[ChristianRock]

Had a bit of a shock last night. I have this Tamron 28-75 f2.8 lens and i was manually focusing it on a magnetic advertising sign on my refrigerator, 25 feet away from my easy chair.

1. I used the OVF on the K3 and tried to focus it that way. Also noticed that the AF blip showed up when i was close to focus - not that i could tell at that distance. print on the advertising is too small for my eyes to read. When i played the image back and enlarged it 8 times, it wasn't close to being in focus.

2. I then switched to live view and even enlarged the live view by pressing on the OK button. I could see some focus peaking effects when i snapped the picture. I then played the image back as in 1, enlarged 8 times. Better than 1, but still a bit blurry.

3. I then transferred the K-mount Tamron lens to my Nex 6 via a $19 dumb adapter. Unlike my k3, there was no stabilization system active with the Tamron in manual lens mode on the Nex 6. I took a picture under the same parameters as with the K3, i.e. 1/160s, 1600iso, 75mm, and f4. (although on this adapter, one can't tell the f-stop precisely) Taking the shot with the Nex 6, the phone numbers on the magnetic sign were more defined than they were with the K3 image.

So my Nex 6 with the Tamron 28-75 f2.8 lens manually focuses better than the same lens on my K3. My K3 cost me about $1300 and the Nex 6, cost about $650. How do i explain this difference. Well the explanation that makes the most sense to me is that the Nex6 has an EVF, and when you manually focus, its easy to brace the EVF against your face while the K3 in Live View mode must be held out at 1/2 arms length. So therefore, the Nex6 is better braced when in manual mode. So an APS DSLR costing twice as much as my APS mirrorless loses out in manual handheld focus mode.

The K3 is an Auto-focusing monster, it just lacks a bit in the manual focus mode. Probably on a tripod, it might be just as good as the Nex 6, don't know - didn't test for that.

I shot a technical rehearsal last night of a new play with my K5 with the 50-135 tele on it, and the K3 with a 17-70 wide angle on it. First time with 2 cameras at hand. Enjoyed the OVFs of both as i waited for actors to get in just the right spots. Got enough keepers to make the director happy. It was autofocus for the whole 2 hours. So there are advantages to the traditional DSLRs, but i'm convinced the market tide is changing direction in favor of the mirrorless cams. Pentax would be ahead if they made a mirrorless FF, but rest assured, i get no vote in the matter

I don't know if my eyes are too good or what, but I have no problems focusing manually with my K20D which has a smaller viewfinder compared to the K3. I have to check the diopter every once in a while, as the camera gets moved around and my wife uses it as well - and I have a coffee cup that I use for that... brown beans painted on white, I pick up my M 50 1.7 and it's easy to adjust. I've heard people say the stock viewfinder can only focus f/2.8 or smaller, but I get all the shots I want from my M 50 1.7 and Sears 50 1.7. I only have problems with my Rikenon 50 1.4 sometimes but it's because that lens is just too soft wide open...

I have no idea what could have happened with your focus peaking... I've never used that feature, I would have thought that your in-focus area would be exactly what you saw on the screen... if it isn't - or if a f/2.8 you don't really have an in-focus area - I have no idea what the problem may be...

[Big Dave]

Dave CMIIW but I always thought Sony A is actually the absolute best mount for M42 stuff. (discounting the new Sony Mirrorless). It doesnt have the mirror clearance issues of 5D and has shake reduction with chipped adapters. The internets dont have much info on it but the few that I've read suggests that this is the case.

Although you can get a A to M42 adapter, The throat of the bayonet is barely big enough for it. It is to small to accept other bayonet mounts into it, which is a requirement in order to maintain correct registration distance when adapting non-Sony lenses. The adapters for Nikon etc are thicker and have a lens in them. The Canon EF bayonet throat is 50mm and allows proper adapters to be used. Mirror clearance is almost always a concern with FF camera and the corresponding larger mirror. You might be thinking about asp-c with the small mirror. What is CMIIW?

[Andi Lo]

Although you can get a A to M42 adapter, The throat of the bayonet is barely big enough for it. It is to small to accept other bayonet mounts into it, which is a requirement in order to maintain correct registration distance when adapting non-Sony lenses. The adapters for Nikon etc are thicker and have a lens in them. The Canon EF bayonet throat is 50mm and allows proper adapters to be used. Mirror clearance is almost always a concern with FF camera and the corresponding larger mirror. You might be thinking about asp-c with the small mirror. What is CMIIW?

CMIIW = Correct me if I'm wrong

And no, I was talking about the A900/A850 FF.

I searched a bit again today and seems like this long article have been written since I last time read up on this topic
https://www.flickr.com/groups/sony_alpha/discuss/72157608288010526/
ctrl + f "mirror", you'll see that unlike 5D, the Sony A mount doesnt have mirror clearance issue. This alone makes it my future FF platform of choice, if the price ever goes down low enough to justify buying it over the new mirrorless stuff. The A900 still hovers above the $1k mark, unlike 5D which can be had as low as $400 today.

Unfortunately it seems from my reading today that the market is ripe with non-infinity adapters, and the info on which seller is good is very scarce

Not like I can afford a A900 for "fun" anyway. maybe I should just get a focal reducer.

[northcoastgreg]

I still say the adapters with built-in PDAF like the LAEA4 are pretty bulky and ugly.

The bulkiness/ugliness of the adapter is not the biggest problem. The Sony PDAF adapter is a bit of outlier. It's expensive, and I doubt very many photographers are using it. The bigger issue is using lenses designed for larger SLR cameras on smaller mirrorless bodies. Let's face it: the main point in favor of mirrorless is the smaller size. Match a small mirrorless camera with small, native lenses, and you have an excellent camera system for travel. Match the small mirrorless camera with large SLR lens, and you merely have a fraken-system: large, cumbersome, difficult to handle, and conducive only to frustration and grief.

Case in point. I know of a local photographer who shoots the Olympus 12-60 lens with an OM-D EM-5. He's an old school photographer, and shoots on a tripod. Now that 12-60 lens, with a WR adapter thrown on it, weighs around 650 grams. It's much too big for the little EM-5. On a tripod, the torque weight ended up causing damage to the bottom of the EM-5 (which, like many mirrorless cameras, is mostly made out of plastic in order to keep them lighter).

In general, what we see with Olympus' transition from four-thirds DSLRs to m43 illustrates why adapters are not a viable solution for a move from SLRs to compact mirrorless. Even though the adapters are electric, many of the SLR lenses auto-focus poorly on most m43 cameras. And even where they focus better (like on the EM-1), the SLR lenses never quite manage to focus as well on the m43 bodies as do native m43 lenses. Ergonomically, the bigger SLR lenses are cumbersome on the smaller m43 bodies, defeating the whole purpose of going to mirrorless in the first place. Consequently, prices on the old SLR glass have plummeted. I've seen used copies of the Olympus 14-54, an HG lens, selling for as low as $120 (a fifth of its MRSP). Olympus' transition to compact mirrorless has cost the company millions.

So there are advantages to the traditional DSLRs, but i'm convinced the market tide is changing direction in favor of the mirrorless cams.

It won't be changing any time soon. Photographers, both professionals and "enthusiasts," have invested far too much money (quite literally millions of dollars) in big, expensive SLR lenses. Those lenses aren't going to disappear overnight. The photographers who own those lenses are going to demand cameras suitable for using them.

Compact mirrorless is going to be part of the future, but it will not be the future. That's merely a gearhead fantasy. Right now, there's a too many companies pursuing the compact mirrorless market, and as a consequence, none of them are making any money. Why should Pentax enter an over-crowded market that isn't generating profits for anyone? Doesn't make a lick of sense.

[easyreeder]

Compact mirrorless is going to be part of the future, but it will not be the future.

Ha, well said. Who says the future has to be simple?

[Big Dave]

CMIIW = Correct me if I'm wrong

And no, I was talking about the A900/A850 FF.

I searched a bit again today and seems like this long article have been written since I last time read up on this topic
https://www.flickr.com/groups/sony_alpha/discuss/72157608288010526/
ctrl + f "mirror", you'll see that unlike 5D, the Sony A mount doesnt have mirror clearance issue. This alone makes it my future FF platform of choice, if the price ever goes down low enough to justify buying it over the new mirrorless stuff. The A900 still hovers above the $1k mark, unlike 5D which can be had as low as $400 today.

Unfortunately it seems from my reading today that the market is ripe with non-infinity adapters, and the info on which seller is good is very scarce

Not like I can afford a A900 for "fun" anyway. maybe I should just get a focal reducer.

Like I said the A-mount bayonet throat diameter is to small to accommodate any of the other brands bayonets, so mirror clearance is mute. A few wider M42 lenses have clearance issues, such as the Pentax 35/3.5,28/3.5 and older 50/1.4 lenses. It has been my experience that if you can find a 5D for less then $500, it will usually be in well used condition. I'm either going to sell mine or give it to my daughter along with EF lenses. It is still a fantastic camera. My A7 fills the need for mounting legacy glass now.

[mecrox]

The bulkiness/ugliness of the adapter is not the biggest problem. The Sony PDAF adapter is a bit of outlier. It's expensive, and I doubt very many photographers are using it. The bigger issue is using lenses designed for larger SLR cameras on smaller mirrorless bodies. Let's face it: the main point in favor of mirrorless is the smaller size. Match a small mirrorless camera with small, native lenses, and you have an excellent camera system for travel. Match the small mirrorless camera with large SLR lens, and you merely have a fraken-system: large, cumbersome, difficult to handle, and conducive only to frustration and grief.

Case in point. I know of a local photographer who shoots the Olympus 12-60 lens with an OM-D EM-5. He's an old school photographer, and shoots on a tripod. Now that 12-60 lens, with a WR adapter thrown on it, weighs around 650 grams. It's much too big for the little EM-5. On a tripod, the torque weight ended up causing damage to the bottom of the EM-5 (which, like many mirrorless cameras, is mostly made out of plastic in order to keep them lighter).

In general, what we see with Olympus' transition from four-thirds DSLRs to m43 illustrates why adapters are not a viable solution for a move from SLRs to compact mirrorless. Even though the adapters are electric, many of the SLR lenses auto-focus poorly on most m43 cameras. And even where they focus better (like on the EM-1), the SLR lenses never quite manage to focus as well on the m43 bodies as do native m43 lenses. Ergonomically, the bigger SLR lenses are cumbersome on the smaller m43 bodies, defeating the whole purpose of going to mirrorless in the first place. Consequently, prices on the old SLR glass have plummeted. I've seen used copies of the Olympus 14-54, an HG lens, selling for as low as $120 (a fifth of its MRSP). Olympus' transition to compact mirrorless has cost the company millions.



It won't be changing any time soon. Photographers, both professionals and "enthusiasts," have invested far too much money (quite literally millions of dollars) in big, expensive SLR lenses. Those lenses aren't going to disappear overnight. The photographers who own those lenses are going to demand cameras suitable for using them.

Compact mirrorless is going to be part of the future, but it will not be the future. That's merely a gearhead fantasy. Right now, there's a too many companies pursuing the compact mirrorless market, and as a consequence, none of them are making any money. Why should Pentax enter an over-crowded market that isn't generating profits for anyone? Doesn't make a lick of sense.

Er, compact mirrorless cameras already outsell DSLRs by about 100 to 1 - in the form of the mobile phone. The vast majority of all cameras made since the advent of digital have been compact mirrorless cameras, at first P&S compacts and now mobiles. I'd have thought that two questions are at the fore here. First, how far up the scale do you have to go before you can produce a camera which is unquestionably far superior to and more versatile than anything a mobile phone can offer, present and over the next 5-7 years. Second, what kind of camera will work best in the broad middle of the market where the volume sales are: pros and enthusiasts already have their DSLRs, but how do the companies cater to everyone else, in fact the majority of camera buyers.

FWIW, I don't think everything in the mirrorless market is losing money anyway. Pentax are already there with the Q. The Q seems to have been pretty popular out East and may well show some healthy returns. As always, one needs the right product at the right price.

[Pål Jensen]

After all, Ricoh has to "win" at the consumer market, rather than the pro market and its Full Frame demands. Full frame isn't a huge share compared to crop sensors and M4/3. The real deal is if Ricoh can develop mirrorless cameras that harken back the days of the film SLRs like the ME Super and K1000. It seems the nostalgia is one of the driving factors of camera design (Nikon, anyone?) and I'm sure the same guys who asked Marc Newson to design the KO-1 can bring something more stated and reminiscent of those wonderful film cameras.


Would you guys be okay without a full frame Pentax camera if it meant that Ricoh could be a competitive and relevant company in a future of mirrorless cameras?


Thoughts?

1) The professional market do not demand FF. Most pros use APS. I haven't seen a single pro with an FF camera. The argument from all pros I know is that no one can tell the difference between an APS images and an FF image (as long as we are not talking about the D800) in any kind of end use of the images (as opposed to pixelpeeping). This include people selling fine-art prints from their own galleries.
2) Mirrorless or not has nothing to do with sensor size per se.
3) Sensor are getting better making the need for larger sensor size less from an image quality point of view. It is also making smaller sensored cameras more relevant (like the Q).
4) Cellphone usage make mor people buy DSLR cameras including FF. This is because it makes more people interested in photography. Those people will eventually buy a real camera...

[clackers]

1) The professional market do not demand FF. Most pros use APS. I haven't seen a single pro with an FF camera.

Pal, with all due respect, you are not making a very convincing case here!

You have not seen a pro using or an image taken by a pro on a 6D or a D800 or a D610 or 5D?

If so ... you need to get out more!

[Pål Jensen]

Pal, with all due respect, you are not making a very convincing case here!

You have not seen a pro using or an image taken by a pro on a 6D or a D800 or a D610 or 5D?

If so ... you need to get out more!

I didn't say nobody is using it. FF is the prime choice of the rich dentist segment. Most pros are very pragmatic when it comes to camera choice...

[Cee Cee]

1) The professional market do not demand FF. Most pros use APS. I haven't seen a single pro with an FF camera.

I didn't say nobody is using it. FF is the prime choice of the rich dentist segment. Most pros are very pragmatic when it comes to camera choice...

not sure about this, I'm no expert here but certainly all the weddings I've attended in the last few years the pro photographers have all been using FF, most common being 5D, I can also remember reading that most magazine editors wouldn't except ASPC images for publication, (but that was some time back and may have changed or may have been just been plain wrong, as I said I'm no expert here). After all for a pro photographer the camera is a tool of the trade and not a overly major expense when considered in the overall cost of running his business, so why wouldn't you use FF, even if just to avoid having to convince people ASPC was just as good.

[Pål Jensen]

After all for a pro photographer the camera is a tool of the trade and not a overly major expense when considered in the overall cost of running his business, so why wouldn't you use FF, even if just to avoid having to convince people ASPC was just as good.

APS is in fact better now than my 645 film camera. It is is good enough. The Q can compete with 35mm film.
Cameras are business expense. No reason to use more money than necessary.
The buyer of the finished product have no clue or interest in 99% of the cases of what format the photographer is using (in most cased they don't even know what format means).

[ElJamoquio]

I used to see a different pro every week, for about three years perhaps? Never saw one of them using an APS-C. Most of them were using 5DII's or 1Dwhatevers.

[Cee Cee]

Cameras are business expense. No reason to use more money than necessary.

agreed, but depends on what you consider necessary
1. as a business expense it's tax deductable and can be depreciated over a number of years.
2. as a tool for your business it will be used constantly for several years and may take 100K images (3.5c per image for $3500 as apposed to 1.2c per image for $1200 aspc), but the point being this cost for a camera is minor compared to rent for a studio, automobile expenses, utility charges etc. and all the other ongoing cost's involved in running a business

I think the cost difference for FF vs ASPC is only a consideration for semi professional & hobby photographer.

[clackers]

The Q can compete with 35mm film.

I'm afraid your massive generalisations have lost me, Pal.

You had no statistics to back up your 'pros don't use FF' claim and now there's this mud in the face of our film-using brethren!