I think this is much more than a clever viewfinder. Fuji is the only company that has tried to modernize the optical viewfinder. One of the reasons we still "argue" so much about the viewfinder is not just the focus aspects of phase focus , but because the OVFs haven't really modernized. Hats off to Fuji and, with its rebirth of pellicle mirror, Sony. The ratings are how well a camera competes with its class-in which case Fuji in my opinion should be a Gold.
Interesting read. Thanks for posting. I give Olympus a lot of credit for persevering and the gestalt image quality with an Olympus product is always excellent-good value.
Most interesting to me is that no one has achieved in APS-C what Olympus has with these OM-D cameras. Fuji and Samsung to a certain extent, but I give Olympus props for maxing out that 16 MP 4/3 sensor.
I see much less issue with filter glass scrathing than coatings eroding.
Would be nice to see the camera assembly line. Is it Leica-like or a bit more modern factory?
Lots of money. What about the XZ series?
jaxson: An interesting take away for me was that Pentax considers the MF camera as the professional line, and FF as just a progression from APS-C. They only seem to be getting in FF as the low end users don't have an intermediary option before the MF 645Z. Seems fair.
I'd love to see Pentax back on top of something, but of late the competition has been fierce. Sony and Olympus now do sensor shift stabilisation better than Pentax. Pentax has always done solid bodies, well weather sealed well. They still have a place for sure.
I'll say it again though: Give us back (yes you had it right already on the K-5 series) sensor based stabilisation during video mode and you'll have quite the package. Also release this back into previous models too, which are presently only offered the crippled 'Movie SR' rubbish...
Interesting to remember how in film days Pentax, like Mamiya, had excellent medium format cameras. Not just the 6x7, but the 645 cameras, also. 35mm, 120, sheet film was a nice progression.
justmeMN: AF is for wimps. :-) My Pentax film camera didn't have no newfangled AF, and it worked just fine. :-)
Yes, Richard S. How did we manage to take a photograph without auto-exposure, auto-focus and motor-winder. Yet, with each advance (going back to the film days), working pros would say "we don't need that," yet adapt it immediately.
Petroglyph: The 'something extra' on the K-mount FF might have to do with the OVF. Ricoh have a patent for instantly electronically switching mirrors on/off. Possible applications could be for EVF-like overlays on a penta-prism. Leaving the EVF active while in 'live view' mode and switching to OVF when not in LV. Who knows, but the patent is there. Could be quite interesting. They already do 3 or 4 things with sensor shift from recompose to astro-track/GPS. The selectable AA filter was introduced with the K3, so the new feature might be in this area as well. It will be an interesting release.
Your voice to ... This is what has been missing in the modern DSLR-viewfinder innovation.
Zvonimir Tosic: First of all, if I were a representative of company that always gets worst of attention from DPR, starting from lack of reviews onto everything else, I would not give them any bit of information about anything. Rule goes, know your enemy first.
Also, I would love DPR spare us mirrorless tirade when conversing with a representative of the company that has practically invented an SLR!
Instead, why DPR do not bother mirrorless-solution-only companies, bugging them with questions like: when will they try out SLR designs and change their mounts to ones with larger distance, in order to simplify their lens designs, introduce native distortion-free images and not images no one can swallow without software manipulation, insist on 100% tele-centricity, considerably preserve battery life with introduction of a bright OVF?
Good thoughts. We have today's modern, super-duper lenses and yet they rely so much on hidden software corrections.
I would have asked about Ricoh finally giving Pentax DLSR a real line-up of models and Ricoh's commitment to maintaining that.
If I were the exec, I would have cited NIKON as the company that has emphasized full-frame upgrade for less than professional users, something which I think is one of their current strong suits-relatively affordable full-frame DSLR.
DPReview good job. The reason no more forthcoming on full-frame might be because there is not that much more to talk about. This is Pentax. No gimmicks. Just excellent photographer-centric cameras with excellent image quality. I'll take image quality, weather proofing, interface, line of lenses over more focus points. If I want a movie quality; I'll buy one.
This is obviously where things are headed-even if one streams the nephew's birthday party cross-country (remember, when camcorders supplanted film cameras before the digital era and video on digital cameras and, now, smart phones. It would seem that Sony, Panasonic and Samsung would have the heads up in this area. Even Canon, which is strong in video-where are your products. Wake up, Nikon??????
Daedbird: I really wish Nikon would build a 1" sensor bridge camera, competing against the Sony RX10 and similar ilk from Panasonic. This is an alright camera, and has a market, I wish they would branch out...
They have the Nikon 1 platform, and it seems like it would be real easy for them to build something similar to what Sony did.
I'd like to see the company that licensed the Kodak name do something like that. Wonder over to Kodak Forum and folks are reporting on these new badged cameras-which are quite good.
One of the great values in contemporary photography.
Time to "clean sheet" the digital SLR. Sony did in a way, but seems to have retreated. Not saying that a D7200 isn't a good product or value, just find the format and interface bewildering.
I wonder who really designs and develops these "point and shoots."
Seems to be more forthcoming than some of the other OEMs?
donaldsc: I do not own the product so I am commenting on the basis of the review only. To me, it sounds like a totally crappy camera attached to a non-phone. However, I guess that the social media types who buy these sort of things are incapable of and are uninterested in knowing anything about photography and are only capable and/or interested in taking selfies of themselves blocking whatever object they are standing in front of. To them, it will probably be a great product.
It seems like with all those phones now given WiFi, this product has less appeal, especially as it doesn't do 4G, only WiFi?
Understandable when they went from a $300 not that powerful camera to a $1,500 one. Still, great to see new ideas in the marketplace.