Originally posted by TedYork Just want to let folks know that not everyone wants a mirrorless camera. I looked at Sony before buying my current camera and I have no desire to compose photographs through a bad television screen. I'm by no means criticizing those who like mirrorless - I'm just standing up for my preferences. I love the clarity I get looking at the subject through an optical viewfinder. When I want to go mirrorless I simple go to live view. Full disclosure - I'm shooting with the Canon 5DSR and 5DmarkII and currently taking a serious look at the 645Z.
I have just traded in my A7RII for the mk III, and while I'd still say that I prefer the 645Z overall, the mk III handles better than the mk II, more solidly put together better battery life than the mk II (bigger battery about the same size as the one in the Z). There are some advantages to the EVF, and the one in the mkIII is an improvement - better generally for focussing in poor light, provided there is something bright enough in frame - I took some shots of the moon with the mk III and the FE 100 -400 at 400mm and wide open, and had few problems with focussing. Where EVFs need to catch up is where they get grainy in poor light.
EVFs are definitely getting better. But they still have some way to go. I do like the A7RIII, it's closer in IQ to the Z than the mkII was. So yes, I do think that Pentax does need to picks its shoes up, though there is absolutely nothing wrong with the Z. Could just do with something wider, say 21mm and that lens to take filters. OS? Unless the next body has it in the body, I see no real need for it on the lens. A 21mm f/4 or as far as I am concerned even a f/5.6 would be great without the OS to weigh it down.
In the meantime when I want to shoot wider than the 25 f/4 or 28 - 45 I'm happy to use my A7RIII with the 12 - 24 or with filter, the Batis 18.