[geomez]

Pentax may be forced to invest in mirrorless depending on market forces. We'll have to wait and see. I think the first manufacturer that comes out with a TTL OVF that will switch to an EVF with the press of a button will be a big winner at least in the short term.

[normhead]

The only mirrorless i would consider would be a 645 mirrorless with a 4x5 back like a view camera so I could check focus on the "ground glass". No one is even thinking of making something like that as far as I know.

[Tony Belding]

Digital crippled film. It won market dominance for a very good reason and pushed film into a niche market, but examples such as the resurrection (however long it may last) of Ferrania, the rise of Lomography, and the planned reintroduction of Ektachrome (with hints of Kodachrome as well) suggest the persistence of that medium for some time to come. I'd thought it was gone in 2010, but I was wrong - and it seems there are significant market forces acting to keep it alive.

Yes, I remember the film-vs-digital flame wars, before everyone figured out that digital was going to dominate, and that film wasn't going away, and that there's no reason why we can't use both. Seems kind of silly in retrospect!

It really is unusual for any technology, especially one that becomes widespread for a time, to ever be "killed" off completely. You'd have to search far and wide for an example, I think. And it may be the same with DSLRs. They may not disappear completely, but they may be reduced to a niche. . . like film, or TLRs, or vinyl records, or safety razors, or fountain pens, etc.

You just might be amazed at how many companies are producing fountain pens and bottled ink these days. It's a healthy business. At the same time, it's nothing like it was in the 1920s-1950s when fountain pens were the dominant writing instruments, and it's obviously never going to be like that again.

[bigdavephoto]

I'm going to throw my two cents in on this discussion even if I can't afford it.


The Sony A9 sounds like a great camera according to the specs but they are marketing it as a "sports" camera to compete with Canon and Nikon. The problem is, Sony doesn't have the lenses. The longest lens they will be offering is a 100mm-400mm and you can't get one until the end of July.


So is this a bad thing? Not really until you realize professional sports photographers normally use 800mm to 1200mm lenses. If you have ever watched any American football, European football, rugby, track and field or any other main line sport, it is rare for somebody to shoot with a 400mm lens or shorter. Most of the time, because the photographer can not move around very much, they use these long lenses so they can still get photos while standing at one end of the field and the action is at the other end.


Until Sony releases some really long telephoto lenses, I think the A9 is nothing more then Sony standing up a yelling, "Look at what we did."

[Madaboutpix]

If Sony wins the high end sports pro market, within a few years ...

I don't see that happen, at least not any time soon: without a wide range of serious telephoto and super-telephoto glass, which may be a pain to balance and use on a A9-size-and-ergonomics body anyway? They have a long way to go to get their pro service act together too, it would seem.

As long as Ricoh keeps developing high-value, highly capable, photographer-oriented, and excellent-ergonomics DSLRs for a growing ecosystem of remarkable lenses and accessories, I am not bothered in the least by the Sony-marketing hype. Besides, as some commentators above, I tend to view DSLR and mirrorless more as options complementing each other, rather than necessarily replacing each other.

It sure would be resonable to stay alert as to how the market changes and keep exploring what meaningful offer the Pentax line could make in the mirrorless department, but given the Pentax niche I doubt that will result in a super-fast-shoot-till-kingdom-come sports body. Reminds me of the battery life issue that mirrorless still has, even if Sony tried to address this in the A9.

[jbinpg]

I agree with photoptimist: the only way the A9 would overtake big DSLRs in the sports/action market is if it had an external power supply. They are limited by constant battery drain.

[ChristianRock]

I don't see that happen, at least not any time soon: without a wide range of serious telephoto and super-telephoto glass, which may be a pain to balance and use on a A9-size-and-ergonomics body anyway? They have a long way to go to get their pro service act together too, it would seem.

I agree with photoptimist: the only way the A9 would overtake big DSLRs in the sports/action market is if it had an external power supply. They are limited by constant battery drain.

So Sony is marketing a camera in a segment of the market where that camera doesn't really compete well (no lenses, no . And that is supposedly doom for Pentax? Not even for Canon/Nikon, it seems... who are actually in the action market.

So who's actually excited about the A9? It seems like the geeks who care about specs more than real real life usefulness are... let's see if any pros buy into the thing.

[pentageek]

let's see if any pros buy into the thing.

Pros usually have extensive (and expensive) collections of lenses and Sony system would have to offer serious business justification to get their buy-in. I think that mirrorless cameras are simply next step in the evolution, where every step leaves a niche behind, and one of main goals of evolution is to show the image exactly as it is being registered:

TLR got rid of parallax of rangefinder and allowed for observation of depth of field,
SLR did the same, but in smaller body and with interchangeable lenses (among TLRs, only Mamiya C had interchangeable lenses)
mirrorless got rid of complex mechanism of the mirror, again allowing for smaller, lighter and faster bodies.

SImilar story has happened to imaging sensors: as they get better, the sensor, be it a film or an electronic device can be smaller. Again, the progress leaves niche technologies behind, and they are still in use: large and medium (analog) format cameras are good example. Of course the progress is not limited to these aspects: new functionalities like TTL and autofocus are also important, but this is completely different story.

[Kiwipixter]

Medium and entry level DSLR market shares (in both FF and APS-C) wont be immeditely affected; but next step could be this technology spreading down to these, and DSLR sales within a few years from now could collapse as fast as did film cameras 15 years ago.

If this happens, Pentax will have to go mirrorless to survive.

Mirrorless or not but one thing for sure is Pentax will need to find new market niche to fill the declining DSLR revenues. Mirrorless looks the obvious choice since Pentax don't have much presence in this market, at least not in the enthusiast/semi-pro segment. Sony is the only major player in mirrorless FF going after Canikon FF DSLR, Pentax doesn't need to do this and maybe can carve a niche in mirrorless FF using Sony sensor tech.

[boriscleto]

People have been saying this baloney since what, 2010-2011? That mirrorless was going to kill the DSLR in two years? So now, 5+ years, and DSLRs still sell more than mirrorless.

I always thought it was EVF was going to be as good or better than OVF in 5 years...it's always 5 years...

[mikesbike]

Well, I'm sure there are lots of pros who can't wait to buy a Sony A9- especially portrait-studio pros. Right?

Seriously, at this point in time, a good MILC system can be advantageous in certain respects. Their technology allows for more compact designs. Lighter and a little bit slimmer than even the Pentax KP. But this can only go so far without sacrificing ergonomics.

Since once again we're going along the lines of the MILC replacing the DSLR, largely due to action photography as shown by the A9, I think it logical to look at this topic from the proper end. I think it is the A9 as well as other MILCs that are doomed. Dominance will eventually go to the Portable Home Video Camera- (PHVC?). It will have extremely high frame rates, incredible resolution, and will be compact and lightweight. It's storage will be far greater than that of an SD card. It will have a high-quality built-in zoom lens, also with highly advanced digital zoom. All one has to do is play back in slo-mo until the player is in the desired position, freeze the frame, hit a button, and presto there's a great shot! Press another button to either print, or send to a program to reduce file size and share. A lot easier than sorting through some 3,000 burst shots from a MILC taken at last night's hockey game.

The best way to learn for someone seriously interested in photography is still shooting film, but slides not print film. That remains the most accurate feedback showing the results of the exposure parameters that were selected. After the mechanical shutter fires (if there is one), in a digital camera the rest is done by electronic manipulation. An EVF provides an electronic representation of reality. Same with LV as seen on the back LCD of a DSLR. Film gave way to digital only when the image quality of digital finally advanced to the point of being good enough to make its practicality worthwhile.

If one were to browse through Popular Photography issues of 20 years ago, finding tests of then new SLR cameras, the thorough, in-depth information therein might come as a surprise. One of the aspects was exposure accuracy. This was very precisely given and graphically illustrated. Incidentally, I recall the Pentax PZ-1p tested as being the most accurate of all, even over the most expensive professional Canon or Nikon models. This factor has not been tested in quite a long time. The reason being, it can no longer be done with digital cameras. The electronic variables negate accurate testing. Just an estimated observance is given, if any- "about 1/3 stop over/under". Even shutter speed accuracy is no longer given. The best testers can do is measure ISO accuracy.

Eventually, most people will simply have a PHVC and a smart phone. Both will be affordable. The Sony A9 and its ilk... er MILC, will long be gone and forgotten. But those who take a primary interest in still photography, who want the ability to change lenses to better suit certain needs, and also want to look through the lens at reality instead of looking at an electronic representation, will get a DSLR as well. They might even start with a film body by shooting slides using Manual Mode, so they can better learn through experience, the how and why their DSLR's meter reads lighting the way it does.

[cpk]

But these are cameras. TLRs killed 4X5 press cameras, and then 35mm SLRs killed TLRs. And then digital killed film. And then smartphones killed digital compacts.

Brings back a lot of memories. A good synopsis of camera history.

[geomez]

PHVC

What's that?

[cpk]

EVF - electronic viewfinder (tiny TV screen) reporting directly off the sensor.
OVF - optical viewfinder (reflex mirror and pentaprism or pentamirror - a direct light path to your eye, so you see what the lens does)
SLR - single-lens reflex camera (DSLR for digital; SLR for film). (Pentax, Nikon, Canon; formerly Olympus, Minolta, Ricoh [in their own right], Chinon and others.)
MILC - mirrorless interchangeable-lens camera (Sony, Fuji, Olympus, Panasonic)
P&S - point and shoot.

MFT - Micro Four Thirds
EVIL - Electronic Viewfinder Interchangeable Lens (I prefer this to MILC.)

[bm75]

I don't know the future but mirrorless VS reflex seems to be much more a commercial advertise than a reality. I mean: Nikon, Canon Pentax DSLR are systems where the lenses play a primary role. there are millions of lenses outside there and those are all for DSLR. Speaking of Nikon: they have the f 1,4 and the f 1,8 lines for primes; f 2,8 and f 4 lines for zooms ; PCE tilt shift , 60, 105, 200 macro... Is that all replaceable with something else by Sony for the mirrorless technology with its restrictions? Yes,many enthusiasts are shifting to the mirrorless market, because people find attractive having a single cool APSC interchangeable lense body (Sony A6.... something ; fuji x-something, oly/pana MFT OM /GH something ) with some lenses looking for loss of weight and quality. It's a hype. It's like questioning about APSC vs FF : Will the APSC be dead within few years? My opinion is that there are more challenges for Pentax, i.e. in the format size : Fuji doesn't have any interest in the FF, but some interest in the MF , thus undermining Pentax in the same MF price target with unconventional technology (mirrorless). So Pentax and Fuji are competitors both in the APSC (mass product) and MF (niche product) plus they have a similar approach on their system: both have a lot of primes in their APSC lineup, many Fuji ones are f1,4. to sum up things: my opinion is that the market will be profitable for those brands which will be able to satisfy their buyers base with product well-suited for those buyers.