Originally posted by derelict I do shoot RAW and only RAW. The thing is, with mirrorless, I can play with the shadows and highlights in the EVF adjusting the curves before taking the photo. Much better than shooting and hoping that you can recover some elements in PP. My argument has nothing to do with 'knowing what you are doing.' My argument is that mirrorless affords you the ability to see a much better approximation of the final product than a DSLR can and allows it to happen in the EVF as you are taking the photo. RAW can do many things but it cannot save a crappy photo.
As for birding and wildlife, what is the argument there? Requiring more batteries? Oh dear me! That 1/10 of a pound is going to be the difference! Oh please.
ANY modern camera is best for people who do not know what they are doing. There is no such thing as a bad camera anymore. All, in auto mode, take fantastic photos with meters that are pretty damn close to perfect. All that is left now is for people to bicker about things like having to carry an extra battery. If that is your sole reason for discounting a burgeoning, and possibly [the] future, market, then have at it. Just know that that reason is pretty weak. The OP asked for differences. Differences were given. Sure, shooting RAW can solve many things but the reality is the closer to vision you can make a photo, the less PP you have to do. If I can play with the curve ahead of time, in camera while taking the shot, I will know exactly what to do when I sit down and load the card into LR. When you can do that AND reduce a full frame camera body to the size of the APSC KP, those strike me as good things. Mirrorless is making strides and is the future. I do not think that Sony, Olympus, Sigma, Nikon, Canon, Fuji, Hasselblad would be investing in it so heavily if it were not. Pentax will eventually get there. Or not. If they do, and offer the features the others do as well, I will be back in the fold. Until then, I am a Pentax film shooter and an Olympus digital shooter. I really want a K7. I really also do not want to carry around a 2.25 lbs (without lens) body.
---------- Post added 09-20-17 at 11:52 AM ----------
And as you operate your K1 in live view, you are consuming more battery life. What are the advantages of an OVF? It is not coverage as EVFs give 100%. It certainly is not that it bends reality as you will bend reality in PP all while looking at your frame in the digital space. It certainly is not some increase in shutter speed as the combination mechanical and electronic shutters on mirrorless are blindingly quick.
The disadvantage of an EVF is, I'm out in nature. An OVF allows me to see what's there, not what a sensor can capture And I continue to enjoy nature looking through wide angle lens or telephoto. If I want to see electronics, I sit on my sofa. It's all about my enjoyment of the process.
MY original digital cameras were mirrorless point and shoots. Digital has always had mirrorless options. Whether or not they are the future is yet to be determined. They certainly won't be part of my future. Whether or not it's increasing or decreasing is another question entirely, and I'd have to ask "starting form when?" Certainly when I bought my first Casio 800x600 or Sony Mavica they were almost all mirror less. Based on myself, for top quality images mirror less is doomed. Fortunately I realize I'm one guy and don't try and project my opinions onto the rest of the population. And to be honest, I don't care if the rest of the population are all using mirrorless and Pentax is the only one left using those archaic OVFs, I'll still be with them. By this time everyone who wants an EVF has one, and it's a long way from "everyone". Canon Sony Fuji and Nikon ditching their mirrors will just mean I cross them off my list of things to be aware of when I make my next purchase. IN fact I wish those guys would all go mirrorless right now and vacate their traditional DSLRs that would be really good for Pentax. Pentax would pick up a lot of disgruntled users.
Over time I've been through a lot of fads with a lot of cameras. I'm smarter than to try and predict which one might take over the world of photography. 99% of those making such predictions are wrong. And the fact that most of them considered themselves to be spokesmen for the "new age" in no way improved their understanding of what the future might be.
Oh by the way, my reference about shooting wildlife and birds was in reference to taking one image, the best one. Wildlife and especially small birds often don't afford you the opportunity to do that. Things happen so quickly if you aren't shooting a burst you are going to miss out. If you were the photographic genius you make yourself out to be, you would have known that.
Way to often people who try and put a beat down on me find it going the other way. Especially those who think because they shoot mirrorless they are god's gift to photography and all the folks who don't are dinosaurs.
Pentax execs said, "we are looking into mirrorless but it isn't there yet." I approve of that message.
You might want to adjust your attitude. Pentax and Ricoh makes many mirrorless cameras, but Ricoh has decreed that Ricoh will do mirrorless, Pentax will do DSLRs. Another thing you would have known when you started your anti-mirror rant and speculation that should Pentax getting into it, if you were half as smart as you pretend to be.
To me the biggest disadvantage to mirrorless is frame rate and lag in low light. I understand a .5s lag in my shutter speed, not in my view finder. When mirrorless solves that they'll be on the road. Some folks still won't like them, but at least they'll be on the road. Until then, they're driving on the shoulder.