Pentax mirrorless FF?

Kunzite · 05-01-2013, 09:03 AM

Originally posted by Clavius

They consider it sacrilegion only because such users are sitting on top of a mountain of K-mount glass. Their thought pattern: "No OVF --> no mirror --> obsolete mirrorbox --> shorter registry distances--> new mount --> OH NO! My lenses!!"

It's funny how some people would constantly talk as if 80% of the ILC buyers are wrong in choosing tried and tested technologies, instead of the immature MILC fad. Correction: it was funny, years ago; now it's only a bore.

**Pål Jensen** · 05-01-2013, 09:08 AM

Originally posted by Kunzite

It's funny how some people would constantly talk as if 80% of the ILC buyers are wrong in choosing tried and tested technologies, instead of the immature MILC fad. Correction: it was funny, years ago; now it's only a bore.

Not to mention that according to the same people DSLR's should be dead by now (just check threads a couple of years old). In reality DSLR's are still on the increase whereas mirrorless sales are stagnating...

**monochrome** · 05-01-2013, 09:12 AM

Originally posted by Clavius

They consider it sacrilegion only because such users are sitting on top of a mountain of K-mount glass. Their thought pattern: "No OVF --> no mirror --> obsolete mirrorbox --> shorter registry distances--> new mount --> OH NO! My lenses!!"

Same here. An FF ILC, preferably with an eyelevel EVF, would be a typically Pentaxy off-beat black-sheepish thing to do. I would love it.

Well, I only have a hillock of MF K-mount lenses but I prefer the LCD to the OVF every single day of the week. Now if you put a functional MX or LX VF on a dSLR that might change, but for now I'll take the latency (20 - 120 1/1000's) and the 3" VF versus the mirror and the 3/8" VF. Even if I had to use an adapter to satisfy all the anorexia fetishists.

An LED eye-level EVF has latency issues that haven't yet been resolved. Good luck shooting sports with an EVF. Maybe OLED will change things - but it hasn't yet.

Pentax will make a real, traditional FF body with all the Pentaxy bits and pieces. But it won't be soon.

Kunzite · 05-01-2013, 09:16 AM

What I can't understand is why all these MILC systems aren't enough for them. There's the Q, Nikon 1, Canon EM, m4/3, NEX, NX, Fuji's, Leica... that should be enough for them, but somehow it isn't.

konraDarnok · 05-01-2013, 09:34 AM - **1 Like**

Originally posted by Kunzite

What I can't understand is why all these MILC systems aren't enough for them. There's the Q, Nikon 1, Canon EM, m4/3, NEX, NX, Fuji's, Leica... that should be enough for them, but somehow it isn't.

In 10 years all cameras will be mirrorless. The arc of technology in many different fields is the same, toward solid state solutions. I don't know who you're addressing specifically, but I wouldn't mistake that observation as some kind of advocacy; it's just where the market is going to go, because it's a much cheaper technology to develop and maintain.

These "debates" are like the film vs. digital debates from 10 years ago. MILC has already won, it's just going to take time to see it to fruition when the last SLR (probably for the professional market) is made.

Kunzite · 05-01-2013, 11:21 AM

If you must "prove" me wrong, you're probably one of those.
Weren't the MILCs supposed to replace DSLRs by now? We have to wait for another 10 years, to get another estimation?

Tell me more about how the MILCs selling 1/4 of DSLR volumes had "already won", and - most importantly - why do you feel so strongly it's about winning and losing

**Pål Jensen** · 05-01-2013, 11:41 AM

Originally posted by konraDarnok

In 10 years all cameras will be mirrorless. The arc of technology in many different fields is the same, toward solid state solutions. .

You make the mistake that mirrorless is about new technology. It isn't. Mirrorless was around in the 1800's.
Any Pentax DSLR is technologically more advanced than any of their mirrorless cameras.
Optics will not be obsolete in any foreseeable future but will be augmented by electronic features.

ElJamoquio · 05-01-2013, 11:54 AM - **1 Like**

EVF's aren't there yet. They REALLY aren't as good as OVF if you're talking about a full-frame model.

I assume that in 20 years I will want an EVF for various advantages they'll have. Right now, and five years from now, I want an OVF.

philbaum · 05-01-2013, 12:43 PM

Originally posted by konraDarnok

In 10 years all cameras will be mirrorless. The arc of technology in many different fields is the same, toward solid state solutions. I don't know who you're addressing specifically, but I wouldn't mistake that observation as some kind of advocacy; it's just where the market is going to go, because it's a much cheaper technology to develop and maintain.

These "debates" are like the film vs. digital debates from 10 years ago. MILC has already won, it's just going to take time to see it to fruition when the last SLR (probably for the professional market) is made.

Well said. I don't tell anyone what kind of camera to buy - I might suggest different types of cameras to look at :-) A top of the line DSLR might be a joy to use for a professional sports shooter, but might feel like a boat anchor to a person hiking down a trail.

The biggest camera trend in 2012 was the continued downward spiral of PS sales, apparently from phone cameras. This had a profound negative effect on all mainline camera companies. MILC sales increased only marginally, while DSLRs had a nice boost in sales.

I would hate to see Pentax Forums restrict its discussions to only "tried and tested technologies", its always fun to try to spot the new trends.

**monochrome** · 05-01-2013, 01:06 PM

Given that larger camera companies are presently producing more dSLR's than customers are buying, the day will come that Ricoh's conservative product and marketing strategies will be a benefit to the company rather than a hindrance. When a mirrorless camera can do EVERYTHING that a reflex camera can do, faster, cheaper and better (they can't yet due to Eye-level EVF latency) then and only then will MILC's replace dSLR's.

Clavius · 05-01-2013, 01:22 PM

Originally posted by monochrome

An LED eye-level EVF has latency issues that haven't yet been resolved. Good luck shooting sports with an EVF. Maybe OLED will change things - but it hasn't yet.

Different tools for different jobs. If I were to shoot sports, I wouldn't use a Pentax anyway. Not with that AF! The current LED EVF can keep up with Pentax AF just fine. LOL!

**monochrome** · 05-01-2013, 01:24 PM

Originally posted by Clavius

Different tools for different jobs. If I were to shoot sports, I wouldn't use a Pentax anyway. Not with that AF! The current LED EVF can keep up with Pentax AF just fine. LOL!

Uhmmmm

Kunzite · 05-01-2013, 01:31 PM

Originally posted by philbaum

I would hate to see Pentax Forums restrict its discussions to only "tried and tested technologies", its always fun to try to spot the new trends.

Aren't you mistaken about something? I'm not declaring a total victory of DSLRs over MILCs, and I don't attack the reasons why people likes MILCs. I'm not restricting any discussion, though I might strongly disagree with some illogical ideas from time to time (and I have equally strong arguments, not that they would be interested).
OTOH, those people would want the entire ILC market to be only MILCs.

konraDarnok · 05-01-2013, 02:58 PM

Originally posted by Kunzite

If you must "prove" me wrong, you're probably one of those.
Weren't the MILCs supposed to replace DSLRs by now? We have to wait for another 10 years, to get another estimation?

Tell me more about how the MILCs selling 1/4 of DSLR volumes had "already won", and - most importantly - why do you feel so strongly it's about winning and losing

I ain't the one using bold text. I think you're projecting quite a bit here. It's clear to me people have *strong* emotional attachments to tradition for all kinds of reasons. My opinion here is devoid of passion. I really could care less; I'm just offering my opinion on how technology evolves. And it evolves away from complex analog mechanisms with a need for high degrees of precision if you can get the same functionality cheaper.

konraDarnok · 05-01-2013, 03:10 PM

Originally posted by Pål Jensen

You make the mistake that mirrorless is about new technology. It isn't. Mirrorless was around in the 1800's.
Any Pentax DSLR is technologically more advanced than any of their mirrorless cameras.
Optics will not be obsolete in any foreseeable future but will be augmented by electronic features.

That's really ignoring my argument. Look at the SLR, it was designed to fix two problems, first it makes cameras more portable from the single reflex models, and it's closer to "what you see is what you get" due to no parallax. It was an elegant solution for those problems and it was cheaper to produce because it didn't need redundant lenses.

Today, mirrorless cameras can be even more compact and closer to WYSIWG and cheaper to produce due to not needing a mirror box. That's got nothing to do with large format "mirrorless" cameras where the photographer composed their shot on ground glass before inserting film -- and even at that, those guys were the "pros" and 135 format adopters of the day were the amateurs. 135 was a format for the masses along with mass production Japanese made cameras after the war.

That is not the world we live in. I contend the camera market is going to be making some big changes. There is no reason to design cameras around the 135 format, as it doesn't exist anymore.

05-01-2013, 09:08 AM	#32
Pål Jensen Site Supporter Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Norway Photos: Albums Posts: 4,371	Originally posted by Kunzite It's funny how some people would constantly talk as if 80% of the ILC buyers are wrong in choosing tried and tested technologies, instead of the immature MILC fad. Correction: it was funny, years ago; now it's only a bore. Not to mention that according to the same people DSLR's should be dead by now (just check threads a couple of years old). In reality DSLR's are still on the increase whereas mirrorless sales are stagnating... Last edited by Pål Jensen; 05-01-2013 at 11:43 AM.

05-01-2013, 09:12 AM	#33
monochrome Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: Working From Home Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 26,276	Originally posted by Clavius They consider it sacrilegion only because such users are sitting on top of a mountain of K-mount glass. Their thought pattern: "No OVF --> no mirror --> obsolete mirrorbox --> shorter registry distances--> new mount --> OH NO! My lenses!!" Same here. An FF ILC, preferably with an eyelevel EVF, would be a typically Pentaxy off-beat black-sheepish thing to do. I would love it. Well, I only have a hillock of MF K-mount lenses but I prefer the LCD to the OVF every single day of the week. Now if you put a functional MX or LX VF on a dSLR that might change, but for now I'll take the latency (20 - 120 1/1000's) and the 3" VF versus the mirror and the 3/8" VF. Even if I had to use an adapter to satisfy all the anorexia fetishists. An LED eye-level EVF has latency issues that haven't yet been resolved. Good luck shooting sports with an EVF. Maybe OLED will change things - but it hasn't yet. Pentax will make a real, traditional FF body with all the Pentaxy bits and pieces. But it won't be soon. Last edited by monochrome; 05-01-2013 at 11:59 AM.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Pentax's mirrorless strategy	asw66	Pentax Mirrorless Cameras	155	12-30-2012 08:45 AM
A Pentax FF idea, a unique take on the FF market...	theperception2008	Pentax DSLR Discussion	20	10-03-2012 01:07 PM
Re-cycling another Pentax FF rumour/FF rumor from A German photography magazine	rawr	Pentax Full Frame	73	09-19-2012 01:12 PM
Rumoured 3rd Pentax Mirrorless	Tonto	Pentax News and Rumors	4	04-14-2012 01:18 AM
Canon FF Mirrorless concept	Clarkey	Canon, Nikon, Sony, and Other Camera Brands	9	03-27-2012 03:05 AM

05-01-2013, 09:03 AM	#31
Kunzite Pentaxian Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: Romania Posts: 15,132	Originally posted by Clavius They consider it sacrilegion only because such users are sitting on top of a mountain of K-mount glass. Their thought pattern: "No OVF --> no mirror --> obsolete mirrorbox --> shorter registry distances--> new mount --> OH NO! My lenses!!" It's funny how some people would constantly talk as if 80% of the ILC buyers are wrong in choosing tried and tested technologies, instead of the immature MILC fad. Correction: it was funny, years ago; now it's only a bore.

05-01-2013, 09:16 AM	#34
Kunzite Pentaxian Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: Romania Posts: 15,132	What I can't understand is why all these MILC systems aren't enough for them. There's the Q, Nikon 1, Canon EM, m4/3, NEX, NX, Fuji's, Leica... that should be enough for them, but somehow it isn't.

05-01-2013, 09:34 AM - 1 Like	#35
konraDarnok Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2007 Photos: Albums Posts: 969	Originally posted by Kunzite What I can't understand is why all these MILC systems aren't enough for them. There's the Q, Nikon 1, Canon EM, m4/3, NEX, NX, Fuji's, Leica... that should be enough for them, but somehow it isn't. In 10 years all cameras will be mirrorless. The arc of technology in many different fields is the same, toward solid state solutions. I don't know who you're addressing specifically, but I wouldn't mistake that observation as some kind of advocacy; it's just where the market is going to go, because it's a much cheaper technology to develop and maintain. These "debates" are like the film vs. digital debates from 10 years ago. MILC has already won, it's just going to take time to see it to fruition when the last SLR (probably for the professional market) is made.

05-01-2013, 11:21 AM	#36
Kunzite Pentaxian Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: Romania Posts: 15,132	If you must "prove" me wrong, you're probably one of those. Weren't the MILCs supposed to replace DSLRs by now? We have to wait for another 10 years, to get another estimation? Tell me more about how the MILCs selling 1/4 of DSLR volumes had "already won", and - most importantly - why do you feel so strongly it's about winning and losing

05-01-2013, 11:41 AM	#37
Pål Jensen Site Supporter Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Norway Photos: Albums Posts: 4,371	Originally posted by konraDarnok In 10 years all cameras will be mirrorless. The arc of technology in many different fields is the same, toward solid state solutions. . You make the mistake that mirrorless is about new technology. It isn't. Mirrorless was around in the 1800's. Any Pentax DSLR is technologically more advanced than any of their mirrorless cameras. Optics will not be obsolete in any foreseeable future but will be augmented by electronic features.

05-01-2013, 11:54 AM - 1 Like	#38
ElJamoquio Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2011 Posts: 4,873	EVF's aren't there yet. They REALLY aren't as good as OVF if you're talking about a full-frame model. I assume that in 20 years I will want an EVF for various advantages they'll have. Right now, and five years from now, I want an OVF.

05-01-2013, 12:43 PM	#39
philbaum Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: Port Townsend, Washington State, USA Posts: 3,659	Originally posted by konraDarnok In 10 years all cameras will be mirrorless. The arc of technology in many different fields is the same, toward solid state solutions. I don't know who you're addressing specifically, but I wouldn't mistake that observation as some kind of advocacy; it's just where the market is going to go, because it's a much cheaper technology to develop and maintain. These "debates" are like the film vs. digital debates from 10 years ago. MILC has already won, it's just going to take time to see it to fruition when the last SLR (probably for the professional market) is made. Well said. I don't tell anyone what kind of camera to buy - I might suggest different types of cameras to look at :-) A top of the line DSLR might be a joy to use for a professional sports shooter, but might feel like a boat anchor to a person hiking down a trail. The biggest camera trend in 2012 was the continued downward spiral of PS sales, apparently from phone cameras. This had a profound negative effect on all mainline camera companies. MILC sales increased only marginally, while DSLRs had a nice boost in sales. I would hate to see Pentax Forums restrict its discussions to only "tried and tested technologies", its always fun to try to spot the new trends.

05-01-2013, 01:06 PM	#40
monochrome Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: Working From Home Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 26,276	Given that larger camera companies are presently producing more dSLR's than customers are buying, the day will come that Ricoh's conservative product and marketing strategies will be a benefit to the company rather than a hindrance. When a mirrorless camera can do EVERYTHING that a reflex camera can do, faster, cheaper and better (they can't yet due to Eye-level EVF latency) then and only then will MILC's replace dSLR's.

05-01-2013, 01:22 PM	#41
Clavius Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2011 Location: De Klundert Photos: Gallery Posts: 4,150	Originally posted by monochrome An LED eye-level EVF has latency issues that haven't yet been resolved. Good luck shooting sports with an EVF. Maybe OLED will change things - but it hasn't yet. Different tools for different jobs. If I were to shoot sports, I wouldn't use a Pentax anyway. Not with that AF! The current LED EVF can keep up with Pentax AF just fine. LOL!

05-01-2013, 01:24 PM	#42
monochrome Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: Working From Home Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 26,276	Originally posted by Clavius Different tools for different jobs. If I were to shoot sports, I wouldn't use a Pentax anyway. Not with that AF! The current LED EVF can keep up with Pentax AF just fine. LOL! Uhmmmm

05-01-2013, 01:31 PM	#43
Kunzite Pentaxian Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: Romania Posts: 15,132	Originally posted by philbaum I would hate to see Pentax Forums restrict its discussions to only "tried and tested technologies", its always fun to try to spot the new trends. Aren't you mistaken about something? I'm not declaring a total victory of DSLRs over MILCs, and I don't attack the reasons why people likes MILCs. I'm not restricting any discussion, though I might strongly disagree with some illogical ideas from time to time (and I have equally strong arguments, not that they would be interested). OTOH, those people would want the entire ILC market to be only MILCs.

05-01-2013, 02:58 PM	#44
konraDarnok Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2007 Photos: Albums Posts: 969	Originally posted by Kunzite If you must "prove" me wrong, you're probably one of those. Weren't the MILCs supposed to replace DSLRs by now? We have to wait for another 10 years, to get another estimation? Tell me more about how the MILCs selling 1/4 of DSLR volumes had "already won", and - most importantly - why do you feel so strongly it's about winning and losing I ain't the one using bold text. I think you're projecting quite a bit here. It's clear to me people have strong emotional attachments to tradition for all kinds of reasons. My opinion here is devoid of passion. I really could care less; I'm just offering my opinion on how technology evolves. And it evolves away from complex analog mechanisms with a need for high degrees of precision if you can get the same functionality cheaper.

05-01-2013, 03:10 PM	#45
konraDarnok Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2007 Photos: Albums Posts: 969	Originally posted by Pål Jensen You make the mistake that mirrorless is about new technology. It isn't. Mirrorless was around in the 1800's. Any Pentax DSLR is technologically more advanced than any of their mirrorless cameras. Optics will not be obsolete in any foreseeable future but will be augmented by electronic features. That's really ignoring my argument. Look at the SLR, it was designed to fix two problems, first it makes cameras more portable from the single reflex models, and it's closer to "what you see is what you get" due to no parallax. It was an elegant solution for those problems and it was cheaper to produce because it didn't need redundant lenses. Today, mirrorless cameras can be even more compact and closer to WYSIWG and cheaper to produce due to not needing a mirror box. That's got nothing to do with large format "mirrorless" cameras where the photographer composed their shot on ground glass before inserting film -- and even at that, those guys were the "pros" and 135 format adopters of the day were the amateurs. 135 was a format for the masses along with mass production Japanese made cameras after the war. That is not the world we live in. I contend the camera market is going to be making some big changes. There is no reason to design cameras around the 135 format, as it doesn't exist anymore.