Originally posted by Class A Shirley, these posters must be joking.
On a more serious note, I wish there were an option to request a higher quality preview for checking focus, for instance. Currently, it seems that one can only zoom into the preview JPEG stored along with the RAW file. This means that magnification beyond 8x or so, mainly shows preview artefacts, rather than allowing to assess image detail.
There should be an option to request a 1:1 rendering for critical reviewing.
.... and do Histograms based off RAW processing so the DSLR World can finally do proper ETTR without mental gymnastics.... with blinkies that represent actual blown highlights in the RAW file, instead of indicating maybe you have 1-2 stops of highlight headroom left to go in hi-key scenarios.
Any camera maker that does this... that finally transitions from film-era exposure modalities into maximizing the potential of digital.... in a mirrorless body, will take over the... oh who am I kidding. Pros use CaNikon because CaNikon actually have pro service. I was thinking of the A7Rii, but you MUST accept a Sony camera is a throw-away piece of gear if it breaks, due to the product cycle, discontinuing A-mount, and a certain no-name USA service center which both Sony and Pentax (and Nikon to a degree) now contract all repair to. Which also sways me to wait six months or so if I decide on the K-1.... I absolutely don't want my 2,500 hard-earned dollars headed to Connecticut for warranty repair.
---------- Post added 10-31-15 at 05:30 AM ----------
Originally posted by FantasticMrFox Considering K3 24 MP RAWs are over 30 MB, Nikon D810 36 MP RAWs are over 55 MB and the Sony A7R II 42 MP RAWs are 86 MB, I seriously doubt 1-2 MB more will make any palpable difference.
Don't worry, Sony will fix that in the A7Riii.
I've been reading up, and I'm coming to the conclusion, that for an amateur who already has a serviceable and full APS-C DSLR kit, it really doesn't make any sense to spend $3,000 on body/accessories or $6-8,000 on a basic full-frame system for a year or two or three, if your money is hard-earned. Either CaNikon finally release a mirrorless full-frame, or we enjoy new Pentax FF Digital lenses at "reasonable" "street price" and Sony will release the A7mk.XXX by then, or for the same money I can buy a bargain-bin A7Rii and a Leica lens or two and be done with it.
I am horrified already at the nuclear holocaust we're going to have with "unsharp in corners, lens is junk" with legacy glass on the FF... ugh. I hope pentax doesn't release more optically-crippled pancakes for FF. Let's get 400 gram primes from 24-85 at f/1.8 for $300 new, please.
What is it with the lack of basic 24mm and 85mm primes from Pentax in the F/FA era? Were 24 and 85 just considered too niche, like only portrait photogs wanted an 85 and if people wanted a 20mm way more than a 24 back in those days? So Pentax made FA* and soft-focus primes at those focal lengths? And what about the slow speeds? (No 1.8 wides) Is that because of a Pentax tradition of "Smaller is Our Thing?" Or would it have diluted the market share for the FA Ltds?