[Kunzite]

The fact remains that the entire Ricoh team previously responsible for the ongoing GXR A12-28, A12-50, A-16, P10, S10, Mount A12, G700, GRD, CX and PX series before the Pentax acquisition have so far only come up with the single, solitary GR since. As good as this one camera is, they've gone from a rate of 5 complete cameras a year to just this one in four years so it does raise the question of what else have they been doing with their time these past several years? Obviously it must be some sort of ongoing 'project X' that's requiring all their efforts.

We shouldn't talk about "the Ricoh team" and "the Pentax team", because there is no such separation - Ricoh Imaging put a lot of effort into integrating Ricoh's camera division with Pentax Imaging Business. Having separate, redundant teams would be pointless and inefficient.
So those people are happily working on GRs, K3s, 64Zs, FF DSLRs and wherever their expertise might be required.

[Pål Jensen]

people who are buying into mirrorless today are looking more towards the future. Today it is true that a 70-200 F/2.8 FE lens would be comical on an A7. I expect that in 2015-16 we will see the release of an A9 that is built to compete with the bigger DSLRs. Much larger batteries and a lot more processing power. Faster AF and frame rates. Then Sony will have a mirrorless FF system that offers a level of compactness that DSLRs can't compete with and an option for the larger "pro level" body. Sony can make the body as large as they want to balance with big F/2.8 zooms and I think they will when the technology is ready. In the long run there is considerably more flexibility with the mirrorless mount.

Given the new Fuji F/2.8 zooms I expect that Fuji will also introduce a larger higher Spec body in the near future. A body with the size and processing power of the Samsung NX-1.

The problem is that with FF system with fast pro lenses the body isn't really where the bulk is (necessarily); it is the lenses. The focal length for certain angle of view is dependent on the format. Longer lenses are longer necessarily (yes I'm also a rocket scientist!) FF system is never going to be small - people who want small will go elsewhere.

[Uluru]

Mirrorless cameras will be around for a long time. It feels like the big reason why they exist, though, is because they are smaller than SLRs.

My Olympus Mju II is smaller than a SLR, and it is a 35 mm film pocket camera.
Original GR was also a film camera, also smaller than it digital buddy.

'Smallness' of todays mirrorless is an illusion, as long as one believes in it and never explore more. For some reason people have forgotten a whole array of 35mm film cameras made in 1990s that were very small and pocketable.

Problem is because — for some strange reason — people have identified DSLR with digital photography, and therefore look for smaller substitutes. But even in SLR days, pocket film cameras outsold sales of SLR by a wide margin!

In just a few of years, Olympus sold over 10 million of Mju/Stylus cameras! They were so popular, like iPhones today.
And that was, like, a decade or more worth of production of SLR cameras by Canon. And no one back then ever worried about "will SLR go the way of dinosaurs". No, because it would be a silly presumption. Photography existed for a long time. People never looked at stupid statistics fed to us by kids who pretend to be "digital gurus".

Also SLR was the only design CAPABLE of smooth transition from film to digital without a major overhaul. Because it is a solid design based on lots of common sense, long evolution, strict adherence to laws of optics. It is uncompromising design that works in film, works on digital. It doesn't bend the rules and introduces compromises like today's mirorless systems. SLR kept the same experience in digital. We have established photography outpost on the digital beach first thanks to SLRs.

So will today's "mirrorless" outsell DSLRs? It is only natural to happen, sooner or later, despite annoying smartphones.
And it is natural to happen. As to Olympus to sell 10 million of m4/3 cameras in a few of years ... ah, hardly.
Those times are gone.

[Winder]

The problem is that with FF system with fast pro lenses the body isn't really where the bulk is (necessarily); it is the lenses. The focal length for certain angle of view is dependent on the format. Longer lenses are longer necessarily (yes I'm also a rocket scientist!) FF system is never going to be small - people who want small will go elsewhere.

There is a huge difference between a D4 and a Sony A7 when it comes to size. Sony has one mount that can go as small as the feather weight A6000 or as big as a D4 if Sony were to chose to do that. No DSLR manufacturer can make a K-mount, EF mount, F-mount camera the size of the A6000. Once Sony has the lens line up filled out and the technology is there they can make a D4 sized pro-grade camera around the EF line and the big F/2.8 zooms.

No. The market/technology/lenses are not there today, but they will be here in a couple of years. You can buy into one system (E-moung/FE-mount) and get a pocketable camera or a professional grade still/HD video system. The system is considerably more flexible than any of the DSLR mounts. Its about the future of they systems.

[Pål Jensen]

No. The market/technology/lenses are not there today, but they will be here in a couple of years. .

Look at the Pentax ME. This is how small an FF SLR can be. When the technology is there, this is how small a DSLR can be made.

[kadajawi]

Film cameras could be slimmer because the film was very thin, and there was no display taking up space. Now OLED displays can be extremely thin, but the sensor? And the SR mechanism?

Mirrorless cameras do not have to be flimsy, or too small, or too light. You can always make one that is 1D shaped and weights as much. Right now it is seen as main advantage for them to be small and light, so that's what most manufacturers produce.

I would like a mirrorless that the K mount, just closer to the sensor. For lenses where it makes sense, create a mirrorless version. For the rest, as well as old cameras there is an adapter that makes the lenses work 100%. Including AF.

When the time comes where EVFs are as good as or better than OVFs (apart from battery life), people will move to mirrorless. The question is when that happens. That EVFs will eventually get better than OVFs I have no doubt.

As for OVF brightness... it's the AF. They have to redirect some light to the PDAF sensors. The only way to improve that is by sacrificing AF performance or by using a mirror that can be set between say 50% and 0% translucency. That way you could have great low light AF performance and a wonderful viewfinder.

[totsmuyco]

I guess maybe EVF will out do OVF in the future but there will always be a segment for OVFs.

[Winder]

I guess maybe EVF will out do OVF in the future but there will always be a segment for OVFs.

When the resolution, refresh rate, DR, & color range and accuracy of the EVF exceeds what the human eye can perceive what would be the advantage of the OVF? Its all about a humans ability to perceive scene. Some people prefer range finder cameras and at one point they dominated. I think OVF DSLR will be a niche like the range finder.

[totsmuyco]

Yes maybe a niche.

[philbaum]

I spend about 1/2 my time online reading PentaxForums and the other half reading a Sony forum. In the last 3 years, i don't recall having read even one complaint about the usability of EVFs on Sony forums. Yet on this forum, there are these frequent concerns about EVFs and statements that perhaps in 5 years in the future, EVFs might be usable.

Some of the posters on the Sony forum are ex-Nikon users, ex-Canon users, etc. Even they don't complain about EVFs. I've spent the last 1/2 hour switching between my K3 and my Nex cameras, trying to figure what, if anything, is objectionable about EVFs. I do like the clarity of the K3 OVF, but on the other hand, my EVFs have features that my OVF can't duplicate. For the shooting i do, EVFs are better overall.

I suspect that some of the complainers about EVFs, haven't tried one recently (recently being in the last 2 years or so). If thats the case, please be honest with the rest of us and let us know if you are commenting on EVFs without having any recent hardware experience. Again, it seems really odd to me that on camera forums where EVFs are used all the time, that folks don't complain about this feature. Really really odd

[monochrome]

If EVF is the actual future Ricoh will eventually use an EVF, or at least have some options. Until that time it seems Ricoh intends to remain a bit more traditional, which is a business decision. I don't need an EVF. I don't want one.

How many of those other posters have recently used a good OVF? How many of them have only ever used a dim APSc optical viewfinder?

We all have our confirmation biases.

[clackers]

I suspect that some of the complainers about EVFs, haven't tried one recently (recently being in the last 2 years or so). If thats the case, please be honest with the rest of us and let us know if you are commenting on EVFs without having any recent hardware experience.

Well, Phil, I have a NEX-7 and an A7 and agree with the other posters here that EVFs are overrated. :-)

[Rondec]

I spend about 1/2 my time online reading PentaxForums and the other half reading a Sony forum. In the last 3 years, i don't recall having read even one complaint about the usability of EVFs on Sony forums. Yet on this forum, there are these frequent concerns about EVFs and statements that perhaps in 5 years in the future, EVFs might be usable.

Some of the posters on the Sony forum are ex-Nikon users, ex-Canon users, etc. Even they don't complain about EVFs. I've spent the last 1/2 hour switching between my K3 and my Nex cameras, trying to figure what, if anything, is objectionable about EVFs. I do like the clarity of the K3 OVF, but on the other hand, my EVFs have features that my OVF can't duplicate. For the shooting i do, EVFs are better overall.

I suspect that some of the complainers about EVFs, haven't tried one recently (recently being in the last 2 years or so). If thats the case, please be honest with the rest of us and let us know if you are commenting on EVFs without having any recent hardware experience. Again, it seems really odd to me that on camera forums where EVFs are used all the time, that folks don't complain about this feature. Really really odd

I think to me, there are two issues here. One is comfort. That is to say, I've used an OVF for the last ten years and I am comfortable with it. Shooting with an EVF does feel different. I probably could get used to it, but I don't really see the point. The benefits that an EVF brings aren't terribly useful to me. I mostly auto focus (don't use focus aids), I don't use focus peaking, don't use a histogram (for the most part) when I am shooting. Having the ability to have all that stuff in the viewfinder wouldn't help me. The second thing is that OVFs are good enough. I just don't see the point of replacing something that decreases battery life and increases sensor heat on a full frame camera.

The biggest reason that I think the market will gradually shift to EVFs is not that the market is clamoring for it, but that I have been told multiple times that it is cheaper for camera companies to install an EVF than to install and calibrate an OVF. If that is true, then things will shift, but not because people are complaining about their 100 percent pentaprism optical viewfinders, but because camera companies think they can squeeze a few more pennies out of their clientele.

[monochrome]

<snip> I have been told multiple times that it is cheaper for camera companies to install an EVF than to install and calibrate an OVF. If that is true, then things will shift, but not because people are complaining about their 100 percent pentaprism optical viewfinders, but because camera companies think they can squeeze a few more pennies out of their clientele.

Isn't that the driving force behind MILC's generally? They're less expensive to manufacture (more easily automated process) and the new mounts require profitable new lenses to boot.

Marketers figured out how to create a demand-value (small size) in a seductive package (retro styling, premium materials) to meet the profit opportunity.

[Kunzite]

I spend about 1/2 my time online reading PentaxForums and the other half reading a Sony forum. In the last 3 years, i don't recall having read even one complaint about the usability of EVFs on Sony forums. Yet on this forum, there are these frequent concerns about EVFs and statements that perhaps in 5 years in the future, EVFs might be usable.

Some of the posters on the Sony forum are ex-Nikon users, ex-Canon users, etc. Even they don't complain about EVFs. I've spent the last 1/2 hour switching between my K3 and my Nex cameras, trying to figure what, if anything, is objectionable about EVFs. I do like the clarity of the K3 OVF, but on the other hand, my EVFs have features that my OVF can't duplicate. For the shooting i do, EVFs are better overall.

I suspect that some of the complainers about EVFs, haven't tried one recently (recently being in the last 2 years or so). If thats the case, please be honest with the rest of us and let us know if you are commenting on EVFs without having any recent hardware experience. Again, it seems really odd to me that on camera forums where EVFs are used all the time, that folks don't complain about this feature. Really really odd

Well, that's a highly biased samples - you're asking the people who choose an EVF over an OVF if the EVF works for them - and then, you're surprised that said people are preferring EVFs over OVFs Confirmation bias to the extreme, IMHO.

Of course EVFs can be used - but should that be enough? For me and many others, OVFs are still more comfortable to use, and the no-lag, no-smearing natural view is more valuable than those extra features. I'm not prepared to give that up, just because there is another technology which can be used, to which I could adapt. Why on Earth should I make efforts and pay hard-earned money for that?
But you know what's the most annoying thing about EVFs? EVF/MILC fans, constantly trying to push their choice on everyone; DPReview's Open Talk section is an extreme example of such behavior (there's always some "DSLRs are dead/will die/why aren't they dead yet?" thread over there). One would think he's safe by choosing a traditional SLR brand, and confining himself in that brand's forums...

And yes, I saw the latest and greatest EVFs, sometimes even before they were put into cameras. Just in case you're wondering