[audiobomber]

My a6000 stays home almost all the time in favor of my K-3. Weight is insignificant with these small loads in a messenger bag.

[Tony Belding]

The Q has very slow equivalent lenses -- and a very small sensor size.

uhh... I think we all know what sensor size the Q7 and Q-S1 have. I have no idea what you mean by "very slow equivalent lenses". As far as I know, the 8.5mm f/1.9 is "equivalent" to f/1.9. Aperture is expressed as a ratio. There's no such thing as a crop factor for aperture.

That said, once you decide you are going to "take a bag" the question then becomes what size bag will you take. For me, it is little different to take a K3 with a DA 40 than it would be to take a Nex A7 with whatever prime I would choose or, the other hand, it would be that much different to have an A7 with a 24-70 f2.8 versus a K-1 with a 24-70 f2.8.

You're still talking about carrying one camera with one lens. I'm talking about carrying a small bag with my camera and every lens that I own for it. How big is the bag for your K3 and your five most-used lenses?

As to the EVF versus OVF debate, it is fine for you cast stones at those who prefer OVFs, but de gustibus non est disputandum. Your choice is no more or less valid than theirs.

It is not fine for me to cast stones. I'm not casting stones. I'm calling out those who cast stones. I'm trying to point out the folly of those who deem the EVF worthless (or even "pretty dismal") because they've only looked through an outdated one (the technology has advanced rapidly), or because an OVF is better suited in some particular way to their need, or -- worst of all -- because an EVF is simply different from what they've always known. I'd love to see Pentax offer a choice and put an equivalent K-mount EVF camera on the shelves right next to their DSLRs. Why has no company done that?

[Rondec]

uhh... I think we all know what sensor size the Q7 and Q-S1 have. I have no idea what you mean by "very slow equivalent lenses". As far as I know, the 8.5mm f/1.9 is "equivalent" to f/1.9. Aperture is expressed as a ratio. There's no such thing as a crop factor for aperture.




You're still talking about carrying one camera with one lens. I'm talking about carrying a small bag with my camera and every lens that I own for it. How big is the bag for your K3 and your five most-used lenses?




It is not fine for me to cast stones. I'm not casting stones. I'm calling out those who cast stones. I'm trying to point out the folly of those who deem the EVF worthless (or even "pretty dismal") because they've only looked through an outdated one (the technology has advanced rapidly), or because an OVF is better suited in some particular way to their need, or -- worst of all -- because an EVF is simply different from what they've always known. I'd love to see Pentax offer a choice and put an equivalent K-mount EVF camera on the shelves right next to their DSLRs. Why has no company done that?

Equivalence is the theory that you can judge the performance of an individual lens/sensor combo by an equation that considers the size of the sensor and the maximum aperture of the lens. So, the 50-135 f2.8 on a K5 should perform pretty similarly to a 70-200 f4 lens on a D800. All of this assumes similar print/viewing size and similar technology in the sensor, but small sensors need really fast lenses (faster than f1.9) to achieve similar performance to full frame sensors.

I am pretty agnostic when it comes to EVFs versus OVFs. I just would hate to see Pentax throw over the k mount in favor of a new shorter registration distance, even if they released a kludgy adapter, like Sony did, to allow use of k mount lenses. I shoot with Pentax for the glass and I have collected some nice lenses over the years. I have said many times that if Pentax would release a K-01 with faster frame rates, EVF, better buffer and PDAF on the sensor, I would buy it in a heart beat. But with the failure the K-01 was, that seems unlikely to happen.

[totsmuyco]

Someone here showed that their isn't that much advantage in MILC over DSLR when it comes to size. MILCs may have smaller bodies but the lenses are bigger. All in all they were about the same size when placed side by side. I think the comparison was made between Sony and Nikon cameras.

As Rondec suggests, if Pentax can come up with a K-01 type of camera with an EVF and better AF, it would be an advantage for Pentax since there are a lot of us who have Pentax lenses thus, there will be no need for another lens mount. However there will be a need to upgrade the lenses in the future. Upgrading should improve the AF speed of lenses particularly those made for APS-C.

[One3rdEV]

I for one certainly does NOT think that Pentax is missing the boat - at least not the particular boat that I want to be on. Actually the situation is quite the opposite - Pentax is the only manufacturer presently offering the boat that I want to sail on. That being a FF sensor size package in a competitively small weather resistant body and having a full complement of innovative IBIS based features.

Now in support of the OP's stated intent, I could see how Pentax might potentially benefit by offering two alternate boats that sail from the same harbor (DSLR and mirrorless). However in this situation I would prefer that they share the same mount to enable me to utilize my favorite lenses on either body. I'm not beyond considering as acceptable an adapter for focal plane registration distance, however I'm not particularly fond of that idea either.

Now in my specific case and given the present primary use of my Pentax; an EVF has been unacceptable, while an OVF has been a crucially important element. This is because I use the camera for kayaking and cross-country skiing in conditions of extensive reflective environmental glare and deeply polarized sun glasses.

[Tony Belding]

Equivalence is the theory that you can judge the performance of an individual lens/sensor combo by an equation that considers the size of the sensor and the maximum aperture of the lens. So, the 50-135 f2.8 on a K5 should perform pretty similarly to a 70-200 f4 lens on a D800. All of this assumes similar print/viewing size and similar technology in the sensor, but small sensors need really fast lenses (faster than f1.9) to achieve similar performance to full frame sensors.

"Performance" is a pretty vague word, when you think about it. You need to specify what aspect, or aspects, of performance you are measuring. A given f-ratio will project the same intensity of light without regard to the sensor size. The required exposure level (shutter speed and ISO sensitivity) will be the same. Of course small sensors don't generally have the same ISO performance (i.e. signal-to-noise) as larger ones, so maybe that's what you were thinking about. . .?

[Rondec]

"Performance" is a pretty vague word, when you think about it. You need to specify what aspect, or aspects, of performance you are measuring. A given f-ratio will project the same intensity of light without regard to the sensor size. The required exposure level (shutter speed and ISO sensitivity) will be the same. Of course small sensors don't generally have the same ISO performance (i.e. signal-to-noise) as larger ones, so maybe that's what you were thinking about. . .?

Performance refers to dynamic range and resolution at a given ISO. So, comparing the Q to the K5, the Q has the same dynamic range and SNR at base iso that the K5 has at iso 800. So you need a lens that is three stops faster on the Q to get the same performance you would on a K5.

Edit: What I'm trying to say is that you have to compare apples to oranges. If you are going to compare a mirrorless with a Q sized sensor to an SLR, you need to find me an SLR with a Q sized sensor, otherwise the comparison makes very little sense. If you compare a K3 to an A6000 or a K1 to a Nex A7r, the sensors are the same size and you can see how much size advantage going mirrorless really gives you, which is some, but not as much as many seem to believe.

---

Last edited by Rondec; 04-24-2016 at 03:16 AM.

[philbaum]

Let me tell you one neat thing about mirrorless. If you want to take a long exposure at night, with an OVF, its always a bit of a guess, at least for me, to get the exposure right. With a mirrorless, or at least my Sony, you just crank up the iso, lengthen the TV, or open the aperture, and you see the effect of the change, immediately, on the EVF. You don't have to wait for 20s to see what the trial shot is going to look like.

Is that an essential feature? No. But it sure is a time saver and convenient.
.

[hadi]

With focus peequing, the sony camera do look awesome. Add the grip and they can have an extended battery life(though still limited). However, there are others moving back to dslrs over sony mirrorless for things beyond the camera itself.

Matt granger, as an example, really enjoyed his sony camera. He, however, ditched it due to customer support, or lack there of. He went for a bigger nikon d5 instead.

Everyone is different.
I personally would have gone for sony if it werent for the battery life, and if it werent for me already investing in several pe tax lenses

[FantasticMrFox]

Let me tell you one neat thing about mirrorless. If you want to take a long exposure at night, with an OVF, its always a bit of a guess, at least for me, to get the exposure right. With a mirrorless, or at least my Sony, you just crank up the iso, lengthen the TV, or open the aperture, and you see the effect of the change, immediately, on the EVF. You don't have to wait for 20s to see what the trial shot is going to look like.

Is that an essential feature? No. But it sure is a time saver and convenient.

Long exposures are usually taken from a tripod, and when using a tripod most people just use live view. This offers the exact same features you just mentioned, including seeing the exposure, focus peaking etc.

[osv]

Long exposures are usually taken from a tripod, and when using a tripod most people just use live view. This offers the exact same features you just mentioned, including seeing the exposure, focus peaking etc.

afaik, it's not the same as what phil described with sony.

there is liveview, and then there is wysiwyg liveview... i don't think that pentax has true wysiwyg liveview on most, if any, of the cameras, canon leads the dslr pack in that respect... even nikon only has wysiwyg on their high-end cameras... hopefully that will change with the k-1.

"The K-3's live view display behaves just like it did on earlier Pentax bodies: it does not offer a real-time preview of the actual exposure. Instead, it always tries to keep the scene properly-exposed and this impacts the utility of the histogram and highlight alert features."
Read more at: Pentax K-3 Review - User Interface | PentaxForums.com Reviews

that's how olympus implements liveview, it's not wysiwyg... sony also has that mode, with "setting effect:OFF" in the menu, it's useful for studio shooting.

[rawr]

There are pros and cons to every camera system and type.

philbaum's point would, I have thought, been universally understood by now.

[philbaum]

Let me tell you about something that Pentax does better than Sony mirrorless. With my K3 (and i assume follow models), one clicks on the +/- button and you're looking at a -5 to +5 scale and you can see a needle like indicator swing back and forth across the scale as you move the camera across the scene. Simple - ergonomic.

With my Sony premium mirrorless, you get a dial on the top where one can crank in from -3 to+3 in exp comp. (In Manual mode, you get only -2 to +2 scale) With the dial, the EVF scale will only show you the current exp comp setting from -3 to +3. If the camera cannot adjust to the exp comp setting of zero or whatever one has cranked in on the dial, then the indicators blink. It doesn't tell you where you are in exposure, you have to keep trying adjustments till it comes within range and the blinking stops. Thats so not "ergonomic" compared to the Pentax.

So one may ask, where is the promised -5 to +5? If you go into deep menu diving, you can find an alternate exp comp setting process and it has the -5 to +5. It also lets one know that if you want exp comp on Manual, one needs to have the iso set to AUTO.

So the Pentax exp comp process is so simple and straight forward, the Sony exp comp process is complicated and its taken me 2 weeks to figure out its intricacies. Will it work - yes, but i miss the digital scale that Pentax has which lets me survey the scene for dark and light areas. Sony does have a live miniature histogram that shows up in the frame as an optional display mode. thats pretty cool and sort of makes up for the lack of a digital exposure scale, but not quite.

Do ergonomics matter? Yeah they do.

[devouges]

I do not care what people say: I love my Pentax and my next camera will be a Pentax.

I shoot with my Pentax with pride ! ! ! That is priceless. I use Master Card for anything else.

[UncleVanya]

Let me tell you about something that Pentax does better than Sony mirrorless. With my K3 (and i assume follow models), one clicks on the +/- button and you're looking at a -5 to +5 scale and you can see a needle like indicator swing back and forth across the scale as you move the camera across the scene. Simple - ergonomic.

With my Sony premium mirrorless, you get a dial on the top where one can crank in from -3 to+3 in exp comp. (In Manual mode, you get only -2 to +2 scale) With the dial, the EVF scale will only show you the current exp comp setting from -3 to +3. If the camera cannot adjust to the exp comp setting of zero or whatever one has cranked in on the dial, then the indicators blink. It doesn't tell you where you are in exposure, you have to keep trying adjustments till it comes within range and the blinking stops. Thats so not "ergonomic" compared to the Pentax.

So one may ask, where is the promised -5 to +5? If you go into deep menu diving, you can find an alternate exp comp setting process and it has the -5 to +5. It also lets one know that if you want exp comp on Manual, one needs to have the iso set to AUTO.

So the Pentax exp comp process is so simple and straight forward, the Sony exp comp process is complicated and its taken me 2 weeks to figure out its intricacies. Will it work - yes, but i miss the digital scale that Pentax has which lets me survey the scene for dark and light areas. Sony does have a live miniature histogram that shows up in the frame as an optional display mode. thats pretty cool and sort of makes up for the lack of a digital exposure scale, but not quite.

Do ergonomics matter? Yeah they do.

What a pain. I have tried a few Canon and Nikon and Panasonic and Sony systems over the years. Of those only the Panasonic and the Nikon seemed comprehensible without really digging into and learning a new system. The Nikon was not quite as easy as the Panasonic but both were not insanely confusing. The Sony - I handed it back to the owner and asked him to set it the way I needed. The Canon - I can't tell you how much I hated that dang thing.

But I KNOW I'm biased. Pentax is what I know. What I don't "know" is if I would still think Pentax was easy to use if I had started with say Sony. I know other reviewers ding Sony on their menus and the fact that they bury functions that photographers think are important rather than making them easy to use with dedicated controls.