At 327g + 78g = 405g compared to 703g + 52g = 755g, that's a savings of 350g or 46.4%. And it would have the advantage of better video than the Pentax. But I don't want to pay $1,150. The older X-E1 is 350g, still a weight savings of 43.3%. I see the X-E1 can be had for under $200 in good condition, and the 27/2.8 used in good condition for under $200, so total under $400. Sony has the APS-C a5100 which is only 283g. The 69g 20mm pancake is wide for walkaround and doesn't get great marks for image quality, but the 140g Sigma 30/2.8 sounds good, for a total weight of 423g. That's a bit heavier than the X-E1 with the 27/2.8, and with more menu-diving. So I'll pass on Sony. Another option for a high-quality lightweight walkaround would be the Sony RX100, Mark III, IV, V, or VA. Their weights are 290g - 299g. But even the old Mark III is running nearly as much as an X-E1 plus a 27/2.8. For a 1" sensor compared to the X-E1's APS-C sensor. So maybe there's an X-E1 and 27/2.8 in my future. But at around $100 used in good condition, I'll probably go to the Pentax 40mm XS first. UPDATE: For now, I've brought my old F 28/2.8 out of semi-retirement. With collapsible rubber hood. I used to use a Leica MiniLux with 40mm lens; the focal length worked well for me and 28mm on APS-C is similar. I'm going to leave the 28mm on the K-5 II for general walkaround for a while and see how it goes. 250g less than the Tamron 17-50/2.8, on the K-5 II it's 21% less weight total. To me, size is as important as weight. I love a limited like the 40mm on my K-3ii. I can just barely fit that into a coat pocket, but it's not truly pocketable. One of the reasons I'm interested in a future mirrorless would be so that I have a pocketable option, that also has the flexibility of larger lenses when necessary. It would be nice to have a high-quality camera with flexible lens selections but not always have to carry a backpack and a BlackRapid sling. Look at this comparison. I know a lot of people get caught up in ergonomics and how they need a larger camera for comfortable shooting, but Ricoh GRs sell pretty well. I used a Canon Elph for 10 years and never once thought I wanted a much larger body.

03-08-2019, 03:53 PM	#23
clackers Otis Memorial Pentaxian Join Date: Jul 2013 Location: Melbourne Photos: Albums Posts: 16,397	Originally posted by GregL65 I was wondering how much weight I could save just on my main walkaround if I went to mirrorless, without sacrificing sensor size. I have a K-5 II and a Tamron 17-50/2.8. 760g + 430g = 1190g. But I like the KP and plan to upgrade to it when prices used priced come down below US$500. That would be 703g + 430g = 1133g. So I searched BHPhoto for APS-C mirrorless system medium zoom f/2.8 lenses. There was exactly one -- the Fujifilm 16-55/2.8. I was pleased to see it's weathersealed; the Tamron is not (when it's raining I put on the Pentax 18-135). But the weight is 655g. Hm. That means that the body would need to be significantly lighter than 1133g - 655g = 478g for that switch to make sense. It's $900, about what I paid for the Tamron and the Pentax 18-135 together, and the Tamron has come down in price since then. So I searched again for what Mirrorless APS-C bodies Fujifilm offers. The X-E3 is lightest at 327g. At first I was going to pass on it for not having an EVF, but then I learned it does in fact have an EVF. Total weight 327g + 655g = 982g, a savings of 151g or about 13.3%. That isn't really a compelling amount of weight savings. And it would cost $700 + $900, a lot more than I paid for the K-5 II + the Tamron. I'm not familiar with Fujifilm body offerings; would I be sacrificing anything I value by going to the X-E3? I put them through DPReview's comparison tool. Hm, I'm surprised to see that the X-E3 doesn't have image stabilization. But that isn't terribly important to me because subject motion is usually my limiter. No TAv mode nor sensitivity priority, but I usually use aperture priority. But wait, it's not weather-sealed?!? That's a deal breaker. So I looked again, this time filtering on weather-sealing. The X-T3 is 440g and $1,299. That's a savings of only 38g, or 3.4%. I'm not sure I'd notice the difference. And still no image stabilization. And viewfinder magnification is only 0.77x. There would be advantages, of course; especially better video. But overall I'm not sure I'd make that switch even if I could do it for free, and I certainly don't want to pay $1,200 + $900 for that. So to reduce weight when I want to, I'm thinking of adding the 52g Pentax 40mm XS. Long-term, maybe the 119g 21mm and the 130g 70mm; keeping one of them in a pocket would keep it's weight off my shoulder. Other options, which I already have, are the 195g FA 35/2 and the 180g F 28/2.8. Alternatively, the Fujifilm X-E3 and the 78g 27/2.8 (and still using the Pentax w/18-135 when it's raining). At $450 for that lens, the total would be $1,150. At 327g + 78g = 405g compared to 703g + 52g = 755g, that's a savings of 350g or 46.4%. And it would have the advantage of better video than the Pentax. But I don't want to pay $1,150. The older X-E1 is 350g, still a weight savings of 43.3%. I see the X-E1 can be had for under $200 in good condition, and the 27/2.8 used in good condition for under $200, so total under $400. Sony has the APS-C a5100 which is only 283g. The 69g 20mm pancake is wide for walkaround and doesn't get great marks for image quality, but the 140g Sigma 30/2.8 sounds good, for a total weight of 423g. That's a bit heavier than the X-E1 with the 27/2.8, and with more menu-diving. So I'll pass on Sony. Another option for a high-quality lightweight walkaround would be the Sony RX100, Mark III, IV, V, or VA. Their weights are 290g - 299g. But even the old Mark III is running nearly as much as an X-E1 plus a 27/2.8. For a 1" sensor compared to the X-E1's APS-C sensor. So maybe there's an X-E1 and 27/2.8 in my future. But at around $100 used in good condition, I'll probably go to the Pentax 40mm XS first. UPDATE: For now, I've brought my old F 28/2.8 out of semi-retirement. With collapsible rubber hood. I used to use a Leica MiniLux with 40mm lens; the focal length worked well for me and 28mm on APS-C is similar. I'm going to leave the 28mm on the K-5 II for general walkaround for a while and see how it goes. 250g less than the Tamron 17-50/2.8, on the K-5 II it's 21% less weight total. Yeah, savings in cost and weight can be marginal. If you walkaround with a KP and the DA21 and DA40 pancakes that does most of what your current combo does.

03-08-2019, 10:54 PM	#24
mee Veteran Member Join Date: May 2010 Posts: 7,403	I want the Samsung NX2 in K mount. 28 to 30 MP sensor with a dual pixel autofocus system, Exynos 9810 processor allowing for 4k at 120fps, 15 fps mechanical shutter, and way more electronic.. Of course this was vague rumor on a third rate site for a camera that never was released before Samsung nuked the entire lineup. But I like the idea of Ricoh buying rights and parts and making a mirrorless crop with it. Both video and autofocus issues would likely be resolved. If they bought rights to that Samsung 16-50mm f/2.0-2.8 variable lens as well, it would make a nice kit that wouldn't take a whole lot of work to launch (versus ground up).

03-09-2019, 05:12 AM - 1 Like	#25
beholder3 Pentaxian Join Date: Dec 2011 Posts: 3,112	Originally posted by 08amczb So where is the mirrorless future proof ... camera (or at least development)? Look at Olympus and Panasonic. There you have your "future proof" cameras. Look at sales of any sort of ILC. It is a dying type of device. Watch Nikon, Sony, Canon, Fuji struggle. As a photographer and not a nerd I do not care too much about "mirrorless" or not, I care about ergonomics, joy of use, image quality versus price point - all together is : quality. The makers have a totally different view on it and their interests are not mine, often quite the contrary. As a happy consumer and not just a paid service provider I can be totally relaxed for years to come. If they all fold, then that is it.

03-13-2019, 07:44 AM - 1 Like	#26
reh321 Pentaxian Join Date: Nov 2014 Location: South Bend, IN, USA Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 23,185	Originally posted by donpjt i really don't care what camera I use, as long as I can get it within a reasonable price for the body and have good lens compatibility. Rest of it is just a slight learning curve to move from EVF to mirrorless. That said, I prefer using FF cameras, the weight doesn't really bother me and I love the handling on these much better. You could never have a proper handling on the camera if you have a 70-200 2.8 body with VR.You'd have to hold the lens and that would not be ideal for me. That is how I learned to hold a camera 50 years ago, and how I hold one today. {I'm not sure what 'VR' has to do with this, but IBIS makes handling the camera so much easier}

03-13-2019, 08:30 AM	#28
reh321 Pentaxian Join Date: Nov 2014 Location: South Bend, IN, USA Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 23,185	Originally posted by normhead I really can't discuss this with people who don't understand that many have an aesthetic preference for DSLRs. I do understand your preference. I do wish that you could understand my preference. A hybrid viewfinder could satisfy both of us. Quote: Shutter lag can be totally eliminated. If the (future) sensor captures continuously, then the camera can save the image taken when you pushed the button or even before you pushed the shutter button. Originally posted by normhead If and only if. if pigs could fly we'd have to spend a lot more time looking up. Some smart phones have this capability already. It would be a real blessing for someone with my reflexes. On multiple occasions i have had my camera trained on a bird waiting for it to take off, not knowing whether it will leave now or three minutes from now. Yes, if I were using a camera with a deeper buffer, I could start a burst and hope that it took off sometime during that burst - but with my luck, it would probably take off just after my buffer filled, no matter how deep the buffer was. With the type of "circular queue" described in the words you quoted, the camera would store images recorded even before my slow reflexes pushed the shutter button, and might actually catch the moment that caused me to react. To me this has a genuine practical use - it is not a bell or whistle.

03-13-2019, 09:02 AM	#29
ThorSanchez Site Supporter Join Date: Dec 2012 Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 2,807	Originally posted by reh321 To me this has a genuine practical use - it is not a bell or whistle. Almost all the features in any camera beyond pushing the shutter and having a basic image recorded are part of a big gray area where personal preference defines what's a must-have and what's a superfluous bell/whistle. We often see pixel shift and astrotracer and composition adjust defended as necessary and innovative features, while EVF and pre-buffering are decried as inferior solutions or wastes of resources. Tough, weather-sealed cameras are a must have, unless you're looking for an APS-C prime... then that's not that important. Many here at Pentax Forums have chosen to draw their line in the sand at the feature level their current Pentax camera and lenses have. And many or most of them will move that line when the next Pentax body is released.

03-13-2019, 09:03 AM	#30
photoptimist Pentaxian Join Date: Jul 2016 Photos: Albums Posts: 5,128	Originally posted by reh321 I do understand your preference. I do wish that you could understand my preference. A hybrid viewfinder could satisfy both of us. Exactly! A hybrid VF brings the best of both DSLR and MILC worlds with 1) the aesthetics, eye-friendliness, energy-savings, and noise(heat)-avoiding properties of an OVF with 2) the digital-preview/review, image enhancement, overlays, and blinkie/sparklie feedback on exposure and focus of an EVF. I'd love to be able to use an OVF for composition and shooting but get to see a quick digital review of each shot without taking my eye from the view finder. I'd only use full MILC-mode sporadically. Sure, a DSLR with a hybrid VF might be more complex and expensive, but I'm looking for the best camera, not the cheapest camera I can find.