That's an interesting analysis. Here are a few things to consider.
Originally posted by misomosi The viewfinders are big and bright in most Pentax cameras. However, the included focusing screen of my K-50 is really bad for manual focusing. This means that I need to spend another good 100-120$ for a proper focusing screen like the KatzEye or from focusingscreens.com
Pentax, like any company, doesn't really WANT you to use the older lenses, they want you to use the new lenses and give them money for those lenses. At least you still have the opportunity to use those old lenses, with many other brands you can't.
And I think you're downplaying the usefulness of the viewfinder for more than focus. Composition for instance is greatly facilitated by a good viewfinder. Just go pick up a rebel and you'll see.
I like an EVF or an LCD in some situations, but there are things you just can't see without a true OVF. So there's a cost associated with removing it.
Originally posted by misomosi the mirror slap of my K-50 is extremely noisy I think for most applications. I had problems with it at public events and bird shooting.
I think that's an exaggeration. People have been taking pictures for decades with noisy mirrors and they survived. Less noise is good but the noise is not the deal breaker you imply it is.
Originally posted by misomosi WR was a selling point for me. Looking at the lenses I have or sold, the only WR lens is the kit one which I don't use anymore. Also, if I wanted to invest in Pentax lenses I would probably ending up with 2-3 limited primes that are not WR anyway so why bother about WR in the first place?
I'd love more WR lenses. Stil, I'd say the reasoning is that you don'T want to change lenses too often in WR conditions, so Pentax concentrated on zooms.
Originally posted by misomosi I never thought about proper video support until recently. Pentax cameras are just not right for video!
They're not the best. But it works, especially with the K-3. I'm eager to see how the K-50 replacement will perform.
Originally posted by misomosi SR is simply not as effective as it seems in theory. You can feel it, sometimes I wonder how did that 1/20 photo came out sharp. But going mirrorless with leaf shutter alone can compensate for the Pentax SR I think.
There I think you a wrong. Just look at the D7100 debacle on the Nikon forums. People were panicking, saying "24 MP is simply too much, you get motion blur, lenses are not as sharp as they were (sic)", etc. Meanwhile K-3 users were obliviously shooting away without missing a meat, the SR taking care of all of that.
Originally posted by misomosi I remember thinking of what and advantage dual rotative knobs will bring me instead of just one. Although it is great to be able to modify the aperture & shutter from their dedicated dial, my K-50 fails quite badly in terms of usability. For example, changing ISO always turns on the screen which can be especially annoying and painful for my eyes at night. Also, some useful shooting options are in the menu which is really not pleasant. I'm thinking of the nice design of X-T1 with those dedicated knobs for shutter speed/exposure compensation/ISO on top of the camera. It's a more expensive camera than mine but K-3 is in the same price tag and doesn't give me that.
The K-50 is a compact, mid-level camera. As such, its interface is simplified, streamlined, but still efficient.
the K-3 is an advanced camera, lacking auto scene modes but offering a wealth of controls. Most things have a dedicated button, and the few that don't are accessed by pressing the INFO button and navigating the quick menu. I have handled (for a short period) a recent Fuji body (don't know which one) and I strongly disagree that the Fuji was easier to operate, or that the controls were more plentiful or logical. And it'S NOT in the same price league, once you factor in the lenses especially.
To each his own. I think you obviously desire a mirrorless camera, and that's perfectly fine. I'm not arguing with your preferences. I simply point out things that might be perceived differently.