[Rondec]

I've owned 4 copies of the Pentax K-1 camera. I have shot tens of thousands of photos with them. Not one single K-1 photo was made using the K-1's optical viewfinder. Rather all of my photos are composed and focused using the LCD screen on the back of the K-1 with a Zacuto viewfinder. So for me too, I would greatly prefer a "mirrorless" Pentax K-1 because I've never used the mirror and I would appreciate the smaller size and lighter weight. Because I want a mirrorless K-1 does not take anything away from the K-1 or the many things I like about it. I guess that some around here just don't care for reviews that are not 100% over-the-top positive.

I just don't know that if you made the K-1 mirrorless that it would actually be that much lighter. The comment has been made many times that the K-1 is quite heavy for its size and I think it really comes down to the quality of the materials used as well as the sealing level. Cameras like the D750 include a mirror and are quite a bit lighter. In addition, a knock on Sony over time has been that they don't have the build level, even on their top end cameras that Pentax offers, even on their lower end cameras.

Certainly a mirrorless K-1 would be thinner. As far as OVF versus EVF, that is the sort of discussion that doesn't usually go anywhere, but certainly for you it doesn't make a difference since you aren't using the viewfinder anyway. For me, the K-1 viewfinder is actually very nice and bright and works well.

[biz-engineer]

The comment has been made many times that the K-1 is quite heavy for its size and I think it really comes down to the quality of the materials used as well as the sealing level.

System weight accounts for how slow a shutter can still produce sharp images, and lenses contribute significantly to the weight and how much light can reach the sensor. Superior image quality often practically comes from larger camera systems. IMO, size+weight of mirrorless is more of a selling argument that was used by Fuji and Sony when those first MILC models were inferior to DSLR for AF, but since MILC lenses have gotten larger, we don't hear anymore about MILC offering weight/size advantages.There are a few advantages of MILC vs DSLR, such as 100% viewfinder for precise framing, and lack of mirror vibrations (coming along potentially low life of shutter and additional shutter induced vibrations), slightly better exposure metering in some cases, and lesser need to correct for AF accuracy with lenses.Most people I've seen using Sony and Fuji MILC did not have a smaller camera bag, even completely irrelevant when carrying a tripod.

[Fenwoodian]

.
Reduced weight is not just a "selling argument that was used by Fuji System weight". Please feel free to check out my post comparing Pentax K3 weight vs Fuji X-T2 weight - Fuji X series club - Page 9 - PentaxForums.com

[Rondec]

.
Reduced weight is not just a "selling argument that was used by Fuji System weight". Please feel free to check out my post comparing Pentax K3 weight vs Fuji X-T2 weight - Fuji X series club - Page 9 - PentaxForums.com

But how much do you think the mirror and pentaprism weigh? A KP weighs 639 grams, a K 3 weighs 817 grams, and an XT-2 weighs 507 grams. Clearly the mirror weighs something and it does add some thickness to the camera, but you can make SLRs pretty small too. The KS-1 has a 100 percent OVF and decent performance and weighs 499 grams. My daughter owns one and frankly I prefer the handling of my K-1 or K3 to it. It is just to light. But it takes good photos.

[tax]

This seems to be saying that only a professional photographer is qualified to review and render opinions on photography equipment. I disagree and think there are certainly photographers who don't make their living taking photographs who are qualified and have the ability to do quality reviews.

So, who will you believe in reviewing a sports car, a soccer mom with some "advanced technical degree" or a professional race car driver, who is a high school dropout? I might trust this soccer mom only with reviewing cup holders and an entertainment system in some ugly minivan, but no more than this.
It seems that internet reviewers are trying to be jacks of all trades, but in reality they are masters of none.

[reh321]

System weight accounts for how slow a shutter can still produce sharp images

Mostly because people these days grab the grip and depend on inertia to provide stability. When I was younger, I learned to take sharp photos resting a 650g rangefinder camera on my right thumb, then squeezing my trigger finger down against that thumb. I use the same method to take photos 1/8th second or slower using my Q-7.

[wanderer2]

So, who will you believe in reviewing a sports car, a soccer mom with some "advanced technical degree" or a professional race car driver, who is a high school dropout? I might trust this soccer mom only with reviewing cup holders and an entertainment system in some ugly minivan, but no more than this.
It seems that internet reviewers are trying to be jacks of all trades, but in reality they are masters of none.

Comparing a professional race car driver with a soccer mom is not a valid comparison for this discussion. What would be analogous to an experienced amateur photographer with a professional would be an amateur racer who participates in club racing versus a professional race driver. I would hold that the amateur driver could have the necessary knowledge and expertise to do an excellent analysis and review of the race car he drives. Your soccer mom example however would be like comparing a professional photographer with someone who has just picked up a camera for the first time, or, to use the driver comparison, with someone who has just learned to drive. That is not the case with the reviewer discussed in this thread, who is described by people who know him and/or know his work as an experienced and capable camera reviewer even though he is not a professional photographer.

Our basic disagreement here is you apparently think ONLY a professional photographer is capable of an adequate camera review and I think there are individuals who don't sell photographs who can also do that.

[clackers]

I must admit I'm ultimately not interested in a review of a camera by a guy who's not already an expert in that brand, and a very good photographer as well, preferably a working one, not a journalist or a blogger. In any academic field, the only reviews that have credibility are by people who have PhDs in that particular specialist area already.

Say what we like of the Oscars, but category winners like script, actor and visual effects are decided only by a panel of distinguished members of each profession. Bloggers and vloggers are self-employed, they haven't had to prove their credentials to anyone.

Having said all of that, Lloyd's obviously a class above the Uncle Joes of the Internet. He does more than an unboxing and a rewording of the press releases.

[Rondec]

Comparing a professional race car driver with a soccer mom is not a valid comparison for this discussion. What would be analogous to an experienced amateur photographer with a professional would be an amateur racer who participates in club racing versus a professional race driver. I would hold that the amateur driver could have the necessary knowledge and expertise to do an excellent analysis and review of the race car he drives. Your soccer mom example however would be like comparing a professional photographer with someone who has just picked up a camera for the first time, or, to use the driver comparison, with someone who has just learned to drive. That is not the case with the reviewer discussed in this thread, who is described by people who know him and/or know his work as an experienced and capable camera reviewer even though he is not a professional photographer.

Our basic disagreement here is you apparently think ONLY a professional photographer is capable of an adequate camera review and I think there are individuals who don't sell photographs who can also do that.

I think the big thing with reviewers is not that they be super capable in the field they have chosen to review, but that they have similar tastes/wants/needs to your own and an interesting way of presenting those things in article form. The ability to write is something that is missed dearly in the internet age and having read an awful lot of pretty canned material on sites like DP review, I definitely appreciate when someone brings a little different insight and verbiage to the table.

I haven't really read Lloyd and so I wouldn't comment on him specifically.

I do think about movie reviews and often those reviewers have completely different tastes from myself. Realizing who has similar tastes and can make recommendations that you will actually go a long with helps considerably to enjoying a reviewer's work.

[RobA_Oz]

Having said all of that, Lloyd's obviously a class above the Uncle Joes of the Internet. He does more than an unboxing and a rewording of the press releases.

I’ve read him once or twice and, on that slim basis, I agree he’s above average, certainly more considered than most. The fact that people pay their own money to read his opinions, rather than advertisers paying per visitor, means he’s not relying on sensation (real or fabricated) to get attention. He’s also been in the game for a while, which means his approach works.

[clackers]

I’ve read him once or twice and, on that slim basis, I agree he’s above average, certainly more considered than most. The fact that people pay their own money to read his opinions, rather than advertisers paying per visitor, means he’s not relying on sensation (real or fabricated) to get attention.

Yep, once you earn your money from the subscribers and not the advertisers, you can suddenly have real editorial standards.

The absolute opposite are so-called industry magazines. You can't offend anyone, they pay for the publications and the employee's wages, while awards are given out with a nudge and a wink almost on a 'every child receives a prize' understanding amongst the major players.