[IchabodCrane]

How will the MILCs evolve to get ahead?

There's plenty to improve with DSLRs. They can be made more compact, due to shrinking electronics, lower power consumption and better design. The larger size will remain an advantage in some situations, e.g. with larger lenses.
Yes, focusing - the PD-AF is improving, how about combining the -3 EV capability of some systems such as Pentax' SAFOX X and Canon 6D's AF with 51+ AF points like on the D800e? How about better AF tracking systems? I'm surprised you say the MILC AF systems have "plenty of headroom remaining" as if the SLR dedicated AF systems would fall behind.

Even the viewfinder can evolve. A Pentax FF will offer a cheaper way of obtaining 100% view, due to the SR. We could also gain back some of the features and qualities of the old camera viewfinders; but also, maybe, integrate new features as well - for example a hybrid display which could superimpose all kind of information on the matte screen itself (lessening the advantages of EVFs while maintaining those of OVFs).

Being more up-market, the DSLRs can integrate more expensive technology; it won't be so easy for MILCs to not even reach, but also surpass them... unless the traditional camera makers will be fooled into giving up and stopping/slowing down development.

I wasn't suggesting that MILCs would become "better" than DSLRs or that DSLRs will "fall behind", whatever that may mean to various people. But we do know that Pentax has stated in this interview that MILCs are less expensive to build. So like for like, it stands to reason a MILC will be less expensive.

Regarding miniaturization, whatever you can shrink on one you can shrink on the other -- except the mirror box remains on the DSLR so it will always be bigger. But do you want to make DSLRs much smaller if one of the stated advantages is better handling with larger lenses? Some will want a big body to go with big lenses. Some will want a small body to go with small lenses. One reason why there likely won't be one size fits all.

Agree about evolution of the OVF. There's much more it can do as Fuji has shown. Supposedly, it's a very expensive technology but that could change, too.

[Winder]

Hopefully we will see EVF technology push companies to provide better OVFs. If Pentax is going to compete with the next wave of EVIL cameras they will need to improve the OVF.

[gabriellokhk]

full frame in 2013

[jon404]

No, the machine translation completely missed the embedded Kanji haiku... auto-translation rules probably ignore them... but these short poems are very often important news 'reveals'...

Pentax 645
A new sensor arrives
Ricoh buys Kodak

[Kunzite]

I wasn't suggesting that MILCs would become "better" than DSLRs or that DSLRs will "fall behind", whatever that may mean to various people. But we do know that Pentax has stated in this interview that MILCs are less expensive to build. So like for like, it stands to reason a MILC will be less expensive.

Regarding miniaturization, whatever you can shrink on one you can shrink on the other -- except the mirror box remains on the DSLR so it will always be bigger. But do you want to make DSLRs much smaller if one of the stated advantages is better handling with larger lenses? Some will want a big body to go with big lenses. Some will want a small body to go with small lenses. One reason why there likely won't be one size fits all.

Agree about evolution of the OVF. There's much more it can do as Fuji has shown. Supposedly, it's a very expensive technology but that could change, too.

The meaning of "better" varies, I agree. But you said the "How will will DSLRs evolve to stay ahead of MILCs" thing; then, the "evolved" camera that "stays ahead" is "better"
You also seemed to believe the MILCs can "evolve" more than the DSLRs, e.g. in their AF systems; did I misunderstood? Were you talking about MILCs surpassing, or only closing the gap somehow to the DSLRs?

I would only want Pentax to make their DSLR thinner, without decreasing the other dimensions. But there's nothing wrong with some very small DSLR, besides the more normal sized ones.

[IchabodCrane]

The meaning of "better" varies, I agree. But you said the "How will will DSLRs evolve to stay ahead of MILCs" thing; then, the "evolved" camera that "stays ahead" is "better"
You also seemed to believe the MILCs can "evolve" more than the DSLRs, e.g. in their AF systems; did I misunderstood? Were you talking about MILCs surpassing, or only closing the gap somehow to the DSLRs?

I would only want Pentax to make their DSLR thinner, without decreasing the other dimensions. But there's nothing wrong with some very small DSLR, besides the more normal sized ones.

Sorry if I was unclear. I'll try to do better. Here's a summary of points:

1) All else equal, a MILC provides the opportunity to produce a more compact camera because of no mirror box. Plus, no one is suggesting a mirror box can be made smaller.
2) A large number of people (not all!) will desire a smaller camera if it provides equivalent performance. The obvious exception are those with very large lenses.
3) PDAF is a well-developed technology that works quite well but sometimes requires micro-adjustment, especially as resolution capability of the camera/lens combination increases. By contrast , high performance on-sensor auto focusing is an emerging technology that probably will undergo more rapid development and improvement. It stands to reason it will close the gap with off-sensor PDAF and at some point not be a notable disadvantage in focusing technology. Plus, it doesn't require micro-adjustment.
4) Likewise, EVFs can only get better and become less of a reason not to choose a MILC.
5) Pentax has stated MILCs cost less to produce (good for Pentax and other camera makers) so one has to assume they will cost less to buy (good for us).

When I synthesize these five points, I come to the conclusion that the market share for MILCs will increase. Does that make sense?

[Rondec]

I don't understand the preoccupation that people have with size of their cameras. Alright, a D800 with a 70-200 VR II is going to be a big camera, but take away the mirror and decrease the registration distance and you still have a big (although slightly smaller) camera and a honking big lens. Stick an 85mm f1.4 on there and you have the same issue. Four thirds cameras do a little better, because they have a smaller sensor and a lot of their zooms are quite slow. Even so, they aren't "pocketable," particularly with a zoom lens, which is what most consumers are looking for when they buy a camera.

The difference in size between a K-01 and a kx is just not that big and even if Pentax shortened the registration distance somewhat, it would still be a decent sized camera with decent sized lenses.

When I am shooting for a couple of hours, I really don't want a camera that is much smaller than a K5 anyway.

[Kunzite]

I would also like the only further size reduction for my next DSLR to be only in thickness, just a little. I am perfectly fine knowing they won't be nowhere as thin as those point&shoot-like MILCs, as I find a DSLR ergonomically superior in any way.
Well, IMO even the 645D is more comfortable to hold in one hand, than those slippery MILCs. YMMV.

Sorry if I was unclear. I'll try to do better. Here's a summary of points:

1) All else equal, a MILC provides the opportunity to produce a more compact camera because of no mirror box. Plus, no one is suggesting a mirror box can be made smaller.
2) A large number of people (not all!) will desire a smaller camera if it provides equivalent performance. The obvious exception are those with very large lenses.
3) PDAF is a well-developed technology that works quite well but sometimes requires micro-adjustment, especially as resolution capability of the camera/lens combination increases. By contrast , high performance on-sensor auto focusing is an emerging technology that probably will undergo more rapid development and improvement. It stands to reason it will close the gap with off-sensor PDAF and at some point not be a notable disadvantage in focusing technology. Plus, it doesn't require micro-adjustment.
4) Likewise, EVFs can only get better and become less of a reason not to choose a MILC.
5) Pentax has stated MILCs cost less to produce (good for Pentax and other camera makers) so one has to assume they will cost less to buy (good for us).

When I synthesize these five points, I come to the conclusion that the market share for MILCs will increase. Does that make sense?

Thank you for the clarifications.
About size: there's a market for all camera sizes; and while indeed a DSLR can't be made as compact as the smallest MILC with the same sensor, their size can still be decreased (and no, I'm not talking about the mirror box; there's the electronics, maybe a thinner LCD, a smaller battery made possible by lessening the power consumption). The MILCs are already using all the tricks: practically no grip, low capacity battery, no viewfinder; the ones that doesn't aren't that small (though mostly below the limits for being comfortable to work with, but we're talking about the size-obsessed market).
So it's about MILCs catching up to DSLRs, to a point where their disadvantages won't be an issue. We'll see; as I've said the DSLRs can fight back.
Of course, the MILC market is increasing but so is the DSLR one. The question is, why is the MILC market increasing? My best guess is that we're talking about two factors, combined:
- they're cheaper (which doesn't have any other advantage than having to pay less)
- they resemble the point&shoots people are accustomed with, while a DSLR looks more intimidating.
We are way more discerning than most consumers, so we would make more informed choices; but I don't think that's representative for the MILC market. I believe it would be difficult for the MILCs to move upmarket, and truly having a potential for replacing DSLRs for every usage.

[Medium FormatPro]

I believe it would be difficult for the MILCs to move upmarket, and truly having a potential for replacing DSLRs for every usage

I'll agree with the last part; most milcs will not replace most dslr's, but... In a way Leica is in fact proving that milcs do have the possibility of moving upmarket. Thier current fixed lens milc goes for about 2k and gets nothing but very good reviews. Leica is so happy with it that I'd place my chips on the bet that Leica comes out with at least one more milc soon; definately within two years. Also try to imagine a Leica milc with that sub f1.0 lens on the front of a tri-focal lens.

[gazonk]

fixed lens milc

That's a contradiction in terms

[lytrytyr]

I don't understand the preoccupation that people have with size of their cameras.

It's a question of portability.
Do you have the camera with you, or not?

The K-x, with a lens up to 3.5in in length,
will fit in a bridge camera waistpack.
So it goes places the K5 doesn't.

[lytrytyr]

I'd place my chips on the bet that Leica comes out with at least one more milc soon

That's an easy bet.
"Mirrorless Interchangeable Lens Cameras"
is what Leica do, what they've always done.
My old M2 was a MILC.

Only the rear screen is new for Leica,
even if view cameras always had one
(optical, not electronic).

[northcoastgreg]

But we do know that Pentax has stated in this interview that MILCs are less expensive to build. So like for like, it stands to reason a MILC will be less expensive.

I wonder how true, in practical terms, the cost advantages of MILCs really are. In any case, we have not actually seen the cost advantages as yet. Compare like for like, and the MILCs tend to be more expensive. The Olympus E-M5 is $999. The Pentax K-30 is +$200 less expensive. Is the E-M5 really +$200 better than the K-30? The E-M5 has a tiltable touchscreen display and slightly better IS. The K-30 handles better, enjoys a better thought-out interface, has more dynamic range, does a better job of balancing larger glass and more powerful flashes, produces slightly cleaner, less noisy images, and is attached to a more mature, richer system. If you're an economy shopper, the K-30 will give you more bang for your buck.

Even if, further down the road, the theoretical cost advantages of MILCs kick in, how significant will that really be? The most expensive component in a camera is the sensor, and an APS-C sensor used in a DSLR will be just as expensive as an APS-C sensor used in an MILC. So where are the cost advantages? Is a mirror box really that much more expensive than an EVF? In 2003 I bought a brand new SLR camera for $140. A quality accessory EVF can easily run several hundred dollars. Is an EVF really signifcantly less expensive to make than a mirror box? Will EVFs be significantly less expensive in the future?

[VisualDarkness]

3) PDAF is a well-developed technology that works quite well but sometimes requires micro-adjustment, especially as resolution capability of the camera/lens combination increases. By contrast , high performance on-sensor auto focusing is an emerging technology that probably will undergo more rapid development and improvement. It stands to reason it will close the gap with off-sensor PDAF and at some point not be a notable disadvantage in focusing technology. Plus, it doesn't require micro-adjustment.

One problem with going with only contrast detection is that it can't decide if it's front focused or back focused, it only knows if it's focused or not by moving back and forth then deciding on the peak. This is brutal for any kind of Z-axis tracking and need some complementing AF system to work that out.

[Kunzite]

I'm assuming Kitazawa-san was talking about the MILCs without viewfinders, i.e. the most popular ones. MILCs are selling because they're cheap (and even the current MILC surge in Japan, wasn't it because of price slashes?)