[Digitalis]

When SLR started to gain track people said its the death of rangefinder cameras, yet they are still produced.

indeed they are, however RF cameras are nowhere near as dominant as they once were. I'd say (conservatively) the ratio looks like a 1 to 1000, for every single Leica M digital camera sold about 1,000 DSLRs are bought.

And there isn't a lot of competition in the Digital RF market these days.

[Lowell Goudge]

I don't get the whole discussion.

For any format, yes a mirror less body will be smaller than a DSLR, but for any format, a lens is a lens is a lens. An 85mmF1.4 has to be the same size regardless of mirror less or not. And batteries etc, all take the same space.

So unless you are only discussion the wide to normal range, there is no big advantage in size and weight.

People like to use Leica as an example, ok, look at their line up, not overly fast, but they are designed to be used wide open. So sure a body and a pocket full of gold (sorry lenses) and you can travel anywhere. Relatively light, but you can do the same with Pentax too.

[reh321]

I don't get the whole discussion.

For any format, yes a mirror less body will be smaller than a DSLR, but for any format, a lens is a lens is a lens. An 85mmF1.4 has to be the same size regardless of mirror less or not. And batteries etc, all take the same space.

So unless you are only discussion the wide to normal range, there is no big advantage in size and weight.

And if true MILC advocates were involved in this discussion, they would be talking about the benefits they get from the EVF; as I've said many times, the people who talk about size and weight don't truly appreciate MILC.

[ZombieArmy]

indeed they are, however RF cameras are nowhere near as dominant as they once were. I'd say (conservatively) the ratio looks like a 1 to 1000, for every single Leica M digital camera sold about 1,000 DSLRs are bought.

And there isn't a lot of competition in the Digital RF market these days.

Yah but the Leica M is hardly what I'd consider "competitively priced" to most DSLRs. I think any camera/lens system at that price would have a 1 to 1000 ratio.

But yeah there probably wouldn't be enough interest for a cost cut rangefinder to be viable.

[monochrome]

AFAIC the EVF isn’t ‘there’ yet. If the real advantage is what you gain with an EVF, the real disadvantage is what you lose with an EVF.

As far as death of the dSLR, the main Pentax blessing is its tiny comparative size. They just don’t need to sell many cameras and lenses to justify the invested capital, whereas Nikon (in particular) and Canon are truly at risk of collapse under the weight of their capital cost if they don’t transition to where the market is moving. Pentax can keep selling a few tens of thousands of bodies and lenses a year forever, so long as Ricoh thinks there is some Goodwill benefit to maintaining the brand. They can literally become the Leica of mirrored cameras - a surviving anachronism that no one but a Pentax user really understands.

[reh321]

AFAIC the EVF isn’t ‘there’ yet. If the real advantage is what you gain with an EVF, the real disadvantage is what you lose with an EVF.

This is ultimately a case of personal taste. As far as I could tell, personally I would be perfectly happy with the EVF on the Nikon Z-7 {but price of the Z-7 is way out of my budget}.

[Alex645]

For any format, yes a mirror less body will be smaller than a DSLR, but for any format, a lens is a lens is a lens. An 85mmF1.4 has to be the same size regardless of mirror less or not.

It's not that simple, even if we use the same focal length, same aperture, and presume same build quality (+/- WR, etc).

For example:

FF Mirrorless Samyang FE 35mm f/2.8 for Sony E mount 86 grams.
APS-C DSLR Pentax HD 35mm f/2.8 Macro 213 grams.
645 DSLR Pentax FA 35mm f/3.5 520 grams. (the larger the aperture, the bigger and heavier the lens)

So assuming the exact same elements/groups, build materials, other factors are involved such as the distance from the nodal point to the sensor plane or the overall size of sensor.

[Rondec]

It's not that simple, even if we use the same focal length, same aperture, and presume same build quality (+/- WR, etc).

For example:

FF Mirrorless Samyang FE 35mm f/2.8 for Sony E mount 86 grams.
APS-C DSLR Pentax HD 35mm f/2.8 Macro 213 grams.
645 DSLR Pentax FA 35mm f/3.5 520 grams. (the larger the aperture, the bigger and heavier the lens)

So assuming the exact same elements/groups, build materials, other factors are involved such as the distance from the nodal point to the sensor plane or the overall size of sensor.

I'm going to quibble a bit with your list because the Samyang doesn't have auto focus and the Pentax HD mentioned is a macro with an all metal build, which adds to its bulk. The Pentax DA 35 is f2.4 and weighs 124 grams.

[Alex645]

I'm going to quibble a bit with your list because the Samyang doesn't have auto focus and the Pentax HD mentioned is a macro with an all metal build, which adds to its bulk. The Pentax DA 35 is f2.4 and weighs 124 grams.

Agreed! There are many reasons why identical focal lengths and apertures can vary in weight, but my counterpoint was that even if there were identical features and construction, due to the physics of how mirrorless, DSLRs, and various formats were designed (micro 4/3 vs. APS-C vs. FF vs. MF vs. LF), those lenses will not be the same size and/or weight.

[UncleVanya]

Agreed! There are many reasons why identical focal lengths and apertures can vary in weight, but my counterpoint was that even if there were identical features and construction, due to the physics of how mirrorless, DSLRs, and various formats were designed (micro 4/3 vs. APS-C vs. FF vs. MF vs. LF), those lenses will not be the same size and/or weight.

He stated for a given format. So in general at the same quality and at the same max f stop the lenses are very similar in size for those covering the same size image circle. The one area where this isn't true is wide angle where the lack of a need for retrofocal designs on short flange distance systems can reduce bulk and weight.

[Digitalis]

The one area where this isn't true is wide angle where the lack of a need for retrofocal designs on short flange distance systems can reduce bulk and weight.

Which is why the Leica 21mm f/1.4 ASPH is smaller than the Zeiss 21mm f/2.8 - same focal length, but due to the absence of the reflex mirror and consequently shorter flange, which gives the lens designer freedom to produce a faster and more compact* lens.


* The inclusion of aspherical elements in the Leica lens also gives it an advantage as these allow the designer to compensate for more aberrations that is possible with purely spherical lens designs.

[Lowell Goudge]

It's not that simple, even if we use the same focal length, same aperture, and presume same build quality (+/- WR, etc).

For example:

FF Mirrorless Samyang FE 35mm f/2.8 for Sony E mount 86 grams.
APS-C DSLR Pentax HD 35mm f/2.8 Macro 213 grams.
645 DSLR Pentax FA 35mm f/3.5 520 grams. (the larger the aperture, the bigger and heavier the lens)

So assuming the exact same elements/groups, build materials, other factors are involved such as the distance from the nodal point to the sensor plane or the overall size of sensor.

I said one format , also said for telephoto.

I agree there is a potential saving on wide angle because you may not need a retro focus group with a short registration distance,

[Trickortreat]

indeed they are, however RF cameras are nowhere near as dominant as they once were. I'd say (conservatively) the ratio looks like a 1 to 1000, for every single Leica M digital camera sold about 1,000 DSLRs are bought.And there isn't a lot of competition in the Digital RF market these days.

But there are 2 new competitors entering the DRF market - Zenih and that french company (I forgot the name) - anywho, when performance advantages make mirrorless the dominant tech and all of the big guys just drop DSLR like they did with RF - Pentax should continue with its DSLR line because there will always be people that prefer OVF over EVF and to who AF tracking performance doesnt matter diddly squat.

People like to use Leica as an example, ok, look at their line up, not overly fast, but they are designed to be used wide open. So sure a body and a pocket full of gold (sorry lenses) and you can travel anywhere. Relatively light, but you can do the same with Pentax too.

You should take a look at Summilux range - those lenses are really fast and small by modern standards. And there is the Noctilux range

[psoo]

Has the dominance of zooms meant the end of primes?

Has the dominance of color photography meant the end of black-and-white?

Has the dominance of 35mm FF meant the end of APS-C, M4/3, 645, etc.?

The popularity of one thing rarely means the end of everything else.

Not very true:
I haven't seen many pinhole cameras around; I've never seen magnesium flash guns used in my life; I've never seen uncoated lenses on the market; I don't think any companies make stereo cameras today; and when did you last see a 120 film box camera on the market? There must be other photo equipment that has also bit the dust but at the age of 77 I'm too young to know of it.

[SteveDee]

During the last week or so I've been dragged into a few camera shops by my dear lady wife. She is on a mission to replace her heavy K-3 kit for something lighter. She has really enjoyed using her K-3 over the last 2 years, and her photography has improved in leaps & bounds.

(BTW, I don't like her bloated K-3, I much prefer my K-30. But to be perfectly honest, my 'ideal' would be to fit a 20M cmos sensor to my old K1000, turning it into a no-nonsense, fully manual, dSLR. ...I know, its not gonna happen!).

One of the important considerations for my wife is the weight of the kit and the size of the lenses. The size of the camera body is important in as much as it must fit nicely in the hands; a small slippery camera is no good, neither is something huge.

So those that say that there is little difference is size between a regular dSLR and some m43 bodies are quite right, because they have been designed with a similar arrangement of controls, and to be easy to hold on to. But just as the K-30 is smaller, lighter & less bulky than the K-3, so an m43 mirror-less Lumix G9 is a similar size, but less bulky and considerably lighter.

The lenses for a m43 are smaller and lighter than the K-3 because the format is smaller.

However, the 'technology' seems to me to be relatively new and immature. Battery life limits the number of shots you can take before recharge (typically only 300-400 images). Also many people don't like the electronic view-finder.

Developments in battery technology over the next 5-10 years will be truly amazing. Batteries will become smaller/more powerful, and potentially less dangerous than the little hand-grenades we seem happy to carry in our pockets at the moment. Much of this rapid development will be driven by the car industry, but will also filter down to phones and cameras.

Display technology continues to improve and we will soon be use to flying in windowless airplanes. And the cost of solid-state devices always comes down relative to their mechanical counterparts. So yes, I think sales of quality mirror-less cameras will quickly overtake dSLR in the amateur photography market. The question is, what format will become dominant?

I wonder if m43 is a dead-end. Although full-frame mirror-less are expensive at the moment, economies of scale should drive the costs down, providing FF camera sales are high enough.

Despite my transition from K1000 > K110D > K30 (and advising my wife to get a K3) I don't think that I am a 'brand-bunny'. My choices were based on the desire to reuse my collection of Pentax lenses. But what my wife needs to do (and is doing) is carefully consider the type of photography she wants to do, how she wants to do it, and what is the most suitable format to use.

Some in this thread have talked about 'like-for-like' comparisons between make/manufacture/model/type of cameras, but this is not some kind of 'top trumps' game. Its about selecting the best tool for the job ...once you have a clear understand of what the job involves.