[GlassJunkie]

Leica users might beg to differ,
at least with focal lengths like 35mm, 50mm, 90mm,
and subject distances that weren't too close.

Focusing a 35mm lens with the rangefinder on a Leica
was much easier than focusing a wide-angle lens on an SLR.

Fast-forward to the twenty-first century:
I'm finding live-view CDAF of wide-angle lenses
is much more accurate than PDAF with an optical finder.

I was going to put in the disclaimer for Leica, but didn't want to spend the bytes. Agree, particularly with the range you gave. I used to lust for Summichron and Summilux gems. I lived in Yashica/ Contax land in RF. Too young for Leicas on DQ pay...

I agree and wish we had CD and PD AF in the K-range...

[rbelyell]

'mirrorless cameras are a fad'?? do people actually read what they write here? holy cow!

[ZombieArmy]

Some people will strongly disagree with this, but, having used the K-3 with a FLUcard and, more recently, the K-1 with built-in WiFi, I know that there is potential to ditch the LCD screen and substitute it with a smart phone or tablet. Most of the picture-taking situations where the use of the OVF is undesirable or impossible are amenable to this, but the transfer speeds will have to improve for it to be acceptable to enough people.

We would, of course, have to trust our settings more, and leave chimping for slower occasions, unless those who really need it could simply attach a smart phone to the camera body. Alternatively, such a camera would be for those who don't need to chimp.

Anyway, the LCD is only part of the thickness issue. While I could probably do without a rear LCD, I wouldn't want to be without shame shake reduction, which is the other thickening agent in the Pentax bodies.

I'd rather not be tied to another device just to use my camera properly.

[RobA_Oz]

I'd rather not be tied to another device just to use my camera properly.

"Properly" is a subjective word. Anyway, you don't have to chimp to use your camera – film users know that of old.

[Uluru]

Zoom your timescale out a bit further and you might come to realize that mirrors are actually the fad and niche embraced by just a small corner of the photography market.

You misunderstand the idea of photography. It is about experience, which purely mirrorless system can never achieve. Mirrorless is photography's dead end.

As a result of preoccupation with latest and pointless fad which has no future, many beginner photographers are led into a conceptual trap.

---------- Post added 03-11-2017 at 04:22 PM ----------

'mirrorless cameras are a fad'?? do people actually read what they write here? holy cow!

Yes, I wrote that and I stand behind my words.

Think about it next time, when you spend a bucket full of money on a purely mirrorless system, and its manufacturer goes bust one day — all your lenses will be worthless, can't work without software engineered by that company, rattle and semi-functional because of constant motor work, and all your cameras doomed to be replaced every few years for the want of better EVF.

With mirrorless you are forced into confectionery, and into a dead end of photography.

Mirrorless is the dead end of imaging innovation. And that many companies who have no idea what to do in photography go after the mirrorless, is a sign that things as we knew them, the concepts we left open in previous centuries and even decades, are now closing to an abrupt end.

We are at a climax in a totally pointless and destructive development of the civilisation, when we almost unconsciously rig to self-destruction all our concepts, including better future of imaging, by forcing it into a single channel of thought. It is irrational, but irrational is advocated as the future.

Think about it .. if you find some courage.

[UncleVanya]

You misunderstand the idea of photography. It is about experience, which purely mirrorless system can never achieve. Mirrorless is photography's dead end.

As a result of preoccupation with latest and pointless fad which has no future, many beginner photographers are led into a conceptual trap.

---------- Post added 03-11-2017 at 04:22 PM ----------



Yes, I wrote that and I stand behind my words.

Think about it next time, when you spend a bucket full of money on a purely mirrorless system, and its manufacturer goes bust one day — all your lenses will be worthless, can't work without software engineered by that company, rattle and semi-functional because of constant motor work, and all your cameras doomed to be replaced every few years for the want of better EVF.

With mirrorless you are forced into confectionery, and into a dead end of photography.

Mirrorless is the dead end of imaging innovation. Think about it.

Isn't the 8x10 or 16x20 glass plate shooter still saying that about roll film and mirrors? Or the dedicated digital 8x10 user? No mirror there. Mirrors don't matter, nor do optical right side up viewers. Photographers will find a way to make almost any image capture work for their artistic minds. I have seen B&W architecture shots from a Brownie Hawkeye that would crush many a fine SLR or Rangefinder of the day. The eye wins. And the eye is adaptable to upside down plate glass, pinhole cameras with cardboard sights, etc.

Don't rule out mirrorless or mirrors. We may see one or the other win in the end but as long as we keep taking pictures and making images - who cares.

[johnmflores]

You misunderstand the idea of photography. It is about experience, which purely mirrorless system can never achieve. Mirrorless is photography's dead end.

Silly me! I thought photography was about...photos.

Look at this terrible mirrorless photo by my friend Mike Peters


At a pro Muslim rally in NYC on 2/19/17. #protest #dissent #streetphotography #streetportrait #nyc #immigration #lumix #g85 #sigma30mm #lumixlounge by Mike Peters, on Flickr

Terrible!


The face. At a pro Muslim rally in NYC on 2/19/17. #protest #dissent #streetphotography #streetportrait #nyc #immigration #lumix #g85 #sigma30mm #lumixlounge @nytimes by Mike Peters, on Flickr

To think that he actually makes a living with a photographic dead-end!


#friend #lumix #lumixlounge #gx8 #15summilux #portraitphotography #realpeople #icelight #westcott by Mike Peters, on Flickr

These photos would have been so much better with a mirror!

[reh321]

You misunderstand the idea of photography. It is about experience, which purely mirrorless system can never achieve. Mirrorless is photography's dead end.

As a result of preoccupation with latest and pointless fad which has no future, many beginner photographers are led into a conceptual trap.

---------- Post added 03-11-2017 at 04:22 PM ----------

Yes, I wrote that and I stand behind my words.

Think about it next time, when you spend a bucket full of money on a purely mirrorless system, and its manufacturer goes bust one day — all your lenses will be worthless, can't work without software engineered by that company, rattle and semi-functional because of constant motor work, and all your cameras doomed to be replaced every few years for the want of better EVF.

With mirrorless you are forced into confectionery, and into a dead end of photography.

Mirrorless is the dead end of imaging innovation. And that many companies who have no idea what to do in photography go after the mirrorless, is a sign that things as we knew them, the concepts we left open in previous centuries and even decades, are now closing to an abrupt end.

We are at a climax in a totally pointless and destructive development of the civilisation, when we almost unconsciously rig to self-destruction all our concepts, including better future of imaging, by forcing it into a single channel of thought. It is irrational, but irrational is advocated as the future.

Think about it .. if you find some courage.

I have thought about it, and I disagree with almost every word you wrote here.

[Mr Bassie]

There are advantages and disadvantages to every kind of camera including mirrorless. If you think they are a fad you are sadly mistaken IMHO. I think DSLR are more in danger of becoming obsolete but I doubt they will ever disappear completely.

[Biro]

Mirrorless is like driving a car with an LCD view instead of a transparent windshield and that is scary to me.

Okay. At least we understand, after all is said and done, what is really bothering you. There are other people who share your view (no pun intended). But most of the photographic world is rapidly moving on. Myself, I'm agnostic on viewfinders and find I can easily move from EVFs to OVFs without trouble. But that's just me - and I started with film SLRs in the 1970s. Nonetheless, I'm sure there'll be mirrored cameras with OVFs on the market for some time. But, perhaps in another decade, they'll be considered niche.

[reh321]

....
Mirrorless is like driving a car with an LCD view instead of a transparent windshield and that is scary to me.

If automobile companies made a car with a magic windshield that made driving at night just like driving in daytime I would purchase it once it was proven to be reliable. That is exactly what MILC delivers. On several occasions I have taken a picture with my K-30 when I couldn't see well enough through the OVF to frame the picture I wanted, so I used LiveView; an EVF gives that capability but allows one to hold the camera up to the eye instead of awkwardly away from the head.

[thibs]

If automobile companies made a car with a magic windshield that made driving at night just like driving in daytime I would purchase it once it was proven to be reliable. That is exactly what MILC delivers.

Nope. No way. But that would be nice and it will probably come but we are a long way from that.

[johnmflores]

Nope. No way. But that would be nice and it will probably come but we are a long way from that.

Billions form their world view based on what they see on their television screens. And have been doing so for decades.

[RobA_Oz]

Billions form their world view based on what they see on their television screens. And have been doing so for decades.

…and not all of it is fake!

[monochrome]

Profitably making and selling an MILC is more a manufacturing process challenge than an actual electronic engineering challenge. If they should so choose, it is quite reasonable to assume Pentax could acquire the components and electrical engineering skills to release a competent MILC. What is less clear is whether they can design (or acquire, probably from Ricoh) the manufacturing process engineering, tools and techniques to release a successful MILC profitably - and do so while simultaneously expanding everything in 3 dSLR formats.

The above argues in favor of FF Medium Format MILC for Pentax, where they would have pricing control, as a starting point.