[Asahiflex]

I'd much prefer rumorless mirrors ....

[excanonfd]

Because its so unimportant.

I disagree. I was at a classical concert with my K20D and at the intermission I was cautioned by an usher to not to click away as much because the mirror slap noise was being picked up by video camera that was set up about 20 feet away. In the film days, SLRs were banned from press conferences of US Presidents and other VIPs because of the loud mirror slaps. Rangefinder cameras like the Leica M and various TLRs were the only ones that were allowed at such functions. There are some truly fugly looking housing to muffle DSLR's mirror slap in the market, I have seen some videos demonstrating the effectiveness of such device (they are very effective) but I don't think I'd want to be carrying one of those. You are likely to end up with your face being pushed into the ground by the SWAT team while the bomb squad is trying to defuse the 'bomb' you brought.

Even within the Pentax Forums, there are many threads from members complaining of loud mirror slaps. Pentax, by going mirrorless can largely eliminate this noise issue. While the discussions of the finer points of the technology involved is indeed important and may fascinate you and other technology oriented members of the forum, all I care about is how this camera (still a vapourware) will work for me. 1. Retain K mount and register distance (backward compatibility). 2. Retain current generation of camera body size and shape (ergonomics). 3. A viewfinder (EVF or OVF, doesn't matter to me) in the same tried and true position. 4. Substantial reduction of noise while camera is being operated.

If the new Pentax camera do not address these concerns of mine, I won't be buying. What good is introducing a camera that is profoundly different from the current generation of DSLR, if it doesn't address the shortcomings of the current generation camera?

[jpzk]

Ouch, I don't like that.

Read further ... corrected post says :" will no have eye level VIEWfinder".
Quoted: "
acuberos
New! 49 minutes ago | Reply.
I apologize about my bad english… the correct translation is “Eye Level Viewfinder”… h

JP

[LFLee]

This is the first time in years Pentaxians have something to look forward to....

[monochrome]

Read further ... corrected post says :" will no have eye level VIEWfinder".
Quoted: "
acuberos
New! 49 minutes ago | Reply.
I apologize about my bad english… the correct translation is “Eye Level Viewfinder”… h

JP

I hope that infers no optical viewfinder. If there truly is no Eyelevel viewfinder . . .

[deadwolfbones]

From a friend of mine who will remain nameless:

"And between you and me, the Pentax mirrorless exists. [...] All the leaked rumors that I've read out so far are true. Except that it's really, really funny looking -- nobody mentioned that so far."

[gazonk]

Read further ... corrected post says :" will no have eye level VIEWfinder".
Quoted: "
acuberos
New! 49 minutes ago | Reply.
I apologize about my bad english… the correct translation is “Eye Level Viewfinder”… h

JP

Yes, that's what I thought. But he probably means OVF.

[Brangdon]

As I said earlier, it would make more sense to design a new mount specific to mirrorless but making it fully compatible with the K-mount via a simple adapter: [...]
Then a µK-K adapter is only a matter of transmitting electrical and mechanical contacts (not exactly rocket science, this is really nothing more than an extension tube).

I think they'd be crazy to introduce a new mount that used mechanical linkages today. Any new mount ought to be designed to last for 35 years, just like the K-mount was. The future is surely fully electronic mounts. The new mount lenses will have their own motors for focus and aperture. (And eventually aperture and shutter will probably become solid state, if that gets good enough.) Look at the Q-mount, or the Fuji X-Pro1.

That being the case, a purported µK-K would need to convert the electronic connections into mechanical ones. It would need a focus motor and a lever that moved to set aperture. As such I don't think it will be "simple".

"Making the display lighter and darker" - an annoying, imprecise alternative to the old exposure bar? It seems EVF is all about worse alternatives to perfectly working technologies

You are assuming its bad before you even see it. If you don't like that feature, you'll surely be able to turn it off. And turn on other assists, such as a histogram, or blinking the over and under-exposed pixels, if you prefer. Because the features will be in software, they become, well, soft: user-configurable.

"It can magnify the view to show individual pixels" - slow but necessary for accurate focus. Can you do it and keep composing, in the same time?

It's up to Pentax how they design it. (Remember we're talking about what the technology's potential, not about any concrete design.) They could make it enlarge just the central area, for example, leaving the outer area to show the field of view.

"An EVF should be closer to WYSIWYG than an OVF" - only if the EVF is accurately calibrated, and you aren't surpassing it's limitations.

Why assume it won't be calibrated? It sounds like you are looking for reasons to hate new technology.

Even so, in a way you're letting the camera deciding what the end result should looks like and showing that to you.

No more so than shooting JPEG. Even if you shoot RAW, the camera is making choices when you chimp on the rear monitor.

[Kunzite]

And you're assuming it's good before seeing it. However, I'm quite sure I don't want the display to artificially vary it's brightness by several stops; the eye is already strained by having to look at a TV screen. And I can guarantee it's going to be very imprecise, since the human eye can't accurately measure brightness.
Yeah, if I don't like this I can turn it off, if I don't like that I can turn it off too. Those wonderful advantages an EVF brings, all turned off

Enlarging just the central area or not, that's a workaround. It will work great at times (we had it also with the optical viewfinders) but having a viewfinder which can display the full resolution is better.

Which EVF is calibrated? So far, all I've saw had strange/unnatural colours. Besides, I'm not so sure WYSIWYG (as in: show me something close to the camera's current settings) is the "correct" choice - I'd rather have the unprocessed image.

[Anvh]

That being the case, a purported µK-K would need to convert the electronic connections into mechanical ones. It would need a focus motor and a lever that moved to set aperture. As such I don't think it will be "simple".

Sony and Nikon are putting whole Phase AF system in their adapters.

[Urkeldaedalus]

From a friend of mine who will remain nameless:

Quote:
"And between you and me, the Pentax mirrorless exists. [...] All the leaked rumors that I've read out so far are true. Except that it's really, really funny looking -- nobody mentioned that so far."

I'm not sure what excites me more -- the arrival of this camera, or (judging from the rumors) people freaking out when they see its design.

[Mehlsack]

people freaking out after seeing the design is more scary then exciting to me

[ihasa]

From a friend of mine who will remain nameless:

Oh dear! Funny ha ha, or funny peculiar?

[Adam]

From a friend of mine who will remain nameless:

My nameless friend confirmed this too

[deadwolfbones]

However he also hinted that this may not be the K-01, but rather a different mirrorless camera. He may have been a bit confused on the matter, though, since his info was secondhand (from coworkers who saw it in the flesh),