[jarlaxle2k5]

I think that the best camera is always the one with you (better if it is a pentax) 😁👍

[Rondec]

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.

I'm not sure we are going to solve this, but people shot with their smart phones -- a lot. The issues with smart phone photography are (1) you are stuck with the lenses that are on the smartphone camera, (2) low light actually sucks on these if you print at any size (3) ergonomics are terrible for any sort of extended shooting. People figure that out pretty quickly and if they are at their kid's soccer game, they know that they are going to need a camera with a longer lens and bigger sensor.

As far as the G9, Panasonic has focused on video a lot and if that is important than the G9 is going to do very well. From a still photography standpoint, it is going to lag behind a K-1 II considerably.

To bring it back, EVFs give you a lot of "extra information" histogram in the viewfinder, focus peaking, and will show you what your out of camera jpegs will look like. They take extra battery life to run, often have some lag and get noisy in low light. They are here to stay, but unfortunately, even with the introduction of numerous new MILCs, that camera market continues to tank and SLRs continue to outsell them by a fair amount.

[kadajawi]

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.

Snapshooters use phones, entry level DSLRs or entry level mirrorless I'd say. Don't forget that there is also the Sony A6000, for example.

I don't think they don't see a reason to learn how to expose or focus... they still have to do it. In many case manually, when they are adapting lenses which otherwise would do it automatically for them. My DA 50 1.8 is an AF lens on my Pentax, but when I use it on the Panasonic it is MF. Thanks to the EVF it is easier to focus manually, but I still have to do it myself. Using a manual 50mm on the K-5 I'm having a hard time – I guess my eye-sight isn't as good.

Are you using AF then? Or do you focus manually? If the latter, then I congratulate you on your eyes. I had a split-prism in my *istDS, which did help a bit, but it wasn't perfect. The EVFs help me more. That's the thing with mirrorless. They make it easier to achieve the result that you want. You will still have to do the work, but you can see it. It takes the guesswork out of photography.

Does for you the A7 equal mirrorless? Yes, that is one too. But look at Fuji. They closely replicate the experience of shooting a traditional film camera and they are relatively compact.

And then there is Panasonic, which I went with. I've had the Panasonic Lumix GX80 in the two lens kit (12-32 and 35-100) for a review, and decided to buy the camera at full retail price because I liked it that much and it supplemented my Pentax perfectly. Why? The 12-32 is 2.8 cm deep and 70g heavy. The 35-100 is not much more than that. Both are stabilized. The body itself is relatively light weight and resembles something like a Leica M. It, too, is stabilized. It is a wonderful street camera, something that is unobtrusive and always with you. And I can mount older lenses, which weren't as big and heavy. A big reason for me was also the video functionality –*it is far better than it has any right to be at this price point. IQ is not quite as good as with my K-5, though the kit lenses are pretty damn good for the price, size and weight. I'd say they beat Pentaxes kit offerings. I always have this camera (and two lenses) with me.

I was also given a G9 for a few months, as I mentioned before. There the IQ is better than my K-5. I really enjoy the look of the raw files and can recover more. Only in lowest light situations I can get a smidgen more out of the K-5... but I also need to, as the stabilization of the K-5 isn't as good. In terms of controls I think Panasonic did a great job with the layout. For a MFT camera it is comically large, but that is because ergonomics. It lets you control more at a fingertip than a Pentax does, without having to dive into the menu system. I think, at a similar price point, it beats the latest K-3 offerings. It was around 1000 Euro for the body only, or something around 1300 with a Leica branded kit lens. Sometimes cheaper than that. And that kit lens is sharp as... it is very sharp and at f2.8-4 quite fast and well made. I'd say it competes with something like a Canon L or Pentax Limited. At 8.6 mm deep and 320g it is much smaller than a competing APS-C or FF lens. It is a wonderful tool for photography. Besides, it is great at video too, but that's not the point of this camera. There's the GH5 sister model for that. Oh and I enjoyed the tethering options.

Battery life... yes, that is a good point. And original batteries are expensive and should be taken into account. However there are also cheap alternatives, which do not hold the same amount of power, but since the GX80 batteries are so tiny, I just carry a couple of spares. My charger also charges two at a time, plus I can charge a battery in camera. That usually gets me through a day of intense shooting. The G9 gets much further, though not as far as the K-5. And, as I mentioned before, what matters is the time that it is on. Not how much you shoot. If I really pushed it, I needed 2 to 3 batteries a day, but that was basically all day use. Fortunately, it is compatible with the D-Li90 (though the charger won't charge the D-Li90.., but in camera charging works). And I can finally use the camera with a powerbank, which gives me near unlimited battery life if needed. For astrophotography I taped a big powerbank to the tripod. After a night of shooting there was still enough charge for another night like that left. And most of all, I don't need to touch the camera to replace the battery. With a Pentax I'd need accessories (that pass-through battery adapter, and something to convert the power into 12V).

What I don't understand is the Sony A7 with Sony lenses. I think those bodies are much more appealing with classic lenses, but I still don't understand the user interface and controls. You can't just pick those cameras up and understand how much of it works, while I'd say anyone shooting Pentax can pick up the higher-end Panasonics and get going.

Lets not forget a major appeal of these mirrorless cameras is the flange distance. They'll do it with everyone. That is a big strength which should appeal to many Pentaxians, if the acquisitions thread is anything to go by. Shooting those old lenses is easier than with a DSLR, if it even works. Pentax lenses not quite as much because of the way the aperture works, but still. This is something Pentax could do... a mirrorless K-mount camera with short flange distance. If you want to mount old K-mount lenses there is a mechanical adapter that lets you attach DSLR lenses and use them just like a DSLR. The adapter could include the screw drive motor. The camera could be shaped like the K-1000, for example.

If I had more space in this forum I'd post photos. I guess when my G9 review is finally done I can post links to the photos...

[kadajawi]

I'm not sure we are going to solve this, but people shot with their smart phones -- a lot. The issues with smart phone photography are (1) you are stuck with the lenses that are on the smartphone camera, (2) low light actually sucks on these if you print at any size (3) ergonomics are terrible for any sort of extended shooting. People figure that out pretty quickly and if they are at their kid's soccer game, they know that they are going to need a camera with a longer lens and bigger sensor.

As far as the G9, Panasonic has focused on video a lot and if that is important than the G9 is going to do very well. From a still photography standpoint, it is going to lag behind a K-1 II considerably.

To bring it back, EVFs give you a lot of "extra information" histogram in the viewfinder, focus peaking, and will show you what your out of camera jpegs will look like. They take extra battery life to run, often have some lag and get noisy in low light. They are here to stay, but unfortunately, even with the introduction of numerous new MILCs, that camera market continues to tank and SLRs continue to outsell them by a fair amount.

Yes, you are stuck with the lenses. But Huawei makes use of a 40 MP sensor to cover the areas between 1x (27mm) and 5x (125mm) zoom. The digital zoom at 2x is still pretty damn good thanks to the resolution, while starting from 3x it will use the 5x lens for the center, filling in the rest with the main camera. That works remarkably well, though switching to 5x gives you a boost in quality. Similarly, the ultra wide has 20 MP to give decent quality between 0,6x and 1x.

Ergonomics are bad. True. But low light doesn't suck. Sadly I don't have the photos with me now, but even zoomed in it can be good enough, depending on your settings (unfortunately the noise reduction is too strong for normal photos, but with night mode it collects more data, so that it doesn't have to denoise so much). I wouldn't use a phone for sports yet, but concerts etc. are fine.

And the thing to remember is that within the past 5 years, improvements have been insane. If this continues... after all, the best camera is the one you have with you. And that is usually the phone.

G9 and video... it depends. Apart from a section in the menu, a red button and the video icon on the mode dial you wouldn't notice it could even record video. Video isn't more in your face than it is with a Pentax. It was designed with photography in mind. That is what it has to be good at, what it was developed for. Has Panasonic artificially limited the video functionality? Hardly. Almost all of the things that Panasonic has developed and is capable of are in this camera, and if you want to use those, great. If not, they aren't in your way. Access is easy enough, though if you use video on a constant basis buy the GH5.

How does the G9 lag behind the K-1? Not in terms of speed I'd say. IQ... well, having a FF sensor does help, obviously. It's much more like an APS-C camera. Though keep in mind IS, especially with stabilized lenses, is extremely effective as the sensor is lighter and the camera can use stabilized lenses and the sensor in combination. So low light capabilities might not be that bad, depending on what you are shooting. And for me, the size and especially weight difference are a big plus for the G9. And I like the ergonomics a lot, though I haven't had much time with the K-1. I do miss the sensor shift image recomposition feature that Pentax has. I loved being able to recompose. The viewfinder I'd give a win to the G9, though the K-1 has a great viewfinder. It's not a night and day difference like it is with APS-C cameras.

As for the lag thing: Have you tried something like the G9? I don't recall any moment where I even noticed lag, let alone was bothered by it. Earlier mirrorless cameras were bad. The GX80 has some lag, though it is not excessive. But the latest crop can be really good. So much that it won't be an issue.

DSLRs outselling mirrorless... I haven't checked the numbers, but I recall that when I was asking for a camera for review I wanted to try the Nikon Z6. The response was that we sell so few Nikons, it's not worth it. Nikon has become irrelevant by that time. That Nikon and Canon launched FF mirrorless cameras, and good ones at that, clearly reflects the shift in the market. They wanted to stick with DSLRs, but they couldn't.

[Rondec]

Yes, you are stuck with the lenses. But Huawei makes use of a 40 MP sensor to cover the areas between 1x (27mm) and 5x (125mm) zoom. The digital zoom at 2x is still pretty damn good thanks to the resolution, while starting from 3x it will use the 5x lens for the center, filling in the rest with the main camera. That works remarkably well, though switching to 5x gives you a boost in quality. Similarly, the ultra wide has 20 MP to give decent quality between 0,6x and 1x.

Ergonomics are bad. True. But low light doesn't suck. Sadly I don't have the photos with me now, but even zoomed in it can be good enough, depending on your settings (unfortunately the noise reduction is too strong for normal photos, but with night mode it collects more data, so that it doesn't have to denoise so much). I wouldn't use a phone for sports yet, but concerts etc. are fine.

And the thing to remember is that within the past 5 years, improvements have been insane. If this continues... after all, the best camera is the one you have with you. And that is usually the phone.

G9 and video... it depends. Apart from a section in the menu, a red button and the video icon on the mode dial you wouldn't notice it could even record video. Video isn't more in your face than it is with a Pentax. It was designed with photography in mind. That is what it has to be good at, what it was developed for. Has Panasonic artificially limited the video functionality? Hardly. Almost all of the things that Panasonic has developed and is capable of are in this camera, and if you want to use those, great. If not, they aren't in your way. Access is easy enough, though if you use video on a constant basis buy the GH5.

How does the G9 lag behind the K-1? Not in terms of speed I'd say. IQ... well, having a FF sensor does help, obviously. It's much more like an APS-C camera. Though keep in mind IS, especially with stabilized lenses, is extremely effective as the sensor is lighter and the camera can use stabilized lenses and the sensor in combination. So low light capabilities might not be that bad, depending on what you are shooting. And for me, the size and especially weight difference are a big plus for the G9. And I like the ergonomics a lot, though I haven't had much time with the K-1. I do miss the sensor shift image recomposition feature that Pentax has. I loved being able to recompose. The viewfinder I'd give a win to the G9, though the K-1 has a great viewfinder. It's not a night and day difference like it is with APS-C cameras.

As for the lag thing: Have you tried something like the G9? I don't recall any moment where I even noticed lag, let alone was bothered by it. Earlier mirrorless cameras were bad. The GX80 has some lag, though it is not excessive. But the latest crop can be really good. So much that it won't be an issue.

DSLRs outselling mirrorless... I haven't checked the numbers, but I recall that when I was asking for a camera for review I wanted to try the Nikon Z6. The response was that we sell so few Nikons, it's not worth it. Nikon has become irrelevant by that time. That Nikon and Canon launched FF mirrorless cameras, and good ones at that, clearly reflects the shift in the market. They wanted to stick with DSLRs, but they couldn't.

I am not sure about Huawei, but comparing a camera like the KP and the iphone XS Max or the Google Pixel XL 3 shows a 5 EV difference in terms of dynamic range at iso 800. That might have been over come by Huawei by software chicanery, but somehow I doubt it.

[Serkevan]

And the thing to remember is that within the past 5 years, improvements have been insane. If this continues... after all, the best camera is the one you have with you. And that is usually the phone.

So like DSLRs between 2005 to 2010, give or take, when we went from original Canon 5D to the likes of the Pentax K-5 which was incredible at the time. Honestly phone cameras seem to be plateauing pretty quick and have to rely on fake postprocessing that looks terrible. It's fine to look at it in a phone screen, of course,

As for the lag thing: Have you tried something like the G9? I don't recall any moment where I even noticed lag, let alone was bothered by it. Earlier mirrorless cameras were bad. The GX80 has some lag, though it is not excessive. But the latest crop can be really good. So much that it won't be an issue.

I have tried the Oly E-M1ii, Sony A7iii and EOS RP. The RP almost barely can be tolerable. The others are a festival of weirdly-smeared pixels the moment you move the camera. I'm not talking "could be better" bad, I'm talking "headache within seconds" bad.

DSLRs outselling mirrorless... I haven't checked the numbers, but I recall that when I was asking for a camera for review I wanted to try the Nikon Z6. The response was that we sell so few Nikons, it's not worth it. Nikon has become irrelevant by that time. That Nikon and Canon launched FF mirrorless cameras, and good ones at that, clearly reflects the shift in the market. They wanted to stick with DSLRs, but they couldn't.

Wait, so they sell so few mirrorless Nikons that it wasn't worth it? Huh. Otherwise I'm not following.

[kadajawi]

I am not sure about Huawei, but comparing a camera like the KP and the iphone XS Max or the Google Pixel XL 3 shows a 5 EV difference in terms of dynamic range at iso 800. That might have been over come by Huawei by software chicanery, but somehow I doubt it.

The Pixel 3 XL should be king of dynamic range etc., though it depends on what settings you are using. The sensor has limited dynamic range of course, which is where Huawei with its much larger sensors have an advantage. However the digital trickery especially done by Google, where they combine multiple photos, does help a lot. It's not a DSLR yet, of course, but we are moving in that direction. And the CPUs used in phones are approaching laptop like performance, so they are able to do things a DSLR simply can't.

So like DSLRs between 2005 to 2010, give or take, when we went from original Canon 5D to the likes of the Pentax K-5 which was incredible at the time. Honestly phone cameras seem to be plateauing pretty quick and have to rely on fake postprocessing that looks terrible. It's fine to look at it in a phone screen, of course,

The fake post processing... if you are talking about the depth of field effect, then yes. However it gets better by the day... the P30 Pro has a low res depth sensor that gives it an idea how far objects are. This works very well, however due to the resolution (something like 320x240 or so) there's still a lot of software guesswork happening. If they use higher resolution ToF sensors though, this can get much better. In any case, by knowing how far objects are away, they can pretty realistically simulate shallow DoF. I have taken a few shots that I'm not allowed to share that really fooled me, unless you really zoom in and go searching.

Some phone makers... I'm looking at Huawei, apply a ton of HDR. Like, sickening levels of it. Like 2010-ish Photomatix photographers gone wild levels. With recent firmware updates they have toned it down, though they really should have settings to set it to your liking instead of thinking their software knows best. But I guess that's what consumers want. Shooting raw you basically have full control, however as it isn't taking and combining multiple photos the dynamic range to work with is limited. Hopefully in future they will extend dynamic range even with raw files. I'd say we'll see the day soon enough.

I have tried the Oly E-M1ii, Sony A7iii and EOS RP. The RP almost barely can be tolerable. The others are a festival of weirdly-smeared pixels the moment you move the camera. I'm not talking "could be better" bad, I'm talking "headache within seconds" bad.

Interesting. I haven't tried those cameras, but I don't recall headache from lag. Perhaps you are very sensitive to this? Are you talking about the rainbow effect, that's similar to DLP projectors or plasma TVs, when you move your eye across the picture? Or are you talking about motion blur, especially in low light situations? Eyes do have the same, but it's not as noticeable as they tend to lock on a subject and then quickly move on, and the brain might do some post processing etc.

Wait, so they sell so few mirrorless Nikons that it wasn't worth it? Huh. Otherwise I'm not following.

That was at the point where Nikon was only selling DSLRs and the Z6 was just launched. The DSLR sales had plummeted. No idea if the Z6 and Z7 have picked up and put Nikon back on the map.

[Serkevan]

The fake post processing... if you are talking about the depth of field effect, then yes. However it gets better by the day... the P30 Pro has a low res depth sensor that gives it an idea how far objects are. This works very well, however due to the resolution (something like 320x240 or so) there's still a lot of software guesswork happening. If they use higher resolution ToF sensors though, this can get much better. In any case, by knowing how far objects are away, they can pretty realistically simulate shallow DoF. I have taken a few shots that I'm not allowed to share that really fooled me, unless you really zoom in and go searching.

Some phone makers... I'm looking at Huawei, apply a ton of HDR. Like, sickening levels of it. Like 2010-ish Photomatix photographers gone wild levels. With recent firmware updates they have toned it down, though they really should have settings to set it to your liking instead of thinking their software knows best. But I guess that's what consumers want. Shooting raw you basically have full control, however as it isn't taking and combining multiple photos the dynamic range to work with is limited. Hopefully in future they will extend dynamic range even with raw files. I'd say we'll see the day soon enough.

Yeah, talking about the "fake bokeh" mostly (even the P30 is noticeably bad with anything that has hair or fine-ish detail). However, the HDR-ish look is too strong and night mode I've seen in most (even flagship-level) phones have pretty bad colour shifts or simply terrible amounts of noise.

Interesting. I haven't tried those cameras, but I don't recall headache from lag. Perhaps you are very sensitive to this? Are you talking about the rainbow effect, that's similar to DLP projectors or plasma TVs, when you move your eye across the picture? Or are you talking about motion blur, especially in low light situations? Eyes do have the same, but it's not as noticeable as they tend to lock on a subject and then quickly move on, and the brain might do some post processing etc.

The EVF looks like a very fine grid to me, like a low-resolution computer screen, which shouldn't be the case with a 2 or 3 MDot EVF...but it's what it is. This leads to my brain trying to make heads of tails of the image I'm looking at instead of having an extension of my eyes.

For the motion blur, I'm not talking about the rainbow effect, but the smeary blur when you move the camera. This is due to the relatively low refresh rate that turns the EVF into a mess of rolling shutter problems. Far more distracting than a problem-free OVF...

[kadajawi]

Yeah, talking about the "fake bokeh" mostly (even the P30 is noticeably bad with anything that has hair or fine-ish detail). However, the HDR-ish look is too strong and night mode I've seen in most (even flagship-level) phones have pretty bad colour shifts or simply terrible amounts of noise.

Yeah, fine detail is an issue. But it's getting better and better. And having a f1.6 lens and a 1/1.7" sensor means even at 27mm (equivalent) there is a bit of blur when taking portraits. Real bokeh

The EVF looks like a very fine grid to me, like a low-resolution computer screen, which shouldn't be the case with a 2 or 3 MDot EVF...but it's what it is. This leads to my brain trying to make heads of tails of the image I'm looking at instead of having an extension of my eyes.

For the motion blur, I'm not talking about the rainbow effect, but the smeary blur when you move the camera. This is due to the relatively low refresh rate that turns the EVF into a mess of rolling shutter problems. Far more distracting than a problem-free OVF...

Congrats on your eyes! I'm far to blind to notice. On the GX80 I do, but it's an entry level camera with a low res EVF, so I'll forgive it.

The GX80 can do 60 fps (to save battery I've set it to 30, which is good enough for me). The G9 has 60 and 120 fps. I just tried looking through the viewfinder and moving around frantically. Rolling shutter, though it exists on this camera – I have enough skewed volleyballs as proof –*is not an issue. There was some stuttering that did annoy me, however this moving around doesn't occur with the way I shoot. I'm curious what you do. Wild life?

EVFs aren't perfect. I didn't say that. They do have benefits that, for me, and for what I do with the camera, make them preferable over OVFs. For others the benefits aren't as appealing. Everyone has different needs and prefers different tools That's why we have this thread, right?

[Archimedes the Dog]

I was at Dia de los Muertos this weekend, a public festival in Old Town San Diego State Historic Park. This festival is a big draw for photographers and I saw many, many DSLRs, but only two mirrorless cameras. (Lots of long glass, too, which didn't make much sense to me.) And of course lots of people stepping in front of me to shoot with their cellphone when I have lined up a shot.

Not a scientific study by any means, but I was surprised to see so few mirrorless cameras.

[kadajawi]

I was at Dia de los Muertos this weekend, a public festival in Old Town San Diego State Historic Park. This festival is a big draw for photographers and I saw many, many DSLRs, but only two mirrorless cameras. (Lots of long glass, too, which didn't make much sense to me.) And of course lots of people stepping in front of me to shot with their cellphone when I have lined up a shot. Not a scientific study by any means, but I was surprised to see so few mirrorless cameras.

Interesting. In Girona (Spain) and Paris I saw many mirrorless cameras and few DSLRs. Perhaps the DSLRs are dragged out of hiding when you plan to shoot, while the mirrorless are used whenever there MIGHT be something to shoot?

I had both my K-5 (18-55) and my GX80 (DA 50 1.8) around my neck. I was considering putting the 12-32 on the GX80, as that gave me more wide angle, but in the end manually focusing the 50 1.8 on the GX80 was easier for me than trusting the AF of the K-5 and judging the result through the viewfinder. Overall the K-5 AF was quite frustrating. There's probably dust on the AF sensors, especially the sensor in the center.

Btw., as for the P30 Pro, the time of flight sensor, which gives the device information on the distance of other objects has a resolution of about 320x204 or so. So fine details are an issue.

[Pentikonian]

I think there are more DSLR + MILC users out there than a lot of people believe.

Most people I know with DSLR and MILC tend to not spend a lot of time on forums, and if they do, they don't spend a lot of posts pushing the benefits of this over that.

If all I need is a small camera with better capability than a phone but don't need the K-1 and glass, my X100F or X-E2S with a couple of the small WR primes is a heck of a lot smaller, lighter and easier to haul around than the K-1 and any of my lenses.

Not everyone can afford to run DSLR and MILC. Or they just may not to run the two. Or they prefer one type over the other.

It's all good IMHO. Shoot what you need/ want and have fun taking photos.

[kadajawi]

For the motion blur, I'm not talking about the rainbow effect, but the smeary blur when you move the camera. This is due to the relatively low refresh rate that turns the EVF into a mess of rolling shutter problems. Far more distracting than a problem-free OVF...

I tried the A7 III yesterday. Oh boy. Yes. To everything you say. That thing is bad. The resolution, which I can sort of live with. But the rest? Somehow it feels much worse than on Panasonic.

[Rondec]

Interesting. In Girona (Spain) and Paris I saw many mirrorless cameras and few DSLRs. Perhaps the DSLRs are dragged out of hiding when you plan to shoot, while the mirrorless are used whenever there MIGHT be something to shoot?

I had both my K-5 (18-55) and my GX80 (DA 50 1.8) around my neck. I was considering putting the 12-32 on the GX80, as that gave me more wide angle, but in the end manually focusing the 50 1.8 on the GX80 was easier for me than trusting the AF of the K-5 and judging the result through the viewfinder. Overall the K-5 AF was quite frustrating. There's probably dust on the AF sensors, especially the sensor in the center.

Btw., as for the P30 Pro, the time of flight sensor, which gives the device information on the distance of other objects has a resolution of about 320x204 or so. So fine details are an issue.

It is a difference in markets. Japan has fully embraced mirrorless cameras. The United States still is pretty firmly in SLR territory. Other markets are somewhere in between. So when I go out in the US to a park or a zoo I see predominantly SLRs -- the exception being if there are a lot of asian tourists at that location.

[Serkevan]

I tried the A7 III yesterday. Oh boy. Yes. To everything you say. That thing is bad. The resolution, which I can sort of live with. But the rest? Somehow it feels much worse than on Panasonic.

I haven't had the chance to try any of the Panasonics, but I assumed that at least their M43 cameras (the FF seems to have a very high quality EVF) had the same finders as the Olys... which are also bad . Glad to hear they are not.

---------- Post added 11-06-19 at 05:45 AM ----------

It is a difference in markets. Japan has fully embraced mirrorless cameras. The United States still is pretty firmly in SLR territory. Other markets are somewhere in between. So when I go out in the US to a park or a zoo I see predominantly SLRs -- the exception being if there are a lot of asian tourists at that location.

Japanese tourists seem to carry an A7 each, it's fascinating. You see 25 people walking and suddenly they all stop, grab their Sonys and start clicking in unison.