[Dan Rentea]

I think sometimes we take our experience with a system or camera and generalize it.

It's hard to offer a proper comment when comments are edited and changes the overall comment. But I try to respond to the later edits. I speak from my own perspective because I'm lucky enough to use lots of cameras. Image quality is not so much of interest to me because I'm happy even with older full frame cameras in terms of image quality. I'm interested in what technology does to make my shooting experience better. So far, eye af, the image seen in EVF before pressing the shutter and the silent shutter have been the things that brings me advantages compared to DSLRs. And the lack of front/back focusing it's also a plus.

Just from my own personal and very limited experience with cameras and portraiture, and there's a tight group of us who get together very regularly, at least twice a month with several published models, those mirrorless guys aren't getting better overall images or a better keeper rate than those us with DSLR's. I realize in your own work you find mirrorless makes you a better photographer, but I'm just not convinced that applies to the majority of those switching over.

First of all, no camera will make me a better photographer. I'm upgrading my camera only when I find one that helps me get the job faster and easier. Eye af helps me even in static portraiture because I don't need or have to focus and recompose or to select each time I change my composition the closest focus point to the leading eye. This saves me a lot of time in post also because I don't have to crop my images.

I believe there is a tendency to blame the tools rather than the technique for our shortcomings and there's only a tiny percentage of very dedicated photographers who will find mirrorless will actually make them more successful than they could be with a DSLR.

There are a lot of people who blame their gear and I don't understand why as long as they paid for it. There are also lots of people who exploit the small advantages of new cameras and technologies. Even if we remove the mirrorless from equation, we can see interest in new technologies on Pentax for example. Some will argue that K-3 Mark III isn't needed because K-3 Mark II or KP are enough, yet I'm sure that many will benefit of the 12fps for example or of the bigger OVF.

IMHO it's marketing and profits more than anything driving the mirrorless promotion. I don't think they really have a choice considering the lagging sales of camera's overall. If they can't drive people to buying new lenses, new cameras, and assorted requisite accessories their already dimming future just becomes a reality faster.

Anything that makes them releasing new cameras it's good for me. I don't care who will remain in the market 10 years from now as long as there will be 2 manufacturers to choose from, being Pentax and Fuji or Sony and Olympus for example.

---------- Post added 03-09-21 at 04:08 PM ----------

We agree that a particular DSLR may be the better tool especially as it concerns certain types of photography. So there should still be a market for DSLR's, and hope for the new Pentax K3III at being one of the shining stars in that category.

Looking forward to commentary once the camera gets into our hands. I see DSLR's in my future.

A tool is a tool. When comes to APS-C, I would pick any time of the day a D500 for action. But, I don't need a crop camera because these new full frame cameras cover the APS-C also given the trend of higher and higher mp. And another reason I don't need a crop camera is related to lenses. Best tele lenses are dedicated to full frame and if I pay the money for full frame lenses, I find some extra cash to buy a full frame camera that will be a 3 to 5 year investment.

There is a market for everything. As long as the demands cover the expenses, companies that offer niche products (even if I consider DSLRs far away of becoming a niche in the next 4-6 years, minimum) can be financially sustainable.

---

Last edited by Dan Rentea; 03-09-2021 at 04:46 PM.

[normhead]

It's being nudged back on topic.

DSLR's and Pentax tying their future to them. I believe it's a very smart strategy, strive to be the best at what you are good at.

In fairness Norn the very first post, the one we're all responding to, mentioned mirrorless, Canon and Nikon. You're probably correct that it should not have been a Pentax only thread since the OP was speaking about DSLR's in general. Let's move it as you suggest. Thanks for the prompt.

thanks Gatorguy, all I'm looking for here is the ability to avoid this kind of conversation, by not going onto the non-pentax section of the forum. It's pretty much worthless to Pentaxians who are happy with thier gear. Especially since so many former Pentaxians have moved on to Fuji, and Fuji seems to be the mirrorless home for Pentax shooters. It seems to be a company more along Pentax's ethic. LeRolls and Benjikan just to name a few.

Uni GFX 100s. The Pentax, Pentax never made.

Why would any landscape shooter buy a Canon, Nikon or Sony?

It even has the tilting back screen. Medium format in an FF body.


https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/fujifilm-gfx-100s-initial-review

It's pointless talking brands in this discussion. We all have our favourites.

But that's hardly relevant to whether or not DSLRs survive. DSLRs will survive as long as people love using them. What the other brands are doing doesn't really change that. Not all of us are interested in latest, greatest absolute best all the time. YWe are interested in the best deal on what works for us. The conversation into marketing from hype for the shooting styles of specific shooters. With personal emphasis unrelated to the original intent of the thread.

The unstated inference being that people buy the latest greatest, and rush out money in had to buy every new thing because it's the absolute best. That's not the case. It's not about the new things coming out. When I see folks like some here posting, I think their biggest problem with Pentax is, Pentax doesn't often release enough new cameras to satisfy their camera purchasing appetites. They just want to play with new stuff. SO what's more important? A guy who is always trying out the latest and greatest, or the guy who's just learned to maximize use of the gear they have?

It's not automatic that people want to read new gear reviews. Some of us actually avoid them, as they tend to be very biased information based on the shooting style of the reviewer. Once you've established that the reviewer doesn't do what you do, the reviews are irrelevant. Yet somehow ever present. In any thread even remotely relevant.

To me the most exciting development to me in current mirrorless photography is Fuji's putting an MF sensor in an FF body. Because for me, the two biggest areas advantage are portability and resolution. But an FF camera in an DSLR FF body still works for me. The biggest disadvantage to DLSRs is, you can look thought the viewfinder and not know the camera isn't turned on. What do you see if you look through a mirrorless with the camera off? With my DSLR I flick a switch and 1.5 second later I'm shootiing.

[luftfluss]

Being an old-timer myself, I find mirrorless appealing in a number of ways.

Manual focusing something like a 50mm f/1.2, 85mm f/1.4 or 200mm f/2.5 on a DSLR while wearing multifocal glasses can best be summed up in two words: forget it. Focus peaking saves the day. Yes, you can do that on a modern DSLR but I don't have one of those at the moment. You have to hold the camera at arm's length, not ideal in bright sunlight. After decades of holding the camera up to my eye, I like it. A mirrorless body like a Samsung NX1 allows me to have my focus peaking cake and eat it. Yes, I am looking at a little screen and not at the directly at the subject. I may have lost that elusive emotional connection but I can get by without it.

I can use adapters to mount almost every old lens that is out there in junk shops and online auctions. I could get into the Nikon F mount or Minolta MD mount, not just K and M42 mount. The world of old glass is my oyster.

Using those old lenses on a mirrorless body means manual aperture as well as manual focus. Just like my first Pentax SP1000 with Soligor 90-230mm zoom. To really go back in time, I can switch to manual exposure as well.

A few years ago, when I got my first bifocals, the salesman at the optometrist's worked hard to sell me on varifocal lenses. I explained to him that I wanted the bifocals because as a photoraphy enthusiast I wanted a finite delineation between "far" and "close" on my glasses. The salesman argued that bifocals looked "old"... of course I told him I cared nothing about that, since I am getting old!

Also, the varifocal lenses were an additional $200...

****************

The Nikon Z does look very interesting - I plan of trying one sometime soon - but I'm doing OK with manual focus with my K-3 II + O-ME53. I shoot a lot of long telephoto, and it is exclusively manual focus. Still not nearly as consistently good as a decent AF system, but serviceable, IMO. Shot yesterday with Tamron 400/4 65B + Pentax A 2x-L...

[MossyRocks]

I personally believe there is a tendency to blame the tools rather than the technique for our shortcomings

I find that to be the case with a lot of people and is something that I try to teach scouts when I do photography merit badge. I don't focus on the camera but instead have them work on the concepts of composition, shutter speed, and aperture and how the affect the final image as that is what makes the biggest difference. Also it doesn't hurt that I mostly have old bridge cameras for them to use but will let each scout shoot with my K-3 or K-3ii once so that they can learn that it isn't the camera that makes the most difference in the final image.

That behavior is especially bad with one guy here in MN who like to go on about how great he is at astrophotography because he is using, as he puts it, the best gear (currently the new high end canon mirrorless body with their newest 400/2.8 lens). He also goes to a nice dark area (a bortle 3 or 2 spot) so has much better skies than I have. Yet with my setup I get consistently better shots showing more detail even though my 400mm was designed in the 80s, I'm running a K-3, I don't have an equatorial that I can stick it on, and I am shooting in the core 7 county metro area (the darkest spot which is a bortle 5). I have single shots that show more detail than his stacked images but I will get accused of faking things or lying about my setup from him all the time. Astrophotography is really one area of photography where throwing gear at the problem is more often than not the right solution but you still need to know how to run that gear which is something most get.

[luftfluss]

thanks Gatorguy, all I'm looking for here is the ability to avoid this kind of conversation, by not going onto the non-pentax section of the forum. It's pretty much worthless to Pentaxians who are happy with thier gear. Especially since so many former Pentaxians have moved on to Fuji, and Fuji seems to be the mirrorless home for Pentax shooters. It seems to be a company more along Pentax's ethic. LeRolls and Benjikan just to name a few.

Uni GFX 100s. The Pentax, Pentax never made.

Why would any landscape shooter buy a Canon, Nikon or Sony?

It even has the tilting back screen. Medium format in an FF body.


Fujifilm GFX 100S initial review: Digital Photography Review

It's pointless talking brands in this discussion. We all have our favourites.

But that's hardly relevant to whether or not DSLRs survive. DSLRs will survive as long as people love using them. What the other brands are doing doesn't really change that. Not all of us are interested in latest, greatest absolute best all the time. YWe are interested in the best deal on what works for us. The conversation into marketing from hype for the shooting styles of specific shooters. With personal emphasis unrelated to the original intent o the thread.

There's a fella on this forum who shoots K lenses on his Fuji MF, he really likes the "look" of the images he gets and the K glass is a tremendous value compared with new Fuji GF lenses. He showed me several shots on his phone, and while one can't make any judgments about sharpness and focus accuracy, the overall look of the images was very nice.

And, used GFX 50 series bodies are creeping down to the USD $3000 mark...

[jgnfld]

...
That behavior is especially bad with one guy here in MN who like to go on about how great he is at astrophotography because he is using, as he puts it, the best gear (currently the new high end canon mirrorless body with their newest 400/2.8 lens). He also goes to a nice dark area (a bortle 3 or 2 spot) so has much better skies than I have. Yet with my setup I get consistently better shots showing more detail even though my 400mm was designed in the 80s, I'm running a K-3, I don't have an equatorial that I can stick it on, and I am shooting in the core 7 county metro area (the darkest spot which is a bortle 5). I have single shots that show more detail than his stacked images but I will get accused of faking things or lying about my setup from him all the time. Astrophotography is really one area of photography where throwing gear at the problem is more often than not the right solution but you still need to know how to run that gear which is something most get.

A boy scout who falsely accuses his adult, accredited mentor of "faking" is not following the ideals scouting! Wouldn't get a badge from me!

I hope that "one guy" is from elsewhere other than scouting!

[KiloHotelphoto]

Just from my own personal and very limited experience with Pentax cameras and portraiture, and there's a tight group of us who get together very regularly, at least twice a month with several published models, the mirrorless guys aren't getting better overall images or a better keeper rate than those us with DSLR's whether Canon or Nikon or Pentax. I realize in your own work you find mirrorless makes you a better photographer, but I'm just not convinced that applies to a large percentage of those switching over.

I don't think there is a image quality difference between dslr and mirrorless, except for newer sensors in in mirrorless bodies. If you take a Nikon D850 and a Z7 with the same sensor or a Canon 5dIV and R with the same sensor I bet the images look the same. If you're shooting landscape I don't think their is any reason to go mirrorless except maybe the body could be a little smaller.

[normhead]

A boy scout who falsely accuses his adult, accredited mentor of "faking" is not following the ideals scouting! Wouldn't get a badge from me!

I hope that "one guy" is from elsewhere other than scouting!

I once had a guy say something similar to me. My image wasn't as good as his because his was taken 20 years ago when "no one went there". There's been a lodge there for 60 years, and animals have always been attracted by the garbage from the dining room. People just make up nonsense to say they are better. Especially people dependant on selling their work. They are by far the worst IMHO, despite the forum habit of thinking pros are a great source of information.

Pros are a great source of information relevant to pros, and the first element of that is claim your equipment it better than the other guys. It's to be expected.
Amateurs are a great source of information for amateurs. duh .

[Dan Rentea]

Uni GFX 100s. The Pentax, Pentax never made.

Why would any landscape shooter buy a Canon, Nikon or Sony?

It even has the tilting back screen. Medium format in an FF body.

Which is exactly the point of this thread and the discussion about DSLRs and mirrorless... In the title of this topic the OP asked if there is a future for DSLRs and among other responses you just promoted a mirrorless as the best tool for a landscape shooter. You gave the best answer possible... it has a medium format sensor, a body of a DSLR size and a tilting screen. As you found advantages in this mirrorless medium format camera, others find small advantages in the mirrorless full frame cameras which for them makes a difference, big or small, it doesn't even matter.

[normhead]

Ya, I actually posted that as an example of personal information that shouldn't be included in a general thread. And because the partisans, in these general discussions always want to discuss their favourite brand. Pretty silly eh? To be good there would have to be equal participation from every known camera brand. The whole 'Canon, Sony , Nikon emphasis is just as inappropriate as my own personal preference for Fuji. That's not what it's about. There's also Sigma, Panasonic Fuji, Leica, Phase One and Olympus. The thread has degenerated into a pointless discussion of a couple of brands, most of which has been repeated ad nauseam.

I guess I'm the only one who can actually appreciate what brands other than what they shoot might bring to the table. And that's the point here. In my mind, in that they don't have MF offerings, Nikon, Canon and Sony have nothing to offer. Every photographer worth his salt understands the advantages of medium format. It's incredible to me that looking at the advantages of mirrorless people wouldn't be talking MF. Because that's when the ergonomics of DSLRs become unmanageable.

You now have an mirrorless MF fuji that blows even comparably priced offerings form Nikon, Canon and Sony out or the water for resolution and IQ, why are you even wasting time on those archaic systems? With FF mirrorless is a personal choice. For many looking to move up to MF, mirrorless has become a necessity. This is the new latest greatest. Not some FF offering. And I fully expect this type of camera will come to dominate the MF field. In FF or APS-c, the advantage is so minor as to be moot for most. Features other than whether or not the camera is mirrorless will matter more.

But none of this has to do with DSLR's vs mirrorless except in the MF arena. Smaller where smaller can be as much a negative as a positive is not the same discussion. I don't use my Q much because it's so toy like. The mirrorless cameras I've had in my hands are much the same. I find them uncomfortable to work with. Without a clear advantage in IQ, what's the point?

[LittleSkink]

also hopefully taking this back on topic . . . (almost wish I had never asked) aside from the odd insult this has been an interesting thread

Happy to believe that Pentax has a future, have ordered a new lens and decided to start a new portfolio. Reckon I might even update my aging copy of Photoshop and try some new fangled PP

Maybe when I check in again, in a couple of years or so, things will have settled down and Pentax will be *the* DSLR company

[LeeRunge]

also hopefully taking this back on topic . . . (almost wish I had never asked) aside from the odd insult this has been an interesting thread

Happy to believe that Pentax has a future, have ordered a new lens and decided to start a new portfolio. Reckon I might even update my aging copy of Photoshop and try some new fangled PP

Maybe when I check in again, in a couple of years or so, things will have settled down and Pentax will be *the* DSLR company

I think you asked a perfectly reasonable question and got some answers that included other brands. We should probably just drop this into the non-pentax section so it can be discussed and keep it Pentax specific here so everyone's happy.

In 4-5 years it'll probably be the same discussions or all the camera brands will have merged into Pentanikony to survive as cell phones outperform everything.

---------- Post added 03-09-2021 at 11:26 AM ----------

Canons DSLR autofocus was good, the 1DX2 was the best I had used but the R5 and R6 are so much better. I had no plans of getting rid of my dslr's when I picked up the R5 but after a month I knew I never wanted to go out shooting without the autofocus capabilities of the R5 and 6.

I guess I need to try one at some point. Probably a good camera to rent when that's possible. I don't need its performance for me personally but it would be fun to try out.

[normhead]

also hopefully taking this back on topic . . . (almost wish I had never asked) aside from the odd insult this has been an interesting thread

Happy to believe that Pentax has a future, have ordered a new lens and decided to start a new portfolio. Reckon I might even update my aging copy of Photoshop and try some new fangled PP

Maybe when I check in again, in a couple of years or so, things will have settled down and Pentax will be *the* DSLR company

If like myself, your main focus is top quality IQ (not as defined by more than MP, which isn't actually a measure of IQ) at an affordable price, with the possible omission some of the frills other manufacturers use to sell their cameras, but with a unique set of frills they use to sell theirs, I'm pretty sure Pentax will be there for you. 5 years from now will be the same in terms of arguments. They were also the same 5 years ago. Some things never change. Some people will always promote lesser IQ cameras because of some feature set. Some people will always promote ridiculously expensive cameras, some people will always adopt the latest greatest fad. Some people will buy the latest "most improved" gear, until 6 months later when the next greatest comes out. Gad flies I say.

All the new stuff is completely un-necessary if you get what you want from what you have. The Pentax approach is quite established as a way to go for a certain type of shooter. That not every is one is that type of shooter is neither here nor there. What's important is there are many shooters who enjoy Pentax. As long as that's true, there will be a Pentax. it's not about what everyone else does.

what's disappointing is those who are not Pentax shooters or see more value in other brands constantly sharing their disappointment with Pentax or why it is inadequate for them. That kind of personal brand bashing is simply inappropriate in a general discussion. And it's certainly disconcerting to see people take up pages and pages in a discussion talking about things most of us choose not to pay for, as if the future of the whole camera industry will be swayed by what they think is important. Part of it may be. But there will always be companies that go against the grain.

The important thing to me About the Fuji GFX 100s, is that size MF camera and a Pentax FA 600 5.6 645 and a few kit type lenses, I can leave, almost every other wildlife photographer I know in the dust. That's what's important. The ideal solution would be Pentax producing a similarly sized 645 with a mirror, to take advantage of all that legacy glass. But to me, Canon, Nikon and Sony are passé. They bet on the wrong horses.

For those seeking maximum IQ for stills, those companies have been irrelevant since the 645z was released. Some people don't seem to have that in their consciousness. It's not about mirrorless or not, it's about necessary features and size. Right now I'd buy a Fuji, a few year from now as is often the case, Pentax will come out with something competitive. And it may be a DSLR.

[LittleSkink]

All the new stuff is completely un-necessary if you get what you want from what you have.

which is why my new lens is a fish eye . . .

[Dan Rentea]

Ya, I actually posted that as an example of personal information that shouldn't be included in a general thread. And because the partisans, in these general discussions always want to discuss their favourite brand. Pretty silly eh? To be good there would have to be equal participation from every known camera brand. The whole 'Canon, Sony , Nikon emphasis is just as inappropriate as my own personal preference for Fuji. That's not what it's about. There's also Sigma, Panasonic Fuji, Leica, Phase One and Olympus. The thread has degenerated into a pointless discussion of a couple of brands, most of which has been repeated ad nauseam.

I guess I'm the only one who can actually appreciate what brands other than what they shoot might bring to the table. And that's the point here. In my mind, in that they don't have MF offerings, Nikon, Canon and Sony have nothing to offer. Every photographer worth his salt understands the advantages of medium format. It's incredible to me that looking at the advantages of mirrorless people wouldn't be talking MF. Because that's when the ergonomics of DSLRs become unmanageable.

You now have an mirrorless MF fuji that blows even comparably priced offerings form Nikon, Canon and Sony out or the water for resolution and IQ, why are you even wasting time on those archaic systems? With FF mirrorless is a personal choice. For many looking to move up to MF, mirrorless has become a necessity. This is the new latest greatest. Not some FF offering. And I fully expect this type of camera will come to dominate the MF field. In FF or APS-c, the advantage is so minor as to be moot for most. Features other than whether or not the camera is mirrorless will matter more.

But none of this has to do with DSLR's vs mirrorless except in the MF arena. Smaller where smaller can be as much a negative as a positive is not the same discussion. I don't use my Q much because it's so toy like. The mirrorless cameras I've had in my hands are much the same. I find them uncomfortable to work with. Without a clear advantage in IQ, what's the point?

A medium format camera is useless for 99,9% of photographers mostly for price and because it can't cover a few areas as soccer games where moms and dads go with a DSLR or mirrorless. The limited selection of lenses is another aspect... Camera brands are used in discussions because not all DSLRs or mirrorless are equal so I can't say all mirrorless are better than DSLRs because as I said a few comments above, D500 in my opinion is still the best APS-C to date for sport and action. And that's why Canon, Sony and Nikon pop up in these discussions. Another reason is that Fuji and Olympus don't have full frame cameras and that's why we don't see them in the discussions where full frame cameras are involved. It will create even more confusion to people who don't understand the differences in the two formats, 4 if we add medium format and micro 4/3.

It's not image quality which makes a difference when someone is buying a new camera. It's the features... K-3 Mark III will probably have a huge advantage over KP or K-3 Mark II when comes to action due to joystick, improved af, af coverage and fps. If you agree with this, you probably can understand that such features makes mirrorless more attractive to some because of the 20fps, improved af, much larger af coverage...