[Rondec]

Sure, and why not with regard to having similar features to DSLRs. Some design decisions are so fundamental, such as choosing OVF or EVF that they impact the rest of the camera design.

I don't disagree. They have added some substantial changes such as IBIS in their 2nd gen.models.

After buying the K3, i was one of those folks that argued against Pentax going to FF. I used a FF camera that a friend had, I changed my mind and am glad i did. So now i use my K3 for crappy weather and backup. My SDM 50-135 takes longer to "wake up" these days, but it still operates. But my camera of choice is the A7r2. and yes, when the A7r3 comes out - i doubt that i'll be buying it.

And I've always said there are pros and cons to being a smaller company. I also refrain from giving advice to folks about which cameras to buy. Its a complex decision.

Met with a customer yesterday, pulled a bunch of pictures out of storage, and he bought one and took another home with him to show his wife - things you can do in a small town. After he left, another customer came into the gallery, saw all the picture i had pulled out, also bought one of my pictures. Than one of the gallery board members, asked me to use 8 of my pictures to fill an empty space left by a painter who had rented space but not used it all. Serendipity strikes again.

Everything is a matter of degree. Full frame is over kill for me, but I wanted it and so I have it now (my wife shoots weddings, so probably something that was more useful for her).

I just think that a lot of folks bought mirrorless for all of the manual focus lenses that they had in their closet that they can finally use again. But for new users, that isn't something that is important at all, nor for me. I want to be able to mount my bread and butter lenses without an adapter, have them auto focus and auto meter and control the aperture from the camera body without any effort. That is what the K-1 offers that the Sony series cameras doesn't for me.

If Pentax released a K-1 with an EVF and a little smaller form factor, I certainly would consider it, although honestly now that I own a K-1, a small reduction in body size probably wouldn't be enough to get me to change.

[northcoastgreg]

So if you like fast zooms (f2.8) or long primes (>100mm), the size and weight advantages of mirrorless are basically eliminated, doubly so if you use adapted glass. If you are happy with variable aperture zooms or system specific small primes, size and weight become a significant factor.

That's generally my view as well. If you like shooting with primes or are content with the quality from compact consumer grade zooms, mirrorless can be a pretty compelling format, as least in terms of size. I have an IR-converted Olympus EPL-1 and an Olympus EM-5. Since I wanted the versatility of a zoom but the quality of high-end glass, I've ended up using large zooms on the EM-5 along with agrip. It's hardly the compact solution I had originally envisaged, but the EM-5's 5-axis stabilization makes it a much better hand-held camera than any of my Pentax DSLRs, and that's primarily what I use it for. (When 5-axis stabilization comes to a Pentax APS-C DSLR, as inevitably it will, I don't see myself using the EM-5 much any more.)

In terms of image quality, I'd say the EM-5 is close to my K200D (which uses the same sensor as the K10), without quite matching it. My Pentax DSLR's are obviously bigger and not as easy to carry around, but they handle much better, with larger buittons, bigger, more ergonomic grips, better thought-out controls, and considerably more durable bodies.

If you're going to switch to mirrorless, you need to have compelling, pragmatic reasons for doing so (don't switch because mirrorless is "new" or "the future"). You should consider switching to mirrorless if: (1) you prefer EVF's to OVF's; (2) you like shooting with primes; (3) you don't care about balance between lens and body; (4) you shoot video; (5) you want all-analogue controls --- i.e., Fuji; (6) there is some feature or lens that only mirrorless has right now. If none of these apply, you're probably better off sticking with a Pentax DSLR.

[luftfluss]

In terms of image quality, I'd say the EM-5 is close to my K200D (which uses the same sensor as the K10), without quite matching it.

Interesting perspective. I find my EM10 easily outstrips my old K2000 (essentially the same sensor as the K200D) and comes fairly close to my K-01.

[Tony Belding]

You should consider switching to mirrorless if: (1) you prefer EVF's to OVF's; (2) you like shooting with primes; (3) you don't care about balance between lens and body; (4) you shoot video; (5) you want all-analogue controls --- i.e., Fuji; (6) there is some feature or lens that only mirrorless has right now. If none of these apply, you're probably better off sticking with a Pentax DSLR.

Points 1, 2, 3 and 5 apply to me.

[philbaum]

One should consider switching to mirrorless if you value light weight, size, EVF, IBIS (which shows up in the EVF for superlative manual focusing). DSLR shooters keep saying that the weight of the body doesn't matter. It does matter to a lot of customers.

K1 1000gms
D810a 880gms
K3 800gms
A7rII 625gms

A friend of mine who switched from Canon to Sony A7r2 at the same time i switched from Pentax said he picked up a friend's D800 the other day and couldn't believe how heavy it felt. The friend said that after a day of shooting, her shoulders and arm would ache.

Check it out, you tell me which camera looks bigger: Compare camera dimensions side by side

[totsmuyco]

I might be wrong but, I think the future will be mirrorlesss. I don't like it myself as it makes me dizzy when I pan the camera. I also don't like the way things look using the EVF. Everything seems enhanced and doesn't look natural. But if that's where it ends then we have to embrace change. I just hope that Pentax's plan would include a native k-mount camera. I hate adapters.

[Rondec]

One should consider switching to mirrorless if you value light weight, size, EVF, IBIS (which shows up in the EVF for superlative manual focusing). DSLR shooters keep saying that the weight of the body doesn't matter. It does matter to a lot of customers.

K1 1000gms
D810a 880gms
K3 800gms
A7rII 625gms

A friend of mine who switched from Canon to Sony A7r2 at the same time i switched from Pentax said he picked up a friend's D800 the other day and couldn't believe how heavy it felt. The friend said that after a day of shooting, her shoulders and arm would ache.

Check it out, you tell me which camera looks bigger: Compare camera dimensions side by side

A lot of the weight differences have to do with build quality. A D750 is only 750 g. The G master 24-70 is 880 g ( more than the body) while the Pentax 24-70 is 780 g. The g master 70-200 is going to be 1500 g. It really does feel to me that folks cherry pick small and slowish lenses to compare and then say that mirror less is better.

You can make cameras with mirrors pretty small, just look at the K-S1, but they won't have the best build and they won't balance the f2.8 zooms well that I like to shoot.

[zoolander]

I will buy a new camera this year, maybe a Pentax K-3ii successor, or maybe a mirrorless. The K-1 is just too big for me, though the same feature set in an APS-C body.... Mirrorless canditates are the M43 Lumix GX8, Fuji X-Pro2 or X-T2 (rumoured), or even Sony A7 iii (rumoured). I will not have several camera systems, not for me. I'm just a hobby photograper.

My question is what functionality that I am used to will I miss or need to adapt to? Would love to hear from Pentax users who know both Pentax and my MILC candidates.

Okay, thats a pretty broad question due to the nuances of all the different mirrorless. I'm fully invested in Pentax with a K-3 and lots of lenses, and also a Fuji X-A1 with 3 lenses.

If you are with Pentax you are here because of the quality and accuracy of the images. Pentax's Prime is IMO the best processor in crop sensors. I've had a Nikon and the images have muted colors, Canon have dull colors, Sony's really pop but are inaccurate. I had a Sony and bought a K-5 and kept both for a year before I let the 24mp Sony go, the K-5 just plainly outclassed the Sony in accuracy and white balance. Similarly that Sony crushed my old nikon in IQ (and Canon IMO).

So i dipped my foot in the Fujifilm pool with a very cheap X-A1 which has really good low light performance - which is a positive. Image quality is simply not there, except for portraits where it excels. Take it out for landscapes and the thing cannot render green or beach sand correctly. I mean pine trees look like they are from the Xbox video game Halo, extremely digitized. Pull out the K-3, and its just kickin it in everything you want to shoot, except for skin tones in portraits.Bottom line, I think my X-A1 does portraits a little better, and thats it - its a nice portrait camera. I've noticed in other Fuji cameras with X-Trans that pine trees look like crap among other issues. Street photography looks good with Fuji. The absolute bottom line on image quality is that my K-3 is an all rounder, and I think that Fuji IQ while real good in certain situations just doesn't cut it.

I was going to upgrade to an X-T1, but after trying them in stores I find the dial setup on Fuji as idiotic. To use aperture priority you turn the aperture ring to A, then turn a mode dial to something else, then turn another dial to something else again (I forget now). Three movements where with the traditional DSLR setup is to turn the mode dial to A - one simple movement. The X-A1 has a user interface which is like a DSLR, but the menu system is annoying as hell. You change one setting, and you lose another thing like sellectable AF points - it pisses me off to no extent. Then the ISO is like a Nikon where ISO 100 is called ISO low, and above ISO 6400 is called high. You can set auto ISO to 200-6400, but you can't set it to 100- 24600 (the whole range). Its still a fun little thing which is quite capable but is also a f-tard.

The only reason why I put up with this system is because of the Fuji lenses which are really sharp, and quiet - and thats it. If you jump ship to Fuji, you're in it for the lenses. The question I have over the lenses is whether the lenses are like many of the Pentax lenses which produce an ambiance. I think with Fuji I think the lenses might be a little cold, and the ambiance comes form the image processor EXR or X-Trans. There are some very nice lens options with Fuji, but the "Retro" dial setup on the body's is an abomination IMO, and over complicated.

I don't have a Sony, but theres no point to the A7 where the high ISO is similar to a K-3. The A6000 is a cool option because its so compact with excellent good light AF and a couple of pancakes. But forget about the FE lenses, they're humongous and similarly priced. One advantage of E-mount is to get a canon lens adapter which gives AF with canon lenses, or the two Sony adapters for minolta/Sony A-mount. So you've basically got three lens range options. But whats the point really, when mirrorless lenses test sharper than DSLR lens - Fuji's are sharper than Sony e-mounts and e-mounts are a little sharper than dslr lens, according to the lens research I've done. But the bottom line is that Sony IQ while nice is nowhere near the quality of Pentax IMO.

So my advice is to stick with Pentax as an all round imaging machine. The advantage of mirrorless is: that there's no mirror slap, lenses are impressive, and in the case of the X-A1 excellent high ISO.

You need to weigh up the pro's and con's. While one thing in mirrorless is really good or great, there's something else really bad. There's an old peasant expression: a good horse has 100 faults, while a bad horse has just one .....its just simply no good". My K-3 is a good horse, and my X-A1 is almost a bad horse (the user interface is a huge let down and puts you off of using it, which is a pity because the lenses are off the hook).

[Tony Belding]

I was going to upgrade to an X-T1, but after trying them in stores I find the dial setup on Fuji as idiotic. To use aperture priority you turn the aperture ring to A, then turn a mode dial to something else, then turn another dial to something else again (I forget now).

Yes. It's just like the "idiotic" Pentax ZX-5n film camera that so many of us are still fond of.

Also, your description seems to indicate that you don't understand how the X-T1 (or ZX-5n) actually works anyhow. The elements of exposure that you want the camera to control (aperture, shutter, and ISO) you set to "A", and the ones you want to control yourself you set to the value you want. Personally, I think it's simpler and more elegant than a PASM dial, and I might even call it brilliant.

I mean, Pentax have added TAv mode, and they've added hyper program mode, and the PASM dial has now turned into a P/AUTO/SCN/A-HDR/U1/U2/B/M/TAv/Av/Tv/Sv dial. . . and it all seems to me like band-aid piled on top of band-aid to try and fix an interface that never really made sense from the beginning.

Here's the thing about the Fujifilm X-T1. It's as though somebody took a team of 35mm SLR designers from about 1982 and froze them, then thawed them out in 2012 or so, gave them access to all the most modern technology, and then told them to resume work where they left off. It's as though the DSLR was never invented, and the whole DSLR era never happened. And personally, I like that. I learned photography on a 35mm SLR. I've never entirely gotten used to DSLRs with their awkward, chunky grips, and oversized bodies, and their weird PASM dials, and all the menu diving, etc.

[interested_observer]

I might be wrong but, I think the future will be mirrorlesss. I don't like it myself as it makes me dizzy when I pan the camera. I also don't like the way things look using the EVF. Everything seems enhanced and doesn't look natural. But if that's where it ends then we have to embrace change. I just hope that Pentax's plan would include a native k-mount camera. I hate adapters.

This is caused by the inherent latency induced by the image processing chain feeding the EVF. Getting the image from the main sensor up to the ETF processed with the overlays and presented takes a fair amount of processing, and even more processing power to do it quickly. Latency is the result. Since you can sense the real view with your eyes (or rather one eye) and a delayed view through the EVF - you get dizzy from the delay in the process. Panning is an extreme example, but latency in focusing is also a problem.

Speeding up the processing chain takes a faster processor which produces additional heat and requires additional power (or larger battery), which in a handheld device is a very difficult combination to accommodate. With the mirror box removed - the alternatives are pretty sparse - better processing supporting the EVF or some sort of optical viewfinder - however with out the mirror, it will not be through the lens, which makes focusing a big problem.

This is just a side cost of going to mirror-less....

[zoolander]

Also, your description seems to indicate that you don't understand how the X-T1 (or ZX-5n) actually works anyhow. The elements of exposure that you want the camera to control (aperture, shutter, and ISO) you set to "A", and the ones you want to control yourself you set to the value you want. Personally, I think it's simpler and more elegant than a PASM dial, and I might even call it brilliant.

Well it was a while ago when I tried the X-T1 out so the dial combination and its not fresh in my mind. I've tried it a number of times with numerous lenses. I've tired to like it, but switching modes is really different - turn the aperture ring to A, turn two other dials and you're in aperture mode. Turn the aperture ring to your desired aperture and turn another dial and you're in manual ...........its annoying. And what makes it stupid, is that the aperture ring (and AF ring) is all electronic, so if they were trying to be retro then it should have been a mechanical setup. So to me, this is disingenuous and all the dials are electro-gimmicky. That being said, I still really like the X-T1, but then when you try to use the GUI its also as messed up as my X-A1.

After decades of technological improvements DSLR's using electronics have become simplified, and there's nothing more simple then the Pentax setup - it is elegant ! . The electronic faux-mechanical dials setup is superfluous. The Pentax is like having a modern car with an automatic or sequential/robotic gearbox. Put in D and it drives, you use the accelerator and breaks (front and rear dials). The Fuji X-T1 is like an old Kenworth truck with a double cluch 24 gear gearbox - yeah it'll get you there, but there's a lot of hand and finger movements - and elegance is simplicity through design.

Would I pay $1200AUD for an X-T1 ? No way, its not worth as much as an A6000. The A6000 is easier to use AND having fewer buttons.

Everywhere you go online and youtube everyone sings the praise of Fuji and its retro dials. I thought gee it must be real good and quick to use ...... Nooooooot ! Its all fanboy speak. I think the fanboys and hipsters need to put down the bong and get real.

IMO the Fuji dial setup on X-Trans bodies is all about some retro gimmick , it is not elegant nor intelligent. If Pentax made cameras that complicated they'd be laughed out of the industry. Pentax puts LED's on a camera and its called gimmicky.

Fujifilm cameras are a bit out there, but I won't sell mine any time soon. Eventually Fuji needs to get a license from Pentax and use the Pentax GUI. Fuji seems to be using some elements from Nikons GUI and it really doesn't work. Its annoying, and using a camera should be a pleasure and not a pain.

[Rondec]

Yes. It's just like the "idiotic" Pentax ZX-5n film camera that so many of us are still fond of.

Also, your description seems to indicate that you don't understand how the X-T1 (or ZX-5n) actually works anyhow. The elements of exposure that you want the camera to control (aperture, shutter, and ISO) you set to "A", and the ones you want to control yourself you set to the value you want. Personally, I think it's simpler and more elegant than a PASM dial, and I might even call it brilliant.

I mean, Pentax have added TAv mode, and they've added hyper program mode, and the PASM dial has now turned into a P/AUTO/SCN/A-HDR/U1/U2/B/M/TAv/Av/Tv/Sv dial. . . and it all seems to me like band-aid piled on top of band-aid to try and fix an interface that never really made sense from the beginning.

Here's the thing about the Fujifilm X-T1. It's as though somebody took a team of 35mm SLR designers from about 1982 and froze them, then thawed them out in 2012 or so, gave them access to all the most modern technology, and then told them to resume work where they left off. It's as though the DSLR was never invented, and the whole DSLR era never happened. And personally, I like that. I learned photography on a 35mm SLR. I've never entirely gotten used to DSLRs with their awkward, chunky grips, and oversized bodies, and their weird PASM dials, and all the menu diving, etc.

These are all matters of taste, aren't they? It is tough to argue about ergonomics or exactly where buttons are placed. I personally like the Pentax set up a lot because it has complete functionality available via buttons rather than requiring the use of menus at all.

But if I am honest, I also like it because they have kept it the same since the K10 with only small tweaks here or there and if I pick up a completely new to me Pentax camera, I can easily shoot with it in a minute or two because I know where stuff is at. Does that mean it is the best? I don't know, but I would hate it if they threw it out the window and went to Fuji's way of doing things.

What makes these discussions so hard is that there is no right or wrong answer, just opinions about what we personally like best. Small differences in weight, differences in battery life are not really that important in the majority of situations, except to folks on internet forums, for whom they are life and death decisions.

[Tony Belding]

Well it was a while ago when I tried the X-T1 out so the dial combination and its not fresh in my mind. I've tried it a number of times with numerous lenses. I've tired to like it, but switching modes is really different - turn the aperture ring to A, turn two other dials and you're in aperture mode. Turn the aperture ring to your desired aperture and turn another dial and you're in manual ...........its annoying.

That's not even really an accurate description. Anyhow, if you're still thinking about "modes" then you've already gone off-track with the X-T1. It's a modeless camera. The shutter speed is always controlled by the shutter dial. The ISO is always controlled by the ISO dial. Aperture is usually controlled by the aperture ring. (I say usually because some lenses have an aperture ring and some don't, which I think is a legitimate gripe on the system.) There are no "modes" where some controls take on different functions.

By comparison, a Pentax (or other DSLRs these days) is like Old McModal's Farm: here a mode, there a mode, everywhere a mode-mode! Just try explaining all those modes to a beginner and see how quickly their eyes glaze over.

Eventually Fuji needs to get a license from Pentax and use the Pentax GUI. Fuji seems to be using some elements from Nikons GUI and it really doesn't work. Its annoying, and using a camera should be a pleasure and not a pain.

uhh. . . If you're talking about the Fuji menu system and the Quick Menu. . . They aren't as good as Pentax, but they're not a lot worse, or even drastically different. If you really want to descend into User Interface Hell, then you need to try Olympus!

[philbaum]

I might be wrong but, I think the future will be mirrorlesss. I don't like it myself as it makes me dizzy when I pan the camera. I also don't like the way things look using the EVF. Everything seems enhanced and doesn't look natural. But if that's where it ends then we have to embrace change. I just hope that Pentax's plan would include a native k-mount camera. I hate adapters.

Altho not quoted, part of my reply addresses Rondec comments RE D750.

I would hate to be the employee in Pentax, Nikon or Canon that decides on a new mount for those companies. Its a horrendous decision and most existing camera owners will hate one :-(. The only precedent, as far as i know, is Sony and the A-mount, and now it looks like the A-mount is dying a slow death.

You mentioned the D750 and its light weight for a FF. Its also, IMO, been the most popular FF in recent times for Nikon. I think weight and size is a bigger factor than most people give it credit. I'm 67 but younger generations are more mobile and expect all their electronic devices to be easier to move around. My half-assed opinion anyway. Yes, Pentax has made some small DSLRs and if they made them at the premium level with all the deluxe enthusiast features, i think they would be real sellers. But Pentax, Nikon and Canon all seem to equate small with less features. I think they need to change their traditional perspectives. People who buy into Sony mirrorless are oftentimes getting less for more, but they are getting a smaller lighter camera if they want to buy the appropriate lenses. But the big camera companies want these customers to buy big camera bodies - and its not selling real well - IMO.

Hey big camera companies - do some customer polling and start building smaller cameras with deluxe features. They are just not listening and their sales reflect that. Pentax/Ricoh could pivot and go with smaller cameras easier than Canikon but don't appear to want to do that. I finally gave up and went with Sony, the only company that will make small FF bodies with deluxe features. Altho, rumors seem to indicate that Fuji might get into the MF arena with mirrorless - perhaps.

[zoolander]

That's not even really an accurate description. Anyhow, if you're still thinking about "modes" then you've already gone off-track with the X-T1. It's a modeless camera. The shutter speed is always controlled by the shutter dial. The ISO is always controlled by the ISO dial. Aperture is usually controlled by the aperture ring. (I say usually because some lenses have an aperture ring and some don't, which I think is a legitimate gripe on the system.) There are no "modes" where some controls take on different functions.

Yep, thats it, thats how you change modes. It was a while ago that last tried it out. Listen I really tried to like it, but then at one point I asked the sales assistant how do you change something or other (I forget again), and then we took a dip into the menu and we both couldn't navigate it. It was even more different from my X-A1, which made my head hurt. Then I was like, geez $1200 is a lot for a camera without a mode dial. I'm sure I could get used to no mode dial, but the double whammy of the menu being so different ....... probably because of no mode dial. I was complaining about how annoying my X-A1's menu, I guess it ain't so bad. If X-T1's get to around A6000 prices, yeah, I might pull the pin. The viewfinder is awesome on it, it takes great pictures ....... except for pine trees.

By comparison, a Pentax (or other DSLRs these days) is like Old McModal's Farm: here a mode, there a mode, everywhere a mode-mode! Just try explaining all those modes to a beginner and see how quickly their eyes glaze over.

Yiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii Hah !

uhh. . . If you're talking about the Fuji menu system and the Quick Menu. . . They aren't as good as Pentax, but they're not a lot worse, or even drastically different. If you really want to descend into User Interface Hell, then you need to try Olympus!

Yeah really ! I gotta see this for myself. I've actually got an Olympus compact with a 1.8 aperture and mode dial, yeah you're right the menu is kinda s**#. Its got one of those menu help boxes which pop up every time you move through the menu, only problem is is it covers the menu items themselves. So you HAVE to switch it off !

These are all matters of taste, aren't they? It is tough to argue about ergonomics or exactly where buttons are placed. I personally like the Pentax set up a lot because it has complete functionality available via buttons rather than requiring the use of menus at all.

But if I am honest, I also like it because they have kept it the same since the K10 with only small tweaks here or there and if I pick up a completely new to me Pentax camera, I can easily shoot with it in a minute or two because I know where stuff is at. Does that mean it is the best? I don't know, but I would hate it if they threw it out the window and went to Fuji's way of doing things.

What makes these discussions so hard is that there is no right or wrong answer, just opinions about what we personally like best. Small differences in weight, differences in battery life are not really that important in the majority of situations, except to folks on internet forums, for whom they are life and death decisions.

Is it a matter of taste ? I don't know, some people like to eat grasshoppers, some like sheep's brain, and others like onions. On their own, onions get pretty monotonous, brain too, and grasshoppers also ..........but if you put them and a whole bunch other things on a smorgasbord, then you'd have a menu ! (This is hands down the worst food to camera analogy I have ever come up with ! My apologies).

But is there really no wrong or right answers ?

I agree with you Pentax has probably the best UI, I wish I had have discovered Pentax sooner. I wish they never moved the AF selector (and back button AF button) in the K-5 from the rear (as a toggle switch) to a button above the AF/MF switch around the front ....... like a D7100 !

But for Ularula:

Photouniverse on youtube is a Pentax and fuji user, he pre-ordered the X-Pro2 and returned it. IQ has taken a U-turn in the X-Pro 2, you'll have to do your research on this. Ed's gone to a X-Pro1 claiming that the 1st iteration of X-Trans is better than the 2nd (in the X-T1) and 3rd (in the X-Pro 1). I'm no image expert, but there's some pretty funky stuff going on in X-Pro2's images if you look at Imaging resources and other reviewer sites. They shouldn't call it a "Pro" rather X-Ama 2, the IQ is shockingly bad, considering the new sensor with the copper wiring yadda yadda yadda - white balance appears to be out, and there appears to be really bad clipping.