[Winder]

3 years ago, the best EVFs had the same resolution as today. That's the real rate of improvement.

EVF resolution is are the edge of what people perceive. There is no reason to have a 6MP EVF.

The EVF technology is evolving, but slowly

Not slowly at all. Product cycles are getting longer for mirrorless and advancement will come with new product.

DSLRs outnumbers MILCs by more than 3:1.

What was that ratio 5 years ago? In Japan Mirrorless sales outnumber DSLRs. Germany is expected to be the next market where MILC sales surpass DSLR sales. Big Germany camera sales report: Mirrorless is on raise! | Mirrorless Rumors Globally we are only a few years away from a 1:1 ratio, and then MILCs will outsell the DSLR.

Again the dreaded "future"...

Yes. The future. In case you missed it. The title of the thread is "What should Pentax do". This is a future oriented thread.

[kadajawi]

You'd rather shoot a DSLR, but you're asking Ricoh/Pentax to reallocate resources needed for their "full frame" and APS-C DSLR lines to a new MILC product line. Isn't that a contradiction?

As Monochrome said, Ricoh is continuing the traditional line for now. This year they'll be working on launching the "FF" DSLR, next year they will have to continue launching D FA lenses... no way they could possibly introduce a new mount earlier than 2017, and even that would be fast IMO. If you're requiring anything else, Samsung already makes a camera for you - it almost handles like a DSLR, and it costs only $1500.

There really isn't any other point in this "MILCs will rule the world" talk than criticizing Ricoh/Pentax' strategy, and implicitly our choice. Even if it's a sincere criticism of our choice.
And since we're on Pentaxforums, it's no different than asking a friend to give you a ride, then constantly criticize his car for not being a hybrid. IMHO.

Not exactly. At this point I haven't seen an EVF that convinces me. Acceptable, perhaps, but I want more than they offer. Especially the lag irritates me. But I have no doubt that that will change... and perhaps sooner than Pentax hopes.

I bought my first camera phone in 2003 (one of the very first to have a camera, in fact). First smartphone in 2005, and my first Android smartphone (launched 2009) in 2009. My current phone was launched late 2013, though I bought it 2014. The difference between these phones is staggering, and they were all as good as it got when they were launched. It is amazing how fast technology has processed. You could barely see what you took a photo of on the first camera phone and first smartphone, my current phone takes 13 MP raw files that makes my K-5 look less sharp. The improvements in the screen, in processing power, everything. If someone had told me back in 2003 that a reasonably priced phone 10 years later would be that much better... I don't think I would have believed it.

This is a smartphone world now, whatever is related to smartphones develops at an incredible pace (in the PC world however the speed has slowed down a lot, improvements happen at a slower pace). Fortunately, cameras share plenty of tech with smartphones. Better sensors developed for smartphones have been upscaled and found their way into proper cameras. The processors developed for smartphones have been modified for use in cameras. And likewise screen technology, fueled by the drive of increasing resolution beyond what the human eye is capable of. That benefits mirrorless and DSLR cameras... especially mirrorless cameras. The processors have become much faster, so processing the sensor data and outputting it on a screen happens faster now, and that trend will continue. Especially if they build dedicated hardware to "directly" link sensor and screen, as closely as possible, maybe with less processing (or processing that is hard-coded). The screens too have become sharper and generally better, with better dynamic range. I think OLED screens are pretty much only limited by how they are driven and the data they get, as far as dynamic range goes.

If they at earliest introduce a new mount in 2017, that could be a bit late. But yes, I don't see them do it before 2017.

If they do introduce a new mirrorless mount I hope it is as close to the K mount as possible, so much so that you can mount K mount lenses directly (though they wouldn't work properly). Then a purely mechanical adapter should be possible... at most it should add an AF motor, if they don't want to have that in body.

@Uluru: I don't like the A7. I don't particularly like its EVF, I don't like its UI, handling, shape or anything else about it (apart from the sensor... and it does look attractive, but I want a camera that works).

[Kunzite]

EVF resolution is are the edge of what people perceive. There is no reason to have a 6MP EVF.

So, XGA is as much resolution as we'll ever need? Interesting... what other limits are there, I wonder?

Not slowly at all. Product cycles are getting longer for mirrorless and advancement will come with new product.

That means slowly.
And since 2011 we had tons of new MILCs.

What was that ratio 5 years ago? In Japan Mirrorless sales outnumber DSLRs. Germany is expected to be the next market where MILC sales surpass DSLR sales. Big Germany camera sales report: Mirrorless is on raise! | Mirrorless Rumors Globally we are only a few years away from a 1:1 ratio, and then MILCs will outsell the DSLR.

No, mirrorless sales do not outnumber DSLR sales in Japan - check with CIPA (they are specifying shipments, but I have a hard time believing they would ship 50% more DSLRs than required).
The German market data is interesting, as the MILCs shipped to Europe - according CIPA - were less than 1/4th of DSLRs.

Yes. The future. In case you missed it. The title of the thread is "What should Pentax do". This is a future oriented thread.

This "future" is just an excuse - for how many years already? - to make vague statements regarding some impending MILC domination, and to try using that in order to influence the present. Is an excuse to claim Ricoh is wrong, that we are wrong and MILC fans will be proven right... after just a few years or so. Just like the ever-doomed Pentax.

A more constructive approach would be to try getting Ricoh Imaging's short term strategy and perhaps a glimpse at their mid-term strategy, and decide if that suits us or not. Because we don't know better than them.

[clackers]

Like a company that, for example, still makes really "small" CRT television sets in 2015? The fact that that company handicaps itself by not producing any flat led TV doesn't make their CRT any more interesting or smart.

---------- Post added 15-03-15 at 11:26 ----------



Yeah, it's a myth...
Pentax K-3 €999,- here in Holland
Sony A7 €999,- (with cashback) here in Holland, same store!

Oh, come on, Clavius, let's not look at peculiar pricing in certain markets!


Let's examine, say, B&H Photo, global, online, and sponsors of this site:


Pentax K-3, $799.
Sony A7, $1298.


That Sony is only $200 cheaper than a Nikon D610, a FF with a real focussing system, and just $100 cheaper than a Canon 6D.


Add IBIS with the A7II, and it climbs to $1698.


The more you remove a mirrorless' limitations, by upping its specs to what people expect from their DSLRs, the worse it gets, including weight and size.


With just a 16Mb sensor, the Fuji XT-1 is $1200. With only a m43, the Olympus OMD EM5 Mk II is $1099, and the Panasonic GX-7 is $798 (do you really think you are getting a camera as good as the K-3?).



If it's low end you want, you can get a Nikon 3200 complete with an image stabilised kit zoom for $498, with the same 24Mp sensor as the K-3.


And don't get me started with the lenses, which in theory should not need retro groups as often with such a short registration distance.

---

Last edited by clackers; 03-15-2015 at 11:01 PM.

[mecrox]

Not exactly. At this point I haven't seen an EVF that convinces me. Acceptable, perhaps, but I want more than they offer. Especially the lag irritates me. But I have no doubt that that will change... and perhaps sooner than Pentax hopes.

I bought my first camera phone in 2003 (one of the very first to have a camera, in fact). First smartphone in 2005, and my first Android smartphone (launched 2009) in 2009. My current phone was launched late 2013, though I bought it 2014. The difference between these phones is staggering, and they were all as good as it got when they were launched. It is amazing how fast technology has processed. You could barely see what you took a photo of on the first camera phone and first smartphone, my current phone takes 13 MP raw files that makes my K-5 look less sharp. The improvements in the screen, in processing power, everything. If someone had told me back in 2003 that a reasonably priced phone 10 years later would be that much better... I don't think I would have believed it.

This is a smartphone world now, whatever is related to smartphones develops at an incredible pace (in the PC world however the speed has slowed down a lot, improvements happen at a slower pace). Fortunately, cameras share plenty of tech with smartphones. Better sensors developed for smartphones have been upscaled and found their way into proper cameras. The processors developed for smartphones have been modified for use in cameras. And likewise screen technology, fueled by the drive of increasing resolution beyond what the human eye is capable of. That benefits mirrorless and DSLR cameras... especially mirrorless cameras. The processors have become much faster, so processing the sensor data and outputting it on a screen happens faster now, and that trend will continue. Especially if they build dedicated hardware to "directly" link sensor and screen, as closely as possible, maybe with less processing (or processing that is hard-coded). The screens too have become sharper and generally better, with better dynamic range. I think OLED screens are pretty much only limited by how they are driven and the data they get, as far as dynamic range goes.

If they at earliest introduce a new mount in 2017, that could be a bit late. But yes, I don't see them do it before 2017.

If they do introduce a new mirrorless mount I hope it is as close to the K mount as possible, so much so that you can mount K mount lenses directly (though they wouldn't work properly). Then a purely mechanical adapter should be possible... at most it should add an AF motor, if they don't want to have that in body.

@Uluru: I don't like the A7. I don't particularly like its EVF, I don't like its UI, handling, shape or anything else about it (apart from the sensor... and it does look attractive, but I want a camera that works).

No one will buy a dedicated camera unless it can very clearly do things a smartphone cannot do. Few consider the other alternative, which is that camera-makers move up, far away from smartphones, and towards the RED scale of doing things. Then you get something like 19 mpx RAW files at 100 frames per second, each one usable as a still image in Lightroom et al. You also get modularity, something else camera-makers may have to consider if enough folks grow tired of having to buy a new and separate body for every variety of photography instead of simply changing a couple of modules. So a degree of convergence is on the cards. It's not hard to imagine the 645 of 2020 being much more like a RED (albeit de--tuned) than an iPhone. At this level of cost and complexity, robust equipment-hire systems and professional networks come into play, too. So there is a lot that could change in the traditional photography industry.

[northcoastgreg]

What was that ratio 5 years ago? In Japan Mirrorless sales outnumber DSLRs. Germany is expected to be the next market where MILC sales surpass DSLR sales. Big Germany camera sales report: Mirrorless is on raise! | Mirrorless Rumors Globally we are only a few years away from a 1:1 ratio, and then MILCs will outsell the DSLR.

While it might be possible that we will see that 1:1 ratio at some point, there's no certainty to it. Not every trend is going to continue ad infinitum. To believe that mirrorless (particularly in the short term) will over-take and replace DSLRs, you have to believe that (1) nearly every photographer is going to want smaller gear; (2) that nearly every photographer is going to prefer EVFs to OVFs; (3) that nearly every DSLR photographer is going to have the purchasing power necessary to abandon their investment in a DSLR system (or sell at a loss) and reinvest in a mirrorless system. I can't find any evidence to support the notion that all three of those things are true. It's unlikely that any of them are fully true. At a certain point, those who prefer mirrorless will have (mostly) all switched. At that point, the trends slows down. Then it becomes an issue of what format photographers just starting out will choose. But if we have a generational switch from DSLRs to mirrorless, that will take decades to play out.

The biggest two complaints I hear from serious photographers is not that camera systems are too big and heavy or viewfinders are too dark and information challenged, but that (1) cameras are way too complicated; and (2) photography gear is too expensive. I don't find that mirrorless has made any serious dents in these two issues. Indeed, because many of the most fervent advocates of mirrorless are gearheads/neophiles, the trend in the mirrorless is toward even greater complexity in gear, with even more bells and whistles. Mirrorless producers are being influenced by online reviewers and online forums, but neither of these sources really speak for the vast majority of serious photographers.

The fact that so many serious photographers have invested in DSLR systems will produce an inertia which will slow down any trend toward mirrorless. The only way to get around this would be to introduce EVFs into traditional SLR-mount cameras (sort of like the Sony SLTs). But we're still at least a few years from seeing anything like that happen. And if that does happen, that's a transition which the traditional DSLR makers (Canon, Nikon, and Pentax) can quite easily make without much disruption at all.

[Winder]

While it might be possible that we will see that 1:1 ratio at some point, there's no certainty to it. Not every trend is going to continue ad infinitum

I didn't say it would continue to "infinitum".

(2) that nearly every photographer is going to prefer EVFs to OVFs;

I didn't say that. I prefer working with an OVF over an EVF, but the other advantages (AF accuracy, metering, color/WB) that I get with mirrorless are worth the trade off of the OVF for some applications.

(3) that nearly every DSLR photographer is going to have the purchasing power necessary to abandon their investment in a DSLR system (or sell at a loss) and reinvest in a mirrorless system.

It won't be the existing DSLR owners who cause the shift. Mirrorless is dominating the "new photographer" segment. This is why Canon is taking such a beating. They have lost P&S to smart phones and the Rebel line is getting eaten up by mirrorless. The entry level is being dominated by mirrorless and now it is moving over to the advanced amateur. All of the people who are heavily invested in existing systems aren't the ones driving sales.

I can't find any evidence to support the notion that all three of those things are true. It's unlikely that any of them are fully true.

Because you had made false assumptions.

At a certain point, those who prefer mirrorless will have (mostly) all switched. At that point, the trends slows down.

Its not about existing users. Its about the new photographers. The vast majority of people who have bought a DSLR only own the kit lens. The ones from this group who do advance have very little invested and are looking to upgrade both body and glass, so switching systems doesn't involve more cost.

The fact that so many serious photographers have invested in DSLR systems will produce an inertia which will slow down any trend toward mirrorless.

Then why has it not already slowed down? I can use any DSLR lens on my A7II. I can use any RF lens on my A7II. This is why a lot of people who are already invested in a system pick up a mirrorless body. My 31mm LTD works great on the A7II.

And if that does happen, that's a transition which the traditional DSLR makers (Canon, Nikon, and Pentax) can quite easily make without much disruption at all.

At that point they will not longer be DSLRs. They will also be mirrorless and mirrorless will totally dominate.

[jatrax]

because many of the most fervent advocates of mirrorless are gearheads/neophiles, the trend in the mirrorless is toward even greater complexity in gear, with even more bells and whistles. Mirrorless producers are being influenced by online reviewers and online forums, but neither of these sources really speak for the vast majority of serious photographers.

I was thinking the same thing myself, it seems the mirrorless is more a 'gadget' than a camera. I don't mean that in a negative way, but instead of being a tool to create fine images the mirrorless is more a technology showcase with a lot of great features that realy do not add anything to the final image. Those who value having the latest, greatest gear love mirrorless for all it's cutting edge technology. And those who just want to create images often feel the more buttons and options the more things to get in the road of creativity. Online forums tend to attract gear heads, thus the current popularity of mirrorless.

That is not to say you cannot create great images with mirrorless, certainly you can. Just that there is a different focus between those only interested in the final print and those who love camera gear. I know photographers who deliver absolutely amazing images with old gear and if you asked them would not even be able to tell you the camera model or the lens used. The camera is just something used to capture their vision. That is in stark comparison to those who can quickly quote specifications and performance reviews for dozens of cameras and are always looking for the newest release of something.

[mecrox]

I was thinking the same thing myself, it seems the mirrorless is more a 'gadget' than a camera. I don't mean that in a negative way, but instead of being a tool to create fine images the mirrorless is more a technology showcase with a lot of great features that realy do not add anything to the final image. Those who value having the latest, greatest gear love mirrorless for all it's cutting edge technology. And those who just want to create images often feel the more buttons and options the more things to get in the road of creativity. Online forums tend to attract gear heads, thus the current popularity of mirrorless.

That is not to say you cannot create great images with mirrorless, certainly you can. Just that there is a different focus between those only interested in the final print and those who love camera gear. I know photographers who deliver absolutely amazing images with old gear and if you asked them would not even be able to tell you the camera model or the lens used. The camera is just something used to capture their vision. That is in stark comparison to those who can quickly quote specifications and performance reviews for dozens of cameras and are always looking for the newest release of something.

This seems to boil down to two questions:

Will there still be traditional-style cameras for traditional photographers?
What will happen to everything else?

I'd guess the answer to the first question is Yes, but they will cost quite a bit more because they'll come to represent an increasingly small segment of the market.
I'd guess the answer to the second question is that everything else will go fully digital from start to finish. In twenty year's time, today's younger crowd for whom digital is the no-brainer default may start asking for a lovely old antique camera like the K3 to be resurrected because it represents a way of photogrpahy which by then no longer exists, warts and all, other than at Leica prices. Of course, their work equipment will be outputting 50 mpx files at 100 frames a second with a DR matching the human eye's, etc. with everything do-able in post from focus point to bokeh and all else. Somehow, however, it doesn't quite hit the satisfaction spot. Why? I would say authenticity, the one quality which is beyond replication.

[jatrax]

Will there still be traditional-style cameras for traditional photographers?

Yes, for a long time, though as you note perhaps only for the 'enthusiast' market segment at an increasing cost.

What will happen to everything else?

Who knows? Will cameras as we know them be around in 20 years? I can see mirrorless taking over the market gradually, certainly the technology has a lot of benefits. The biggest issue seems to be with the EVF. So what happens when the most particular photographer can no longer tell an OVF from a EVF? At that point the OVF (and mirror) quietly goes away.

Will new photographers ask for a retro k-3? Will cameras with a mirror see a nostalgic revival in 2025? How about a retro looking camera that appears to have an OVF and mirror but is really mirrorless, just faked up to appear to be a retro camera with mirror. Like those retro rotary dial phones that are not really rotary dial.

Personally I don't give a rodents rear end about mirror / mirrorless. Just give me a camera that does not get in my road when trying to create an image.

[clackers]

I can use any DSLR lens on my A7II. I can use any RF lens on my A7II.

Well, losing AF and P-TTL are deal breakers for most photographers, Winder!

Maybe not pure landscapers.

And wide rangefinder lenses can be problematic, because it's a flat sensor back there, not film.

I have acquired an A7 cheaply off eBay in the last week - maybe I'll end up getting the Pentax FF, maybe I won't be able to afford to - but I can see I'll never be able to stop using my K-30 while I have good K-mount glass.

And I assume you haven't sold your D810.

You'll find Zack Arias unlike the rest of us is being paid to use and promote Fuji, and that his real love is his Phase One MF.

[Winder]

You'll find Zack Arias unlike the rest of us is being paid to use and promote Fuji, and that his real love is his Phase One MF.

Zack doesn't get paid. Fuji gave him some of the gear and they did pay for him to fly to Japan as part of the Fuji professional program. They also paid to send him to Africa on a shoot with Fuji gear (write a review). He doesn't actually get paid by Fuji. He uses Fuji professionally because it meets his needs and he really likes it. If Fuji didn't meet his needs, he wouldn't ruin his career using poor equipment just to get a free camera. I shoot around the music industry here in Nashville, and he shoots a lot of musicians in and around Atlanta. I've ran into him on several occasions. Super nice guy who loves photography. There is a good chance that he will ditch the Phase One, which he really does not like, in favor of a 645z. He loves the MF look. He hates Phase One.

[kadajawi]

No one will buy a dedicated camera unless it can very clearly do things a smartphone cannot do. Few consider the other alternative, which is that camera-makers move up, far away from smartphones, and towards the RED scale of doing things. Then you get something like 19 mpx RAW files at 100 frames per second, each one usable as a still image in Lightroom et al. You also get modularity, something else camera-makers may have to consider if enough folks grow tired of having to buy a new and separate body for every variety of photography instead of simply changing a couple of modules. So a degree of convergence is on the cards. It's not hard to imagine the 645 of 2020 being much more like a RED (albeit de--tuned) than an iPhone. At this level of cost and complexity, robust equipment-hire systems and professional networks come into play, too. So there is a lot that could change in the traditional photography industry.

No matter how good the smartphone will be, it's always giving you the everything in focus look, and it is for the most part always going to give you one focal length. DSLRs or mirrorless cameras will always make sense (in the next 10-50 years I suppose, at some point we'll just take a snapshot of the whole 3D environment and can move around the camera and change settings on the computer...).

As for will mirrorless overtake... I think it also boils down to what manufacturers prefer. i.e. say the vast majority doesn't really care and is fine with both. Some insist on mirrorless, some on DSLRs. Will manufacturers then focus on mirrorless and only release lenses for them? Then the vast majority will go there. Will they keep focusing on DSLRs, and will DSLRs be kept up to date and competitive? People will stay there.

Mirrorless cameras turn more and more into computers... Samsung has a consumer electronics background, not a photography background. It shouldn't be a problem to provide a watered down interface for those who don't want to be overwhelmed by options. Having a touchscreen helps IMHO. And having a fast processor on which they run a smartphone OS that can be updated and changed and allows apps helps too.

Old wide angle lenses on mirrorless bodies are less of a problem these days, the sensors have improved, and keep improving.

[clackers]

Zack doesn't get paid. Fuji gave him some of the gear and they did pay for him to fly to Japan as part of the Fuji professional program. They also paid to send him to Africa on a shoot with Fuji gear (write a review).

Well, that is being paid, by anyone's definition.


The moment you learn a restaurant or book or car review has been written by someone who's received money or equivalent from the people doing the selling, they've been compromised, right?

I've ran into him on several occasions. Super nice guy who loves photography.

I believe that, Winder, not only because you say so, but also that seems to be true in the videos I've seen of him. His Cheap Camera Challenge in Hong Kong is a favourite of mine.


Yet, so is Kenpo here, and they've both received money or equivalent from their camera companies to be ambassadors.


The way you remain holier than thou, I mean, impartial, is to refuse to accept sponsorships.

There is a good chance that he will ditch the Phase One, which he really does not like, in favor of a 645z. He loves the MF look. He hates Phase One.

Well, he didn't have much loathing here: Why I Moved To Medium Format :: Phase One IQ140 Review • Photography By Zack Arias ? ATL ? 404-939-2263 ? studio@zackarias.com


But we would all love him to go with the Z, for sure.

[philbaum]

After reading the debate below, i've been asking the counter question:

When will OVFs catch up to EVFs?

What i mean by that is: I've bought 4 flagship pentax DSLRs from K10 to now K3. Not one of them can hold a candle to the EVF manual focusing capabilities of my $600 Nex 6 which i purchased a coupla years ago. I'm presently sitting in our family room, and changing my FA50 from my K3 to my Nex6 and back again. With the Nex6, I can use focus peaking with good room light, and if i turn the lights down, i can use the magnify feature in the EVF. The K3's OVF cannot do any magnify feature or focus peaking in its oVF. They can only be used at arms length in liveview. Big FAIL for DSLRs.

I have the DA35 macro, the M100F4 macro and the Vivitar 55mm F2.8 macro. All 3 of those work far better with the Nex 6 than my double the cost K3. If i dim the lights substantially in my family room, the K3 OVF gets dim and even more difficult to focus. Not the Nex 6, i just turn up the ISO to 800, the EVF lights up and i can easily use the magnify function in the EVF.

The OVFs on DSLRs have fallen far behind in their capability to do such a basic function as manually focus a lens. Its the OVF design that needs to catch up, not the EVF function which has no problem with manual focusing duties. I do all the my macro work with the Nex.