[Kunzite]

Ehh... No. Strictly technical a DSLR is a mirrorless camera with an optical viewfinder added.

To be pedantic, a DSLR is a digital camera with a single-lens-reflex viewfinder system. Typically it has a pentaprism, but that's not a hard requirement.
There's no hard requirement that the sensor would not receive a full time through-the-lens image. There's no hard requirement that the AF must be done on a separate module under the mirror box, and not directly on the sensor; actually there's no hard requirement that it must have AF at all (but having AF is a very very good idea). There is no hard requirement that the mirror(s) must flip up for every single frame, or at all.

In terms of potential, a DSLR is up there with the mirrorless except for the constraint of a longer register distance (that means it won't ever beat the mirrorless in size, and in wide angle lenses' size&specs).
In terms of technology, let's take a look at the K-3iii: it's "mirrorless side" isn't more advanced than it's "DSLR side".

[Wheatfield]

To be pedantic, a DSLR is a digital camera with a single-lens-reflex viewfinder system. Typically it has a pentaprism, but that's not a hard requirement.
There's no hard requirement that the sensor would not receive a full time through-the-lens image. There's no hard requirement that the AF must be done on a separate module under the mirror box, and not directly on the sensor; actually there's no hard requirement that it must have AF at all (but having AF is a very very good idea). There is no hard requirement that the mirror(s) must flip up for every single frame, or at all.

In terms of potential, a DSLR is up there with the mirrorless except for the constraint of a longer register distance (that means it won't ever beat the mirrorless in size, and in wide angle lenses' size&specs).
In terms of technology, let's take a look at the K-3iii: it's "mirrorless side" isn't more advanced than it's "DSLR side".

To be really pedantic, if there is a mirror but it doesn't move it would be a DSLNAR (digital single lens not a reflex).

[RobA_Oz]

To be really pedantic, if there is a mirror but it doesn't move it would be a DSLNAR (digital single lens not a reflex).

Wouldn’t that be a Digital Single-Lens Fixed-Mirror Reflex, since “reflex” refers to the mirror? Not that I’m a pedant, either (I’m still in training).

[Kunzite]

Wouldn’t that be a Digital Single-Lens Fixed-Mirror Reflex, since “reflex” refers to the mirror? Not that I’m a pedant, either (I’m still in training).

Right.
I wasn't talking about fixed mirrors, though. The Ricoh Imaging patent described a mirror which can be raised if the situation demands it, e.g. on low light - not a fixed mirror.

[RobA_Oz]

Right.
I wasn't talking about fixed mirrors, though. The Ricoh Imaging patent described a mirror which can be raised if the situation demands it, e.g. on low light - not a fixed mirror.

Ah, that one. A Digital Single-Lens Occasionally-Reflex camera. DSLOR?

[Kunzite]

Ah, that one. A Digital Single-Lens Occasionally-Reflex camera. DSLOR?

We already have those, because we can put our DSLRs in Live View aka mirrorless mode

We should thoroughly revise these confusing designations. For example, we could have:
- Digital Single-Lens Reflex camera. Old DSLRs without live view capabilities.
- Digital Single-Lens Occasionally-Reflex camera. Current DSLRs, with live view capabilities.
- Digital Single-Lens No-Flappy-Mirrors-Inside camera. What we call a MILC.
- Digital Single-Lens No-Flappy-Mirrors-Inside EVFs Are The Best Thing Since Sliced Bread Edition. What we call a MILC, but with integrated electronic viewfinder.
And so on. Much clearer, right?

I'm thinking of a designation to properly describe my/Ricoh Imaging's idea. I'm currently typing it, should be done in a week or so.

[Rondec]

Pentax's implementation of live view leaves somewhat to be desired, but there is no particular reason that it couldn't have the same functionality that a high end camera like the A9 II has. It has come a long way from the very clunky live view of the K-20 and I am sure it will continue to improve. To say that an SLR "couldn't" do this is a mistake. It has to do with auto focus implementation in live view as well as the sensor chosen and its read out speed.

There are also definite negatives to current MILCs "millions of PDAF points on the sensor" which tends to produce banding and artifacts in certain shooting situations (back lit and high iso).

---

Last edited by Rondec; 11-14-2021 at 05:47 AM.

[MMVIII]

Pentax's implementation of live view leaves somewhat to be desired, but there is no particular reason that it couldn't have the same functionality that a high end camera like the A9 II has. It has come a long way from the very clunky live view of the K-20 and I am sure it will continue to improve. To say that an SLR "couldn't" do this is a mistake. It has to do with auto focus implementation in live view as well as the sensor chosen and its read out speed.

There are also definite negatives to current MILCs "millions of PDAF points on the sensor" which tends to produce banding and artifacts in certain shooting situations (back lit and high iso).

---------- Post added 11-14-21 at 05:57 AM ----------

Pentax's implementation of live view leaves somewhat to be desired, but there is no particular reason that it couldn't have the same functionality that a high end camera like the A9 II has. It has come a long way from the very clunky live view of the K-20 and I am sure it will continue to improve. To say that an SLR "couldn't" do this is a mistake. It has to do with auto focus implementation in live view as well as the sensor chosen and its read out speed.

There are also definite negatives to current MILCs "millions of PDAF points on the sensor" which tends to produce banding and artifacts in certain shooting situations (back lit and high iso).

Right.
What many people praising the gods of pixeliated view of the world tend to forget is that this high tech, that then is called "almost as good as a DSLR" is sold in cameras for prices starting from 5000$€£ with the newest Z9 or the R5 up to 7500£€$ as for the α1. Some of it will trickle down to more interesting models, but if there is demand many advantages of DSLR can also be put further. Like I mentioned, a dedicated metering sensor that is sensitive to Infrared spectrum etc...

[reh321]

We already have those, because we can put our DSLRs in Live View aka mirrorless mode

I guess your smiley face means we shouldn’t take your words too seriously, but in case someone does, I will say that a modern DSLR in LV mode has no relationship to a modern MILC, because a modern MILC has an EVF; any viewfinder is shaded - so has no definite disadvantages under sunlight, and all the modern EVFs I’ve tried don’t have the disadvantages - such as a noticeable lag, flickering in particular, or not handling LED lighting well in general - that people tend to attribute to them.

[normhead]

I will say that a modern DSLR in LV mode has no relationship to a modern MILC

You can say whatever you want, it doesn't make it true.

[Smolk]

I do not know if there is any brand having more (or less) APSC lenses and I do not care.

It's relevant when Pentax is the only player, at least in DSLR land. And that would appear to be a likely scenario.

---------- Post added 11-14-2021 at 02:44 PM ----------

You can say whatever you want, it doesn't make it true.

That's not a proper argument, please! Don't be unnecessarily contrarian. The point is that an EVF behaves different from a live view - as is evident in MILCS to start with as they have both.
I'm an OVF lover - but I don't see a need to impose my views on others.

[reh321]

You can say whatever you want, it doesn't make it true.

Apparently you haven’t tried a modern MILC - come to think of it, you don’t’t even have a modern Pentax body.

[Rondec]

Apparently you haven’t tried a modern MILC - come to think of it, you don’t’t even have a modern Pentax body.

He has a K-1. Isn't that a modern Pentax body?

[biz-engineer]

I guess your smiley face means we shouldn’t take your words too seriously, but in case someone does, I will say that a modern DSLR in LV mode has no relationship to a modern MILC, because a modern MILC has an EVF;

Let's be honest. It's not only about DSLR vs MILC, it's also about technology. Even if Pentax K1 satisfies my needs, it is a bit of a dinosaur compared to lastest MILC models. Pentax K1 is K5 technology, 33 AF points, slow and a bit clunky. The recent MILC models from main camera brand have hundred of AF points, covering the entire frame, more megapixels, faster cards. Even staying with DSLR , Pentax still have a lot of tech catch-up to do on Full Frame.

---------- Post added 14-11-21 at 15:11 ----------

He has a K-1. Isn't that a modern Pentax body?

The K1 project was started long ago, even before the K3, remained in the cartons for a while before it was finally given a green light, it's K5 tech inside, not even K3 (looking at K1 USB interface that not even as fast as K3's). I expect a pretty significant operation performance jump on the next Pentax FF: faster processor, fast writing cards, better firmware, focus stacking etc.. I hesitate, should I get the D-FA 21mm or should I get the Nikon Z 20 1.8 (500 Euros less costly) and get a Z7 II (smaller and lighter body, dual processor, CFexpress cards, 45Mp), it's a tempting option.

---------- Post added 14-11-21 at 15:18 ----------

In 2016, Pentax K1 was a compelling offer, especially for Pentaxians. But in 2021, Pentax K1 starts to show its age, it's a bit big, slow and not particularly high resolution.

[normhead]

Apparently you haven’t tried a modern MILC - come to think of it, you don’t’t even have a modern Pentax body.

And yet people seem to like my images. How is that possible? How can a neanderthal like myself using a 4.5 year old camera out perform so many of the enlightened such as yourself who have tried everything? It's one of the mysteries of the universe.

When you figure it out we'll talk.
Bottom line, if what you have let's you do what you want, you don't need anything else, even if others insist you need something different. And different doesn't always produce better. Maybe I get as many images as I do because I don't waste time, learning to use every camera system out there. I spend my time using what I have, not investigating what I don't have.

I could take images I like (and others like) with a view camera. I don't need any electronics to produce images. The supposed advantages of the electronification of photography has turned into a hype war of little practical value for those of us who value the images more than the technology they are taken with.

I like electronics supporting my photography, doing things like exposure, AF. The notion that what I have is holding me back because it's not MILC is in my mind ridiculous. People inventing doo dahs that in no way improve my photography is pretty much irrelevant.

It's a fact, some people are captivated by tassels and glitter.