[Dan Rentea]

What I have is quite good. What she has is... nothing. But she was VERY good with what she had.

If she was happy with 5D Mark III and she doesn't have a big budget, 5D Mark IV can be found cheap these days and it's quite a significant jump in performance over 5D Mark III. From resolution, mettering, dynamic range and af, she will notice in less than half an hour how much better 5D Mark IV is.

[BigMackCam]

There is a learning curve. First, you have to let go at focus and recompose technique. Then, you have to let go of the exposure bar in the viewfinder because you see the exposure in the EVF. Then you have to let go the chimping part because you know hoe the image is exposed. You have to learn that when shooting people you can have any kind of composition you want. With DSLRs I always had to look for the closest af point to the eye. And there are a few more things that has to be learned when switching from DSLR to mirrorless, especially if the camera is from a different manufacturer than the one you're used to.

But the learning curve is only there when using the optical viewfinder, Dan. Start them off with Live View if you prefer, though I think we're under-estimating the prospective user if we think they don't know an optical view doesn't represent what was captured. They're interested in a "real" camera presumably because they want to do "real" photography... They're going to have to pick up a few things along the way whether they buy a mirrorless or DSLR camera, otherwise they ought to stick with a phone or the $100 auto-only compact they bought back in 2010.

Someone's potential move from DSLR to mirrorless imply a person who wants to try a mirrorless for the benefits that we talked about. As far as I can read in various threads, some didn't tried the latest generation of EVFs, some won't try them for no reason other than "I don't want to". Others have tried them and didn't knew it was an EVF (I have 2 examples of close friends with experience in photography). It's not a different story than the move from film to digital, just the main subject it's different. I espect this EVF problem to last a few more years, at most.

I'm waiting for the advantages since my comment no. 1. But EVFs seems much more apealing...

As @Kunzite said, the OP posted his thoughts in the Pentax DLSR Discussion forum of PentaxForums - a Pentax-specific community, and Pentax is primarily (these days, solely) a DSLR brand. I don't know what he or anyone else expected, but if he wanted a bunch of opinions telling him how he's doing the right thing and mirrorless is the new god, I suggest he misjudged that slightly. Someone who wants to try mirrorless should try it and make their own mind up. They shouldn't seek reassurance they're doing the right thing any more than they should seek reassurance on the new breakfast cereal they've bought. It's a personal journey. There's more than enough information available on the web already to get them started. With the best will in the world, they're not going to get the confirmation on mirrorless they wanted from a Pentax DSLR forum.

I gave you and others my honest views about the differences between DSLR and mirrorless, and why DSLR is preferable for me when it's a practical option. It's all about the OVF vs EVF. Exactly as you and anyone else should expect, given that the cameras we're talking about are all basically the same devices, it's just that DSLRs have mirror and optical viewfinder components in place of the EVF, and a bit more real-estate because of the mirror box.

A7 III has a not so great EVF compared to the new ones. The new ones closed the gap quite a lot compared to OVFs.

When somebody shows me an EVF that I find 100% indistinguishable from an optical view - i.e. I truly cannot tell the difference in any way - then I'll denounce the benefits of OVF, and I'll do it right here on PF. Seriously, I will. I don't want a big mirror box taking up space and a mirror clacking up and down in my camera for no good reason. When we get to zero gap between the two - at comparable cost, of course - I'll start writing the post. I'll mention how I used to be a proponent of optical viewfinders for my own use, and how that's no longer the case because EVFs offer an identical experience plus more...

---

I'm going to step out of the discussion now, if folks don't mind. It has the flavour of something that's going to bounce back and forth for another 200+ posts without a shred of real progress, and again that's kind of what you'd expect - because the whole DSLR / mirrorless thing - and the advantages / disadvantages therein - is so very subjective. How can we possibly reach a conclusion? We can't...

[gatorguy]

I'm going to step out of the discussion now, if folks don't mind. It has the flavour of something that's going to bounce back and forth for another 200+ posts without a shred of real progress, and again that's kind of what you'd expect - because the whole DSLR / mirrorless thing - and the advantages / disadvantages therein - is so very subjective. How can we possibly reach a conclusion? We can't...

...and I'm joining you. I think all that needs to be said has been. An interesting discussion none-the-less.

[BigMackCam]

...and I'm joining you. I think all that needs to be said has been.

"Who's on first base?"

An interesting discussion none-the-less.

Indeed it was... "All life is here"

Good night, Jim Bob...

[gatorguy]

"Who's on first base?"



Indeed it was... "All life is here"

Good night, Jim Bob...

and good night John-boy

[surfar]

at comparable cost, of course -

Well the best EVFs are in the high end mirrorless...A7S mk 3....9.44..its top dog 3500 and video orientated, so that's not in your equation

A Panasonic,Canon R5,Nikon Z7,Sony$ A7r4...are all 5.76

Take your pick, you don't get to opt out THAT easy!

[MikeMcE]

I’m an old oddball. My issue with OVF is simple. I shoot raw, OVF gives me jpegs in my mind( it’s me) I guess I still need to squint and question to satisfy me.
And yes that’s me the contortionist shooting macro with the eyepiece...
I just can’t change!

Hang up and DRIVE!

[Dan Rentea]

But the learning curve is only there when using the optical viewfinder, Dan. Start them off with Live View if you prefer, though I think we're under-estimating the prospective user if we think they don't know an optical view doesn't represent what was captured. They're interested in a "real" camera presumably because they want to do "real" photography... They're going to have to pick up a few things along the way whether they buy a mirrorless or DSLR camera, otherwise they ought to stick with a phone or the $100 auto-only compact they bought back in 2010.

Yes, the learning curve is there when you're used to shoot with a DSLR. Reading again the last comments, I assume you were talking about mobile phones and mirrorless.

As @Kunzite said, the OP posted his thoughts in the Pentax DLSR Discussion forum of PentaxForums - a Pentax-specific community, and Pentax is primarily (these days, solely) a DSLR brand. I don't know what he or anyone else expected, but if he wanted a bunch of opinions telling him how he's doing the right thing and mirrorless is the new god, I suggest he misjudged that slightly. Someone who wants to try mirrorless should try it and make their own mind up. They shouldn't seek reassurance they're doing the right thing any more than they should seek reassurance on the new breakfast cereal they've bought. It's a personal journey. There's more than enough information available on the web already to get them started. With the best will in the world, they're not going to get the confirmation on mirrorless they wanted from a Pentax DSLR forum.

I gave you and others my honest views about the differences between DSLR and mirrorless, and why DSLR is preferable for me when it's a practical option. It's all about the OVF vs EVF. Exactly as you and anyone else should expect, given that the cameras we're talking about are all basically the same devices, it's just that DSLRs have mirror and optical viewfinder components in place of the EVF, and a bit more real-estate because of the mirror box.

I don't expect people to defend DSLRs or Pentax in general given that we are on Pentax forum, but I expect people to give their real opinion on both formats, preferably when they know a little about both systems. You gave your opinion on the differences between the 2 and I appreciated one comment in particular. Others focused on EVFs vs OVFs and that's it. It's a difference...

When somebody shows me an EVF that I find 100% indistinguishable from an optical view - i.e. I truly cannot tell the difference in any way - then I'll denounce the benefits of OVF, and I'll do it right here on PF. Seriously, I will. I don't want a big mirror box taking up space and a mirror clacking up and down in my camera for no good reason. When we get to zero gap between the two - at comparable cost, of course - I'll start writing the post. I'll mention how I used to be a proponent of optical viewfinders for my own use, and how that's no longer the case because EVFs offer an identical experience plus more...

Start with the new generation of EVFs and you will see we are not far from an OVF kind of experience, honestly.

I'm going to step out of the discussion now, if folks don't mind. It has the flavour of something that's going to bounce back and forth for another 200+ posts without a shred of real progress, and again that's kind of what you'd expect - because the whole DSLR / mirrorless thing - and the advantages / disadvantages therein - is so very subjective. How can we possibly reach a conclusion? We can't...

Face to face, with both a DSLR and with an equivalent mirrorless on the table, a conclusion can be made. On internet it's close to impossible, not only on mirrorless vs. DSLR, but on lots of other comparisons.

[Kunzite]

I'm waiting for the advantages since my comment no. 1. But headaches from EVFs seems much more appealing...

Yet you were the one who introduced that into this thread?
By the way, a potential advantage:

5D Mark IV it's better than EOS R at tracking fast subjects (faster than bicycles or than a flying pelican for example which EOS R can handle with no priblems) due to a little lag that EOS R has in the viewfinder.

No offense, I know you're eager to share from your experience - but I don't see any Pentax in this discussion! Somehow, it's all Canon...
Perhaps Mike should move the thread to a more appropriate place? Or we might try to make this relevant for Pentax, just a bit.

[Kunzite]

I'm going to step out of the discussion now, if folks don't mind. It has the flavour of something that's going to bounce back and forth for another 200+ posts without a shred of real progress, and again that's kind of what you'd expect - because the whole DSLR / mirrorless thing - and the advantages / disadvantages therein - is so very subjective. How can we possibly reach a conclusion? We can't...

Because it is subjective, I believe there is one reasonable conclusion we can draw - that there is a need for both DSLRs and mirrorless.

And I guess I'm out too. Got bored discussing about Canon

[MarkJerling]

When somebody shows me an EVF that I find 100% indistinguishable from an optical view - i.e. I truly cannot tell the difference in any way - then I'll denounce the benefits of OVF, and I'll do it right here on PF. Seriously, I will. I don't want a big mirror box taking up space and a mirror clacking up and down in my camera for no good reason. When we get to zero gap between the two - at comparable cost, of course - I'll start writing the post. I'll mention how I used to be a proponent of optical viewfinders for my own use, and how that's no longer the case because EVFs offer an identical experience plus more...

I could not agree more.

[MarkJerling]

Start with the new generation of EVFs and you will see we are not far from an OVF kind of experience, honestly.

OK, I'll bite. Examples?
I trust you mean something newer than the EOS R, because that's the latest EVF I've tried and it's nothing like the OVF in my K-1.

[Dan Rentea]

Yet you were the one who introduced that into this thread?
By the way, a potential advantage:

No offense, I know you're eager to share from your experience - but I don't see any Pentax in this discussion! Somehow, it's all Canon...
Perhaps Mike should move the thread to a more appropriate place? Or we might try to make this relevant for Pentax, just a bit.

I was responded to a question regarding a DSLR and a mirrorless, with 5D Mark IV being the camera I was asked about. If you want my opinion regarding K-1 II vs. Sony A7 III, then my answer is:

1. OVF vs EVF - it's subjective and it has to be established based on shooting experience; A7 III has the old EVF generation which it's less than ideal for people who have some problems (headaches, eyes strain) due to EVF
2. Handling - again, it's subjective based on people hands and what they are after (big and heavy vs. small and light); A7 III can become big and heavy with a battery grip, K-1 II can't become smaller and lighter
3. Build quality - Pentax has better build quality than A7 III and both of them can be protected from rain with a rain cover; dust on the sensor it's a problem for A7 III so this has to be kept in mind when you're in the field and want to change often lenses
4. Image quality - Pentax has better image quality than A7 III, Sony has better high ISO performance; resizing K1 II images will pretty much even the high ISO performance
5. Af capabilities - Sony has better af than Pentax, especially when comes to shooting action or subjects in challenging situations
6. Features - Pentax has pixel shift, astrotracer while Sony has eye af, silent shutter (I haven't used pixel shift or astrotracer on my Pentax cameras so I can't comment on the importance of them)
7. Video - Sony has better video than Pentax
8. Lenses - Sony has a lot more options in this regard, native ones and third party also
9. Availability and service - Sony has better second hand market and international service/online and physical coverage

That's what I think on these 2 cameras which I've used more than a few times. As a photographer I recommend Sony A7 III to everyone who don't have headaches from it's EVF for it's overall performance on both video and stills and for the better system in terms of lenses and accessories. I recommend Pentax K-1 II to more specialized photographers (landscape photographers who print images on more than 24" in size or to studio/product photographers who can benefit from pixel shift and high resolution).

And that's my honest opinion on both cameras which were the subject of this thread. If price or EVF aren't a problem, I think K-1 II it's a little hard to recommend now given the other options available today, starting from workhorses like A7 III, D780, 5D Mark IV to more specialized cameras like D850, R5, A7R IV or even Panasonic which seems to benefit in terms of lenses from the L mount alliance. But, as long as Ricoh manages to keep their users in the boat, I think it's enough for Ricoh to keep releasing new cameras and lenses and survive in these strange/difficult times. In the end, more options means a better opportunity to invest in a proper system (I invest in a system, not in a camera that fits my demands on the short term).

---------- Post added 01-20-21 at 09:48 AM ----------

OK, I'll bite. Examples?
I trust you mean something newer than the EOS R, because that's the latest EVF I've tried and it's nothing like the OVF in my K-1.

R5, A7R IV, S1 (Panasonic). I have to try the new Sony 9.44 milion dots EVF on A7S III...

[beholder3]

I trust you mean something newer than the EOS R, because that's the latest EVF I've tried and it's nothing like the OVF in my K-1.

Still you have the off colors/white balance problems.
Still you have the limited dynamic range of computer screens.
You do not get to see what you really see with your eyes.

Again, when have you seen a computer screen you would want to put over a window opening you have blocked with bricks and then called that an improvement?

I have to try the new Sony 9.44 milion dots EVF on A7S III...

Since Sony's own implementation of EVF hardware often for some weird reason seems to include a massive drop of resolution when actually using it to focus or for video (funny) and the A7s3 reportedly is just another example, it seems in action the EVF shows even less details than the S1/R5 with less dots on the spec sheet.

The new viewfinder only appears to use full resolution in playback mode.

You'd have to capture the EVF detail of a testchart with a smartphone behind it.

[Rondec]

Interesting that the last four pages had to do with the hypothetical new ILC shooter who was in a quandary about whether to shoot with a mirrorless or SLR camera. My experience has been that these sorts of folks don't use as a selection criteria any of the things that have been mentioned on this thread. They google "nice camera kit" or something like that or, they ask a friend who has a "nice camera" and go from there.

EVFs aren't a major turn off for many, but they also aren't that important. The ability to mount ancient FD and Leica lenses isn't a big turn on for most folks either. Decent auto focus is really important (most cameras these days have that) and good price is really, really important. High frame rates really aren't that important. 4 fps is probably a bit on the low side and 20 is overkill, but the most important thing is simply that the camera can keep up with the frame rate without a lot of blackout.

There is a contest ongoing right now that is a "lens contest." Just in a half hour of voting on that, I realized very clearly that lenses and cameras don't make photos. There are a few times that I can pick out a particular lens's rendering, but most of the time, I am more focused on what is in the photo. I definitely cannot pick out what camera shot what image. You could throw a bunch of Fuji and Sony and Canon images in there and I doubt I could tell which came from which brand.

Dan shoots really nice images -- he did when he was shooting with SLRs and still does as he has moved more to an EOS-R camera. He shoots them because he is skilled and sets up what he is doing in a careful manner. There are definitely differences in terms of use between mirrorless and SLR cameras, but in every day use, I think most of us would probably get very similar images, assuming the same quality glass, shooting with one type of camera or the other.