[normhead]

No, and I did not say my students (or I) know everything about every camera. But in my digital class I currently have students with brand new Pentax, Lumix, and Sony cameras as well as Canon and Nikon. Half those cameras are hand-me-downs, but half were purchased new for the class. Every semester (3x per year) I update an email I send to them and their parents about the options, pros and cons, etc, and then they hopefully make an informed choice.

I have no interest in switching to Fujifilm mirrorless, but I'm still interested in knowing why one person switched away from Pentax DSLR.

If only it were one. Way to often everyone wants to bear their bleeding soul to everyone on the forum. Most of it nonsense. Now when one of our pros want to share his story of something I might be interested in, that's different. Some guy who bought into Pentax for the wrong reasons and is leaving for reasons that don't make any sense is of no interest at all.

Kenspo says he's tired waiting for the buffer to clear, I'm in agreement. It just doesn't matter as much to me as it does to him.
Winder says he get a 60% keeper rate with his K-1 at weddings, but an almost 99% keeper rate with an A9 and eye focus. I make a note, after getting a 60% keeper rate at a wedding and think if ever asked again, include the rental of an A9 in the price. I'm not saying there is no information about other cameras. A bit of discretion about where it might come from is however required.

Want a small camera. A KP with a 20-40, 15 ltd. and DA 70 makes sense. A Fuji with a monster 10-24 doesn't. As for your email list. As a former teacher, if it's important it's an assignment, and there's a test at the end or a mark assigned. If it's not important, maybe I send an email.

---

Last edited by normhead; 10-26-2018 at 12:17 PM.

[Ontarian50]

You can also include Sigma, Sony, Mamiya, and Leica to your list of five SLRs still made today; total nine.

Sony no longer make their SLRs. They still have two or three SLT's in the lineup, but that's not quite the same thing. If you don't have a proper focusing screen and a moving mirror, it ain't a true SLR, I say.


Sigma's last SLR was the SD1 Merrill from 2012, which I expect is well out of production now. It's still in their lineup, but I'd be astonished if they were still coming off an assembly line. All subsequent Sigmas have been mirrorless.

Mamiya lives on in the Phase One system, and it looks like all the other Mamiya branded bodies are gone.

Leica abandoned the 35mm SLR with the last R9. The R10 never made it past prototype. But I stand corrected because the Leica S (and promised-for-next year S3) is a current medium format DSLR. So Leica still has faith in the traditional SLR! At least at the $20,000 price point.


So, I'll amend my assessment that the last SIX SLR makers are Nikon, Canon, Pentax, Hasselblad, Phase One, and Leica.


When the Nikon FM-10 was discontinued, I think that was the last SLR model from Cosina gone.

However, there's always the hope something may spring forth from China or Russia, but likely for 35mm film, rather than digital - at least for the time being.

Too bad really. The SLR camera has been around since Louis Daguerre used one to make his Daguerrotypes, but it didn't really go mainstream until the 1960s when the Nikon F and Pentax Spotmatic were king. Question is, who will be the last manufacturer with a moving mirror inside their cameras?

[Merv-O]

The SLR genre will never be gone for prosumers who are serious about their craft. I think Pentax will however, continue to offer a point and shoot SLR so that those who do not even know that astrotracer and pixel shifting exists will have a camera to take photos. I mean the demise of film was greatly exaggerated and now 1970's SLR's have become extremely valuable again. I paid $290 in 1975 for my Canon FTBn with 50mm f/1.8 lens (which I still own & lovingly cared for)which translates into about $1850 in 2018 dollars. It has the match needle metering system which I think is faster than my K-3 on many occasions.
I am going to take my Pentax K-1 ii and the FTBn out for a comparo shoot soon and report on the respective images. Vive' La SLR...…also, the FTBn is heavy and yet I never noticed the weight when it ran off thousands of pictures through the years.
My point is that Pentax's world share of about 5% can grow if it stays with a genre' abandoned by others. Look at Ilford and Fujifilm--still putting out 35mm film for the masses and still making a profit. I hope every other manufacturer leaves the SLR arena--loyalists will be forced to buy the only SLR in town (Pentax) and Pentax, ironically could grow market share. Not that far-fetched given the camera industry shake-up....

Sony no longer make their SLRs. They still have two or three SLT's in the lineup, but that's not quite the same thing. If you don't have a proper focusing screen and a moving mirror, it ain't a true SLR, I say.


Sigma's last SLR was the SD1 Merrill from 2012, which I expect is well out of production now. It's still in their lineup, but I'd be astonished if they were still coming off an assembly line. All subsequent Sigmas have been mirrorless.

Mamiya lives on in the Phase One system, and it looks like all the other Mamiya branded bodies are gone.

Leica abandoned the 35mm SLR with the last R9. The R10 never made it past prototype. But I stand corrected because the Leica S (and promised-for-next year S3) is a current medium format DSLR. So Leica still has faith in the traditional SLR! At least at the $20,000 price point.


So, I'll amend my assessment that the last SIX SLR makers are Nikon, Canon, Pentax, Hasselblad, Phase One, and Leica.


When the Nikon FM-10 was discontinued, I think that was the last SLR model from Cosina gone.

However, there's always the hope something may spring forth from China or Russia, but likely for 35mm film, rather than digital - at least for the time being.

Too bad really. The SLR camera has been around since Louis Daguerre used one to make his Daguerrotypes, but it didn't really go mainstream until the 1960s when the Nikon F and Pentax Spotmatic were king. Question is, who will be the last manufacturer with a moving mirror inside their cameras?

[MarkJerling]

Question is, who will be the last manufacturer with a moving mirror inside their cameras?

Hopefully Ricoh - Pentax.

[normhead]

Maybe the question should be who will be the next camera company to release a DSLR. It's not like new models aren't under development.

People seem to be imagining a scenario where we have to use mirrorless because there are no more DSLRs. The notion that the rise of mirrorless will mean the end of DSLRs is pure speculation. I'm guessing that in the same sensational type hype world, the same was said about rangefinder etc. when SLR started to become popular. In phography, nothing ever truly goes away. I was looking at 4x5 view cameras the other day. I've seen one in use in the last couple years, new manufacturers are popping up to make them and people are still buying them. And people think DSLRs are going to disappear. pffft. 19th century tech hasn't even disappeared.

The internet is informed by sensationalistic idiots with no understanding of either history or progress.

[Alex645]

Question is, who will be the last manufacturer with a moving mirror inside their cameras?

Time will tell, but I don't think it will happen within any of our lifetimes. If I had to bet, it would be Nikon or Pentax, but wouldn't it be ironic if it was Apple?

[UncleVanya]

Some of these threads are useless - in part because everyone gangs up on the guy or gal leaving. I have tried to keep my comments positive but from the start the OP's stated reasons didn't make sense to me. The body is a bit smaller but the lenses that are comparable aren't. And the inclusion of the K-1 and 15-30 in the equation and then the OP remarking he was selling the KP and keeping the K-1 - I'm really confused. More than anything I don't think this means the OP made a bad choice - I think the articulation of things that the OP feels has been bad. I feel like we saw a glimpse of the decision but not the whole thing. I would love to be able to share a beer and go shooting and compare notes together with the OP to understand this - because in the end - I'm a guy who likes to learn. I also want decisions to make sense to me. Even if they shouldn't. LOL.

For me right now - m43 is the mirrorless solution that I use when I don't want to carry a K3 - would a KP lighten the load? Sure. Is it light enough to make me go that route vs. my GX-1 and a small slow lens or a fast prime when I want something really small - no. Is that entirely rational? Probably not. I know what I give up, I know what I gain and I know what my reasons are. I'm also still using Pentax largely - the m43 gear is another system not the replacement. Does Sony make sense to me? No, but I can see why it does for some. Will I jump to NIkon if the Z series is successful? Who knows - I doubt it but Nikon was my first interchangeable lens camera brand and I did love it. My FT3 is still on my shelf and I wish I still had my F2a just to look at it. (Despite the fact the LX was a better camera!)

[The Squirrel Mafia]

Winder says he get a 60% keeper rate with his K-1 at weddings, but an almost 99% keeper rate with an A9 and eye focus. I make a note, after getting a 60% keeper rate at a wedding and think if ever asked again, include the rental of an A9 in the price.

That's a nice keeper rate, but then again, the A9 is a $4,000 camera body alone. Makes sense for someone that shoots for a living, but this is overkill for someone like me that shoots for a hobby.

But yeah! If I had some money to spare, I'd definitely get one along with a few G lenses.

[c.a.m]

I think 'mirrorless' technology needs to improve still before it could spell the decline or demise of DLSRs.

I don't have any issue with the concept of mirrorless, but the technology is not as mature as its 'mirrored' DSLR counterpart. One of the most significant differences, the viewfinder, seems to me to be a weakness in mirrorless implementations. I happen to be one of the population who has physiological difficulty using EVFs, even the state-of-the-art varieties. Perhaps EVFs will become refined to the point of being practically indistinguishable from OVFs and suitable for the population of users, but we'll need to wait for that day. Despite their advertised -- and hyped -- benefits, I'm beginning to think that EFVs, as they are currently implemented, have crucial disadvantages compared to OVFs. For example, I see reports of flickering in certain lighting conditions; noticeable lag in the display; and issues with panning.

The mirrorless-mirrored dichotomy has me thinking about another totally different context -- residential house windows. Yes, those windows.

Glass windows in houses have several disadvantages. They are not as energy-efficient as a solid insulated wall; they need regular annoying maintenance such as cleaning, caulking, and painting; birds fly into them; they're dark or dim at night; and they offer only a 180-degree FOV. Why do we still use this ancient technology? Why not replace all the windows in our house with large LCDs mounted on interior walls and fed by exterior cameras? Like camera EVFs, the LCDs could also superimpose all sorts of information bites, such as time of day, temperatures, weather forecasts, news headlines. High-tech, for sure.

In contrast, I do enjoy looking out of a clean, transparent window, connecting with the outside world, and seeing a real-time, unobstructed view of the morning sunrise or the bird on the feeder.

I also prefer viewing a scene through an optical viewfinder (assuming that I've kept my viewfinder lens clean! )

- Craig

[Lord Lucan]

Winder says he get a 60% keeper rate with his K-1 at weddings, but an almost 99% keeper rate with an A9 ...

99% is very impressive. The A9 must be such a stunning camera that everyone in the subject groups, including toddlers, keeps their eyes riveted to it and showing their best expressions for almost all the time.

[Digitalis]

I don't see that at all - an EVF uses the same lens as the shutter does, so it directly shows what the lens sees; a rangefinder has a separate window, so it has some parallax issues, doesn't show if lens is blocked {such as by lens cap or finger}, and has no direct knowledge of changing lenses.

You are missing the point completely, which is the removal of the mirror from the optical path - Rangefinders gain an advantage over SLRs because of the shorter registration distance, and thus the lenses are smaller - in certain configurations significantly smaller.

Also current Leica Digital rangefinders (eg. the Leica M10) can be used with live view, so there go your argument points out the window.

[monochrome]

The mirrorless-mirrored dichotomy has me thinking about another totally different context -- residential house windows. Yes, those windows.

Glass windows in houses have several disadvantages. They are not as energy-efficient as a solid insulated wall; they need regular annoying maintenance such as cleaning, caulking, and painting; birds fly into them; they're dark or dim at night; and they offer only a 180-degree FOV. Why do we still use this ancient technology? Why not replace all the windows in our house with large LCDs mounted on interior walls and fed by exterior cameras? Like camera EVFs, the LCDs could also superimpose all sorts of information bites, such as time of day, temperatures, weather forecasts, news headlines. High-tech, for sure.

In contrast, I do enjoy looking out of a clean, transparent window, connecting with the outside world, and seeing a real-time, unobstructed view of the morning sunrise or the bird on the feeder.

I also prefer viewing a scene through an optical viewfinder (assuming that I've kept my viewfinder lens clean! )

- Craig

This is excellent!!

[reh321]

You are missing the point completely, which is the removal of the mirror from the optical path - Rangefinders gain an advantage over SLRs because of the shorter registration distance, and thus the lenses are smaller - in certain configurations significantly smaller.

Also current Leica Digital rangefinders (eg. the Leica M10) can be used with live view, so there go your argument points out the window.

Not at all. They were not called "short flange-distance" cameras; one with a long flange distance would still qualify to be a "rangefinder" camera if it had the proper kind of viewfinder. The primary attribute of rangefinder cameras is that the viewfinder gives you a different view from what the film/sensor gets. In MILC, sensor and viewfinder get the same view. Leica with Live View is no longer a true rangefinder camera when user is using Live View .... but you can think whatever you want to - I'm not going to go around and around with you about arcane definitions.

[Digitalis]

Why not replace all the windows in our house with large LCDs mounted on interior walls and fed by exterior cameras? Like camera EVFs, the LCDs could also superimpose all sorts of information bites, such as time of day, temperatures, weather forecasts, news headlines. High-tech, for sure.

This article and this mentions a neurochemical link to sun exposure and health benefits* that would be disrupted by living in a house without any windows for natural light to shine through.


* Though of course you run the risk of developing skin cancer...there has to be a drawback somewhere.

[Rondec]

Some of these threads are useless - in part because everyone gangs up on the guy or gal leaving. I have tried to keep my comments positive but from the start the OP's stated reasons didn't make sense to me. The body is a bit smaller but the lenses that are comparable aren't. And the inclusion of the K-1 and 15-30 in the equation and then the OP remarking he was selling the KP and keeping the K-1 - I'm really confused. More than anything I don't think this means the OP made a bad choice - I think the articulation of things that the OP feels has been bad. I feel like we saw a glimpse of the decision but not the whole thing. I would love to be able to share a beer and go shooting and compare notes together with the OP to understand this - because in the end - I'm a guy who likes to learn. I also want decisions to make sense to me. Even if they shouldn't. LOL.

For me right now - m43 is the mirrorless solution that I use when I don't want to carry a K3 - would a KP lighten the load? Sure. Is it light enough to make me go that route vs. my GX-1 and a small slow lens or a fast prime when I want something really small - no. Is that entirely rational? Probably not. I know what I give up, I know what I gain and I know what my reasons are. I'm also still using Pentax largely - the m43 gear is another system not the replacement. Does Sony make sense to me? No, but I can see why it does for some. Will I jump to NIkon if the Z series is successful? Who knows - I doubt it but Nikon was my first interchangeable lens camera brand and I did love it. My FT3 is still on my shelf and I wish I still had my F2a just to look at it. (Despite the fact the LX was a better camera!)

I think the initial driver of mirrorless sales was smaller camera bodies, but looking at Nikon's new Z series, I don't think that is really the point any more. There are plenty of biggish mirrorless cameras and plenty of pretty small SLRs. Certainly lens design is changed by having a shorter registration distance, but even that isn't really here or there.

I think the true benefits of mirrorless designs revolve around the EVF and the possible improvements in things like manual focusing, lack of mirror slap, faster frame rates, etc. On the other hand, the negatives also revolve around the EVF (poorer battery life, lagging with most models, etc). The thing is that OP launched his thread with the fairly hyperbolic title of "The End of the SLR?" Followed by comments that focused on size.

I guess I would just say that overall, I think large or small size is less a driver of camera sales than things like cost and specifications. The A7 III seems to sell well, better than the A9 by all accounts, because it is priced cheaper and still keeps quite a bit of functionality.

---------- Post added 10-26-18 at 07:51 PM ----------

This article and this mentions a neurochemical link to sun exposure and health benefits* that would be disrupted by living in a house without any windows for natural light to shine through.


* Though of course you run the risk of developing skin cancer...there has to be a drawback somewhere.

I didn't think most modern windows allowed through UV light, which is what is hypothesized as the trigger for this neurotransmitter. Certainly I could lie in front of my windows all day long and never get a tan. It doesn't mean it isn't beneficial to my health to see the sun through the windows, but I think there is probably more benefit to going outside.