[Kunzite]

Saying there's no such thing as mirrorless tech is like saying there's no such thing as SLR tech, it's just mirror and lens tech. Mirrorless cameras don't necessarily need an EVF but they do need to read the sensor output at speed and they need to be able to use the data from that sensor to AF and determine WB and exposure. The tech is combining things to work well in harmony.

That's not entirely accurate, as:
- the SLR viewfinder system is what defines that design, i.e. you can't have a SLR without it and you won't have another type of camera with it.
- the EVF is not a mirrorless exclusive, it existed well before the first m4/3 and it is used in different types of cameras (e.g. videocams, high-end compacts); and as you correctly point out, you can have a mirrorless without an EVF.

Perhaps we should define "SLR tech" and "mirrorless tech" as the technology/features to be implemented in order to have a competitive product. Then, we'll have an almost complete overlap between the two.

[biz-engineer]

What puzzles me , is the whole camera industry running full circle with "me too" camera models. Today, the true difference between models and brands doesn't justify spending any money. As I can see, the difference in image quality (on print) between apsc 24Mp and ff 36Mp is negligible (~15%), between ff 36Mp and mf 50Mp still negligible (~15%). Mirrorless isn't moving anything forward at all, same format, pretty much same sensors, same image quality. Moving from DSLR to mirrorless is a lot of money wasted.

[BigMackCam]

What puzzles me , is the whole camera industry running full circle with "me too" camera models. Today, the true difference between models and brands doesn't justify spending any money. As I can see, the difference in image quality (on print) between apsc 24Mp and ff 36Mp is negligible (~15%), between ff 36Mp and mf 50Mp still negligible (~15%). Mirrorless isn't moving anything forward at all, same format, pretty much same sensors, same image quality. Moving from DSLR to mirrorless is a lot of money wasted.

As always, it comes down to personal preferences and use cases.

There are those that can happily shoot with an EVF and those that can't (or simply don't like it). Within the group that can, there are differing personal tolerances... some folks are OK using even older generation EVFs, others only the more recent or latest types with very high resolution and refresh rates. So in that sense, the advances on EVF technology are important in making them more usable to a wider range of folks that are open to the idea.

Incremental performance improvements in high ISO image noise, autofocus accuracy and speed, continuous shooting rate and buffer clearing etc. are all advantageous and welcome, but only where the use cases can leverage these things. A lot of folks believe they'll benefit, but for the majority of their shooting, many won't... despite which, some will still want the latest and greatest capabilities "just because".

[JPT]

I actually agree with the article. The suggestions put forward are well thought out and intelligent. Particularly thoughts around the hybrid viewfinder.
The author is referring to mirrorless technology and not mirrorless per says and its use on OVF cameras in the future. Just what I would like to see in a Pentax!

I agree with your interpretation of the article. I can only think that some people stopped reading before they have realized what the writer is going to say. He doesn't help matters by writing such a confusing piece. It is obviously trying to provoke a reaction with the title and misrepresentation of what Ricoh had said about people coming back to DSLRs. And for that matter he seems unaware that Pentax is not a company any more. That is a bit silly because Ricoh does have successful non-DSLR products - they just call them something other than Pentax.

If his argument is that some of the features currently absent in DSLR but available in mirrorless camera should be incorporated in the new APS-C camera, I can agree with that. I think there is a lot of pressure on that camera to deliver by not just being an incrementally better DSLR, but by making an argument for the value of DSLRs as a whole.

If you had compiled lists of pros and cons of DSLRs and mirrorless five years ago, you could have populated those lists with features and unique advantages quite evenly. But what has happened since then? The mirrorless cameras have caught up in many areas to be the equal of DSLRs while DSLRs have not closed the gap in the other areas. DSLRs still require focus calibration. They're still bigger and heavier (KP is a nice try). Their AF is now at the point where the mirrorless cameras have caught up in speed, but seem to be smarter at recognizing subjects. I'd like to think this is just because we are yet to see the DSLR that can improve these aspects, but you can hardly blame people for wondering if it will ever come.

I don't think the hybrid OVF/EVF is going to appear. Ricoh said in an interview last year that it was difficult because it reduces the quality of the OVF to add EVF capability. Imagine you could have the hybrid viewfinder, but you had to compromise with a 15% dimmer OVF. Would you want it? I think most people would prefer one or the other to a compromised mash-up of both. All the DSLR makers were working on this and had feasible looking patents, but none went as far as commercialization. There must be a reason for that. So I think the new APS-C may offer functions like eye AF, better video, better manual focus guides and more information overlaid in the viewfinder, but it will not be a fully switchable hybrid OVF/EVF.

Finally, I think his idea about the 645 is wrong. If Ricoh tried to compete with the Fuji GF cameras it would overlap too much with high resolution full frame DSLRs, which Ricoh makes already. The 645z is unique in being the one affordable camera primarily designed for tripod use. They need to double down on that and increase the image quality. I think "full frame" medium format is the way to go because their lens range mostly covers it. It's just a question of when they can get a sensor at a price that their costumers will pay.

---

Last edited by JPT; 04-20-2020 at 04:21 AM.

[photoptimist]

This will depend on the individual, but for most people the advantages of mirrorless systems outweigh those of DSLRs. It's much less mirrorless-only users being insecure and far more DSLR-only users being unable to see that mirrorless cameras have a whole heap of advantages that are clear to most people. I see the insecurity of DSLR-only users every time they start throwing their toys out of the pram when someone posts anything at all that is pro-mirrorless, and I say that as someone who uses both and regards his DSLR system as his "main" camera system.

I'm totally cool when someone says "here's why I prefer MILC." Pro-mirrorless opinions are fine. It's the anti-DSLR and "MILC is the future" folk that I see as both narrow-minded and wrong. I'm not pro-DSLR or pro-MILC as much I am pro-choice.

For example the EVF-eyestrain issue is a really a show stopper for some people and there are solid biophysical reasons that camera makers are never going to be able to solve the problem (Hint: even an infinite frame rate EVF can't solve the problem because there's always going to be lag created by shutter time on the sensor). No matter how much EVFs improve, some photographers won't like using them.

Moreover, at least two of the supposed "advantages" of mirrorless are really double-edge swords that make them disadvantages for some photographers.

First, the small size of mirrorless cameras is both an advantage (light-weight for travel and carrying) and disadvantage (ergonomically unpleasant especially with larger lenses and people with larger hands). I was shocked and happily surprised by the heft of the K-1 in that the K-1 was actually more comfortable to carry and use that then the lighter/smaller K-5 and K-10D had been before. The point is that different people need different sized cameras -- small is bad for some people.

Second, the WYSIWYG of the MILC's EVF is both a big advantage (you can see if the exposure is going to clip the highlights or lose the shadows) and also a big disadvantage (because the EVF view is clipped by the limits of the display & sensor, you can't see the details in both the highlights and the shadows as well as you can with an OVF). Different photographers might prefer either electronically-clipped-DR or optically-full-DR viewfinders.

As a business recommendation to Ricoh/Pentax, I say let the other camera makers squabble over the market for mirrorless cameras. And let some camera makers (e.g., Pentax) specialize in particular ways of making photographs (e.g., rugged DSLRs). The notion that all camera makers MUST make cameras to satisfy all possible physical sizes of people and all possible styles of photography is simply wrong for customers and unprofitable for companies.

[Class A]

The marketplace isn't a monolithic beast hurtling toward a single vision of the future. The marketplace is filled with different people wanting different products and different product makers satisfying those different demands.

Very true.

Unfortunately, many review sites don't appear to understand that which manifests itself in a number of ways:

1. single score evaluation systems that need to employ underlying assumptions, such as that you care about video or the default(!) JPEG development settings. It would be much more adequate to score components individually and then let users chose priorities/weights, so that they can get rankings that are customised to their needs.
2. the constant search for "the best" camera. Even if "best" is defined with respect to a category, say landscape photographer, there is still no single best camera for everyone.
3. the eternal assumption that "newer" equates to "better". Never mind that EVFs cause some people headaches, create composition challenges in dynamic situations, etc. Never mind that OPDAF systems can cause striping and banding. Never mind that some people prefer to have one mirror box in the camera, rather than n-times the space used in each lens to make a general design compatible with mirrorless (see Sigma's "adapted" mirrorless lens designs). The list goes on. Regardless, the newer technology is touted as better and the old one is declared as obsolete.

I am not sure whether some review sites' affiliation with stores make their "reviewers" consciously or subconsciously recommend new gear in order to keep the profit from selling new gear and/or affiliate links alive. Whenever they go against this commercial grain, the article is called an "opinion piece", relegating useful information to places that are typically not read by potential buyers looking for decision support, instead of including "unpopular" "opinions" into reviews where they would be read by everyone potentially interested in the product.

[stevebrot]

Perhaps we should define "SLR tech" and "mirrorless tech" as the technology/features to be implemented in order to have a competitive product. Then, we'll have an almost complete overlap between the two.

Yep...the majority is held in common.

I don't shoot mirrorless digital, but from my collection of 25 working film cameras, 14 are non-SLRs and of those, six support interchangeable lenses (technically MILCs). Five of those six have critical image capture and usability features that are identical to or design equivalent to SLR cameras of the time. Reflex viewing aside, they differ in regards to focus systems and features required to deal with the mirror box and the desirability of aperture stop-down for exposure. In a few cases, the shutter, film chamber, film transport mechanisms, and even body castings are identical to SLRs from the same makers.

In case it is not clear. All 25 cameras on my shelf are light-tight boxes with provision to house photo sensitive media. All have an opening to allow entry of light. All have either a fixed lens in that opening or provision to mount a removable lens. All have provision for a shutter to regulate the entry of light, as well as provision for accurate focus of an image on the media. Optionally there may be provision to vary the diameter of the lens aperture opening. There are modern equivalents to all 25 using digital capture.

Within the group of 25, there certainly are some that feature "rangefinder" tech and others, "SLR" tech and still others having "TLR", "roll-film", "sheet film", "groundglass" and/or "camera movement" tech. Strangely, all of those points of divergence may rightly be characterized as challenges requiring working knowledge and might also be points of compromise. This much is clear. I perform the same basic tasks with all 25, as well as with my K-3.

To summarize:

• Is a smallish sensor mirrorless digital sensor camera clearly superior for any of the tasks currently performed by any of my 26 cameras? Probably not...see last point below.
• Is any one of my 26 cameras superior to a mirrorless digital for a particular photographic task? Definitely, for most.
• Does the existence of any mirrorless digital camera currently on the market negatively impact the operation of any of my 26 cameras or make any of them more obsolete than they might have been six month after they were made? Definitely not.
• Would certain models of MILC digital bring any strengths useful to me not met by the cameras currently in my quiver? Definitely, but not in comparison to any of the critical strengths present in my K-3. It would be nice to be able to adapt a wide variety of lenses, including those I have in LTM and M-mount. My body of choice to that task would be an A7II. Unfortunately, that is unlikely to happen due to issues with the EVF and zero desire to pay the prices for Sony/Zeiss E-mount glass.

If I saw an amazing deal on an A7II, I might bite, but not because of any huge need.


Steve

[Jonathan Mac]

That's not entirely accurate, as:
- the SLR viewfinder system is what defines that design, i.e. you can't have a SLR without it and you won't have another type of camera with it.
- the EVF is not a mirrorless exclusive, it existed well before the first m4/3 and it is used in different types of cameras (e.g. videocams, high-end compacts); and as you correctly point out, you can have a mirrorless without an EVF.

Perhaps we should define "SLR tech" and "mirrorless tech" as the technology/features to be implemented in order to have a competitive product. Then, we'll have an almost complete overlap between the two.

A lot of "mirrorless tech" started in DSLRs (as "live view tech") and is still there, where it benefits from advances made mainly in order to move mirrorless cameras forward as a viable alternative to DSLRs. The difference is that in a mirrorless camera it's essential for it to work, while in a DSLR is a secondary option, there if you want to use it. No-one would refer to "live view tech" these days because it's become mirrorless tech.

I'm totally cool when someone says "here's why I prefer MILC." Pro-mirrorless opinions are fine. It's the anti-DSLR and "MILC is the future" folk that I see as both narrow-minded and wrong. I'm not pro-DSLR or pro-MILC as much I am pro-choice.

For example the EVF-eyestrain issue is a really a show stopper for some people and there are solid biophysical reasons that camera makers are never going to be able to solve the problem (Hint: even an infinite frame rate EVF can't solve the problem because there's always going to be lag created by shutter time on the sensor). No matter how much EVFs improve, some photographers won't like using them.

Moreover, at least two of the supposed "advantages" of mirrorless are really double-edge swords that make them disadvantages for some photographers.

First, the small size of mirrorless cameras is both an advantage (light-weight for travel and carrying) and disadvantage (ergonomically unpleasant especially with larger lenses and people with larger hands). I was shocked and happily surprised by the heft of the K-1 in that the K-1 was actually more comfortable to carry and use that then the lighter/smaller K-5 and K-10D had been before. The point is that different people need different sized cameras -- small is bad for some people.

Second, the WYSIWYG of the MILC's EVF is both a big advantage (you can see if the exposure is going to clip the highlights or lose the shadows) and also a big disadvantage (because the EVF view is clipped by the limits of the display & sensor, you can't see the details in both the highlights and the shadows as well as you can with an OVF). Different photographers might prefer either electronically-clipped-DR or optically-full-DR viewfinders.

As a business recommendation to Ricoh/Pentax, I say let the other camera makers squabble over the market for mirrorless cameras. And let some camera makers (e.g., Pentax) specialize in particular ways of making photographs (e.g., rugged DSLRs). The notion that all camera makers MUST make cameras to satisfy all possible physical sizes of people and all possible styles of photography is simply wrong for customers and unprofitable for companies.

In all the threads on PF that discuss DSLRs and mirrorless, I've never once read one that's anti-DSLR. There seem to be a significant number of people who (wrongly) interpret any pro-mirrorless comment as an attack on DSLRs and their users. Is mirrorless the future? Yes, it is - in the sense that at the time of writing the proportion of cameras released, and those in use by the public is increasing. Anti-mirrorless folk seem to (again wrongly) interpret this as stating that DSLRs and their users are dinosaurs that will disappear in the not-too-distant future. It's this constant mis-interpretation that indicates insecurity, in my view, and it's quite tiring.

As for size - mirrorless cameras can be made bigger and their ergonomics improved by use of a grip, always assuming camera and grip are well designed. You can make a small camera bigger but you can't make a big camera smaller.

And WYSIWYG - with DSLRs it's what's happening at that precise moment and how the scene looks to the human eye. With mirrorless it's how that will look as a digital image. In this respect I'd call it a draw.

[c.a.m]

In all the threads on PF that discuss DSLRs and mirrorless, I've never once read one that's anti-DSLR. There seem to be a significant number of people who (wrongly) interpret any pro-mirrorless comment as an attack on DSLRs and their users. Is mirrorless the future? Yes, it is - in the sense that at the time of writing the proportion of cameras released, and those in use by the public is increasing.

I would tend to agree that there are few posts on Pentax Forums that push an "anti-DSLR" agenda, and discussions tend to be engaging yet civil.

However, while the blog article that is the subject of this thread isn't an offensive attack piece, it certainly promotes 'mirrorless' as the only way of the future, which is essential for the survival of the Pentax brand according to the author. The article is biased towards mirrorless, and it doesn't present a balanced argument. While I find that the piece may not have been intended to provide a thorough, objective comparison of DSLR and mirrorless systems, it neglects to offer even a plausible scenario in which Ricoh could maintain a Pentax line of DSLRs.

Indeed, the article contains numerous statements that strongly suggest that "Pentax" will be dead if it doesn't move to mirrorless. It seems to me that its sentiment is "anti-DSLR".

• "Opinion: Pentax, if You Don’t Embrace Mirrorless Tech, it’s Game Over
• ...if they don’t jump into the 21st century soon, they will simply slip away.
• Pentax’s unwillingness to make the next jump into Mirrorless technology is severely holding them back. Honestly, unless they move forward, they will become but a distant memory.
• I couldn’t quite believe that two of Ricoh’s top execs were putting all of the brand’s eggs into one very old basket; dismissing Mirrorless technology almost felt like a deathwish.
• A hybrid camera that can bridge the gap from DSLR to Mirrorless from Pentax is needed because just rehashing old DSLR technology simply will not cut it, and they will find that even their faithful following of Pentaxians will start to disperse.
• I love DSLR bodies, but it is time to retire them."

I'm not overly put off by the article -- it's one of countless others in the ocean of fleeting online commentary and opinion, and I'm not a DSLR diehard. However, it would be nice to read an article that presents a fair and balanced view.


- Craig

[stevebrot]

I fixed this for you. Star lenses are neither co-developed nor re-badges. Thankfully, you are not Ricoh.

You can add that Sigma (obviously enough) does not do rebadging.


Steve

[stevebrot]

I would tend to agree that there are few posts on Pentax Forums that push an "anti-DSLR" agenda, and discussions tend to be engaging yet civil.

There are a handful of PF members who reliably disparage the existing Pentax product in favor of mirrorless options from other makers and who actively bait other members who prefer dSLRs. I don't see the usual players on this thread, so perhaps they have reformed?


Steve

[Kunzite]

In all the threads on PF that discuss DSLRs and mirrorless, I've never once read one that's anti-DSLR.

Then you haven't read most, if not any of them.
Including this thread. "Pentax/Ricoh Wake Up" - it's condescending and yes, anti-DSLR. What did you expect them to say, "I hate DSLRs"? No, instead it's always presenting mirrorless as The One And Only Future, and how Pentax is making a mistake by refusing to see the light.