[reh321]

How can this be?

As I responded to another post, these are two distinctly different classes of camera. Pentax has yet to enter the mirrorless market, and it doesn't look like it will anytime soon.

I can see the argument that they fill the same ecological niche - each is a smallish camera with a largish sensor. I can see the argument that someone who is deciding between cameras with no preconceived notions might have those two as finalists.

[jatrax]

I can see the argument that they fill the same ecological niche - each is a smallish camera with a largish sensor. I can see the argument that someone who is deciding between cameras with no preconceived notions might have those two as finalists.

Yes.
I suspect there are a number of reasons for an uninformed (say first time) buyer buying a MILC.
1) Initial impression is that the camera is much smaller than a DSLR. This largely goes away when buying good glass but casual users won't buy that glass anyway.

2) It's new (and thus has to be better than an 'old' DSLR)
3) The 'gadget' factor. The menus and options on a MILC are far more computer-like than a traditional DSLR. So they must be better, right?

4) The 'cute' factor. They don't look like your father's camera?

[UncleVanya]

Yes.
I suspect there are a number of reasons for an uninformed (say first time) buyer buying a MILC.
1) Initial impression is that the camera is much smaller than a DSLR. This largely goes away when buying good glass but casual users won't buy that glass anyway.

2) It's new (and thus has to be better than an 'old' DSLR)
3) The 'gadget' factor. The menus and options on a MILC are far more computer-like than a traditional DSLR. So they must be better, right?

4) The 'cute' factor. They don't look like your father's camera?

Forgive this question - I haven't been following the entire thread and I am unfamiliar with your gear and preferences:
What mirrorless platforms are you familiar with from first hand use?

I have owned two different mirrorless ILC's and several mirrorless fixed lens cameras. My own impression is very different from yours.

1) Good glass can be slow. Slow good glass and small primes are available and these are tiny for very high quality. Overcorrected fast lenses are huge and I am bothered by this trend in all types of photography.

2) Some people may indeed feel that way. I don't.

3) The gadget features are often not just cute and fun, they are very useful workflow tools. Being able to upload directly to facebook or instagram directly from the camera (or via strong integration to a phone) saves a lot of time and fits the needs of a certain segment. Taking high end video and composing a movie is a huge boon to a lof of the users. The very short registration distance that permits the use of older manual focus lenses opens a world of cool experimentation that is closed to users of most DSLR's.

4) If by cute you mean small and stylish - what's wrong with that? If someone wants to stick one in a purse or glove box because it is cute and they have it with them when something happens and use it over their smartphone - fantastic. Often a DSLR will just not fit where a slow lens or prime lens and small body mirrorless will.

Please note - some mirrorless lenses and cameras are huge compared to others. There is no great benefit in size to a G9 Panasonic with a Olympus 40-150 f2.8 on it compared to a KP with the DFA* 70-200 f2.8. But if you are invested in the ecosystem, sometimes it is worth stretching to a larger size in the same lineup to avoid maintaining multiple systems. (I don't subscribe to this view, I have both m43 and K).

EDIT - I selected the wrong lenses at first. These are closer in angle of view and quality.

[jatrax]

Forgive this question - I haven't been following the entire thread and I am unfamiliar with your gear and preferences:What mirrorless platforms are you familiar with from first hand use?

Absolutely none. And please note I said "uninformed, possibly first time" buyers. So that list is solely based on me wandering the camera displays at Best Buy and listening to people who are looking at cameras. None of those things on my list are in any way a criticism of MILCs. Just observations of people who have little or no camera experience.
There is (I am sure) a completely different list of reasons that informed (not first time) buyers would use. And I am completely unqualified to make that list.

[UncleVanya]

Absolutely none. And please note I said "uninformed, possibly first time" buyers. So that list is solely based on me wandering the camera displays at Best Buy and listening to people who are looking at cameras. None of those things on my list are in any way a criticism of MILCs. Just observations of people who have little or no camera experience.
There is (I am sure) a completely different list of reasons that informed (not first time) buyers would use. And I am completely unqualified to make that list.

Ah! Gotcha. I wonder what the uninformed DSLR buyer's list is... LOL. I come from a camera selling family - my dad sold Canon to dealers and then retail Nikon, Pentax, Canon etc. and then Pentax to dealers. I know all about the ways people thought about film cameras and how far from reality a lot of what they thought was. The internet has been a great leveler in terms of access to and distribution of information for consumers. If we had been that connected in the film era a lot of things would have been different.

[ThorSanchez]

I have owned two different mirrorless ILC's and several mirrorless fixed lens cameras. My own impression is very different from yours.

1) Good glass can be slow. Slow good glass and small primes are available and these are tiny for very high quality. Overcorrected fast lenses are huge and I am bothered by this trend in all types of photography.

I would be very interested in a small mirrorless APS-C body paired with a set of primes equivalent in quality and size to the DA limiteds.

[UncleVanya]

I would be very interested in a small mirrorless APS-C body paired with a set of primes equivalent in quality and size to the DA limiteds.

So in my mind the Panasonic and Leica primes are just that. But that's on m43. They aren't quite as lovely feeling, but the results are impressive. For a smallish body the Gx-7, gx-85, gx-9 works well. I don't love Sony. Samsung is sadly a dead system, and Fuji is very very proud of their product.
Olympus makes some nice lenses too - but again these are m43.

[BigMackCam]

Good glass can be slow. Slow good glass and small primes are available and these are tiny for very high quality. Overcorrected fast lenses are huge and I am bothered by this trend in all types of photography.

Well said. I couldn't agree more.

Highly-corrected lenses have valid applications, for sure, and I have no issue with their availability as part of a wider range. But I'd hazard a guess that some people are buying them for the wrong reasons - i.e. they think "well-corrected" equates to "better". It can, but it's simply not true in many circumstances. In a few, they can arguably be worse.

The relatively-simple FA and DA Limited lenses are all excellent, IMHO (I can only speak knowledgeably of the DA series, but I've seen enough admiration of the FAs to believe they're special). Some are better than others, depending on the individual's likes and dislikes, but they're all wonderful - and small. I like fast lenses as much as the next guy... they can be a lot of fun, and genuinely useful in some situations. But the DA21 (as just one example of the line), with it's very modest max aperture of f/3.2, is a cracking bit of glass. Tiny, lovely rendering, great colours and contrast, and light enough that you can carry it around all day, every day. Perhaps not a clear winner on the test-bench, but in real-world use, what's not to like?

[jatrax]

I wonder what the uninformed DSLR buyer's list is... LOL.

Not sure how 'informed' he was but my dad's method on cameras was to go to Best Buy and grab whatever was on sale at the time. He did that every 3 years or so. But he was a film guy and rather knowledgeable about film. To him the camera did not matter as much as the film. So when he moved to digital I think his thought process got a little stuck. He has an extensive assortment of non-functional cameras going back to the 1980's, all dumped in a drawer. Seemingly no two of the same brand either.....

[Marathonianbull]

Very refreshing news, thanks!

Got myself a second K-3 body today, let's call it a "drawer backup", so as to make sure that my current Pentax APS-C setup lasts as long as required.

[Lew Dite]

There is news in this thread somewhere? Could have fooled me.

[xmeda]

We need to put some spy in Ricoh.. to obtain at least some info. Asahiman is not useful much

[reh321]

There is news in this thread somewhere? Could have fooled me.

Did you read the very first post, post #1, in this thread?
That was news back then, although Pentax was unwilling to repeat that assurance at Photokina.

[str8talk83]

Did you read the very first post, post #1, in this thread?
That was news back then, although Pentax was unwilling to repeat that assurance at Photokina.

I think that’s the issue. A lot can change in a year and some reassurance from Pentax would have probably been nice for the Pentax APS-C community.

[Lew Dite]

I think that’s the issue. A lot can change in a year and some reassurance from Pentax would have probably been nice for the Pentax APS-C community.

Yup. One piece of news, 60 pages of speculation. Wake me when something happens.