[Lord Lucan]

No significance in the word 'amateur', it simply derived from the Latin, doing things for the love of them.

It's the only magazine which does actually cater for experienced photographers.

Indeed, although I have not read a copy for some while. It certainly was and maybe still is the premier UK photo magazine, long established and very highly respected, with technically meticulous testing. As for being produced by amateurs as Normhead claims, that would only be the case if the staff were unpaid, which they are not. The difference between amateur and professional is not the same as between incompetent and competent.

[agp1337]

Weight is one thing. But, tell me: Do you not miss that lovely big, clear viewfinder on your K-1?

Yes, the viewfinders in the K1 (and KP!) ARE better. It's swings and roundabouts, and a matter of individual priorities. Someone else on here mentioned Ansel Adams, who produced fantastic photographs from equipment which was absolutely enormous. Remember the famous picture of his tripod and camera set up on top of his van?

If he came back today, though, I'm pretty sure he wouldn't use the same kit. i started taking photos in the very early '60s, when coupled meters were exciting and 28mm was regarded as a very wide lens, and pushing Tri-X to 1600 ASA (ISO now!) was incredibly daring and impressive. Now, ISO 6400 is perfectly decent. As for autofocus, my older brother was a professional photographer (he got me started!), and we both agreed that autofocus was unimaginable: how on earth could it be done? That was before the advent of microchips, of course.

So would I go back? No.

[bdery]

The feeling was that mirrorless will be dominant, quite soon

That's a popular clickbait topic, not backed up by data. Mirrorless has grown, obviously, its growth has now stabilized more or less. It's an interesting new option in the market.

Fed up of tired arms, I have now bought a Fuji xe-3 and three lenses

You are comparing the K-1 with the largest, fastest lenses available for it, with an APS-C mounted with kit lenses...

Your Kp is comparable in size and weight to that Fuji.

giving a range of 12-200mm

If range was the only important element in photography, we'd all be using 18-300mm lenses instead of Limited primes.

I have carried it, literally, miles, in a small shoulder bag and with no ill effects

I have done the same with the K-1, but YMMV. I maintain that you could write the same comment about the Kp if you had similar lenses.

Both look fantastic, the Fuji is possibly more 'lively,'

Fuji produces fine images. While pixel peeping it's a matter of post-processing (or lack thereof) more than anything else.

You might guess my conclusion - all of the Pentax gear will be sold! If I was sticking with DSLR I'd stay with Pentax, but i no longer see any great value in the extra weight.

I wish you happiness with the Fuji system.

I do believe you are comparing apples and oranges. The lenses you are comparing are not comparable. The sensors aren't either (at base ISO they are, at high ISO they aren't). It doesn't make much sense to compare a FF DSLR with fast zoom lenses with a mirrorless with kit lenses, look only at the weight and expect the FF to come out ahead.

[UncleVanya]

I do want to say again, if the Fuji fits, shoot it. I have no complaints that the op prefers it. My only complaint is the comparison to the k-1 and f2.8 constant aperture lenses. Fuji image quality is excellent and APSC is more than adequate for many of us (myself included). But moving to Fuji for weight and size is a very minimally effective move. There are fewer lenses, higher costs, and limited size gains over a KP. There may well be excellent reasons for moving, but we don't know what they were. The Fuji and evf may just fit this photographers needs better... Which is fine.

[normhead]

No significance in the word 'amateur', it simply derived from the Latin, doing things for the love of them.

It's the only magazine which does actually cater for experienced photographers. The others are full of basic stuff, and endless 'free gifts,' that is CDs full of stuff from the web. 'Outdoor Photography' is the only other one worth getting. To be fair, 'Professional Photographer' and 'Black and White Photography' are also good, but rather niche and specialist.

Amateur is in modern usage pretty much the opposite of professional. It definitely has some negative connotations, at least where I live. This is of course all defined by context. IN sports amateur is like one step under professional, but way above the norm. But if you are an amateur tennis player, you simply weren't good enough to get on the tour, and there are many sports where the amateurs are quite a ways down the ladder, below both pro and semi pro players in developmental leagues. IN this case I used amateur to mean "unprofessional". And I consider the clickbait journalism they put out there unprofessional.

They may have good info, but I refuse to support them, because buying thier magazine for it's positive content also supports their anti-Pentax, anti- DSLR agenda. Which is an agenda unsupported by any facts or insight. It falls in line with my policy of not supporting people who don't support me. Amateur photgraphy seems to be running a one company campaign to declare Pentax irrelevant. I'm running a one person campaign to declare Amateur Photgraphy irrelevant, which they are completely to my life. If it wasn't for the anti-Pentax articles posted here on the forum, I wouldn't have clue who there are. Fair is fair.

But if you think your life's better for reading that junk, go for it. But you might want to keep it to yourself unless you want to spend hours defending their ignorance.

Saying the death of DSLRs is imminent is like me saying I might have to have my finger amputated because of a hangnail. You'd laugh if I said that, but Amateur Photgraphy says something just as ridiculous and it get's posted.

Amateur Photographer along with DPR are two sites actively and without cause predicting the death or Pentax in a manner that will harm Pentax sales to their readers. You are paying them to do that.

[reh321]

Yes, the viewfinders in the K1 (and KP!) ARE better. It's swings and roundabouts, and a matter of individual priorities. Someone else on here mentioned Ansel Adams, who produced fantastic photographs from equipment which was absolutely enormous. Remember the famous picture of his tripod and camera set up on top of his van?

"A good photograph is knowing where to stand" Ansel Adams

"F/8 and be there" Weegee Fellig

The masters knew that perspective and 'the moment' matter ..... archane technical details don't.

[Jathys]

With a telephoto lens on my dSLR, the camera acts as a monocular, even when turned off. On a whale watching trip, for example, I can zoom in on the horizon to search for signs of whales in the distance, without wasting my battery and without having to carry binoculars. Mirrorless has no way of doing this.

Hardly ever using the LCD or internal flash with my K5, I was able to shoot 2,000 shots at an event without having to change my battery. Even if limiting myself to to battery estimates given by the industry (980 shots), there is no way mirrorless gets anywhere close.

Both styles of camera have their advantages and disadvantages. Someone had mentioned (in the past) doubting that autofocus would ever be worthwhile and how (now) they would never go back. I agree 100%, but at the same time frequently use manual focus for macro work. As good as the new tech is, there are still a few tricks the older technology does better.

Considering dSLR's still outsell mirrorless, it may be early to pronounce them dying. Afterall, even Polaroid isn't dead.

[Swiftasantelope]

I get the weight issue, but plenty of work for tripods and large format cameras to drive some kind of DSLR movement.

[Papa_Joe]

In contrast with most of the opinions expressed in this thread, I think the OP is quite right according the future of the DSLR market.

Most of the contributers seem to think, that mirrorless means small and lightweight. And yes this is one thing. The overwhelming majority of pictures taken today has been made with digital. The Manufatures have recently discovered the camera of a phone as the decisive buying incentive. And they are heading into improving the possibilties of their products on the software and hardware side. I think anyone laughing about this will be amazed 3 years onward.


But that is not the market Canon and Nikon are responding to. It is Sony they are afraid of. Look at an Alpha 7 - mirrorless fullformat with EVF.

I saw a youtube video of one of these sony cameras half year ago. The guy using it managed to record the vievfinder output. Man did I envy him. Very fast autofocus on the spot, instant preview of all the settings in the viewfinder, excellent DOF preview, much better than with an autofocus screens. What a smooth camera.

Last week I talked informal to one of the salespersons in our local photo shop and he told me the instant preview is why he loved his Sony (he had a Nikon before it). He said the quality of the view through his EVF is the same as from the pentaprism of his old Nikon. I mentioned the bad view through the EVF in the dark, but he said acctually he has no issues there. On the contrary he can see better in the night through his EVF. What else should we expected with sensors shooting 6.400 ASA without issues?


Mirrorless DSLR now have a better usability then mirrored DSLR. Which one will survive and which manufacturer is likely to get into trouble? Canon and Nikon have recognized this, I hope Ricoh has an idea where to go.

[Ontarian50]

Maybe the cheapest cameras will change from Canon Rebels to low-end Sonys but the economics at the other end are less clear as your K-3 example shows.

The money one might save in getting rid of the mirror ends up being spent on a high-res, low-lag EVF, a high frame-rate sensor, and all that extra processing power required to get decent AF from the millions of pixels of a giant sensor. There's a reason MILC ain't cheap despite the fake news that they are simpler to build.

There was a time when electronic shutters were more costly to make than mechanical ones. But the cost of the K-1000 kept going up, because those tiny gears and springs were harder to make and adjust than the circuit boards and electromagnets in things like the MZ series (and Canon film Rebels).

All the cost disadvantages currently seen in mirrorless models will quickly melt away. My first Blu-Ray player was huge, contained several expensive looking circuit boards, and had a cooling fan. My latest one is tiny, loads up much faster, and is run from one smallish circuit board.

I think it's certain that the camera manufacturers will work hard to replace the SLR mirror mechanism, prism, screen, and separate AF module, with an all electronic solution. Do I like that? No way. I prefer the view through an optical finder any day, but I can see the writing is on the wall.

Nobody found it odd that a camcorder had an EVF, and I can see how in just a few short years the notion of an electronic, digital camera having an OVF will seem odd.

[Alex645]

Someone else on here mentioned Ansel Adams, who produced fantastic photographs from equipment which was absolutely enormous. Remember the famous picture of his tripod and camera set up on top of his van?

If he came back today, though, I'm pretty sure he wouldn't use the same kit.

That was me and if Ansel Adams came back from the grave, I'm pretty sure he would be shooting large format for lens and film plane perspective control and depth-of-field with less diffraction issues. Might Ansel pick up a medium format mirrorless instead of a Pentax styled DSLR? Sure, but that might be Ansel in his latter years, but not in his prime.

He was a true master of technique both in the field and in the darkroom, and if you studied his methodology, you could imagine him today as also being a Photoshop pioneer.

[Merv-O]

Weird that I have just read this thread, particularly Post No. 2156

K3ii replacement - Page 144 - PentaxForums.com

Now you are the second member here, to my knowledge (and perhaps there are more) claiming the imminent death of DSLR's.
Maybe you're right, maybe not.
Indeed there is an increasing interest in the mirrorless world and two "big" are joining into the bandwagon.
I see your point, having just acquired a Fuji XE-3 (I own an XE-2 ... great little companion to my K3), but I would imagine that before DLSR's go away for good, years will pass.

BTW, I am looking forward to see your K1 and KP on the Marketplace.

I use my Leica M9 (FF mirroless) and my Leica CL (APS-c) digital for travel as they are smaller and lighter. They produce great results, but I'm old school (I just refurbed my first SLR--a Canon FTBn film camera from 1975) and have been snapping photos for over 50 years. PENTAX K-1 ii is weather sealed as is my K-S2 & K-3. In the cold, or wet weather that we have in the Northeast, my Pentaxes are outstanding. Dropped my former K-50 in a snow bank and it kept on shooting--The Leica? 4 times the price and I wouldn't have even attempted it--would have rusted out that rangefinder in no time.
Plus, I like the heft of the Pentaxes--the on board stabilization alone is worth it. I find when I hold the K-3, that the weight make sme more rigid and ergo, there are more results. If you feel that Sony, CaniKon or Fuji works for you, then that's fine. I don't find the girth of the Pentaxes to be penal, as I'm used to 1970's all metal SLR's (and present day Leicas)…

[automorphism]

With a telephoto lens on my dSLR, the camera acts as a monocular, even when turned off. On a whale watching trip, for example, I can zoom in on the horizon to search for signs of whales in the distance, without wasting my battery and without having to carry binoculars. Mirrorless has no way of doing this.

This is an excellent point, and I do this all the time. In fact, wildlife/nature and astro- photographers are probably going to be some of the last groups to go mirrorless.

[MarkJerling]

Last week I talked informal to one of the salespersons in our local photo shop and he told me the instant preview is why he loved his Sony (he had a Nikon before it). He said the quality of the view through his EVF is the same as from the pentaprism of his old Nikon.

Quite possibly, the salesman has eyesight problems. A friend of mine has one of the latest Sonys and I have played with it extensively. The EVF is not at all comparable with an optical viewfinder. My K-5 is better. The K-1 knocks it out of the park.

[Madaboutpix]

"The report of my death was an exaggeration."

Can't help finding the Samuel Clemens quib a particularly fitting and witty reaction to these routine declarations of the DSLR's demise.