[sebberry]

I keep seeing people talk about mirrorless cameras.

Why? What's the point?

Electronic viewfinder? Been there, done that with my P&S cameras. I wanted a DSLR to get away from that.

Am I missing something?

[Adam]

Am I missing something?

Not really- you've got your phone if you want to take pictures of anything, anywhere, and your Pentax DSLR if you want quality photos

...at least that's my take on it!

[Ash]

I asked the same question a few months ago here: The Appeal of EVIL Cameras - PentaxForums.com.
A range of amswers were offered but none making me think twice about dSLRs. Then again there are the new Sony dSLRs with transparent mirrors, which is an interesting concept. Again, not enough for me to veer away from standard dSLR mechanisms.

[ziggy7]

I have a real nice pocket "always" digital camera, but I for one will not buy any more cameras without a viewfinder. But something like the Samsung NX-10 or the soon to be released NX-20 has some appeal with its built-in EVF, mostly because it is about as small as my Pentax MX and has a DX size sensor and no mirror flapping up and down.

[Ash]

EVILs may have that small size attraction about them, but little else meaningfully makes an enthusiast want to ditch a dSLR in favour of an EVIL. Mirror slap is no big deal to an enthusiast. But IQ is.

[Aristophanes]

EVILs may have that small size attraction about them, but little else meaningfully makes an enthusiast want to ditch a dSLR in favour of an EVIL. Mirror slap is no big deal to an enthusiast. But IQ is.

Have you tried the Sony A55 EVF?

It beats the pants off the OVF of the APS-C K-5.

[RioRico]

Growth Returns To d-SLR, Hybrid Cams

dSLR sales are up. So are MILC sales. They can co-exist. Can't we all just get along?

[abacus07]

So EVF's are the only argument against mirrorless? Is there anything in the mirrorless design that limits IQ? Or is the lower IQ due to smaller sensors of the current models?

I see a mirrorless APS-C as an excellent entry level model to the current Pentax lineup (replacing the K-x and K-r at some point). You move incrementally smaller and I think cheaper.

One cool feature on a panasonic m4/3 is the touch flip screen that allows you to completely compose and fire the shutter w/o pressing the button and zero mirror slap. A nice covert street shooting option. Or even at events when people always want to do those ridiculous poses because you have a camera pointed at them.

[RioRico]

I am opposed to EVFs. Not because they're lousy, but because they're small. We should wear VR goggles with the image data bluetoothed from the camera. No need to hold the camera up to my face -- I could wave it around anywhere. I could use a remote and not even need to touch the camera -- it could be mounted on some drone flier or walker or roller somewhere. Feel is very overrated.

[Winder]

I think the issue is that a lot of people seem to be judging the technology as it exists today and not looking to the future.

AF on the Olympus EP-3 is very, very fast and accurate. Better thank anything Pentax has ever offered.

The EVF on the A55 is pretty good, but the EVF on the A77 will be better than any APS-C VF currently on the market.

Today mirror-less does not deliver better technology than the current offering from major manufacturers, but in the next year and a half (1 life cycle for an APS-C camera) you will see some pretty big steps forward.

Better AF, better EVF, smaller package, better IQ. No mirror slap, no AF micro-adjustment needed, no dark VFs. Lots of information and lots of flexibility.

There is not a mirror-less on the market that I would currently buy, but I know that in the future technology is going to bring some amazing advances.

[Marc Sabatella]

Seems this discussion has probably happened at least a thousand times before, but FWIW:

Another advantage or mirrorless is a quieter operation - a significant consideration for someone shooting concerts (well, concerts other than heavily amplified music, anyhow). But they have a long ways to go before that overcomes the disadvantages for me.

As for disadvantages, there is another inherent in the design. Well, not in the lack or mirror itself, but in the natural tendency to take advantage of that and make a smaller camera: light from wide angle lenses will strike the sensor at a much greater angle if the registration distance is much shorter. Leica has had to deal with this; presumably the other mirrorless designs are as well. Not saying it's an unsolvable problem, but it does introduce some extra complexity - and most likely, compromises.

[Simian Summit]

I keep seeing people talk about mirrorless cameras.

Why? What's the point?

Electronic viewfinder? Been there, done that with my P&S cameras. I wanted a DSLR to get away from that.

Am I missing something?

Back to the original question...I think that by focusing on the DSLR we are sometimes missing the point, everyone doesn't have the same needs. In the film days there were many compact RFs and point and shoots that had beautiful lenses and great image quality, partially because everyone was projecting their images onto the same 35mm film (lets leave 110 and the Kodak Disc out of it). But now what do we have? There's a choice to use either large DSLR or a point and shoot (or camera phone). I think that the mirrorless cameras offers a nice third option...a compact camera with decent response and good control over image quality and depth of field. Although I do understand you can't have everything.

And just to get all of my biases on the table...I do lust after the pen.

[GregK8]

For me, I see a need for a smaller camera without interchangeable lenses. I recently purchased an LX5 so that I could have a camera that can shoot raw with me all the time without looking like a paparazzi. The smaller cameras with interchangeable lenses seem like a solution in search of a problem, but a lot of people seem to like them.

[abacus07]

For me, I see a need for a smaller camera without interchangeable lenses. I recently purchased an LX5 so that I could have a camera that can shoot raw with me all the time without looking like a paparazzi. The smaller cameras with interchangeable lenses seem like a solution in search of a problem, but a lot of people seem to like them.

mirrorless doesn't mean that a camera has to be tiny. A K mount APS-C camera with a good grip won't be significantly smaller than a K-x. But it will be smaller and I think it will also offer improved video capability which is something that the entry level consumer is interested in. And by growing the entry level base you can later grow the lens consumer base and the prosumer base.

I also think that we are fast approaching a time when EVF's become better than TTL VF's. After all we are taking digital pictures so it does make sense to view the digital image provided that the resolution is high enough.

[iTod]

I recently got a Samsung NX100, mostly for video capabilities (Not its strongest suit, but for the price...) and the ability to use my manual focus K, M, and M42 lenses.
It's extremely fun to use in that regard, it has the same (I believe - please correct me if I'm wrong) sensor as my K20D, and gives very acceptable image quality. To be honest, I didn't think I'd enjoy it nearly as much as I do, and although I find myself using it more than the K20, it really isn't so much a replacement for a (d)slr as a complimentary tool. No EVF, although there is an available accessory.
Different strokes, I guess.