[reh321]

I think you did not understand my point, I was referring to customer purchase logic where "most likely Pentax MILC will have a K mount is not considered" by the OP. It makes no sense to be frustrated by Pentax not offering a MILC with a different lens mount. Anyway, from customer standpoint, one of the benefit of a mirrorless system is to be smaller and lighter that is why MILC are designed with a new mount with shorter flange distance. That means, ultimately the customers buying mirrorless camera also will buy new lenses for the new mount. That is as costly as switching brand. Here, a lot of the opinions such as "I don't need to buy new lenses, I'll get an adapter" are short term fallacies. You will see that in the long term, people will renew their lenses completely, just look at Sony MILC customers, they now get G master lenses. The "foot in the door" sales technique is being used all the time, and customers know it, but since they desire to buy something new, they act like if they are not aware of the "foot in the door" technique. When Pentax release the K1, they said "With the K1, you can use ALL the lenses you already own" (implting = "you don't have to spend money on the lenses") , oh yes,and after that they sold the DFA28-105, DFA24-70, DFA70-200, DFA150-450, and now DFA*50, and customers are now complaining that new lenses aren't coming fast enough. The promise of MILC is the same, the promise is , with the adapter you won't need to buy new lenses you'll be able to use the lenses you currently own; what happens immediately after is they sell new lenses for the MILC new mount.

Yes, I personally believe there was a "bait and switch" with the K-1 .... by the users. As I've said many times here at PF, before the K-1, people were saying things like "all I want is a camera that will enable my 50mm to act like a 50mm lens", so Pentax gave them the K-1 and several basic lenses ..... and now they want all new lenses and demand to know why it is taking so long. Pentax has said they are focusing on K-mount now, and I believe they will stick with that. If they were to produce a K-mount MILC, it would not be much smaller than the KP - but it would have all the other benefits listed

2. Manual focus - magnification and focus peaking
3. Metering with manual lenses - just set to Av mode, Auto ISO and close down the aperture accordingly (no need green button metering)
4. Histogram on EVF (even with manual lenses)
5. Blown highlights on EVF
6. Cheaper to make (for the sake that Pentax stays profitable)..

That would be the only reasons for producing it. Pentax has clearly demonstrated they are too busy making new lenses now and should not be lured into anything that would require even more of them.

[reh321]

I do believe they tried that. I spent a few minutes with the K-01 and was unimpressed with the form factor and handling. A decent EVF might make for a better viewing experience, but would not provide the compact form expected from a MILC. In other words, the size would be similar to the K-1 with much of the bulk being in the form of 45.46 mm of empty space between sensor and lens flange.

Some people look forward to a much smaller camera with happiness, and some look forward to a much smaller camera with dread. Pentax would fulfill neither set of expectations. People already complain that the KP doesn't "balance" long lenses well - whatever that means. In the age of film we used long lenses with cameras no larger than the KP or K-01, and people who wanted the other benefits of MILC would rediscover using the left hand to provide the necessary support; those who don't want to do that will continue to purchase DSLR. This is not complicated.

[biz-engineer]

Yes, I personally believe there was a "bait and switch" with the K-1 ...

Well, switching from apsc to full frame or switching from OVF to EVF is not the same thing. When getting a larger format, you spend the money but you get a bump is image quality and low light capability, and you also get more 3D rendering on FF with fast lenses. Switching to full frame cost a lot of money but you get at least 1 stop better IQ at same ISO. It's the same when having a FF camera and buying a medium format system, for the money you get even more image quality.

When switching from FF OVF to FF EVF, you have to spend a lot of money, but you get a few small benefits that are usable only for static shots for when you have time to get you eye off the EVF , turn the buttons , put your eye to the EVF again etc (histogram in EVF, blow highly in EVF), you can do that with a DSLR in LV mode (Pentax K1 also has an outdoor setting that bumps up the luminescence of the back LCD), but you get no improvement in image quality. So, if you buy a 24Mp full frame MILC for $2250 with 3 lenses for $1500 each, you pay $6750 for having the OVF replaced by an EVF, that bloody expensive for what you get !

Other case: I get interested in photography and I have a compact camera, I feel like the sensor is too small especially in low light I am not happy with images. I want to buy a full frame interchangeable lens camera, I have the choice between spending $7000 for a DSLR system or spending the same money for a Nikon Z6 with 3 lenses. What system should I buy? That's different, for the $7000 , I not only get an EVF but I also get a larger sensor that will give me better image quality for every shot I will take with the FF camera.

IMO, I can justify spending the $7000 for having a full frame camera with EVF, but I can justify spending $7000 for reading the histogram and blinkies in the viewfinder.

If I want to have fun with an EVF, there are cameras with good EVF that are a lot cheaper than a FF MILC. I can get a Panasonic LX100 (with lens) for less than $500, I get 16Mp with choice of 1:1, 4:3, 3:2 , 16:9 in the viewfinder, including 4K video, etc. All the features that are available with the new FF MILC, I can have them in micro 4/3 for a lot cheaper. Fantastic u43 images found here: https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/76-non-pentax-cameras-canon-nikon-etc/17...-club-160.html

[reh321]

Well, switching from apsc to full frame or switching from OVF to EVF is not the same thing. When getting a larger format, you spend the money but you get a bump is image quality and low light capability, and you also get more 3D rendering on FF with fast lenses. Switching to full frame cost a lot of money but you get at least 1 stop better IQ at same ISO. It's the same when having a FF camera and buying a medium format system, for the money you get even more image quality.

When switching from FF OVF to FF EVF, you have to spend a lot of money, but you get a few small benefits that are usable only for static shots for when you have time to get you eye off the EVF , turn the buttons , put your eye to the EVF again etc (histogram in EVF, blow highly in EVF), you can do that with a DSLR in LV mode (Pentax K1 also has an outdoor setting that bumps up the luminescence of the back LCD), but you get no improvement in image quality. So, if you buy a 24Mp full frame MILC for $2250 with 3 lenses for $1500 each, you pay $6750 for having the OVF replaced by an EVF, that bloody expensive for what you get !

Other case: I get interested in photography and I have a compact camera, I feel like the sensor is too small especially in low light I am not happy with images. I want to buy a full frame interchangeable lens camera, I have the choice between spending $7000 for a DSLR system or spending the same money for a Nikon Z6 with 3 lenses. What system should I buy? That's different, for the $7000 , I not only get an EVF but I also get a larger sensor that will give me better image quality for every shot I will take with the FF camera.

IMO, I can justify spending the $7000 for having a full frame camera with EVF, but I can justify spending $7000 for reading the histogram and blinkies in the viewfinder.

If I want to have fun with an EVF, there are cameras with good EVF that are a lot cheaper than a FF MILC. I can get a Panasonic LX100 (with lens) for less than $500, I get 16Mp with choice of 1:1, 4:3, 3:2 , 16:9 in the viewfinder, including 4K video, etc. All the features that are available with the new FF MILC, I can have them in micro 4/3 for a lot cheaper.

This is your opinion based on your values. For example, I have used wide aperture only when I need more light gathering capability; for my style, "3D rendering" is not a thing - context of subject is much more important to me. In addition, with Pentax cameras, as compared to Sony for example, I can make most adjustments without ever taking my eye away from the viewfinder. So, at this point we come to a discussion of styles, needs, and methods; I believe it is pointless to go around in circles because each person will naturally prefer his own style, needs and methods.

[biz-engineer]

For example, I have used wide aperture only when I need more light gathering capability; for my style, "3D rendering" is not a thing - context of subject is much more important to me

I understand your point of view, then you don't need a full frame camera whether it has an EVF or not. That means, Pentax doesn't need to make a mirrorless full frame camera (answer to this thread). On the other hand , if Pentax made a K30 with an EVF, at the price of a K30, you'd be happy with it. Micro 4/3 isn't far off apsc IQ, has cheap camera models, and a large selection of lenses.

[reh321]

I understand your point of view, then you don't need a full frame camera whether it has an EVF or not. That means, Pentax doesn't need to make a mirrorless full frame camera (answer to this thread). On the other hand , if Pentax made a K30 with an EVF, at the price of a K30, you'd be happy with it. Micro 4/3 isn't far off apsc IQ, has cheap camera models, and a large selection of lenses.

This is a non-response. Discussion of benefits of any MILC go way beyond "FF MILC". There are lots of reasons for getting "FF" that have nothing to do with DOF and there remain the various advantages of MILC, which have nothing to do with the fact that a "FF" camera is involved.

[Rondec]

This is your opinion based on your values. For example, I have used wide aperture only when I need more light gathering capability; for my style, "3D rendering" is not a thing - context of subject is much more important to me. In addition, with Pentax cameras, as compared to Sony for example, I can make most adjustments without ever taking my eye away from the viewfinder. So, at this point we come to a discussion of styles, needs, and methods; I believe it is pointless to go around in circles because each person will naturally prefer his own style, needs and methods.

I shoot mainly stopped down as well and I do find that the K-1 gives a significant bump in image quality over APS-C cameras I have used. I think the point is that if you use the same exposure/settings on a camera with an EVF versus one without you will find that the image quality is roughly the same, although some cameras with EVFs have sacrificed a bit of dynamic range for higher read out speeds.

If you don't need better high iso or dynamic range at lower isos, then that is fine. Clearly people have made the same arguments for not buying an ILC at all and sticking with their smart phone or a bridge camera.

---------- Post added 09-09-18 at 04:59 PM ----------

Yes, I personally believe there was a "bait and switch" with the K-1 .... by the users. As I've said many times here at PF, before the K-1, people were saying things like "all I want is a camera that will enable my 50mm to act like a 50mm lens", so Pentax gave them the K-1 and several basic lenses ..... and now they want all new lenses and demand to know why it is taking so long. Pentax has said they are focusing on K-mount now, and I believe they will stick with that. If they were to produce a K-mount MILC, it would not be much smaller than the KP - but it would have all the other benefits listed
That would be the only reasons for producing it. Pentax has clearly demonstrated they are too busy making new lenses now and should not be lured into anything that would require even more of them.

Personally, I would like to see Pentax try to produce a small, but still full featured full frame SLR. Clearly they can down size things quite a bit when they try. I own the K-S1 and it isn't very much bigger than the K-01 and it has a full pentaprism viewfinder. But the market is clear as well that specifications probably are more important than size and people would rather buy an A9 (if they can afford it) than an A7, even though the price is quite different.

I don't think there was any bait and switch. Most people are pretty happy with their K-1s and if there is an issue, it is that we were told things that didn't quite happen like "this (2018) is the year of the prime" for Pentax. I guess the statement should have been "This is the year of 'a' prime" and it would have been accurate. There was a roadmap and people rightly or wrongly assumed that two years after the release of the K-1 we would have an 85mm prime, a wide angle prime, and perhaps a 70-300 variable aperture zoom. This is the discouragement that folks are feeling -- not that they are unhappy with the current camera or the lenses.

[biz-engineer]

There are lots of reasons for getting "FF" that have nothing to do with DOF and there remain the various advantages of MILC, which have nothing to do with the fact that a "FF" camera is involved.

Anyway, the bottom line is, spending for a whole new FF system to get an EVF is ridiculously expensive, and that can't be ignored concerning the debate about DSLR versus MILC. The larger the sensor the more expensive is the move to EVF, making EVF unattractive gadget as sensors get larger. I'm afraid that despite what the marketing media want to sell us, MILC isn't enough value to justify the repurchase of MILC cameras and lenses.

[reh321]

Anyway, the bottom line is, spending for a whole new FF system to get an EVF is ridiculously expensive, and that can't be ignored concerning the debate about DSLR versus MILC.

Which is why they would produce a K-mount MILC system if they were going to produce any MILC system at all.

[biz-engineer]

I can make most adjustments without ever taking my eye away from the viewfinder.

I can also do it with my Pentax K1, the exposure level is displayed at the bottom of the OVF. Anyway, Pentax DSLR have 3 exposure metering modes, center, center weigthed and matrix, it's a lot more straightfoward than having the set exposure via exposure compensation by reading an histogram. If I want not blinkies in the sky I set the metering mode to matrix, if I prioritize a subject to be exposed correctly even if other parts of the images are overexposed or underexposed I use center weighted, and if the subject is smaller I use center metering. If I want to get the best possible exposure without blowing the highlights (ETTR), I set the metering to center point, I set the exposure compensation to +2ev, I point the camera to the brighter area of the frame and I press press AE_L , recompose and shoot, this way I use the max DR of my sensor with the highlight of the image exactly at the saturation level of the sensor, it's quick, it works every time. When shooting at events, there is no way to have time to adjust exposure by looking at an historgram and tracking the subject at the same time, in that case EVF bring no advantage at all. When I shoot event, I rely on automatic exposure as it is faster than any EVF thingie. And if the back ground is irregular, I use the manual mode, meter from the ambient light and keep the exposure setting as long as ambient lighting isn't changing.

[reh321]

I can also do it with my Pentax K1, the exposure level is displayed at the bottom of the OVF.

Information provided by EVF is different from what any OVF provides.

As far as the original statement is concerned, I was responding to your statement

you get a few small benefits that are usable only for static shots for when you have time to get you eye off the EVF , turn the buttons , put your eye to the EVF again etc (histogram in EVF, blow highly in EVF)

and pointing out that in a Pentax-implemented EVF, the "take your eye off the EVF" would not be necessary, so this argument wasn't relevant to this discussion.

[stevebrot]

Information provided by EVF is different from what any OVF provides.

Indeed, though there is some discussion regarding whether those features actually lead to easier use or better photos.


Steve

[reh321]

Indeed, though there is some discussion regarding whether those features actually lead to easier use or better photos.

I don't understand why the photos should be better or worse, since we are talking about user-interface only. "Better" arguments are purely personal opinion.

[jatrax]

I don't understand why the photos should be better or worse, since we are talking about user-interface only.

I suspect he meant that a 'better' photo (for some definition of better) can be achieved if the user interface makes it easier/faster/simpler to actually make a given photo. What features of an EVF that might improve the users ability to capture a particular image is what is questionable.

An example might be focus peaking in the EVF or highlight clipping showing on the EVF. Do those features result in a 'better' image? Maybe, maybe not.

[Wheatfield]

I anticipate we will see one or two of these threads a week for the foreseeable future.