[ularula]

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).

Seems mirrorless hasn't matured yet then, or at least one has to live with several trade-offs. Especially Fuji seemed interesting, but Where I live we have lot's of pine. And I don't like Minecraft. Would all Fujis be colourwise off on nature and foliage/pine because of some x-trans magic? Getting colours right is really important!

I do need to test. Switching a lot of dials, see if it feels cumbersome.

Also, Fuji doesn't have IBIS. Maybe not that important according to Fuji owners?

Looking forward to seeing what Pentax is releasing this year (some tomorrow it sems)!

[Na Horuk]

Fuji has really nice lenses, though. Their main problem for me is that their cameras are rather expensive and not really super compact. Something like a K-S1 is not much bigger at all
I think colours shouldn't be a big problem if you shoot raw and do some PP. You can get custom Camera colour profiles. I mean, Fuji is fairly well established, even if its colours are slightly different from bayer-type sensors, they cannot be terrible. The market wouldn't let them survive if they were terrible.
I don't have a Fuji camera, but there were plenty of Fuji X-trans sensor reviews online, on blogs and review sites

[osv]

Seems mirrorless hasn't matured yet then

what he posted was long on hyperbole, and short on facts.

for example, this claim he made is totally wrong: "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... But the bottom line is that Sony IQ while nice is nowhere near the quality of Pentax IMO."

saying that "Fuji's are sharper than Sony e-mounts" is not logical, because m4/3 lenses are mounted on tiny weak low-rez sensors, they can't score as high as aps-c sensors in an mtf test... you'll get better pq with a k3 than any fuji camera.

when you talk mirrorless, there is no such thing as his "dslr lens", because just about all lenses that have proprietary dslr mounts can be used on a sony mirrorless camera.

etc...

[Tony Belding]

saying that "Fuji's are sharper than Sony e-mounts" is not logical, because m4/3 lenses are mounted on tiny weak low-rez sensors, they can't score as high as aps-c sensors in an mtf test... you'll get better pq with a k3 than any fuji camera.

uhh. . . Trying to parse that, but it's not making a lot of sense to me.

Olympus and Panasonic use M4/3. Fuji is APS-C, same size sensors as Pentax DSLRs (K-1 excepted, of course). And there's not much practical difference between a good APS-C sensor and a good full-frame sensor anyhow. The FF is only 50% bigger, which is something you can measure with test shots, but in practical terms is not generally noticeable.

It's sort of like shooting medium format film and choosing between 6X4.5, 6X6, 6X7 or 6X9 cm.

As for lenses. . . Fuji are known for pricey but exquisite lenses. They also produce optical systems for scientific research and the military that cost as much as a house, so they have the know-how.

[osv]

uhh. . . Trying to parse that, but it's not making a lot of sense to me.

Olympus and Panasonic use M4/3. Fuji is APS-C, same size sensors as Pentax DSLRs (K-1 excepted, of course).

i was wrong, fuji was indeed aps-c, thanks for pointing that out... i just never took 'em seriously because of that crappy 16mp sensor, the same low-rez pixel count as m4/3; i had forgotten that they finally did step up with a real 24mp sensor this year.

it matters because higher pixel count increases mtf, so when someone claims that a lens is sharper than another lens, it needs to at least be tested at the same resolution.

[Tony Belding]

i was wrong, fuji was indeed aps-c, thanks for pointing that out... i just never took 'em seriously because of that crappy 16mp sensor, the same low-rez pixel count as m4/3; i had forgotten that they finally did step up with a real 24mp sensor this year.

I question the practical value of pushing much past 16 MP in M4/3 and APS-C sensors. There are diminishing returns, where you're crunching more and more data for less improvement in image quality. The mathematical relationship of linear size versus surface area alone would ensure that, even before getting into the limitations of lenses, limitations of focusing accuracy, etc.

[osv]

we have small upgrades in performance at this point, i.e., the 36mp k-1 being slightly better than the 36mp a7r.

it'll probably take some new sensor technology, more than just bsi, in order to make any real progress... but there are still things like global shutters that would be very useful.

[zoolander]

for example, this claim he made is totally wrong: "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... But the bottom line is that Sony IQ while nice is nowhere near the quality of Pentax IMO."

saying that "Fuji's are sharper than Sony e-mounts" is not logical, because m4/3 lenses are mounted on tiny weak low-rez sensors, they can't score as high as aps-c sensors in an mtf test... you'll get better pq with a k3 than any fuji camera.

You might want to spend a little time on Lenstip checking resolution scores.

[osv]

You might want to spend a little time on Lenstip checking resolution scores.

oh? well then how about if you give us the exact link you saw where lenstip tested fuji lenses on oly camera bodies, sony camera bodies, and pentax camera bodies.

[Nicolas06]

This is mostly about lenses for me. If you have lot of expensive Pentax lenses, you have a good reason to stay. Otherwise, you can go everywhere. You should not have to stick Pentax but rather choose what is best fit for your usage. It may be Pentax, it may be not...

As a general rule, mirrorless with kit lens will be much smaller, even more so m4/3 bodies. For high end lenses, it really depends. The m4/3 are really smaller because the sensor is smaller too. On APSC mirorless APSC wide angle lenses are smaller and higher quality than on SLR APSC, but teles (past 50mm and starting 60-70mm) are bigger.

For price, mirorless are more expensive, both camera bodies and lenses. There not the same amount of Sigma/Tamron third party lens that keep the cost down in Pentax, Canon or Nikon. On APSC, a 17-50 is like 300€ while it will be more than twice the price on any mirrorless body.

If size or video are key, I would go the mirrorless route. If the goal is to use old manual lenses, again mirrorless is the best.

DSLR are the best bang for the buck (a K3 or D7200 for example offer a lot for quite low price), and have no equivalent for ultimate AF performance. The handling is better, the lens line up are much bigger, in particular on the tele range. DSLR are the king for sports/action/wildlife.

[zoolander]

oh? well then how about if you give us the exact link you saw where lenstip tested fuji lenses on oly camera bodies, sony camera bodies, and pentax camera bodies.

Here you go: Lenses reviews - LensTip.com . Put the manufacturer into the box that says manufacturer. Pick a lens and then go to the resolution page, keep a note pad and note the scores. Lenstip got rid of some of their e mount reviews.

[Tony Belding]

As a general rule, mirrorless with kit lens will be much smaller, even more so m4/3 bodies.

Ehhh... My Olympus E-M5 came with a long and awkward 12-50mm F3.5-6.5 macro kit lens. Good lens, versatile, but not particularly compact. They did later introduce much more compact kit lenses to ship with the more compact (PEN, etc.) bodies. If you deliberately shop the M4/3 catalog for compactness, in both body and lenses, you can put together a very small system -- not all that much bigger than a Q system, even. It requires some planning and selection to hit that mark, though.

I'm finding in terms of overall system compactness, the Fuji X-T1 and Pentax K-S2 are actually very close. I can just about stuff my three-lens kit into the ONA Bowery bag with either system. (Now keep in mind, my Q7 has five lenses and fits into a much smaller bag!)

For price, mirorless are more expensive, both camera bodies and lenses. There not the same amount of Sigma/Tamron third party lens that keep the cost down in Pentax, Canon or Nikon. On APSC, a 17-50 is like 300€ while it will be more than twice the price on any mirrorless body. If size or video are key, I would go the mirrorless route. If the goal is to use old manual lenses, again mirrorless is the best.

M4/3 has the biggest lens catalog with the most manufacturers participating, and the lens prices are not crazy. Not like Fuji, I mean!

The Fuji does have great manual focusing aids. If you can live without autofocus (and manual focus is Just Fine for a big part of what I do), then you might never even care about buying those expensive native lenses for the Fuji. Just get a M42 adapter or a PK adapter, and you're done. Get some Takumars. You can even get a focal reducer and reclaim almost the entire "full frame" field of view.

DSLR are the best bang for the buck (a K3 or D7200 for example offer a lot for quite low price), and have no equivalent for ultimate AF performance. The handling is better, the lens line up are much bigger, in particular on the tele range. DSLR are the king for sports/action/wildlife.

I'm not so sure about "ultimate AF performance" of DSLRs. They are subject to some AF accuracy problems that mirrorless cameras never experience. And, I've found the Olympus and Fuji, with the right lenses, can focus very quickly. And a claim that "the handling is better" is very subjective too.

[osv]

Here you go: Lenses reviews - LensTip.com . Put the manufacturer into the box that says manufacturer. Pick a lens and then go to the resolution page, keep a note pad and note the scores. Lenstip got rid of some of their e mount reviews.

that doesn't address anything that he claimed, because it's not testing lenses with different mounts on one camera body.

the only way that he could back up his absurd claim that some lenses are sharper than other lenses is to put 'em on an optical bench, or test all of the lenses on the same camera body, which lenstip does not do much of, if at all.

[Nicolas06]

Ehhh... My Olympus E-M5 came with a long and awkward 12-50mm F3.5-6.5 macro kit lens. Good lens, versatile, but not particularly compact.

True the lack of compactness of this zoom and the lack of good wide range zoom in m4/3 that keep small enough is a reason I never invested here.

But the nearest equivalent in APSC are 16-85 and 17-70. Both lenses are much bigger/heavier in APSC while obviously they gather more light.

M4/3 has the biggest lens catalog with the most manufacturers participating, and the lens prices are not crazy. Not like Fuji, I mean!

This catalog has dozen of slightly different consumers zooms with all kind of range, that's true. But for anything else even Pentax K mount has much more choice and with more interresting prices. There no that much fast primes in m4/3 and because the sensor is smaller, you need them to have wider apperture, not narrower. True Samyang etc is there but it is also true for anything DSLR too. Sigma/Tamron don't have much high end lens available or just large apperture lense. One can go quite far with just a K3, 17-50 + 70-200 from tamron as an example. But to get that on m4/3 will be more expensive while the sensor size would put you at an handicap.

The Fuji does have great manual focusing aids. If you can live without autofocus (and manual focus is Just Fine for a big part of what I do), then you might never even care about buying those expensive native lenses for the Fuji. Just get a M42 adapter or a PK adapter, and you're done. Get some Takumars. You can even get a focal reducer and reclaim almost the entire "full frame" field of view.

If you don't care of AF, true, but then all mirrorless do it. Mirrorless is likely best for MF lenses, but to be honest, this is still a far cry from using AF in term of efficiency.

I'm not so sure about "ultimate AF performance" of DSLRs. They are subject to some AF accuracy problems that mirrorless cameras never experience. And, I've found the Olympus and Fuji, with the right lenses, can focus very quickly. And a claim that "the handling is better" is very subjective too.

Ask yourself how many people use mirrorless body professionnally for sports or wildlife. I don't think any mirrorless would be a match for a D5 or D500. Even a D7200. And the lens to match don't even exist in the line up.

[philbaum]

Ask yourself how many people use mirrorless body professionnally for sports or wildlife. I don't think any mirrorless would be a match for a D5 or D500. Even a D7200. And the lens to match don't even exist in the line up.

There are professional wedding photographers using Sony mirrorless. There are Tamron 150-600 and Sigma 150-600 Contemporary and Sports models available in A-mount that work just fine on my A7rII. I presently have a Sony 85 f2.8 that sells new from BH for $300, A-mount, with the LAEA3 adapter. Its SAM motor is 2 generations of focus motors behind the current Sony linear voice coil motors and the SSM motors. But even the older SAM motorized lens works faster than than my K3 with its 50-135, even after the SDM motor wakes up. As for tracking, my K3 DSLR doesn't compare.

I used Sony's lock-on flex spot tracking mode with my FE 70-200 to shoot models on a fashion runway about a month back, and it allowed me to shoot as it continued to track the models - so cool

Getting back to long lenses, the Sony a-mount also contains a 70-400 G2 with SSM focus motors and i've seen both bird and wildlife pictures from that lens that are as high in resolution as what i've seen from a friends Nikon D5. I don't think its going to be long before this a-mount lens is converted by Sony to FE. But in the meantime it AFs just fine on either of the two Sony electronic adapters.

Sony is catching up and at least one pundit believes that their latest f2.8 zooms are intended for a more professional body than the A7 series.