[2351HD]

Because the whole point of going EVF is to get rid of the mirror - which is one of the primary size constraints of SLRs, get rid of the mirror and the length of the K mount flange becomes redundant. Therefore, if the K1 was equipped with an EVF there would be no point in holding onto the K mount flange, get rid of that, and you would basically have a Sony A7xx clone.

Take a lesson from Biology: Clones do not give rise to innovation and change, they are just copies. Copies that cannot adapt in response to a changing and shifting marketplace.

See I do not entirely agree with that. Just because you go mirrorless does not mean that you need to reduce the flange distance, make lenses with steep ray angles and special microlenses on the sensor.

All I want is a FF mirrorless camera in a normal sized DSLR body that is easy to use and supports all lensed from wide angle to large tele.

Why so much emphasis on being small?????

[Kunzite]

Because it makes no sense to give up on optical reflex viewfinders and still keep a large, now unused&empty compartment. That would become a competitive disadvantage, and as they're building new lenses, one harder and harder to 'fix'.

However, the price i.e. adopting the inadequate EVF technology is too high; that's why the K-1 will sports a superior OVF

[2351HD]

Superior in your view, remember that. Have you seen into the EVF on a Leica SL yet. Stunning. You can hardly call it "inadequate".

I personally don't see the problem with having lens designs free of the constraints of a short flange distance, ie what we have now, but with empty space in front of the sensor. Its not un-competitive at all.

My main beef with mirrorless is that they are too small, buttons are hard to use with gloves on, lenses are no smaller, harder to hold. Why is everybody obsessed with everything being small......I just don't get it.

Focussing systems are the only thing holding us back right now from moving forward with EVF cameras.

[Kunzite]

Superior in my view (and many, many others'), according to objective assessments of my needs and preferences. Please tell me, was your "mirrors are dead" anything that your subjective, unsubstantiated view?
Yeah, the same story over and over again: "but that was the older model, the new one is so amazing!". Riiight. Last "amazing" EVF I've tried gave me instant - and literally painful - eye fatigue due to interference with artificial lightning.

What I'm saying here - OK, you like EVFs and it's your right to do so. However, don't dis-consider those of us for which OVFs works better.
And since Pentax is a SLR brand by tradition, its user base is (mostly) formed by people preferring DSLRs. Don't even dare to say that Pentax supporting us is a mistake.

Regarding to your other point, with a short registration distance you can still make a large camera (if you want so). The A7 II series with their battery grip will be larger - except in thickness - than the K-1 without one.

[falconeye]

But a majority of work done is stills oriented, because of the versatility,simplicity and lower set up and breakdown times.

I talked about a point in future beyond 2020. Where said drawbacks may be overcome, incl. cost. Btw, the noise advantage of still has already disappeared with the A7sII 4k capture.

One has to take into account that BRIESE light is and always was very expensive. So, what they observe may be a jump in time too as money can solve technical hurdles almost as well as time does.

You're right, for a majority of studios currently, movie isn't that important today.

[Digitalis]

You're right, for a majority of studios currently, movie isn't that important today.

I can't speak for Asian, US, or European studios, just what I know here in Australia.

One has to take into account that BRIESE light is and always was very expensive

The 190cm and 120cm Elinchrom Litemotiv light modifiers are a step in the right direction, they are reasonably priced. Though they lack the light focusing ability of the BRIESE lightshaping tools.

[2351HD]

Superior in my view (and many, many others'), according to objective assessments of my needs and preferences. Please tell me, was your "mirrors are dead" anything that your subjective, unsubstantiated view?
Yeah, the same story over and over again: "but that was the older model, the new one is so amazing!". Riiight. Last "amazing" EVF I've tried gave me instant - and literally painful - eye fatigue due to interference with artificial lightning.

What I'm saying here - OK, you like EVFs and it's your right to do so. However, don't dis-consider those of us for which OVFs works better.
And since Pentax is a SLR brand by tradition, its user base is (mostly) formed by people preferring DSLRs. Don't even dare to say that Pentax supporting us is a mistake.

Regarding to your other point, with a short registration distance you can still make a large camera (if you want so). The A7 II series with their battery grip will be larger - except in thickness - than the K-1 without one.

I am out of this discussion, sorry.

With that belief structure, you would still have us using CCD sensors and no live view, having to do questionable AF adjustment to every lens and you would be driving to site in a model T Ford, because how dare anybody tell you that you should be driving in anything with innovative features such as power steering.

Pentax is not a SLR company, they are a company who makes cameras and if cameras need to have X to remain in the game, they will have X.

One more thing, ease up on the aggressiveness too, when somebody comes here and dare suggests that their likes are somewhat different to yours, don't treat them like they have just strung your pet dog up in a tree by its neck, it doesn't promote healthy discussion. Smiley faces at the end of sentences just don't cut it. All your argument is, is that you love OVFs, no supporting info on why it's better other than you love it and apparent market research says so, nothing technical.

I will say in closing that I feel I am justified in my statement of mirrors are dead. Everything that comes along with having a mirror assembly, the mirror, AF system and viewfinder (not to mention reliability) are what's keeping the camera as we know it from moving to the next generation. If Canon had the sensor tech, ISO gain, refresh rate, AF tech, the next 1D series would not have a mirror because it would fix way more than it would break. If they all could leave the mirror assembly behind tomorrow, they would be leaving in droves and mirrors would be left for special edition retro cameras like the Nikon DF.

If we never start to innovate, we never ever will reach the next pinnacle and will always be battling with inventing new tech to hone more out of our old tech, not realising that it's the old tech that's holding us back in the first place.

My apologies for offending you so much with my opinions.

[Kunzite]

You are completely wrong about my "belief structure". My belief structure is based on everyone's right to choose whatever tools works best for them, which is done by going with a brand most suited for that. Not by choosing a brand known for making different products, then try to change it into something else - and the existing users are supposed to cope with that.

By the way, I have a CMOS-equipped, video-capable DSLR, and I'm driving a modern Toyota with electric power steering. Your attempt to portrait me as some pseudo-luddite is honestly lame.

As for the aggressiveness, once again I'll remind you how you declared, "mirrors are dead" - on a forum mostly of SLR users, on a market where reflex OVF users vastly outnumbers EVF users. Perhaps that wasn't your intention, but by that you completely disregarded our opinion. This is IMHO the same as saying, "your choice is wrong".

And FTR I don't have to defend my opinion, nor to enter a pointless debate about which technology is generally superior; I'm merely informing you of it.

[Zygonyx]

My own belief structure was that we would read no more debates re. mirrorless versus SLR FF, as Ricoh wisely did the right choice
=» i am wrong
For the time being...

Secondly, i thought there was no risk to force (really)serious customers buying "father/mother" devices, in an attempt to merge two very different kind of art and practices, that are video and still photography.
=» i am, and will be right. Just because even 8k will never reach today and tomorrow's medium format output quality.

[Kenntak]

Yes, I mean what kind of reaction do you expect with a presumptive conclusion that mirrors are dead.

It's a shame that technology has achieved such prominence in the art of photography. Many photographers sound like computer people now. I know several painters and other traditional artists for whose work technology has had little influence, let alone a dominating influence. Some posts on internet forums seem to suggest that if one does not have the newest camera body with all of the latest cutting edge technology, they cannot be successful or even a good photographer.

One of my best friends photographs strictly in film, and develops his film in black and while in his own darkroom. He does professional work, and is happy. I would not tell him that his art is dead because he is not using a digital camera.

I think many of us forget that art is different things to different people and whether the artist is happy with his or her work, and what a third person takes away from it is paramount, not whether the artist's tools could have been improved.