[Kunzite]

Unfortunately, the highlighted references are false, and therefore subject to scrutiny.
However, and in the event that you feel otherwise, I would be more than happy to consider any written evidence to support these claims.

Since you refuse to consider the title and the first post, I don't believe you. You have no intention of reconsidering anything.

No, a marketing "review" done by a Sony "artisan" and a Pentax review done by a third party are nowhere near the same.

@Rondec:
I'm sorry, but...
"is there still a future for DSLRs"
"it also challenges the future of the whole DSLR market"
"DSLR market shares might collapse as fast as film photography 10 years ago"
"it would be useless for Ricoh to spend any more R&D on improving OVF PDAF"
This is the typical "DSLRs are dying" BS thread.

[JohnBee]

Since you refuse to consider the title and the first post, I don't believe you. You have no intention of reconsidering anything.

Having carefully considered the title and post, I have come to the conclusion that you are mistaken in your view. And so now we're left with indifference. - do you accept this?

No, a marketing "review" done by a Sony "artisan" and a Pentax review done by a third party are nowhere near the same.

I don't think this is an issue, see;

ie, many of the reviewers also review Pentax equipment. And so surely this can't be entirely true.

With that said, I'd question how one would distinguish between a sponsored reviewer and a none sponsored reviewer. ie, who's to say that Imaging Resource isn't a sponsored Pentax product reviewer (for example) and what impact would this have on the legitimacy of their reviews or perhaps more the point, the product claims that come with them?

IOW. if we conclude that everyone is either; lying or subject to a conspiracy, then how does one conclude anything to be true beyond what they themselves want to see and hear?

And so, I think one has to draw a line between what is known beyond a reasonable doubt and what is most likely true in such cases. ie, if a manufacturer announces that they have improved something only to have this confirmed by numerous reviewers, then the likeliness of this particular claim would gain credibility by most accounts. Whereas if the claim in question turned out to be a fabrication, or lie, then we would no doubt expect to find conflicting evidence in the fringe reviews also. Otherwise, we're left with yet further evidence to advance the initial claims.

Therefore and with respect to your proposed conclusion, this would require that every one of the a9 reviewers be a part of a larger conspiracy, in that the manufacturer would have made-up false claims on the legitimacy of their technological advancements, and that all those those who have reviewed their products be in agreement in lying about it. - to which I'd add, does not seem like a credible position to uphold, no matter how we view the facts imo.

Having said all that, let's consider what evidence we do have to show that the reviewers are most likely not lying by promoting Sony products;
1. Many of the reviewers stated false conclusions that would later be corrected upon further discovery; dynamic range, FPS, shutter performance and function, buffer, battery longevity, etc etc. - this in turn, demonstrates that the reviewers were not following scripted conclusions, but more realistically, telling it like they saw it.
2. Many of the reviewers were not registered Sony channels partners or selected distributors; Imaging Resource, Lars Ronbog, etc. - this in turn provides us with a means from which to contrast reports and conclusion between; sponsored and none sponsored reviewers, thus lending credibility to the claims

Now to be fair, and in defense of extreme skepticism, one could conclude that the entire affair be nothing more than a carefully planned and executed conspiracy in which Sony could have staged every single hands-on review and its conclusions. Though with respect to the evidence, I'd say that it highly unlikely that this be the case, or that you'll find many takers with such styles of reasoning under normal circumstances. - my two cents of course

[Rondec]

Since you refuse to consider the title and the first post, I don't believe you. You have no intention of reconsidering anything.

No, a marketing "review" done by a Sony "artisan" and a Pentax review done by a third party are nowhere near the same.

@Rondec:
I'm sorry, but...
"is there still a future for DSLRs"
"it also challenges the future of the whole DSLR market"
"DSLR market shares might collapse as fast as film photography 10 years ago"
"it would be useless for Ricoh to spend any more R&D on improving OVF PDAF"
This is the typical "DSLRs are dying" BS thread.

Well, people seem to hold these views really strongly. As long as the K mount sticks around, I'll be fine. And Pentax is a pretty traditional company. As long as they are releasing cameras that are priced well and have nice features, like the K-1, they'll continue to sell cameras -- regardless of the viewfinders. John Bee has admitted that he is a manual focuser, but the reality is that most folks these days are auto focusers and auto focus performance is a bigger issue for them than the whole EVF versus OVF controversy.

Sony doesn't have an OVF cameras, not because they wouldn't sell any, but because they chose to go with a mirrorless design. Nikon's foray into the mirrorless realm didn't do so well. Maybe it just had too small a sensor, but regardless, it has just gone away.

[MarkJerling]

John, I understand that you like EVFs. You are Ok with older versions of EVFs and you haven't used the A9s EVF to know how much different it really is. But there are plenty of people who aren't big fans of them. It really isn't a traditionalist thing, it is just that having your eyeball so close to a tiny screen bothers you -- gives you a headache, makes your eye tired in a way that looking through an optical viewfinder doesn't do. Maybe the A9 will change that, but it would do so for a cost that is out of most of our ballparks. Certainly I can't afford one.

A friend of mine who likes all things Sony may well buy one. If he does, I'll get to play with it. The only one of his buys I really like is his Nikon Df!

[wildman]

Is there still a future for DSLRs

Being a question about the future no one, with certainty, can say but speaking only for myself and for the immediate future - NO.

My only direct experience between a reflex and mirrorless cameras is my three Pentax DSLRs and Two Olys.
Ignoring any irrelevant differences between the two, such as sensor format and size for instance, the morrorless cameras are better for my purposes.

Why? - because the mirrorless cameras, in my opinion, both aesthetically and technically give me better final images than the reflex cameras and with less hassle.

Maybe in five years things will shape up that will surprise us all but for now, at least, it is clear what works better for me.

At the end of the day as consumers we all make a choice about what we hope is best for our purposes , spend our money and move on.

[D1N0]

I suggest some people leave for the mirrorless fora and leave us in our DSLR Misery. There is no helping us, we are doomed just like Pentax.

[ChristianRock]

5 years from now, when DSLRs still outsell MILCs, I'll reopen this thread and laugh at the foolishness of some of you.

[JohnBee]

5 years from now, when DSLRs still outsell MILCs, I'll reopen this thread and laugh at the foolishness of some of you.

lol - I've scheduled an event for 5 years from today with a link to this thread - looking forward to seeing how your prediction play's out

With that said, my prediction is a bit different in that I believe that the top manufacturers(Canon, Nikon, Sony, Fuji and Pentax etc) will all be competing on mirrorless level in 5 years. To which I'd add, will be the primary product of choice in terms of flagship systems since it's most likely that the technology will be mature enough to overcome all of the challenges that come with mirrored systems.

Whatever happens I personally think it's great that the industry is evolving in this way personally. - very exciting

-

[bigdavephoto]

Hey JohnBee, I am not trying to offend you or anything but, I have noticed in all of your post on this thread, you really like the words "With that being said" or "With that said". Just thought I would mention it.

[JohnBee]

Hey JohnBee, I am not trying to offend you or anything but, I have noticed in all of your post on this thread, you really like the words "With that being said" or "With that said". Just thought I would mention it.

I know, and I could really use some new transition lines, but I guess I'm just too lazy to do the research and work through it

[pinholecam]

I thought this NEX Priest thing was long over since some 5yrs back?


I don't really care if its EVF or OVF, as I can work just as well with both.
So long as I can use my lenses on them.


Nothing to think too much of, since its just a matter of voting with the wallet and whatever the majority market forces will sway to.

[wildman]

With that said, my prediction is a bit different in that I believe that the top manufacturers(Canon, Nikon, Sony, Fuji and Pentax etc) will all be competing on mirrorless level in 5 years. To which I'd add, will be the primary product of choice in terms of flagship systems since it's most likely that the technology will be mature enough to overcome all of the challenges that come with mirrored systems.

My own opinion is that perhaps in five years we will see the grafting on of a film era technology (OVF) to try and control a digital sensor as being essentially a kludge job.

That the DSLR was a transitory phase, usable but not ideal for fully exploiting the potential of a digital sensor. At the heart of digital photography is RAW numeric data and not photons and the viewfinder that most fully exploits that data will, or at least, should prevail.

Please believe me when I say I'm not trying to start some endless sterile flame war. It's just my honest opinion of how I see thing at this point in camera technology and nothing more. I'm no longer young enough to know everything.

[ffking]

That the DSLR was a transitory phase, usable but not ideal for fully exploiting the potential of a digital sensor. At the heart of digital photography is RAW numeric data and not photons and the viewfinder that most fully exploits that data will prevail.

To me, it's just about where you place the interface between biological and electronic, and I think that the more serious you are about photography then the more serious you are about controlling all elements of the final image - and OVF pushes the camera's decisions closer to the exposure whereas in EVF it intervenes sooner - so, the majority of people taking pictures will not use and OVF - as they don't now - but the majority of people who think of themselves as photographers will stay with OVF for a long time to come. Opinion or just hope? I don't really know in the end.

[Kunzite]

My own opinion is that perhaps in five years we will see the grafting on of a film era technology (OVF) to try and control a digital sensor as being essentially a kludge job.

That the DSLR was a transitory phase, usable but not ideal for fully exploiting the potential of a digital sensor. At the heart of digital photography is RAW numeric data and not photons and the viewfinder that most fully exploits that data will, or at least, should prevail.

Please believe me when I say I'm not trying to start some endless sterile flame war. It's just my honest opinion of how I see thing at this point in camera technology and nothing more. I'm no longer young enough to know everything.

By the same logic, another film era technology - optical lenses - should disappear as well. Actually, there is no reason to capture photons from the photographed scene, right?

For Pete's sake, it's just a viewfinder! It doesn't impede at all "fully exploiting the potential of a digital sensor", actually it helps a bit since a live data stream would otherwise warm up the sensor.

You're doing worse than just trying to start some endless sterile flame war. Spreading FUD and misinformation about DSLRs and promoting MILCs on a DSLR brand forum.
At least, include a link to which Sony we're supposed to buy

[wildman]

You're doing worse than just trying to start some endless sterile flame war. Spreading FUD and misinformation about DSLRs and promoting MILCs on a DSLR brand forum.

I rest my case.