[stills999]

". I don't want some silly little rectangular box that is unbalanced and absurd with a telephoto lens attached.

Perhaps the recent launch of pancake type lenses had this in mind ... Pentax has probably been planning to move to this direction (good or bad).

[audiobomber]

But, like I said, mirrorless is more an exercise on what can be improved in the future, without being tied in the past. The first DSLRs also sucked compared to traditional SLRs, but here we are. Same thing will happen 5-10 years from now for mirrorless.

The above point is very significant for Pentax. They need to jump into the water right now, establish credibility, keep up with the competition, maybe even get a chance to lead. Mirrorless is a popular genre for upgraders, Pentax needs representation in this field. The way they're doing it, with K-mount compatibility, is brilliant.

If I were to have only one camera there's no question, it would be a DSLR. But I know I will always have more than one camera. The K20D is my main camera. I have a K-x that I use for its smaller size and higher ISO capability. I love the K20 but I've never loved the K-x. I know it's supposed to have some better specs, but I've never been enamoured with the IQ vs my K20D or K100D Super. The K-x is just a tool for me.

A Pentax K-01 appears to best the K-x in the ways that matter most to me; it has better DR and high ISO, and is significantly more compact. Most importantly, it will mount all of my lenses. It will also offer some of the features mentioned by others above for mirrorless designs. I want one because it's very different than my K20D; not as capable in some ways, more capable in others. I like that idea better than having another DSLR. I had a K-5 for a couple of weeks and didn't feel it added enough to what I already have. I'm confident that adding a MILC will be a different experience.

[Brangdon]

Here are some advantages of mirrorless that I can think of:

• Eliminating mirror slap. Physically moving that big lump of glass around causes vibration. (You can achieve that on a DSLR with mirror lock-up; and the need for that feature shows that eliminating the mirror entirely would help image quality the rest of the time.)
• Providing digital zoom (of the viewfinder image, not the photo itself!). For example, to help with manual focusing, or to help you see the depth of field. (With an optical viewfinder, the aperture is generally left wide open while composing, and you have to close it down to see the actual depth of view, and even then you need sharp eyesight to see it.)
• Providing preview of exposure. The viewfinder image can be made brighter or darker according to the shutter speed etc. Also, highlights and shadows can be made to blink where the sensor's dynamic range is exceeded.
• Providing overlays of information, such as histograms. Most cameras can show focus points in the viewfinder, but an electronic one could highlight actual faces too, and even label them with their names. (We can expect more to become possible here. For example, you could show depth of field more vividly, either by exaggerating the blur in the viewfinder, or by tinting the out of focus areas. I don't know of any camera that does that yet.)
• Provide all the information normally found on the back monitor instead of just a sub-set, so you could fully control the camera without taking your eye from the viewfinder.
• Quieter, because you don't have the sound of the mirror flipping up and back. (This can matter with wildlife photography. For quiet you'd want an electronic shutter too.) (The mirror happens to be especially loud on my camera; I know it's less of an issue with other models.)
• The viewfinder image may more accurately reflect the limitations of the camera, and so be a more accurate indication of what the final photo will look like. Some people think that's an advantage. Others would rather the viewfinder show them the scene as it is, not as it would appear in the photo. (This applies mainly to shooting JPG; if you shoot RAW, the viewfinder will reflect a specific RAW to RGB conversion.)
• More accurate focusing, albeit slower, because you can't use dedicated sensors. With dedicated focus sensor, any difference between the distance from lens to focus sensor (via mirror) and the distance from lens to image sensor, will show up as a focussing error. (An example of how a mirrorless design should be simpler to build.)
• Potentially simpler (and hence smaller, lighter, cheaper and better quality) wide angle lenses, because with no mirror in the way you can place the lens closer to the sensor and thus use a short focal length without needing a retrofocus lens design. (But you have to change the mount to take advantage.)
• Potentially smaller body, because that mirror takes up a lot of room. (But you have to change the mount to take advantage.)
• Less weight, without the mirror or pentaprism. (Being smaller would also make it lighter because of less material generally.)
• Hopefully more reliable, because of fewer moving parts.
• Hopefully cheaper, because easier to make.

Notice that most of these benefits don't involve changing the mount or registration distance. It's not all about small size.

[mlatour]

Here are some advantages of mirrorless that I can think of:

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

Notice that most of these benefits don't involve changing the mount or registration distance. It's not all about small size.

Yes finally someone looking forward and not stuck in the 35mm film era,
Google a 'Fujifilm S9100', imagine something like that with a K mount.
It would make a very nice K-r replacement, keep the mirror for the next K-5.

[hcarvalhoalves]

Here are some advantages of mirrorless that I can think of:

• Eliminating mirror slap. Physically moving that big lump of glass around causes vibration. (You can achieve that on a DSLR with mirror lock-up; and the need for that feature shows that eliminating the mirror entirely would help image quality the rest of the time.)
• Providing digital zoom (of the viewfinder image, not the photo itself!). For example, to help with manual focusing, or to help you see the depth of field. (With an optical viewfinder, the aperture is generally left wide open while composing, and you have to close it down to see the actual depth of view, and even then you need sharp eyesight to see it.)
• Providing preview of exposure. The viewfinder image can be made brighter or darker according to the shutter speed etc. Also, highlights and shadows can be made to blink where the sensor's dynamic range is exceeded.
• Providing overlays of information, such as histograms. Most cameras can show focus points in the viewfinder, but an electronic one could highlight actual faces too, and even label them with their names. (We can expect more to become possible here. For example, you could show depth of field more vividly, either by exaggerating the blur in the viewfinder, or by tinting the out of focus areas. I don't know of any camera that does that yet.)
• Provide all the information normally found on the back monitor instead of just a sub-set, so you could fully control the camera without taking your eye from the viewfinder.
• Quieter, because you don't have the sound of the mirror flipping up and back. (This can matter with wildlife photography. For quiet you'd want an electronic shutter too.) (The mirror happens to be especially loud on my camera; I know it's less of an issue with other models.)
• The viewfinder image may more accurately reflect the limitations of the camera, and so be a more accurate indication of what the final photo will look like. Some people think that's an advantage. Others would rather the viewfinder show them the scene as it is, not as it would appear in the photo. (This applies mainly to shooting JPG; if you shoot RAW, the viewfinder will reflect a specific RAW to RGB conversion.)
• More accurate focusing, albeit slower, because you can't use dedicated sensors. With dedicated focus sensor, any difference between the distance from lens to focus sensor (via mirror) and the distance from lens to image sensor, will show up as a focussing error. (An example of how a mirrorless design should be simpler to build.)
• Potentially simpler (and hence smaller, lighter, cheaper and better quality) wide angle lenses, because with no mirror in the way you can place the lens closer to the sensor and thus use a short focal length without needing a retrofocus lens design. (But you have to change the mount to take advantage.)
• Potentially smaller body, because that mirror takes up a lot of room. (But you have to change the mount to take advantage.)
• Less weight, without the mirror or pentaprism. (Being smaller would also make it lighter because of less material generally.)
• Hopefully more reliable, because of fewer moving parts.
• Hopefully cheaper, because easier to make.

Notice that most of these benefits don't involve changing the mount or registration distance. It's not all about small size.

Quoted for truth.

The biggest cons right now are really the limited quality of the EVF screens available (low resolution, low dynamic range) and the diminished battery life. While battery life can benefit both from new battery polymers and less power-hungry electronics, I believe it will take longer to see better screens, probably will have to wait for a new disruptive technology instead of backlit LED screens.

[rr1736]

The big advantage to mirrorless is in the cost of manufacture and to a lesser degree a more stable product, few moving part fewer failures.
The advantage is not teally to the user but to the manufacturer

[JHD]

Here are some advantages of mirrorless that I can think of...

More accurate focusing, albeit slower, because you can't use dedicated sensors. With dedicated focus sensor, any difference between the distance from lens to focus sensor (via mirror) and the distance from lens to image sensor, will show up as a focussing error. (An example of how a mirrorless design should be simpler to build.)

Um, according to Nikon, the new mirrorless Nikon 1 system has the world's fastest AF.

Nikon is on record saying the AF is so fast it blows the D3s and the D3x out the water when it comes to phase detect tracking abilities with the auto focus.

You Tube

You Tube

[kamisu]

OK, so CD AF is more accurate than phase detect, but almost all dslr like K5 have both.

Is contrast detect AF on K5 as accurate as that in a mirrorless, like Samsung NX200 or Pentax K-01 ?

[Laurentiu Cristofor]

Is contrast detect AF on K5 as accurate as that in a mirrorless, like Samsung NX200 or Pentax K-01 ?

Yes, but it is slower.

[Anvh]

ON tablet so no quotes sorry.


Mirrorless can be quieter but the biggest noise maker is the shutter.
Just use the 2 second delay on the k5 and you hear firs the mirror and 2 seconds later the shutter.


For AF
First off Nikon 1 use contrast and phase dedect focusing, the way it does phase AF is by changing a couple off pixels on the sensor by covering up half of the cell.

Now contrast vs phase AF.
Contrast is more accurate.
Phase is faster and better at tracking, it's faster and better at tracking because with phase AF the camera can calculate how much the focus needs to move and which way.
Contrast AF first needs to move the focus to see if it goes the right way so with tracking it will hunt/seek.

[Pål Jensen]

Here are some advantages of mirrorless that I can think of:

• Eliminating mirror slap. Physically moving that big lump of glass around causes vibration. (You can achieve that on a DSLR with mirror lock-up; and the need for that feature shows that eliminating the mirror entirely would help image quality the rest of the time.)
• Providing digital zoom (of the viewfinder image, not the photo itself!). For example, to help with manual focusing, or to help you see the depth of field. (With an optical viewfinder, the aperture is generally left wide open while composing, and you have to close it down to see the actual depth of view, and even then you need sharp eyesight to see it.)
• Providing preview of exposure. The viewfinder image can be made brighter or darker according to the shutter speed etc. Also, highlights and shadows can be made to blink where the sensor's dynamic range is exceeded.
• Providing overlays of information, such as histograms. Most cameras can show focus points in the viewfinder, but an electronic one could highlight actual faces too, and even label them with their names. (We can expect more to become possible here. For example, you could show depth of field more vividly, either by exaggerating the blur in the viewfinder, or by tinting the out of focus areas. I don't know of any camera that does that yet.)
• Provide all the information normally found on the back monitor instead of just a sub-set, so you could fully control the camera without taking your eye from the viewfinder.
• Quieter, because you don't have the sound of the mirror flipping up and back. (This can matter with wildlife photography. For quiet you'd want an electronic shutter too.) (The mirror happens to be especially loud on my camera; I know it's less of an issue with other models.)
• The viewfinder image may more accurately reflect the limitations of the camera, and so be a more accurate indication of what the final photo will look like. Some people think that's an advantage. Others would rather the viewfinder show them the scene as it is, not as it would appear in the photo. (This applies mainly to shooting JPG; if you shoot RAW, the viewfinder will reflect a specific RAW to RGB conversion.)
• More accurate focusing, albeit slower, because you can't use dedicated sensors. With dedicated focus sensor, any difference between the distance from lens to focus sensor (via mirror) and the distance from lens to image sensor, will show up as a focussing error. (An example of how a mirrorless design should be simpler to build.)
• Potentially simpler (and hence smaller, lighter, cheaper and better quality) wide angle lenses, because with no mirror in the way you can place the lens closer to the sensor and thus use a short focal length without needing a retrofocus lens design. (But you have to change the mount to take advantage.)
• Potentially smaller body, because that mirror takes up a lot of room. (But you have to change the mount to take advantage.)
• Less weight, without the mirror or pentaprism. (Being smaller would also make it lighter because of less material generally.)
• Hopefully more reliable, because of fewer moving parts.
• Hopefully cheaper, because easier to make.

Notice that most of these benefits don't involve changing the mount or registration distance. It's not all about small size.

All of this except for the possibly smaller size is available or could be a vaialable on a DSLR as well. Mirror assembly rarely cause problem for a camera; electronics does. And we haven't mentioned the disadvantages...
All by removing the optical viewing which is the preferred number one seeing, aiming and composing device regardless of what apparatus we are talking about.

[tuco]

Everything I have heard leads me to believe that battery life is a Con. Fewer shots per battery charge is not something I look forward to.

Easily solved. On your camera strap you add a small pouch that slides on where you can carry an extra battery and memory card. You should be able to find one at most comprehensive camera stores.

There is a long list of things the mirrorless cameras can do someone posted not long ago of things such as live histograms and see your exposure adjustments live on the LCD screen and a host of other things.

[Laurentiu Cristofor]

All of this except for the possibly smaller size is available or could be a vaialable on a DSLR as well.

Only if you use the DSLR as a MILC by switching to LiveView mode. At which point, does it matter that technically it is a DSLR, when you are really using it as a MILC? The poor implementation of LiveView in DSLRs also makes me think that it is tricky to build a camera that can handle successfully both DSLR and MILC use modes.

Mirror assembly rarely cause problem for a camera

I feel quite certain that once mirrorless cameras will be used by a majority of users, we will see much fewer threads with words like backfocus and frontfocus in the title. That alone should save people thousands of hours of redundant debates.

[westmill]

There seems to be constant debates about the pros and cons of mirrorless verses OVF cameras.
I can understand it when its about EVF or OVF. OVF wins easily for me everytime.
But.. I can see the apeal of EVF and why people love the idea.
It all seems a bit of a waist and silly argument to me, since its about personal preferance and end use etc.
In which case, neither is better than the other. Its just two different ways of doing things.
Ive learned a few things about EVF and benafits I wouldnt even have thought of.
Still... for me... OVF wins easily.
What gets me is.... how or why does cameras like the KO1 come into these discussions ?
The fact that it has no veiwfinder makes it nothing more than a compact camera.
I know its got the same sensor as the K5 and I know it can use K mount lenses etc
So its a cracking compact camera ! Why do so many people try and compare them with the likes of the K5 ?
I just dont get it.

[Philoslothical]

The fact that it has no veiwfinder makes it nothing more than a compact camera.
I know its got the same sensor as the K5 and I know it can use K mount lenses etc
So its a cracking compact camera ! Why do so many people try and compare them with the likes of the K5 ?
I just dont get it.

You read my mind. I have to wonder if in some ways the K-01 doesn't have more in common with the Q than the K-5, at least insofar as its purpose and target audience (with a notable exception being its video capabilities, and the people attracted to that).