[RioRico]

I I don't know why any working professional would want a mirror-less camera...

Because not all working professionals are alike, and they find need for vastly different tools. Some working pros use 8x10" viewcams, some use Holgas. Were I a PJ or PI now, a tiny MILC could be VERY useful because it's inconspicuous. It's not for calendar landscapes nor full-page fashion ads. But I've sold shots from 1mpx and 5mpx P&S's. No, they don't look as good as similar shots taken with the K50/1.2 on my K20D -- but they were good enough.

{rant}
One mark of a successful photo is how well it withstands torture, ie low-res reproduction. Some of history's most significant images are mostly seen in cruddy prints. Admiring fine detail is nice. Feeling an image's impact even though it's on blurry pulp is totally something else. Can your photos survive posterization?
{/rant}

---

Last edited by RioRico; 02-03-2012 at 11:23 AM.

[Alizarine]

I'd want one so that security guards in parks and malls wouldn't be so sensitive about me holding a camera (like, for pete's sake they all think dSLR users in malls here are terrorists or something!)

[Clavius]

I just can't see how taking 4500 photos in a day that way can be easy.

Taking 4500 photos a day through an EVF? Ah, you'll need a pair of these then: Computer Monitor Glasses

[dylansalt]

I have a Sony p&s HX5v which has really given me some great images - I certainly have found it's focus very fast and it has certain tricks up it's sleeve than most dslrs.

Although I can find faults in this image - the mother of the child and her friends raved over it - kaching



Not everyone, especially the masses are craving dslr quality (would they even know the difference) so the mirrorless cams certainly can be used in a pro's arsenal

---

Last edited by dylansalt; 02-02-2012 at 10:12 AM.

[BrightStar]

Because not all working professionals are alike, and they find need for vastly different tools. Some working pros use 8x10" viewcams, some use Holgas. Were I a PJ or PI now, a tiny MILC could be VERY useful because it's inconspicuous. It's not for calendar landscapes nor full-page fashion ads. But I've sold shots from 1mpx and 5mpx P&S's. No, they don't look as good as similar shots takend with the K50/1.2 on my K20D -- but they were good enough.

Yes. My favorite cameras to use are medium format folders and 8x10 view cameras. For my personal work, film is still preferable. That's not my question. I'm talking about modern photography in a modern era. You're not going to shoot a whole wedding with an 8x10. And if you are, then you've got a niche business and that's not what I'm speaking to.
I'm looking for a real answer regarding the technical specs of this camera and the inherent drawbacks of its design.

I'm not looking for empty arguments that blindly defend the camera and its potential uses.
When someone's paying you several thousands of dollars per day, they don't accept that you missed the shot. Using the bigger lenses on this camera and getting a steady shot is unrealistic. Battery life is also a significant issue since live-view is employed the whole time.

The glare is also the main issue here.

One mark of a successful photo is how well it withstands torture, ie low-res reproduction. Some of history's most significant images are mostly seen in cruddy prints. Admiring fine detail is nice. Feeling an image's impact even though it's on blurry pulp is totally something else. Can your photos survive posterization?

Again, not what I'm speaking about. This has nothing to do with my points. I don't need to take a camera without the functionality needed for a certain job and prove that it can do the job. That's backwards. The camera is a tool, especially for working pros. I'm not talking about art here. For my artwork I use 19th century, wet plate chemical processes because they produce the images find most pleasing. That's not what this conversation is about.
My questions are for people who make a living with these cameras. I wanted to hear from them about their thoughts on whether they'd ever consider this a serious camera.

As far as video is concerned, which I shoot a lot of, I think this camera is great, but still has hug drawbacks. Without that weather-sealing I'm used to with Pentax, I can no longer shoot out in rain and snow(where I get much of my best video) and the beach will be a major issue.

Anyway, I wrote my first comment before the specs were released. I thought I missed something about "mirror-less". I did not.
It's nothing I'm interested in for serious photography and the idea of looking at another screen when I try to keep that to a minimum as it is,(photoshop, adobe premiere, etc.) just doesn't appeal to me in the slightest.

I can already picture this a cool travel camera. Why didn't they think a step ahead and build weather-sealing(Pentax's forte) into it? Then I could take this out as a semi-serious nature photography camera when I go hiking and camping into the mountains. I'm using a tripod anyway and the quick shots associated with other work are not issues.
But having to cover it up as soon as the weather comes, just seems silly after being used to staying out there without an umbrella and shooting to my heart's content.

After reading the specs, the camera is a let-down. I hope they didn't completely skip over a k5 update for 2012.

[johnmflores]

I understand why mirror-less works if you're shooting video. I understand why people who favor smaller point and shoot cameras would be interested.
But I can't understand how any professional users or serious amateurs(who are often better photographers than those who are paid)
would have any interest in these toys. Staring at the back of an lcd? Fighting glare in bright light or any light for that matter? Having to hold the camera away from you decreasing steadying ability and inarguably increasing shake.
I shoot portraits and also weddings. Can we hear from those who know how difficult it can be to capture the right angles and moments in a large wedding with hundreds of guests?

It is all about the angles. Angles that with a dSLR you'd have to get up on a chair or down on your belly for. Angles that you've never taken before. Angles that your aging knees no longer want to take. Angles that let you maintain a relationship and rapport with your subject instead of hiding behind a black box.

Sure, taking the camera away from your eye does have issues in bright light and stability, but it also opens up creative opportunities.



















Call me crazy, but I love composing with the rear LCD. It's wonderfully freeing.

[vonBaloney]

I would love having an articulating screen if I have to use a screen. My old Canon P&S 5MP A95 had the best design for that -- you could flip it any which way, including shooting out sideways facing the same direction as the lens, and you could even store it "face down" towards the camera for protection. Much much easier to get low angles where you can't get your eye down that low or high angles over your head, etc.

[BrightStar]

It is all about the angles. Angles that with a dSLR you'd have to get up on a chair or down on your belly for. Angles that you've never taken before. Angles that your aging knees no longer want to take. Angles that let you maintain a relationship and rapport with your subject instead of hiding behind a black box.

Sure, taking the camera away from your eye does have issues in bright light and stability, but it also opens up creative opportunities.

I agree that you might be able to get a few shots this way that you'd otherwise had to have guessed at without the screen, but this does not make sense when you're taking thousands of photos.
The bright light and glare issues can last for hours depending on location and angle. It's simply impractical to think this type of camera can be used for professional work.
To grab a few potentially cool shots is, of course, possible.

Either way, thank you for the reply and the photos.
It's interesting to here from people who favor the lcd.

I personally think seeing the photo ahead of time and making framing choices based on that is impractical for working pros who need to be able to respond very quickly in the moment, not hold their camera out and try to steady for a shot.

[chhayanat]

There are times when a rangefinder option is handy. Even the best LCD or LED screens can be pretty useless in bright sunlight. Unless you are very myopic you end up holding the camera at arm's length which is not the most stable of poses. And there is always going to be this annoying time lag between reality and the LCD display. One of the reasons why I still keep an old Sony W1 point-and-shoot with a pretty naff but handy optical rangefinder type viewfinder.

Eye-level viewfinders, showing substantially what the lens sees, are not to be underestimated. Eventually, manufacturers might even increase camera sizes slightly, if grudgingly, to accommodate such a viewfinder in the camera body, instead of providing attachments that clip on to the body. Almost certainly , there will be a nice premium. .
Chhayanat

[johnmflores]

I agree that you might be able to get a few shots this way that you'd otherwise had to have guessed at without the screen, but this does not make sense when you're taking thousands of photos.
The bright light and glare issues can last for hours depending on location and angle. It's simply impractical to think this type of camera can be used for professional work.
To grab a few potentially cool shots is, of course, possible.

Either way, thank you for the reply and the photos.
It's interesting to here from people who favor the lcd.

I personally think seeing the photo ahead of time and making framing choices based on that is impractical for working pros who need to be able to respond very quickly in the moment, not hold their camera out and try to steady for a shot.

I'm a working semi-pro that shoots travel and events. I'll be taking the K-5 + K-01 + DA21, 35, and 70 on my next motorcycle travel assignment. I'm sure that I'll get publishable shots with the K-01, as I've had photos published that I composed with the rear LCD before. And I'm sure that my publisher and the magazine's readers won't look at a shot and wonder how far away the camera was from my eye.

[Laurentiu Cristofor]

It's simply impractical to think

You put your finger on the root of all evil. Unknowingly, of course.

[Jasvox]

Want to pretend it is a cell phone? TTL rules.

You put your best cell phone photo against any of my random NEX-5N photos and we'll see what you think afterward.

Here is an interesting comparison between shots of an NEX-5N and a Canon 5DII. Can you tell which is which?
http://www.thephoblographer.com/2012/02/02/which-one-is-which-sony-nex-5n-vs-canon-5d-mk-ii/

Jason

[reeftool]

I have a few friends who are working professional photographers. They all own P&S digital cameras, along with multiple DSLR's. Most of us as own one or two camera bodies, probably the newest and our old one as a backup if it still works. One in particular, a local newspaper reporter/photographer, carries a Panasonic P&S zoom everywhere as a "just in case" camera. A good shot is exactly that, regardless of the camera it came out of. Galen Rowell, the late mountain climber who had loads of photos published in Nat Geo and other magazines, shot a lot of his stuff on a Kodak Instamatic he carried in his shirt pocket. A camera is a tool to get the job done, nothing more. Why would a pro want a mirrorless camera? They're quiet for one. SLR's are loud. Many wedding photographers years ago used Leica's for ceremony shots in the church for that reason as did sports photographers at golf tounraments. I have taken shots of deer from several hundred feet away and they turned and looked straight at me as soon as i pressed the shutter. The mirrorless camera has some advantages and I think a lot of pro's will likely be adding one to their bag.

[RioRico]

It's simply impractical to think this type of camera can be used for professional work.

Various here have already pointed out professional applications. Photography extends beyond landscapes and weddings.

[Laurentiu Cristofor]

[rant]
One mark of a successful photo is how well it withstands torture, ie low-res reproduction. Some of history's most significant images are mostly seen in cruddy prints. Admiring fine detail is nice. Feeling an image's impact even though it's on blurry pulp is totally something else. Can your photos survive posterization?
[/rant]

Yes, people mostly shoot crap these days and want IQ to compensate for the lack of substance. But truly great photos that matter and make a lasting impact are not relying on IQ. Some get shot with phone cameras even. How much IQ does our memory have? A photograph that looks good just because it has high IQ will never stick to our memory.

Wedding photos are a great example. For the people involved, they matter a lot, and they'll want the best IQ. But for anyone else, they're pretty much irrelevant, unless you get invited for dinner by the couple and they start showing them to you - then they have the potential of becoming boring too.

Photography extends beyond landscapes and weddings.

We should be thankful for that too!