[Kayaker-J]

The APS-C is already developed, I'm not sure where the cost reduction is?


Sony has a product for you! (quite a few, actually). Please, allow us (the 79% of the ILC market) to continue liking DSLRs for a while. Pretty please, with a cherry on top?

Nope... actually they don't. Half-baked doesn't count. Especially at near-$2K and above prices. That's why I bought a K3 for my return to photography. I like having an E-PL5/VF-4 as a complement, though. Old guys can even focus Takumars at f.1.4 on a VF-4.

BTW, you needed my permission?

P.S.- I also know from long past experience what there is to appreciate about an SLR, or a rangefinder for that matter (having cut my teeth photographically-speaking on a factory fresh Leica M3 double stroke as a toddler)... owning Nikon F, F2as, F4s, FE, FE2, FM2n, FG20, N75, N80; Nikkormat FT-2, FT-3, EL2... Pentax PZ-1p, ZX-M, ZX-5, ME Super, Spotmatic F; Chinon CM-4... as well as Canon Rebel G & FTb-n; Yashica 108; Olympus OM-10; a box of AF Minoltas + lenses just dumped on me recently by an old school chum: all of these latter "just in case" I find interesting adaptable lens candidates to try out... and, of course, there's the Miranda Sensorex, in case I just have to look the coolest with a camera. -- Fred

P.S.S.- While I'm at it, let's just throw in the Yashica MAT124-G and Fujifilm GW690 II to round out the picture. Yes... I guess it is kind of embarrassing, seeing 'em all listed there. 😮 ...Oh, shoot, and I forgot the Contax G's...

---

Last edited by Kayaker-J; 07-04-2014 at 11:15 AM.

[Fogel70]

The point was to reduce costs. Develop one viewfinder for FF, use it for APS-C too.

The manufacturing cost for a pentaprism is probably pretty linear to the mass of the glass need for the prisrm. A FF pentaprism probably need 2-3x the mass of a APS-C pentaprism.

Using FF prism in both FF and APS-C will save some cost for the FF DSLR, but will make the prism in APS-C much more expensive.
Making FF 5% cheaper by making all APS-C DSLR 25% more expensive might not be the best strategic plan when APS-C is 90+% of the sales.

[Kayaker-J]

The manufacturing cost for a pentaprism is probably pretty linear to the mass of the glass need for the prisrm. A FF pentaprism probably need 2-3x the mass of a APS-C pentaprism.

Using FF prism in both FF and APS-C will save some cost for the FF DSLR, but will make the prism in APS-C much more expensive.
Making FF 5% cheaper by making all APS-C DSLR 25% more expensive might not be the best strategic plan when APS-C is 90+% of the sales.

...more expensive, and heavier... TOP heavier -- exactly the wrong place for the additional mass.

It's the 90+ percenters who keep our cameras at Pentax prices, not Leica prices. We enthusiast types win when they win. And the 90-percenters, in substantial majority numbers, simply don't grasp the M-ICL concept yet -- all the marketing metrics point to that. Bigger is better: they do remember that. And that can't last in this segment... for many reasons.

---------- Post added 07-04-14 at 01:25 PM ----------

Wow... This thread is moving fast! I have to agree with Kunzite here. Leaving out valueable features that can be toggled on/off anyway will only shoot Pentax in the foot. Just like going only halfway with the sensor... that doesn't even exist.

I've tried the A7s in the store. That low light capability sure is something. Then yesterday I was shooting a dimly lit indoor sports event with my K5. Oh that sensor would be great in a high FPS DSLR. So, what about using that ultra-sensitive A7s sensor in a Pentax DSLR? It fits the Pentax image of a durable camera that can shoot in bad conditions... So, low light conditions too. Moreover, there is no DSLR yet with that sensor.

It would certainly have something extra over a mediocre try-to-please-all 24/36mp late-to-the-party why-would-anybody-get-one FF DSLR.

You certainly have a point with that last observation. One big reason I personally chose NOT to go finagle my best deal this year on a full frame DSLR, new or used -- despite owning Nikon lenses -- was the fact that the D600/610 and such are just SO mediocre in concept, design, and execution. K3 was just a more all-around versatile and satisfactory picture taking device. I would have preferred not to take on the compromises of a DSLR* for camera #1 -- with reference to MY anticipated needs -- because again, you nailed it: "new" DSLR models are ALREADY looking kind of late to the party. This is true, even if most of the mass market consumers are still further behind the curve in catching onto their existing options: consequently, this situation permits the development of DSLR alternatives to plod ahead with incremental improvement and scattershot variety, but not much in the way of striking innovation.

The flat or declining, zero net growth camera market speaks volumes here, folks.

The bottom line is, the conventional contemporary DSLR, assembled the traditional obsolescent way, largely presents neat solutions to vanishing problems (by way of differentiation from other cameras). I'm ready for real 21st Century stuff whenever they're ready.

* For example, three independent mechanical systems needing to be set into near perfect alignment -- by manual labor -- for truly accurate AF and MF function... and they NEVER are; without competent, aftermarket professional tech intervention?! ..."Back focus" issues and tuning in individual lenses?! Honestly, give me a break here, as soon as it can be arranged.

[Poit]

Nope... actually they don't. Half-baked doesn't count. Especially at near-$2K and above prices. That's why I bought a K3 for my return to photography. I like having an E-PL5/VF-4 as a complement, though. Old guys can even focus Takumars at f.1.4 on a VF-4.

BTW, you needed my permission?

P.S.- I also know from long past experience what there is to appreciate about an SLR, or a rangefinder for that matter (having cut my teeth photographically-speaking on a factory fresh Leica M3 double stroke as a toddler)... owning Nikon F, F2as, F4s, FE, FE2, FM2n, FG20, N75, N80; Nikkormat FT-2, FT-3, EL2... Pentax PZ-1p, ZX-M, ZX-5, ME Super, Spotmatic F; Chinon CM-4... as well as Canon Rebel G & FTb-n; Yashica 108; Olympus OM-10; a box of AF Minoltas + lenses just dumped on me recently by an old school chum: all of these latter "just in case" I find interesting adaptable lens candidates to try out... and, of course, there's the Miranda Sensorex, in case I just have to look the coolest with a camera. -- Fred

P.S.S.- While I'm at it, let's just throw in the Yashica MAT124-G and Fujifilm GW690 II to round out the picture. Yes... I guess it is kind of embarrassing, seeing 'em all listed there. 😮 ...Oh, shoot, and I forgot the Contax G's...

Out of idle curiosity (and totally off topic), given your photographic experience how have you enjoyed your return to photography with the K-3?

[cfraz]

And the 90-percenters, in substantial majority numbers, simply don't grasp the M-ICL concept yet -- all the marketing metrics point to that.

LOL. My preference for my SLR over any MILC for much of what I shoot is not due to a limited grasp of the MILC concept. The DSLR has advantages for how and what I want to shoot that no (current) MILC can do. It is absolutely and without question a matter of capabilities, rather than not having sufficiently explored the MILC option.

I have no problem with folk lobbying for their favorite form factor, but to characterize those who have made other choices as just not groking the concept is simply incorrect.

When a MILC is made which I prefer to my SLR, then it will be in my camera bag instead. Here's an idea that you may find interesting to think about: for some people, a DSLR is in fact a better choice - based on objective and demonstrable criteria- than a MILC.

[RonHendriks1966]

LOL. My preference for my SLR over any MILC for much of what I shoot is not due to a limited grasp of the MILC concept. The DSLR has advantages for how and what I want to shoot that no (current) MILC can do. It is absolutely and without question a matter of capabilities, rather than not having sufficiently explored the MILC option.

I have no problem with folk lobbying for their favorite form factor, but to characterize those who have made other choices as just not groking the concept is simply incorrect.

When a MILC is made which I prefer to my SLR, then it will be in my camera bag instead. Here's an idea that you may find interesting to think about: for some people, a DSLR is in fact a better choice - based on objective and demonstrable criteria- than a MILC.

I do wonder wich things you think can not be done with the Olympus flagship? OMD-M1

[kadajawi]

Hm. You guys do have a point, especially the weight/top heaviness thing. Still, if they can pull it off I'd be willing to sacrifice a bit of portability for a viewfinder that extends beyond what the sensor can record. But I might be in a minority.


As for MILC vs DSLR... I like the concept of MILC, but so far prefer a DSLR. I'm sure that will change eventually. I'd say lag is still an issue, at least on the cameras I have tried. Also resolution/screen quality is not there yet, though I haven't tried the OM-D E-M1 yet. If I can't distinguish pixels anymore, on a screen with high contrast and good colours (i.e. OLED), and one that is at least as big as that of manual SLRs, and without lag (or at least a very, very small amount), then for me the point has been reached where I'll gladly switch. It will happen, but when...

[mecrox]

Hm. You guys do have a point, especially the weight/top heaviness thing. Still, if they can pull it off I'd be willing to sacrifice a bit of portability for a viewfinder that extends beyond what the sensor can record. But I might be in a minority.


As for MILC vs DSLR... I like the concept of MILC, but so far prefer a DSLR. I'm sure that will change eventually. I'd say lag is still an issue, at least on the cameras I have tried. Also resolution/screen quality is not there yet, though I haven't tried the OM-D E-M1 yet. If I can't distinguish pixels anymore, on a screen with high contrast and good colours (i.e. OLED), and one that is at least as big as that of manual SLRs, and without lag (or at least a very, very small amount), then for me the point has been reached where I'll gladly switch. It will happen, but when...

It's not really the top end $$$ that matters, perhaps. The question is what the broad middle expects, which is where the majority of sales are. If the general perception there is that EVFs have gotten good enough, even if not yet good enough for top-dollar customers, well ... For example, the majority of Fuji's sales, I'd guess, are not of the flagship X-T1 but of the cheaper models.

Personally I hope that Ricoh signal a commitment to the future by bringing out a new mirrorless mount, which sooner or later they will be obliged to produce anyway. Otherwise, I fear that "MIrrorless? Yes No Maybe. We are studying the market" will replace the FF soap opera and, as with that, by the time a new mount looks quite possible the market has become so well established that Ricoh have nowhere to go which isn't already occupied by someone else.

[Kayaker-J]

I do wonder wich things you think can not be done with the Olympus flagship? OMD-M1

You know, Ron, this guy invented a straw man "saying" about 180° the OPPOSITE of what I've explicitly written in multiple posts in this very thread (and many others) -- attached MY moniker to it -- and went on the attack. Comically, he selects a line of mine out of context to quote as being my personal, biased opinion*; which in fact refers not to anyone's individual opinion so much, but exclusively to the collective market research and sales data trends that have been published... and to a collective majority perspective (once more, explicitly stated). And he takes PERSONAL offense. Good luck trying to have an intelligent discussion with this person: maybe, get out while the getting is good! -- Fred

* Funny -- since I just bought a K3 DSLR, as noted multiple times here, and I don't even do much action or sequence photography. So don't hope for logic from cfrazzled.

---------- Post added 07-05-14 at 07:20 AM ----------

LOL. My preference for my SLR over any MILC for much of what I shoot is not due to a limited grasp of the MILC concept. The DSLR has advantages for how and what I want to shoot that no (current) MILC can do. It is absolutely and without question a matter of capabilities, rather than not having sufficiently explored the MILC option.

I have no problem with folk lobbying for their favorite form factor, but to characterize those who have made other choices as just not groking the concept is simply incorrect.

When a MILC is made which I prefer to my SLR, then it will be in my camera bag instead. Here's an idea that you may find interesting to think about: for some people, a DSLR is in fact a better choice - based on objective and demonstrable criteria- than a MILC.

The next time you compose a pathetic, self-absorbed fictional account of some posting here to ridicule -- which is at COMPLETE variance from what was explicitly, and at length, actually said -- please leave my name off of it. In fact, I'd suggest you find somewhere else entirely to indulge your immaturities and complete disregard for logic or semantics. -- F.

[philbaum]

I have no problem with folk lobbying for their favorite form factor, but to characterize those who have made other choices as just not groking the concept is simply incorrect.

When a MILC is made which I prefer to my SLR, then it will be in my camera bag instead. Here's an idea that you may find interesting to think about: for some people, a DSLR is in fact a better choice - based on objective and demonstrable criteria- than a MILC.

I don't remember anyone characterizing those making other choices as not "groking" the concept. Quite the opposite, anyone discussing mirrorless often gets reminded that this is a Pentax forum, or that its like I've said something inappropriate in a church. But i agree with you, its all about picking the right TOOL for the right photo. And i have nothing but admiration for anyone producing an artful image, whether it be from a film camera, a conventional DSLR, or - wait for it - even from a god-forsaken mirrorless camera.

Its all good. As a vice-pres of a photo-club, i started a monthly Thursday afternoon gallery walk where we take a snap picture (with the permission of the gallery) of the best art each of us can find that month, take a simple pic back to our discussion area - and explain and discuss what composition/colors/toning practices led to such an excellent achievement. We don't restrict our discussion to just photos but paintings as well. Art is art from any source.

When you say "a DSLR is in fact a better choice", my mind jumps to this question: "for what purpose". A bird shooter in our club has 2 D4s, 200-400 f2.8 lens and a 600 f4 lens. He doesn't go anywhere that isn't accessible by car and a short walk. He and his wife use wheeled carts to carry their equipment and special gimballed tripods to the observation points. To use this equipment for street shooting would be laughable. Even weddings are a different venue than walking along a street and taking candid shots. Thankfully, Ricoh-Pentax seems to understand this disparity between applications. They market everything between the Q mount cameras and the 645Z - except a FF.

Have you ever used one of the more recent APS mirrorless cameras? No offense if you haven't. But i have both types and switch between them sometimes on a daily or weekly basis depending on what i'm doing. I worry about the future of Pentax. I cheer whenever they make a breakthru model like the K3 and the 645Z. But at the same time, i'm aware of some advantages of the mirrorless models now coming out. I don't want to see Pentax with its rich history of superb photographic design fade into history as more modern technology eclipses what they can bring to market.

Nikon, Canon, Pentax - are they leading edge tigers or are they "about to be extinct dinosaurs"? Are photographic historians going to look back at this period of time and wonder why these storied companies didn't take more effective actions to adapt to new technologies? What do the K01, the M-mount and the Nikon 1 mount all have in common? Perhaps my concern is misplaced, perhaps these companies will not become the latest Kodak, heading for the chopping block. We shall see.

[cfraz]

I do wonder wich things you think can not be done with the Olympus flagship? OMD-M1

It starts with the EVF* - as good as the viewfinder is in the M1, I still have the feeling that I'm taking a picture of a picture. I just lose interest at that point. That's just how my brain works. I don't expect anyone else to understand or to react like that.

The last time I mentioned that on PF, I was accused of having hidden motives for attacking EVFs, that my mind was "rubbish, obviously" and a third attribute I won't repeat. So if you think I'm nuts you're probably right (and I tend to agree).

* Actually it "starts" with the on switch. With most everything else done so well handling-wise, why did they make turning on and off the camera a two handed operation?

---------- Post added 07-05-14 at 07:26 AM ----------

You know, Ron, this guy invented a straw man "saying" about 180° the OPPOSITE of what I've explicitly written in multiple posts in this very thread (and many others) -- attached MY moniker to it -- and went on the attack. Comically, he selects a line of mine out of context to quote as being my personal, biased opinion*; which in fact refers not to anyone's individual opinion so much, but exclusively to the collective market research and sales data trends that have been published... and to a collective majority perspective (once more, explicitly stated). And he takes PERSONAL offense. Good luck trying to have an intelligent discussion with this person: maybe, get out while the getting is good! -- Fred

* Funny -- since I just bought a K3 DSLR, as noted multiple times here, and I don't even do much action or sequence photography. So don't hope for logic from cfrazzled.

---------- Post added 07-05-14 at 07:20 AM ----------



The next time you compose a pathetic, self-absorbed fictional account of some posting here to ridicule -- which is at COMPLETE variance from what was explicitly, and at length, actually said -- please leave my name off of it. In fact, I'd suggest you find somewhere else entirely to indulge your immaturities and complete disregard for logic or semantics. -- F.

Yes, my post did come across as personal and I apologize to you specifically and to other readers as well. That was not my intent! I've read many of your well reasoned posts and believe you have a lot to contribute to PF.

The idea that the marketing folks have determined that people are still buying DSLRs because they don't understand MILCs is what I wanted to refute. I understand them perfectly and use one on occasion. I just don't like shooting through an EVF- I lose interest and go do other things. Understanding is not the issue, liking is.

If you substitute "conclusion from marketing metrics" for a personal response about you in my post, that comes closer to what I wanted to say.

Again, I apologize for a poorly written post that sounded like a personal attack.

[Kunzite]

cfraz, I find the EVF image artificially looking and tiring (including the latest and greatest - I know very well there's a huge difference between different EVFs out there). It's just like looking into a monitor vs. looking through the window. But people see differently so I don't expect anyone to be similarly affected, or care.
It's a good thing I've chosen a brand which sticks with what I want.

I don't remember anyone characterizing those making other choices as not "groking" the concept. Quite the opposite, anyone discussing mirrorless often gets reminded that this is a Pentax forum, or that its like I've said something inappropriate in a church. But i agree with you, its all about picking the right TOOL for the right photo. And i have nothing but admiration for anyone producing an artful image, whether it be from a film camera, a conventional DSLR, or - wait for it - even from a god-forsaken mirrorless camera.

It's few posts above yours: "And the 90-percenters, in substantial majority numbers, simply don't grasp the M-ICL concept yet -- all the marketing metrics point to that. Bigger is better: they do remember that. And that can't last in this segment... for many reasons.".
It's the pure truth, right? we have "all the marketing metrics" and "many reasons" - which are supposed to be so obvious no examples were given.

On a Pentax forum, supposedly filled with Pentax K-mount users, we're being told that Pentax should rebadge Sony, that DSLRs are obsolete and should die (and so should the K-mount), etc. We're being told that our choice is wrong and theirs is right, and all the market should conform to their thinking - no brand should be allowed to continue making DSLRs. In the past we would be told that we're insane for not going Canon or Nikon.
I see you have a problem with the people who don't accept the message; I cannot understand why though. Isn't choice good? There are so many brands making MILCs, what's wrong with 3 brands continuing to make DSLRs?

Nikon, Canon, Pentax - are they leading edge tigers or are they "about to be extinct dinosaurs"? Are photographic historians going to look back at this period of time and wonder why these storied companies didn't take more effective actions to adapt to new technologies? What do the K01, the M-mount and the Nikon 1 mount all have in common? Perhaps my concern is misplaced, perhaps these companies will not become the latest Kodak, heading for the chopping block. We shall see.

The question is FUD. But I have a better idea: why don't we simply forget the mirrorless hype war, and buy the products we want - the camera makers will adapt to the market.
So far most people are buying DSLRs (~79%), I doubt we'll see a conclusion too soon.

[Kayaker-J]

It starts with the EVF* - as good as the viewfinder is in the M1, I still have the feeling that I'm taking a picture of a picture. I just lose interest at that point. That's just how my brain works. I don't expect anyone else to understand or to react like that.

The last time I mentioned that on PF, I was accused of having hidden motives for attacking EVFs, that my mind was "rubbish, obviously" and a third attribute I won't repeat. So if you think I'm nuts you're probably right (and I tend to agree).

* Actually it "starts" with the on switch. With most everything else done so well handling-wise, why did they make turning on and off the camera a two handed operation?

---------- Post added 07-05-14 at 07:26 AM ----------



Yes, my post did come across as personal and I apologize to you specifically and to other readers as well. That was not my intent! I've read many of your well reasoned posts and believe you have a lot to contribute to PF.

The idea that the marketing folks have determined that people are still buying DSLRs because they don't understand MILCs is what I wanted to refute. I understand them perfectly and use one on occasion. I just don't like shooting through an EVF- I lose interest and go do other things. Understanding is not the issue, liking is.

If you substitute "conclusion from marketing metrics" for a personal response about you in my post, that comes closer to what I wanted to say.

Again, I apologize for a poorly written post that sounded like a personal attack.

Accepted completely. Completely. Thank you very much for your gracious response. You know, when you go out on that limb to try to really SAY something... something that may get a few people thinking in a different way... just so they can experience a different perspective, and not to strong-arm an opinion on anyone... well, you do take a few risks. My view is that a diversity of ideas is a very good thing; I just like ideas, and batting them around. I welcome those ideas I may disagree with just as much, if they are well reasoned and constructive in intent.

I confess I just don't get it when some folks -- and I'm not speaking of you here -- just insist on being so ploddingly conservative and narrowly focused that it can be hard to get a somewhat different point across at all. Take it, or leave it, that's fine. Just try to get it before you leave it. Or, especially, argue with it. That's the idea, and I don't understand why that would be upsetting to anyone. But, of course, I know I can't expect it to always go that way, because people are just different. It goes with the territory... of being human. Looking out in a subjective way is about the best we all can do, except for adopting the proven methods of critical thinking as a "tool"; as a regular reality check -- a process that can go by different names, but is typically understood as employing the collective elements making up the scientific method. In this world view, empirical evidence meeting certain standards is not casually dismissible as merely another opinion.

For my money, I'm especially curious to know about any viewpoint that does feel new and different to me. Regardless of what disposition I finally give to those new ideas, if they're constructive -- especially if they're imaginative -- I'm just glad they passed my way. I think I've been educated, even bettered in some small way, by the exposure. I've felt that way about it all my life. And I like to be forward looking, as much as I can; because the rest of the world isn't going to wait on me to get with it... and change is inevitable. Here in the U.S., you hear a lot of political types of several vocations vowing to "take it back", or "take us back". Inevitably, that better place, better time never really was in the first place -- it's a fantasy, a very sad, distracting one. Things evolve, and they don't pay that much attention to dogmas. Oops, well, I got a little philosophical there!

As to the M-ILCs, the data shows a greater understanding and acceptance elsewhere than here in the States. As you can tell from reading some threads here, Pentaxians among a group of camera-wielders frequently report a "What are you doing with THAT?!" reaction to their K-cameras from the hoard of Canon and Nikon owners. Sure, it's uncomprehending snobbery. I guess my point would be, if so few U.S. DSLR users are prepared to grasp the idea of a Pentax, how are people pretty much like them, shopping for a camera, going to be so clever as to grasp the idea of a quality M-ILC as a DSLR equivalent/alternative for their own particular requirements? The principal at work here is: you don't get rich by selling people what they need; you get rich by selling them what they THINK they need. Not the same thing. And sometimes, too bad, really.

Anyway, I'm perfectly happy with the choice anyone else makes, if they're happy. I'd just qualify that by saying that it can be a problem if too many people make too many mediocre to bad choices -- that can impact severely the choices I get to make. That's just the way it works, but I do think it's kind of sad if most of us folks, not just me, end up losing a little bit because of unwise considerations or lack of gumption to demand better -- under circumstances which don't necessarily have to be the case. Too Utopian? Ha, ha. Well, thanks again for the kind response, and good luck to you in your pursuit of this hobby! -- Fred

...Oh, BTW, I think it's safe to say those EVFs are just going to get better. I haven't seen the latest Fuji iteration, but a few people I'd tend to trust seem to be A-OK with it. And I can tell you fairly unequivocally, a lot of us older guys really need 'em if manual focusing is on the agenda -- and some of that certainly should be for nearly every serious DSLR user: AF is not always trustworthy enough.

[kadajawi]

At least why I think Pentax should do a proper mirrorless camera is because that's where the future will be, and it's good place yourself early enough. EVFs will one day be good enough to compete with OVFs, though at this point I'm not a fan.


One big advantage though is that you won't get a badly exposed photo anymore. I have my screen turned off, because frankly I find it annoying, but since I don't always review my photos that also means that sometimes the exposure is just completely wrong, or a part of the photo is blown out, etc. Having a real time preview of exactly what you're going to get would help a lot.


When I look at a 4K video on a 4K TV it looks real, more or less. Colours etc. aren't perfect, sadly, in that regard a good plasma screen will easily beat any 4K TV. They just look more real.


At some point we'll get such a screen in a camera... processors are also getting faster, sensor readouts, ... low light will pose a problem, but otherwise...


So if we assume that one day mirrorless will dominate, and DSLRs are seen as obsolete technology only used for certain applications like sports photography where any lag is a big problem (then again, sports photographers might record short bursts of 4K video and then extract the right moment), then camera makers need to gain experience and start creating a lens line up that's appropriate.


As for the K-01... I think it failed because not everyone is into product design, and photographers may tend to be a bit... conservative and form follows function, and because people didn't understand the concept (Pentax didn't help either). A lens that really, clearly demonstrated the advantage of the system (that a K-01 with a, say 18-55 lens would be as compact as a NEX with an 18-55 lens, but much easier to hold and use) could have helped perhaps.


I hope if, well, when Pentax releases a proper APS-C or FF mirrorless they will make it as thin as possible at the lens mount, but with a pronounced grip and EVF. It would look odd without lens, but could lead to a nice compact combo with a lens that is still easy to hold, and has good balance.

[Kayaker-J]

cfraz, I find the EVF image artificially looking and tiring (including the latest and greatest - I know very well there's a huge difference between different EVFs out there). It's just like looking into a monitor vs. looking through the window. But people see differently so I don't expect anyone to be similarly affected, or care.
It's a good thing I've chosen a brand which sticks with what I want.


It's few posts above yours: "And the 90-percenters, in substantial majority numbers, simply don't grasp the M-ICL concept yet -- all the marketing metrics point to that. Bigger is better: they do remember that. And that can't last in this segment... for many reasons.".
It's the pure truth, right? we have "all the marketing metrics" and "many reasons" - which are supposed to be so obvious no examples were given.

On a Pentax forum, supposedly filled with Pentax K-mount users, we're being told that Pentax should rebadge Sony, that DSLRs are obsolete and should die (and so should the K-mount), etc. We're being told that our choice is wrong and theirs is right, and all the market should conform to their thinking - no brand should be allowed to continue making DSLRs. In the past we would be told that we're insane for not going Canon or Nikon.
I see you have a problem with the people who don't accept the message; I cannot understand why though. Isn't choice good? There are so many brands making MILCs, what's wrong with 3 brands continuing to make DSLRs?


The question is FUD. But I have a better idea: why don't we simply forget the mirrorless hype war, and buy the products we want - the camera makers will adapt to the market.
So far most people are buying DSLRs (~79%), I doubt we'll see a conclusion too soon.

Say, I just caught your little trick of trying to bury a personal insult aimed at me under cover of pretending to respond to a post by philbaum. Not clever enough by half. The following paragraph, then, is so disjointed and buckshot wide in its spewing of anger that I can't exactly figure out which parts of it you were aiming at me, and which parts, if any, you intended for philbaum, or whomever.

I do know that nothing you are ranting about there actually pertains in any meaningful way to some idea I expressed here. My only advocacy here, if you insist on characterizing it as that, has been for two things: 1. The camera I recently bought with hard cash, choosing it over all other options -- a DSLR. (Your 2¢ doesn't stack up so well, does it?) ...and 2. A camera that doesn't exist yet, but which I think ought to. It's odd how you feel the suggestion of such vaporware has impinged upon your freedom of choice.

If you can take a couple of stiff drinks, as necessary, and screw up the courage, why don't you take your complaints to me directly? Or not, since I don't think you have a legitimate complaint here. I'd rather you didn't, actually, if you could just agree to lay off in the future. It's kind of sad the way you think other people have such overbearing control over your life. I hope you feel better soon. As for the marketing metric thing, I guess I have to say, bring the evidence that demonstrates how much more broadly savvy the majority of your 79%-ers are now about camera options than they were in, say, 2008. When the numbers supporting a largely two horse race haven't changed much, it typically means the underlying causes haven't changed much either. And your taking it all personally is just... off the wall. Calm down.