|
Forum: Photographic Industry and Professionals
09-28-2018, 03:09 AM
|
| |
I don't think so. The goal with the GR III was to keep size as small as possible while keeping an APS-C sized sensor and adding SR. There will be a hot shoe EVF available for sure, but probably 90 percent of the folks buying the GR III won't use it. On a k mount MILC the size would be somewhat smaller than a traditional SLR, but you could still have it big enough to include an EVF and I think if they did that type of camera it would have an EVF for sure.
|
|
Forum: Photographic Industry and Professionals
09-07-2018, 02:49 AM
|
| |
There is no particular reason that you can't do a lot of the things you mentioned with an SLR in live view. I use the electronic shutter all of the time on my K-1 and K-1 II. It works fine. I use it mainly for tripod work, but certainly it is an option.
As far as the biggest benefits of keeping the mirror, they have to do with battery life and ability to visualize the scene "as it is" -- not just some limited dynamic range EVF thing that indicates what a straight out of camera jpeg will look like. I do a lot of post processing with many of my images and very seldom do my RAW images look like the final image. With pre-visualization, I can look through the viewfinder and compose without ever turning the camera on.
A minor thing the mirror does is to protect the sensor from dust with lens changes in the field. Not a big deal, but my experience is that you end up needing to clean mirrorless sensors more frequently than those of SLRs.
As I mentioned earlier, in order to have an EVF with minimal lag you need a higher end sensor at this point -- one with a fast enough read out. SLR functionality allows you to use older and cheaper sensors for similar or sometimes even better performance. It is pretty clear that Sony has issues with current sensors with long exposure noise and for certain implementations, like astrophotography, some of their cameras are pretty useless. The sensor in the K-1 can't do 20 fps or 4K video, but it is a top end performer from a still photography standpoint.
Often with sensors with faster read out speeds, dynamic range at lower iso isn't as good as well. That is probably the most important thing to me with what I shoot and I would hate to lose an EV of dynamic range just in order to get an extra six or seven frames per second frame rate.
|
|
Forum: Photographic Industry and Professionals
09-06-2018, 02:54 AM
|
| |
At present, SLRs and mirrorless cameras have very similar capabilities. It is interesting that people bring up size as a big reason for mirrorless, because while some are small, many are every bit as large as SLRs they are competing against. Video does seem to be a big reason to go with mirrorless. I don't shoot a bunch of video nor do I have a hankering to go to 4K (my computer complains enough when I edit HD video) and truthfully, I don't know how many people really want to shoot 4K on their ILC. EVFs seem to be both the big draw and the big negative. They offer a what you see is what you get for the jpeg the camera is producing and they have things like focus peaking that help with focus on manual focus lenses. On the other hand, there are a decent number of folks who get eye strain and headaches when using them. In addition, in order to cut down lag you need more expensive sensors meaning that it is only really expensive cameras like the A9 that end up with really high end EVFs.
It is amusing to me that in the article Big Mack posted they emphasize over and over again how fragile the camera mirror is and how terrible auto focus is with an SLR. The reality is that I have never had any issues with the mirrors on my cameras -- they last as long or longer than the electronic components of the camera. In addition, the focus has been fine. Just because there are a few mirrorless cameras can shoot and track at 20 fps, it doesn't mean that all or even most do. The Canon EOS R is going to have AF-C that shoots at 5 fps. That would be fine for me, but nothing that indicates a huge advantage over existing, older cameras.
I am not opposed to Pentax coming out with a mirrorless camera, but at present it doesn't seem as though it would be easy for them based on what their strong points are and what the mirrorless camera market demands. Could they design and produce a full frame mirrorless camera that can shoot and track at 12 fps? Can they do 4K video? Can they get a high end EVF that has minimal lag? How long would it take them to design a lens line up for this new mirrorless mount? I am just not convinced that the answers to most of these questions are in the affirmative and releasing a K-02 that has a full frame sensor, only HD video, 3 fps in AF-C, poor tracking, and poor video implementation does sound like a recipe for disaster.
|
