Enginel: I'm a little afraid at this pace Pentax wouldn't finish the camera until after 2017. Maybe in January they will put pentaprism and eyepiece in mockup xD
@Enginel - I beg to differ. You can use a huge variety of adapted lenses with Sony mirrorless, from Canon EF, to Leica M, to Sony E. You're not locked into any one system with mirrorless. Also, manual focus is worlds better on mirrorless, thanks to focus magnification and focus peaking. Mirrorless cameras also offer high focus coverage because the entire sensor can be covered with AF points. Mirrorless can also do things like face detection and eye detection AF in the viewfinder, locking onto faces and eyes of your subjects. Mirrorless has a lot to offer.
There's also size. Big FF reflex mirrors make for big bodies. Even though from the front a Leica SL is as large as a Canon 6D, from the top it's half as thin at the midsection. So if this Pentax were a mirrorless body, it's be much thinner at the midsection. It's also be lighter thanks to shedding that excess body fat.
zakaria: what is the main diffirance between mirrorless and dslr.is it the miirror or the size.if the size is supposed to be the main advance..so what about the samsung nx1. it is bigger than k5.what about fuji XE1..yes it is smaller than k5 but can you attach a tele photo or a big zoom on it like sigma 50-500.if it is the mirror .. i think ovf is better and more reliable.
The NX1 is the largest mirrorless body in the market. It's a flagship body capable of 4K video and a blazing 15 fps burst rate. But even still, it's 130g lighter than K5.
As for OVF vs EVF, as someone who uses both, I've come to really like EVF. I like real-time exposure preview, focus peaking and focus magnification, instant image review in the EVF, histogram in the EVF, being able to switch to black-and-white view in the EVF (it helps with being able to see a scene more abstractly, which helps with composition; and it obviously helps if you enjoy shooting b/w). I also love having face detection and eye detection AF in the viewfinder. It's really changed how I shoot. I use to do a lot of "focus-recompose" with my DSLR. Now, when shooting people, I just let the face AF system find and lock onto the faces of my subjects. I also love the massive focus point coverage across the viewfinder of mirrorless. When I go back to using OVF, it just seems so primitive. But to each his own.
nerd2: I just saw the backside of the camera. It's absurd that there are SO FEW controls at all. But this camera is clearly not aimed at working professionals anyway.
It's not really much different from the minimalist button layout of the Leica S:
I think these designs show that cameras don't necessarily have to be covered in countless knobs, dials, and buttons.
I just wonder if there's really enough of a market for another big, chunky FF DSLR at a time when FF mirrorless is coming into play. We're at the beginning of an inflection point in the camera market. Pentax may be a little too late to the game with this FF DSLR product line. I think it would have been a lot more interesting, and future-forward of Pentax to have introduced a FF mirrorless body instead.
KrisAK: I'm not sure why, but I really like the look of the the G5 X.When Canon gets around to FF mirrorless, I hope they carry that aesthetic forward.
@Mike FL - I have a "left-eye user" friend who uses an X-E2, which obviously has a side-mounted EVF. He sees no difference using a center EVF vs a side EVF because as he says, "With either one, I've got my face up against the back of the camera".
As for your comment that center EVF making OMD "the best selling MFT ever", was it really center EVF that made that happen? I don't think so. Olympus m4/3 has always had center EVFs. It's just that Olympus PEN bodies had *external, add-on* center EVFs, while OMD finally integrated the center EVF into the body.
maxola67: Anyway, it looks better than latest brick-like Leica.
If the Leica is "brick-like", I'd say this Pentax is "boulder-like".
LF Photography: I just love watching the few die hard Leica fans mindlessly trying to defend this abomination of a camera...
I don't own a Leica, and probably never will (unless I won the lottery). But I can still appreciate this camera. If I had the money, I wouldn't mind having one.
BTW, what childish impulse would compel you to call this an "abomination [definition: a thing that causes disgust or hatred] of a camera." It's just a camera, for crying out loud! Why do people need to get so emotional or incensed over a camera? Get a grip, man! It sounds like it's you who is talking "mindlessly" here.
Lens Fanatics: NOT that Nikon Canon Pentax (even sony) and other big guys can not make a mirrorless camera big or small body with a mount that can accept their current lines of DSLR lenses , they know what their doing , they are not stupid but mainly they are doing business ! , POSSIBLY they already have it and its just a matter of time before they release it , depends in their marketing strategy.
Well, keep in mind that big companies have been known to be slow to react and adapt. Companies can make poor decisions. It happens. Look at Blackberry, Nokia, Kodak, etc. Microsoft made some poor choices in the mobile market, and ended up losing it to Android and iOS. Of course, people like yourself said, "The big guys...they know what they are doing. They are not stupid!"
I think Nikon made a mistake choosing to cripple their mirrorless system with a 1" sensor. I think Canon made a mistake choosing to cripple their mirrorless system with low specs and lack of support. How big these mistakes are, only time will tell. "Big guys" can make errors in judgement. That's because companies are run by people, and it's people who are making these critical decisions. Sometimes good decisions are squelched by internal company politics, lack of vision, or inertia. Then years later, we look back and say, "If only [Blackberry, or Kodak, or Microsoft, or Nikon] had done this instead of that."
Roland Karlsson: Yes, it is nice to be able to use old lenses. The shorter registration distance plus the avilability of adapters make e.g. a FF Sony mirrorlless camera able to use almost all lenses on the market. So, in a sense, it is right.
But, you lose some.
You lose auto focus and automatic closing of aperture. Sure, as it has an EVF, you can work with the lens aperture closed. Sure, with focus peeking you will make manual focusing easier. I have never use the Sony focus peeking, but I have a hard time using my Pentax focus peeking though. It is quite hard to get that exact focusing. It seems sharp almost everywhere.
Roland, you've spent a lot of time blowing things out of proportion. I really enjoy using manual focus cameras on my Sony. In fact, I love it. Some people can only see the negative in things. Heck, they even search it out! The rest of us know how to enjoy things. I'm enjoying using manual focus lenses again (I haven't enjoyed it since my days of using Nikon F manual film SLRs), thanks to my mirrorless camera.
mmcfine: Honestly, I barely see any difference from when I used the K2000 crop 8 years ago and my latest full-frame 6D. Full-frame is merely a dimension or ratio aspect we, for some odd reason cling to and manufacturers exploit.
I certainly don't think there's anything wrong with offering consumers a choice of formats.
That LCD articulation looks pretty cool. Nice to see a camera company that's not afraid to think outside of the box when it comes to LCD articulation.
Tungsten Nordstein: I like compacts. I like dSLRs. It always seems to me that Mirrorless are the worst of both worlds. They're not small enough to be compact and they're not as fast or easy to use as dSLRs. Their benefits over a dSLR are minor. I hope they never take over.
Try using one for a few months, then see how you feel. I own both DSLR gear and Mirrorless. My DSLR gear doesn't get much use anymore. I've now decided to phase it out. When I go back to using DSLRs, I'm turned off by its bulk and size, the larger gear bag that it requires, and the lack of features inherent to an OVF (no exposure preview, no live histogram, no focus peaking or magnification, no instant image review, no black-and-white viewing mode which helps with seeing the image more abstractly and gives me better composition, etc.). I just got back from a trip to India using only my Mirrorless gear. Didn't miss my DSLR gear one bit. My back and shoulders didn't either. Very helpful for the high heat and humidity of India. The gear was also a lot more discreet than DSLR gear. All of these things were highly beneficial and appreciated!
AlanG: The overall situation with Sony E mount cameras is that the lens mount is an open system and they seem encourage and even assist all parties to make lenses, adapters, and whatever to work with it. How can anyone criticize that?
The idea that I can get a Speed Booster adapter and use my Canon TSE and other Canon lenses without cropping on my tiny Nex 6 camera is amazing. And these same Canon lenses can be used with another adapter on the A7 series of FF cameras. Meanwhile, I can use small APS format lenses on either format camera too, without an adapter. Does anyone else offer this level of flexibility and usefulness?
Add to that the benefit of IBIS, giving non-stabilized lenses image stabilization. Sounds good to me.
Paul B Jones: Really not sure what the big deal is here - mirrorless cameras can do anything just as well if not better than a DSLR ... except for wildlife, or sports, or photography in inclement weather ... or in rugged field conditions ... or anything involving telephoto work or long battery life ... or that requires long hours of looking through a VF. But otherwise - just as good or almost so. Well there is also the issue of having a full range of lenses that aren't crippled by clunky adapters.
There are pros and cons to everything. DSLRs have their own pros and cons. I'm using mirrorless now. My impetus was lighter, more compact gear for travel. I honestly don't miss my DSLR gear. And I can still use my DSLR lenses on my mirrorless body if I want to. I see a "clunky adapter" as a small price to pay, especially when my mirrorless body with adapter is still more compact than a DSLR body. Besides, it's not as if the adapter is a permanent part of the camera.
String: Just waiting for the inevitable posts...
This guy knows nothing! No pro would EVER use an EVF, let alone a mirrorless!
@Temporel - Stop being so thin-skinned. Besides, the presenter was very clear about why he wasn't using a DSLR. "He found that mirrorless became a universal mount for some of his favorite legacy lenses." It's practically in the title.
whtchocla7e: Unless the universal mount accepts my NX, E-mount, m43 and other lenses, it is not a universal mount.
You really shouldn't take it SO literally. After all, there are probably lenses in other parts of the "universe" that can't be adapted either. You probably can't adapt the Hubble Telescope's lens to a mirrorless camera either. So "universal" should not be taken literally to mean that it can accept every lens in the universe. In this context, I think most rational, sound-minded people understand "universal"-- within the context of this presentation-- to mean that it has a very high degree of adaptability with numerous lens systems. One shouldn't take things SOOO literally.
Horshack: The universal mount is a Smartphone.
You've completely mis-understood the topic at hand. We're *not* talking about what is the most widely-used camera type. We're talking about what type of camera is most capable of *mounting* a wide variety of lenses from various systems. You're just barking up the wrong tree.
Context is important. You can't just look at a word in isolation, as you are doing with the word "universal". If you look at the context, you'l realize that the word "universal" is used in conjunction with the word "mount" = "universal mount".
Reading it within the greater context of a sentence..."he found that mirrorless became a universal mount for some of his favorite legacy lenses." The writer even points out that "universal mount" pertains to being able to use "some of his favorite legacy lenses", further emphasizing that we are talking about the ability to MOUNT LENSES! Read the context.
Then those mounts aren't very universal, are they? Get it?
@Temporel - have you considered that it's because he likes to be able to use whatever lenses he wants, regardless of brand or system? The hint is in the title of the article! It's because he wants a camera that is a "universal camera" that can take any lenses he wants to use! Duh!
Again, do smartphones have lens mounts? The discussion isn't about which type of camera is the "vast majority", but rather about which type of camera is the most adaptable to various lens system. A camera can't be a "universal MOUNT camera" if the camera doesn't even have a MOUNT. You seem to be ignoring the word MOUNT. This isn't a discussion about what is the universal camera (ie, which are the most ubiquitous cameras being used today). If that were the case, yes, smartphones could qualify as universal cameras (as in, universally used), because they are everywhere. But that's not what we're talking about. The word MOUNT is the significant detail you're ignoring.