[mee]

To me, I think the question the camera companies are asking is clearly not "What is the next evolution of the camera?" or even "How can we get our users to make better images?" The question they are asking (this includes Ricoh) is "How can we make more money?" or at the least continue an adequate revenue stream. If mirrorless cameras are cheaper to build than SLRs and can command similar prices, then the writing is on the wall for the SLR cameras. If the time comes that SLRs are all priced fifty percent or even twenty percent more than mirrorless cameras with similar tech, than who would buy an SLR unless they just can't live with an EVF?

That said, people keep predicting this event and the reality has been that SLRs and mirrorless ILCs are priced almost exactly the same for similar specifications.

I agree yet even if mirrorless are cheaper to build and command similar prices, if there isn't enough of a market for a 3rd or 4th or 5th camera system it doesn't matter. So I still think, in that scenario where mirrorless is a more profitable camera type to make, one has to consider if there is a market for their particular mirrorless system. Fuji and Sony already have well developed systems in place.. Nikon and Canon seem to be testing the water. It was hard enough to 'compete' with just Nikon and Canon in the DSLR realm... now add two more manufacturers. It might be easier money to make with DSLRs..

[biz-engineer]

Basically when reading monochrome, customers whishes or expectations don't count.

If companies only listened to customers only, transportation by airplane wouldn't exist. It often took some unique vision that others did not have to make innovation a reality.
But mirrorless is a fake innovation in the way that it technically has not advantage, especially the full frame or medium format versions, because the lenses outweight the body.
What that has to do with K3II being discontinued rumor ?

[mecrox]

If companies only listened to customers only, transportation by airplane wouldn't exist. It often took some unique vision that others did not have to make innovation a reality.
But mirrorless is a fake innovation in the way that it technically has not advantage, especially the full frame or medium format versions, because the lenses outweight the body.
What that has to do with K3II being discontinued rumor ?

I agree. The difference between mirrorless and mirror is not really that great at all. However, mirrorless is better placed to benefit from the arrival of high-power processors and especially in-camera software allowing e.g. intelligent scene recognition for sport and portraits with results shown in real time on the monitor, video and all the rest. It is also closer to what a younger generation have grown up with and they are the market of the future. And as others have said, a real kicker is cost of design and production. No one starting out on a fresh camera design today would come up with a DSLR. It's a solution from another era. Pentax's next camera will surely be a DSLR, and I am sure a very good one. However with each passing year the question whether that will remain true of Pentax's next camera will grow more insistent. This is the way the world is going.

[Zygonyx]

So, a lot of us agree, but still this thread will be going on until K-2 is announced.

[RonHendriks1966]

I think one of the big issue's is that the number of people willing to walk around with a camera that weight's a kilogram is getting smaller with the time ticking. Lugging around a camerabag with camerabody, lenses and a tripod is not very popular anymore. Those who do it, are getting old fast.

[totsmuyco]

If Pentax goes mirrorless, I just hope they will still use the k-mount. I mean, without the use of adaptors. Bodies die earlier than lenses. If the mount continues, then we can continue to grow into the system. I don't know if this will be possible in the future. I'm just thinking out loud.

[D1N0]

DSLR's are enthusiast cameras not for casual shooters. Weight is less of an issue when you go out specifically to take photo's. The fact that they are not for everyone doesn't mean they are doomed. Some people can just not get enough of being the doom sayer.

[photoptimist]

The logic that cheaper wins only works among comparable products. Otherwise there'd be no MF, FF, or APS-C cameras around because M4/3 is cheaper to make (smaller sensor, smaller lenses, smaller bodies, etc.). Likewise, the logic that people will only want smaller cameras and lenses should kill MF, FF, and APS-C, too.

But M4/3 isn't killing all the other formats (nor are the other formats killing M4/3) because different people want different things and all these different cameras are not interchangeable in the minds of all the different photographers out there.

Size does matter but maybe not in the way one thinks. Smaller isn't better -- some want a bigger camera. And bigger isn't better either -- some want a smaller camera.

The same is true of the OVF vs. EVF debate. They are different technologies with different features which different photographers might prefer.

[Jonathan Mac]

Yes, that's how it works: by disguising hype as "statement of very clear tendancies in the industry and amongst users". They never admit it's hype, they might not even know it.
Exaggerating the benefits ("massive"?) is the textbook definition of hype.

There's no exaggeration here and no-one is disguising anything. No-one has exaggerated the benefits of mirrorless, merely stated that they are there and they are significant.

The idea that there is some global conspiratorial "hype machine" behind mirrorless cameras is utterly ridiculous.

I would say that it is pretty clear that mirrorless cameras and SLRs are very similar. If, you are primarily a prime shooter (as you are) and don't mind manual focusing, then mirrorless ILCs do offer some advantages. Otherwise, for the average photographer, shooting landscapes, portraits, snap shots of their family, while using auto focus, the end results will be very similar. This is with the caveat that older generation mirrorless cameras probably are worse with regard to auto focus than SLRs from a couple of generations ago.

From a "hype" stand point, it really feels as though Sony and Fuji have paid photographers who release video reviews and diatribes every time they release a new piece of gear to say how this is the most amazing thing ever and in Fuji's case, to say how this camera makes full frame unnecessary.

It gets old. These are cameras. They are more limited by their users than by the technology they hold and every one of them -- SLR and mirrorless alike -- is quite capable of producing good images. The idea that you took poor photos with you D7000 but now you bought a Sony A7r and suddenly your images magically improve is not reality. What will happen is you will be able to print roughly the same images at a bigger size and with a little more clarity. But they will still be the same sort of images.

Of course the results from any decent camera will be very similar indeed in good hands and the limiting factor remains the person using it in most cases. No-one's photos improve dramatically moving from DSLR to mirrorless or APS-C to FF. Buying decent lenses, getting a camera with better AF, some other factors will likely lead to improvement but nothing will compare to improving as a photographer. Still, it can't be denied that some cameras are better than others, though it depends what each user wants of course.

I haven't seen anything I'd call hype surrounding mirrorless, or ever read a diatribe on it. Manufacturers make claims for mirrorless as they do for DSLRs (and all products), and they may be true or false or somewhere in between. All photography manufacturers pay professionals to use their gear (even Pentax!!) and look on it favourably, and that applies to all types of product.

Repeat: a mirrorless camera is a camera without an optical viewfinder. There is no mirrorless technology. Removing features do not require new technology. Adding features does.

I don't agree with this - there are technologies which are specific to mirrorless cameras (or cameras working in a mirrorless way, such as using live-view on a DSLR) - focusing which uses the sensor, eye/face detection, lens technologies which allow the design of lenses with very short flange distances etc etc.

Yet all your comments are based around your perceptions of what you want and like in a camera.

The fact that you seem to think that mirrorless is still inferior today to DSLRs tells me there is indeed a lot of hype with mirrorless today. Because why would any one vote with their wallet on buying something inferior simply on the fact that it is perceived to be somehow 'better' in the future? That's a textbook example of hype!

The reality is there is room for both DSLRs and mirrorless ILCs in the market. Mirrorless 'technology' does not intrinsically make for a better system. It is just another system. The issue is, you've drank the mirrorless koolaid so you can't see the fact that mirrorless camera manufacturers and fans have hyped mirrorless as THE way forward (as if there is a single path). As a result, you're telling us there is no reason to buy a DSLR today over mirrorless.

What you have is a smartphone or a tablet fan telling us desktop computers are outdated and on the way out, due to the 'very clear tendencies in the industry' to to move to shrinking the hardware and making it more portable. Desktops are big, kludgy, energy inefficient, not easily portable, won't fit in pocket, require an external output and input devices. Practically dinosaurs to my sleek smartphone or tablet device.

But that misses the fact that some people simply prefer the desktop experience over what a smartphone or tablet computing device can offer.

Talking heads and smartphone fans for years have been talking the demise of the desktop. "Soon we won't see desktop PCs anymore. Gone but from history." I've read for the past 10 years now. Ok but I'm typing this on desktop from home, I work on a desktop in the office. They'd didn't just magically disappear with the advent and adoption of the smartphone or tablet device.

The same goes for mirrorless ILCs versus DSLRs.

Sure DSLR's are older, it doesn't mean they are inferior or outdated relics of history. There is a strange notion online that new = better across the board. Yet no one can prove mirrorless ILCs are better across the board compared to DSLRs. Some people will simply prefer the DSLR experience over the Mirrorless one.

I don't believe that mirrorless is inferior to DSLRs today, in fact I believe that on the whole they are better. Obviously if you buy a camera then it won't drastically improve while you own it (though firmware can make some improvements) but when you buy an ILC of any type, you buy into a system, and that system may improve, and it may improve drastically when compared to it's competitors.

I really don't understand why people who own Pentax camera's insist that Pentax make a mirrorless camera. If you want one go buy one. Its not like you wouldn't have to buy new lenses if Pentax made a mirrorless camera. Any tech that is available to mirrorless will work on a dslr as well, eventually the hype will die down and both systems will have their place. What pentax needs to do is build the best DSLR's that they can.

Imagine a dslr with an no shutter mecanism just an electronic shutter up to 1/24000 a second.
A mirror that doesn't have to move out of they way to let light pass to the sensor.
The autofocus sensor moved to the rgb sensor with phase and contrast detect autofocus points embedded.
Sure this will still be larger than a mirrorless but but not much so, and I've tried several mirrorless and haven't found one that I would love yet and I'm not alone. DSLR's took a massive growth spurt after the turn of the century, this decade mirrorless and cell phones are getting a shot. who knows whats next. I do think that dslr's are her for a while so Im not worried.

I'm not insisting that Pentax make a mirrorless camera - I like Pentax cameras and I broadly like the way that Pentax do things, especially when compared to the other DSLR manufacturers. However, given that the market tendancy to mirrorless is clear and Pentax is a relatively small player, I would like to see them continue and not get left behind (again) when the tide shifts further. The only way to do that is to produce a good mirrorless system and I happen to believe that if they apply their design and pricing philosophy to it, that Pentax could make the best mirrorless system there is. The best way to do that is before they get left behind and be a leader in the field.

I'm surprised to see so much resistance to mirrorless and so many people fooling themselves over the direction of the market on this forum, which I've always considered to be very open-minded and which I know contains many people who use multiple systems, camera types and image media. Especially this idea that the benefits of mirrorless cameras are nothing more than snake oil and that there's a global conspiracy behind it, or that demonstrable benefits could somehow be hype.

DSLRs will be around for a long time yet, but only because they're established and it's not in the interests of the big players to change that. What I have stated is that this will change over time until DSLRs are a minor player or entirely gone. How long that takes will depend on many factors, but in my opinion most of all on changing the idea in the general camera-buying populace that bigger cameras (DSLRs) are better than smaller ones, or than CaNikon cameras are better than others.

[Rondec]

There's no exaggeration here and no-one is disguising anything. No-one has exaggerated the benefits of mirrorless, merely stated that they are there and they are significant.

The idea that there is some global conspiratorial "hype machine" behind mirrorless cameras is utterly ridiculous.



Of course the results from any decent camera will be very similar indeed in good hands and the limiting factor remains the person using it in most cases. No-one's photos improve dramatically moving from DSLR to mirrorless or APS-C to FF. Buying decent lenses, getting a camera with better AF, some other factors will likely lead to improvement but nothing will compare to improving as a photographer. Still, it can't be denied that some cameras are better than others, though it depends what each user wants of course.

I haven't seen anything I'd call hype surrounding mirrorless, or ever read a diatribe on it. Manufacturers make claims for mirrorless as they do for DSLRs (and all products), and they may be true or false or somewhere in between. All photography manufacturers pay professionals to use their gear (even Pentax!!) and look on it favourably, and that applies to all types of product.



I don't agree with this - there are technologies which are specific to mirrorless cameras (or cameras working in a mirrorless way, such as using live-view on a DSLR) - focusing which uses the sensor, eye/face detection, lens technologies which allow the design of lenses with very short flange distances etc etc.



I don't believe that mirrorless is inferior to DSLRs today, in fact I believe that on the whole they are better. Obviously if you buy a camera then it won't drastically improve while you own it (though firmware can make some improvements) but when you buy an ILC of any type, you buy into a system, and that system may improve, and it may improve drastically when compared to it's competitors.



I'm not insisting that Pentax make a mirrorless camera - I like Pentax cameras and I broadly like the way that Pentax do things, especially when compared to the other DSLR manufacturers. However, given that the market tendancy to mirrorless is clear and Pentax is a relatively small player, I would like to see them continue and not get left behind (again) when the tide shifts further. The only way to do that is to produce a good mirrorless system and I happen to believe that if they apply their design and pricing philosophy to it, that Pentax could make the best mirrorless system there is. The best way to do that is before they get left behind and be a leader in the field.

I'm surprised to see so much resistance to mirrorless and so many people fooling themselves over the direction of the market on this forum, which I've always considered to be very open-minded and which I know contains many people who use multiple systems, camera types and image media. Especially this idea that the benefits of mirrorless cameras are nothing more than snake oil and that there's a global conspiracy behind it, or that demonstrable benefits could somehow be hype.

DSLRs will be around for a long time yet, but only because they're established and it's not in the interests of the big players to change that. What I have stated is that this will change over time until DSLRs are a minor player or entirely gone. How long that takes will depend on many factors, but in my opinion most of all on changing the idea in the general camera-buying populace that bigger cameras (DSLRs) are better than smaller ones, or than CaNikon cameras are better than others.

You may say that you haven't seen hype, but any time Fuji or Sony releases a new camera, there are several threads about it with people salivating over them. This, even when the camera is just measuring up to existing SLR models already on the market and (in the case of Fuji) is more expensive than similarly specified SLRs.

I just think with regard to EVFs, most of us don't see a significant benefit to it and often the implementation is not the greatest. If you don't have the highest specified EVF (currently only in the A9 for 4500 dollars), you have something that is laggy, doesn't have great dynamic range, and has a bunch of unnecessary clutter in the viewfinder. And something that uses battery life constantly in order to function. If I had an EVF on my cameras I would need to turn off all of that stuff as it distracts from the whole point of the viewfinder -- composing your image. If you want to see a histogram, you can see it in review afterward, but once you've been shooting awhile, you really don't need to see a histogram or blinkies on most of your images. You can just review an occasional one and that's enough.

I wouldn't be surprised if EVFs do eventually dominate the market, but it won't be because photographers asked for them, but more because camera companies can make more money with them. And I guess that's good enough reason.

[Pahrump creative]

Here is a translation by me. I'm pretty sure it's accurate to what the article says.

---------------

I have received information from one of our readers about the Pentax K-3ii being discontinued.

When seeing that the K-3ii had disappeared from display at a Yodobashi store, the reader asked the shop staff to check with the maker. They were told it had been discontinued (even though it is still on the maker’s homepage)

The K-3ii is still listed on the official site and is still in stock at many retailers, but when checking on the Yodobashi net shop, it is listed as discontinued (literally “sales concluded”), so it does not appear to be a mistake.

Considering the K-3 series model change cycle, it would not be strange to see the appear of a successor model around now. I would expect to see a release in the near future.

With gratitude to the person who shared this information.

----------------

Yodobashi is a very high volume retailer. They are often the first retailer to run out of stock. It happened with the K-5 in 2012 as well Yodobashi ran out first then other retailers and there was a period of a few months from spring until the K-5ii came out at Photokina when the only Pentax you could get was the K-r.

I think this is probably the first indication, but as the article states, it is still available at almost all other retailers, and probably in some branches of Yodobashi as well.

Looks like we'll be getting a good deal price wise soon. I may yet purchase one.

[Kunzite]

There's no exaggeration here and no-one is disguising anything. No-one has exaggerated the benefits of mirrorless, merely stated that they are there and they are significant.

The idea that there is some global conspiratorial "hype machine" behind mirrorless cameras is utterly ridiculous.

There is much exaggeration, here and everywhere else; and you do it as well. Appeal to ridicule won't work - FTR it's rather a standalone complex (though money and marketing are heavily involved as well)
You're doing it when you talk about "massive" benefits; sure, there are some benefits but there are also drawbacks. Thus, you're exaggerating - hyping.

Claiming that we are fooling ourselves is, by the way, disrespectful. We've made our choice, which is different than yours. We are creating market demand; the market is not some abstract entity.

Not all hype is equal. Perhaps the worst kind is the one mentioned by Rondec - giving endless praise to some newly launched MILC, everywhere - even on forums/sections dedicated to DSLR cameras. Some MILC fans would talk and talk and talk and predict how that camera would utterly kill the DSLRs because it's sooo much better and why oh why can't everyone see the light? Like the A9 thread from the Pentax DSLR Discussion section here.

[zmohie]

If pentax decided to go with mirrorless what system should begin with?MF or K mount.?
I think it is better to begin with MF to begin from scratch like Fuji .2 lenses can save the system compare with k mount.

[Zygonyx]

I think one of the big issue's is that the number of people willing to walk around with a camera that weight's a kilogram is getting smaller with the time ticking. Lugging around a camerabag with camerabody, lenses and a tripod is not very popular anymore. Those who do it, are getting old fast.

I'm affraid "lazy's life hygien" and life expectancy can be equally questionned, whilst they might lack SLR shooter's sane physical exercise....
We'd actually need more acurate funeral services stats.

[GlassJunkie]

For the record, I enjoy the discussions and have immense respect for many members in this thread... I have learned from all...

Not since Brexit and the 2016 Presidential, have I seen the passionate opining like this thread. I have thought about it, and noticing the emotions on this thread, it came to me that the basics are the same in Brexit, 2016 Election, and Mirrorless. The debate is personal control (in this debate creative control and potentially IQ) vs depending on some "system" (in this case EVF or "I trust the system" AF).

With DSLRs, the artist/ snapper has a direct view of the light that will hit the sensor/film, the exposure of it, the way it will focus, etc. The mirrorless shooter yields more control to the camera, since the EVF image is "fake". By "fake" (I know some of you will be enraged), I mean imputed to a low res LCD. The unfocused edges you see are oscillating pixels used to provide a proxy for an out-of focus state. They stop flickering when the sensor AF software tells it (in ITS opinion) that it is a good shot... Nothing wrong with it, but simple facts.

Mirrorless brings better focusing to bear for inexperienced shooters. Nothing wrong with that. SONY uses the platform for R&D for sensors, their real moneymaker, Nothing wrong with that either. It also shrinks things a bit and saves a buck. Definitely nothing wrong with that.

Experienced shooters may wish automation simplicity for non-critical shots. Only the shooter knows what non critical is... Some will use AF where suitable (in each shooters 'noggin), but a number of earners and enthusiasts won't settle and forfeit control. Nothing wrong with that.

So, like the politicians (I am neutral on 99% of it), I am enjoying the control (creative) vs the acceptance of giving control to a system debate which may not suit all users needs. Today's MILCs are simply the next gen of point & shoots with better glass. Nothing wrong with that either..

Have a Great Weekend, All!