[DamienW]

I think it comes down more to the fact that the KP has a substantial amount more resolution so it'll show the flaws a bit more. Though I've had some good luck with the peaking mode.

That makes sense, hadn't given that thought.

Wonder if anybody will ever come up with the tech to do focus peaking overlayed in an OVF.

[ThorSanchez]

Buddy, there's a mirror in the OVF. It's well known that Perseus used a K-10D.

Hmmm... no rangefinders, then?

[clackers]

Hmmm... no rangefinders, then?

All those frozen statues around her lair? Leica and Rollei owners.

[kadajawi]

Ok, so I own a Panasonic GX80 with a 12-32 pancake and a tiny 35-100. I also had a Panasonic G9 with the 12-60 Leica lens (f2.8 to f4 I believe) as well as the 17mm Leica. I'd say the G9 together with those lenses are pretty much the pinnacle of mirrorless cameras.

Shutter lag is a thing of the past. Especially with the G9. It is so small I don't notice it.
The EVF on the G9 is huge. And I mean huge. IMHO bigger than most FF DSLRs, if not all. And it is sharp. I can also change its size, for example if I wear glasses and otherwise can't see the entire viewfinder.
The EVF lets me see what I get, and not what real life looks like. This, IMHO, is a massive advantage. I usually shoot with the screen off, so with my K-5 I'd take plenty of shots, and when I actually try to review one of them, I'm shocked that the exposure is way off. Not happening with a mirrorless. Shooting Pentax lenses I set the camera to M and dial in all the settings by hand. Now I know plenty of you can do that and nail it without seeing a preview and histogram. But I can't. For me, mirrorless makes using manual lenses easy.
This is also true for focusing manual lenses. Having a much larger viewfinder, a brighter viewfinder in dark environments, helps too. Certain features like focus peaking or being able to zoom in on a part of the image are also really useful.
The flange distance being very short, it means you can mount just about any lens on your mirrorless camera. Great if you like thrift shopping.
The balance argument is valid in some cases. Sony in particular is a bad offender when it comes to ergonomics IMHO. Rest assured other brands can be much smarter.
The G9 is roughly the size of my K-5. It is a BIG camera, especially considering the small sensor. However the lenses aren't. This is of course in parts because of the smaller MFT lenses. But FF lenses CAN be smaller too, just look at Leica. The problem is that buyers seem to strive for perfection, leading to ridiculous lenses. Many things can and should be fixed in software. In any case, the G9 felt very nicely balanced, even with bigger lenses.
Mirrorless cameras don't need a big mirror flopping around. That means they CAN be quieter.
You can shoot in live view with a viewfinder and aren't forced to use the display.

There are of course also disadvantages, especially battery life. They simply aren't as good. Not by a long shot.
And most mirrorless lenses tend to have electronic focus rings, which usually suck.

Some things, especially those related to EVFs, could be fixed by a hybrid viewfinder. However I don't see the point of that... it is only really useful with the mirror in the up position, but then you might as well use a mirrorless camera.

There really is only one advantage for DSLRs IMHO: Here, what mostly counts towards battery life is the number of images you are taking. But with mirrorless what counts is the time the camera is on and ready. You could run out of batteries without having captured a single shot.

[Rondec]

Ok, so I own a Panasonic GX80 with a 12-32 pancake and a tiny 35-100. I also had a Panasonic G9 with the 12-60 Leica lens (f2.8 to f4 I believe) as well as the 17mm Leica. I'd say the G9 together with those lenses are pretty much the pinnacle of mirrorless cameras.

Shutter lag is a thing of the past. Especially with the G9. It is so small I don't notice it.
The EVF on the G9 is huge. And I mean huge. IMHO bigger than most FF DSLRs, if not all. And it is sharp. I can also change its size, for example if I wear glasses and otherwise can't see the entire viewfinder.
The EVF lets me see what I get, and not what real life looks like. This, IMHO, is a massive advantage. I usually shoot with the screen off, so with my K-5 I'd take plenty of shots, and when I actually try to review one of them, I'm shocked that the exposure is way off. Not happening with a mirrorless. Shooting Pentax lenses I set the camera to M and dial in all the settings by hand. Now I know plenty of you can do that and nail it without seeing a preview and histogram. But I can't. For me, mirrorless makes using manual lenses easy.
This is also true for focusing manual lenses. Having a much larger viewfinder, a brighter viewfinder in dark environments, helps too. Certain features like focus peaking or being able to zoom in on a part of the image are also really useful.
The flange distance being very short, it means you can mount just about any lens on your mirrorless camera. Great if you like thrift shopping.
The balance argument is valid in some cases. Sony in particular is a bad offender when it comes to ergonomics IMHO. Rest assured other brands can be much smarter.
The G9 is roughly the size of my K-5. It is a BIG camera, especially considering the small sensor. However the lenses aren't. This is of course in parts because of the smaller MFT lenses. But FF lenses CAN be smaller too, just look at Leica. The problem is that buyers seem to strive for perfection, leading to ridiculous lenses. Many things can and should be fixed in software. In any case, the G9 felt very nicely balanced, even with bigger lenses.
Mirrorless cameras don't need a big mirror flopping around. That means they CAN be quieter.
You can shoot in live view with a viewfinder and aren't forced to use the display.

There are of course also disadvantages, especially battery life. They simply aren't as good. Not by a long shot.
And most mirrorless lenses tend to have electronic focus rings, which usually suck.

Some things, especially those related to EVFs, could be fixed by a hybrid viewfinder. However I don't see the point of that... it is only really useful with the mirror in the up position, but then you might as well use a mirrorless camera.

There really is only one advantage for DSLRs IMHO: Here, what mostly counts towards battery life is the number of images you are taking. But with mirrorless what counts is the time the camera is on and ready. You could run out of batteries without having captured a single shot.

I guess you shoot straight out of camera jpegs? Because my experience is that EVFs show you a preview of the jpeg, not what your post processed RAW will look like. I suppose that is good enough, but it isn't truly see what you get. I am typically shooting underexposed by a stop to protect the highlights and the jpegs look dark.

Not sure about the K5 issue for you either. Chimp a couple of photos with blinkies on should serve the same purpose, I would think.

[kadajawi]

I guess you shoot straight out of camera jpegs? Because my experience is that EVFs show you a preview of the jpeg, not what your post processed RAW will look like. I suppose that is good enough, but it isn't truly see what you get. I am typically shooting underexposed by a stop to protect the highlights and the jpegs look dark.

Not sure about the K5 issue for you either. Chimp a couple of photos with blinkies on should serve the same purpose, I would think.

I have set my cameras to a flat profile, mostly for video, but that also helps with the preview the camera gives me, as it gets close-ish to the raw files. But it is true, the EVF won't represent the raw files. It's still a great help, because I get something that is safe. I don't have to shoot underexposed by a stop to make sure my highlights are ok, because I can see when they are overexposed. That's pretty much what I care about, the rest I can do in post. So I think I have phrased my previous posting wrongly. You see what the sensor sees, sort of, so you can use that information to judge if it is what you want/what you can work with. To me that's better than seeing reality, because reality may not be what the camera is able to capture.

Yeah, I could chimp. But that's not the way I like to shoot. And using an EVF I don't have to.

[Rondec]

I have set my cameras to a flat profile, mostly for video, but that also helps with the preview the camera gives me, as it gets close-ish to the raw files. But it is true, the EVF won't represent the raw files. It's still a great help, because I get something that is safe. I don't have to shoot underexposed by a stop to make sure my highlights are ok, because I can see when they are overexposed. That's pretty much what I care about, the rest I can do in post. So I think I have phrased my previous posting wrongly. You see what the sensor sees, sort of, so you can use that information to judge if it is what you want/what you can work with. To me that's better than seeing reality, because reality may not be what the camera is able to capture.

Yeah, I could chimp. But that's not the way I like to shoot. And using an EVF I don't have to.

I don't shoot under exposed to be safe. I shoot underexposed because I shoot landscape with high dynamic range and post process my images to death after the fact. Jpegs don't work for me and honestly, I get more from looking at a scene with my eyes before I ever raise the camera to my eye and look through the viewfinder. Because what is important first of all is light and subject and if those aren't there the rest is futile. The viewfinder is only about focus and composition.

A sharp, well focused image of a mediocre scene is a mediocre photo. Even the best EVF in the world won't change that.

[BigMackCam]

I don't shoot under exposed to be safe. I shoot underexposed because I shoot landscape with high dynamic range and post process my images to death after the fact. Jpegs don't work for me and honestly, I get more from looking at a scene with my eyes before I ever raise the camera to my eye and look through the viewfinder. Because what is important first of all is light and subject and if those aren't there the rest is futile. The viewfinder is only about focus and composition.

A sharp, well focused image of a mediocre scene is a mediocre photo. Even the best EVF in the world won't change that.

I think that's the main difference between those who prefer DSLR cameras and those who prefer mirrorless. It's really a very different mind-set... The DSLR approach is more about judgement; the mirrorless, more reliant on technology. Both are perfectly valid, of course, and result in photos where the viewer won't know or care which type of camera was used. My preference is still for DSLR when the use case allows, though there are occasions where some of the aspects @kadajawi mentions are useful to me...

[wstruth]

I think that's the main difference between those who prefer DSLR cameras and those who prefer mirrorless. It's really a very different mind-set... The DSLR approach is more about judgement; the mirrorless, more reliant on technology. Both are perfectly valid, of course, and result in photos where the viewer won't know or care which type of camera was used. My preference is still for DSLR when the use case allows, though there are occasions where some of the aspects @kadajawi mentions are useful to me...

Personally i think looking first and judging the scene holds true for no matter whether you shoot a mirrorless or shoot with a DSLR. Both will give you the same image if you do this, and both will give you a snapshot if you don't. Photography is what we the photographer make it. The camera is only a tool, that we use.

I have a micro 4/3 kit because of it's lighter weight and because I can use TTl flash with a manual lens. My lens selection is better with the KP and K-1. Their real advantage for me is low light shooting and having more wide angle lens options, I also like the fact that the KP will do in camera HDR on a raw image and I can't do that with my GX9. I find that the rear LCD is a great tool for composition especially when the camera is on a tripod and that applies to both systems.

[BigMackCam]

Personally i think looking first and judging the scene holds true for no matter whether you shoot a mirrorless or shoot with a DSLR. Both will give you the same image if you do this, and both will give you a snapshot if you don't. Photography is what we the photographer make it. The camera is only a tool, that we use.

I should have been a little more specific in my previous post...

I agree, the creative aspects of shot require the same judgement for both DSLR and mirrorless shooting. What I was suggesting is that a DSLR requires more judgement regarding the technical aspects - correct exposure, accurate focus, DoF (to some extent - as DoF preview on DSLR isn't always practical in lower light / smaller apertures), how the final scene will be rendered etc. With mirrorless - or using live view - these can be all be checked at the time of the shot, and many photographers will work this way because the capability is there. And that's fine... It can be extremely useful, in fact. But whilst I enjoy shooting mirrorless when the need arises, I get an additional satisfaction from the judgement aspect required with a DSLR.

That said, you're quite right - they're all just tools

[Rondec]

The point is always the image. As you say, Mike, these are tools. I do think that people make way more to do about the viewfinder then they should. The negatives of EVFs to me have more to do with decreased battery life and the fact that they give some users (like me) headaches when we use them much. Otherwise they are fine and probably help those who shoot manual lenses a lot (I don't). OVFs are fine too.

I have seen multiple people switch from OVF cameras to EVF cameras and honestly, the photos they post after the switch are basically the same. It's a small sample size, but to me, it says that this really doesn't make or break most images. People who shoot great images with OVF cameras will continue to do so if they switch to cameras with EVFs and those who shoot average ones will do the same, regardless of the viewfinder.

[kadajawi]

I don't shoot under exposed to be safe. I shoot underexposed because I shoot landscape with high dynamic range and post process my images to death after the fact. Jpegs don't work for me and honestly, I get more from looking at a scene with my eyes before I ever raise the camera to my eye and look through the viewfinder. Because what is important first of all is light and subject and if those aren't there the rest is futile. The viewfinder is only about focus and composition.

A sharp, well focused image of a mediocre scene is a mediocre photo. Even the best EVF in the world won't change that.

I meant you shoot underexposed in order to make sure that the highlights are all there... that's how I understood it. You don't trust the meter enough that it protects all highlights. Same holds true for me. The advantage that you'd have from using a mirrorless camera with EVF is the same that I have: Instead of generally underexposing, even where it may not be necessary, I can judge more precisely (not perfectly, mind you) in the EVF and dial in just the right values. When a channel, like for example blue, is overexposed, I'm getting blinking lights. I can change the exposure. As it IS using a JPEG as basis it is quite conservative, but that just makes sure that I'm getting the most and best data for post processing. If you underexpose in general, like I used to do and sometimes still do, you might end up with severely underexposed images that need quite a boost and thus are noisier than necessary.

As for looking at a scene before raising the camera to the eye... that's a good thing, and I try to do the same. The camera doesn't matter. You can even do that with a smartphone. I'm also having a couple of lines displayed in the viewfinder to aid me with the composition.

I think the difference between DSLRs and mirrorless is that you get a clearer image of what you're getting with mirrorless, while with DSLR, there needs to be more experience to get exactly the right settings. Given enough experience with a camera, a photographer can estimate what the exposure meter is going to do and blindly dial in the required compensation. And like BigMackCam said, a DSLR shooter needs to be able to imagine the results while the mirrorless shooter will see the result. The G9 even adjusted the viewfinder image to the shutter speed settings, i.e. if you set it to 1 second, the viewfinder would be updated once every second. That makes it rather easy to get the results that you wish to get. WYSIWYG basically.

As such, I think it's clear why newer photographers tend to enjoy mirrorless cameras. It doesn't require the experience. And for those who do have the experience, there is no disadvantage. This explains the popularity of these cameras.

[Rondec]

I meant you shoot underexposed in order to make sure that the highlights are all there... that's how I understood it. You don't trust the meter enough that it protects all highlights. Same holds true for me. The advantage that you'd have from using a mirrorless camera with EVF is the same that I have: Instead of generally underexposing, even where it may not be necessary, I can judge more precisely (not perfectly, mind you) in the EVF and dial in just the right values. When a channel, like for example blue, is overexposed, I'm getting blinking lights. I can change the exposure. As it IS using a JPEG as basis it is quite conservative, but that just makes sure that I'm getting the most and best data for post processing. If you underexpose in general, like I used to do and sometimes still do, you might end up with severely underexposed images that need quite a boost and thus are noisier than necessary.

As for looking at a scene before raising the camera to the eye... that's a good thing, and I try to do the same. The camera doesn't matter. You can even do that with a smartphone. I'm also having a couple of lines displayed in the viewfinder to aid me with the composition.

I think the difference between DSLRs and mirrorless is that you get a clearer image of what you're getting with mirrorless, while with DSLR, there needs to be more experience to get exactly the right settings. Given enough experience with a camera, a photographer can estimate what the exposure meter is going to do and blindly dial in the required compensation. And like BigMackCam said, a DSLR shooter needs to be able to imagine the results while the mirrorless shooter will see the result. The G9 even adjusted the viewfinder image to the shutter speed settings, i.e. if you set it to 1 second, the viewfinder would be updated once every second. That makes it rather easy to get the results that you wish to get. WYSIWYG basically.

As such, I think it's clear why newer photographers tend to enjoy mirrorless cameras. It doesn't require the experience. And for those who do have the experience, there is no disadvantage. This explains the popularity of these cameras.

Newer photographers don't actually care. They want something that functions like a point and shoot. They shoot jpegs out of camera. With a kit lens. Most of the people I know who have purchased ILCs lately have purchased 500-ish dollar SLRs and are fine with them for what they are doing -- snapshots of their families in lowish light.

It is actually only Forumites who actually care about things like OVF and EVF and which is better. Most of the rest of the world (even those who shoot ILCs) couldn't care less.

[kadajawi]

Newer photographers don't actually care. They want something that functions like a point and shoot. They shoot jpegs out of camera. With a kit lens. Most of the people I know who have purchased ILCs lately have purchased 500-ish dollar SLRs and are fine with them for what they are doing -- snapshots of their families in lowish light.

It is actually only Forumites who actually care about things like OVF and EVF and which is better. Most of the rest of the world (even those who shoot ILCs) couldn't care less.

Mh. I think there certainly are those people, but they also existed in the days of DSLRs. And IMHO, if all you care is decent snapshots in lowish light, get a good smartphone. As long as you don't look too closely, they can be surprisingly good. And as there are multiple cameras for multiple focal lengths, they are also quite flexible.

There are also "serious" photographers shooting mirrorless, otherwise I guess there'd be no market for the Sony alpha 7 series, for Fuji or higher-end Panasonic and Olympus cameras. The G9 and GH5 are every bit as professional as a K-3 or K-1 is.

[monochrome]

Mh. I think there certainly are those people, but they also existed in the days of DSLRs. And IMHO, if all you care is decent snapshots in lowish light, get a good smartphone. As long as you don't look too closely, they can be surprisingly good. And as there are multiple cameras for multiple focal lengths, they are also quite flexible.

There are also "serious" photographers shooting mirrorless, otherwise I guess there'd be no market for the Sony alpha 7 series, for Fuji or higher-end Panasonic and Olympus cameras. The G9 and GH5 are every bit as professional as a K-3 or K-1 is.

So serious photographers shoot MILC and DSLR, as is their preference. Snapshooters use phones or entry level DSLR’s mostly. Who is buying all these A7Rlll’s? I guess millennials with money in their jeans who don’t see any reason to learn how to expose or focus when technology will do the work for them.

For my case, I don’t have any need whatsoever for eye-level histograms or focus peaking, so those benefits are dead to me. If I do need that stuff situationally it is available on the LCD and it doesn’t take any longer to use than the OVF would. Small size benefited isn’t really correct any more and battery life is always just ignored, as is the MILC 35-40% price premium that yields no IQ benefit, only cool tech.

I really don’t get it.