Originally posted by reh321 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.
That's your personal opinion, other personal opinions may differ and be just as accurate and relevant..
If you're going to argue for a MILC, surely you have to have more than a personal opinion based on no definable criteria.
I tend to look at criteria like easier to use. For my viewfinder I want to see the subject. That is the primary function of the viewfinder. The Pentax OVF gives me information relevant to exposure, level etc. the opinion of the MILC crowd is it's worth sacrificing low light performance for added information. Yet I have trouble comprehending why I need that information.
In the discussion of MILC, my only question is, why would I pay for that? One of our forum members , who I totally trust uses an A9 instead of a K-1 for weddings. But he still likes his K-1 for other things. So my question would be "what is in it for me?"
If we aren't talking about that, as far as I'm concerned we aren't talking about anything but personal preference. Most on the forum made our decision to buy a camera with a mirror. We voted with our wallets. Next time we buy cameras we may see it differently. But, last time it took less than 15 minutes to determine EVF wasn't what I wanted for a view finder.
It was a step down in what i want from a view finder. Barely adequate by my standards. You can pass that off as personal preference, but it's that preference that MILC has to overcome to grow. Pleasing the`current fans for whom MILC works now for isn't going to grow MILC. It has to be better.
I doubt those of us who grew up on hand held light meters are ever going for MILC. We know how to function without much tech built into the cameras and won't want to change our optical work environment. I think a lot of youngsters grew up in doors on electronic devices as oppose to being out in the real world. Maybe they'll like MILC. I have trouble envisioning people like myself going for it. Especially if it just changes, but doesn't improve my working environment or IQ.
In my mind there is one issue. EVF seriously degrades in low light, especially with slower glass. OVF doesn't. That's not opinion, that's fact. At least it was 4 years ago, and I haven't heard different recently.
When I got my K-1, there was simply no MILC camera that gave me anywhere the value my K-1 did, and don't even try and do the 20 MP Canon or 24 MP Sony is just as good. That blows your credibility right there.
Why am I wrong in thinking MILC is nothing more than big bucks for less IQ for those of us who shoot a lot of landscape and wildlife? To me it seems to be money wasted on un-necessary frills. That's personal opinion. But it's an opinion MILC needs to change if it's going to grow.
Pentax themselves said, "it's not there yet". They are a conservative company. I have trust they represent my conservative values, in camera preferences.
Everyone wants to talk about Pentax doing MILC, no one seems to want to talk about what MILC has to do better to attract Pentax users. This should be a two way discussion. It's clearly the discussion taking place at Pentax, and their verdict. is "MILC isn't there yet." Apparently Sony standards are a bit lower.
Last edited by normhead; 09-10-2018 at 10:05 AM.