I tried a mirrorless. Have you?

Mike Arledge wrote:

KL Matt wrote:

So my brother-in-law had his new R6 along for Easter. He let me shoot a little with it and his L 85 1.4. Sweet glass, super nice ergonomics with the R6 body. Surprised that the R6 was definitely equal and maybe even superior build-quality wise to my K1.

Then I looked through the viewfinder. Tolerable at best. No dynamic range to the image at all. Everything looked like a cyber nightmare. Ok, so there was no perceptible lag, and I could even tell if something was in focus for the most part. And sure it was bright. Too bright actually. I just really hated it.

So I took his setup and my K1 II with DFA* 50 attached and shot the same scenes with both. The K1 was a joy to compose with. The scene looked beautiful through the lens like it always does. I could see the light.

My brother-in-law loves his new cam, and I do understand why. It's a great piece of kit. But when he says he likes the electronic viewfinder because you see what you're going to get later as a file, I don't understand where that comes from. Those things have no dynamic range! It's not what you're getting in the file later IMO, not even close.

He says that viewfinder is supposed to be a very good one. If that's the state of the art, I may not have a mirrorless for a long time even though I have in fact been eyeing one.
Have you compared a mirrorless to your k1 or k3 III, and what's your take? If you regularly use both, how does the viewfinder thing work out in practice? Using the R3 had me longing for my K1. But I also long for a lightweight, compact 24 1.4 with eye AF. Looks like I'll never get that in K mount. Is it possible to enjoy both types of systems?

Matt

Sounds like Mirrorless is just not for you.

I have the Canon R6 now and sold all of my Pentax gear to invest more in the Canon ecosystem. AF is light years ahead for most situations. Lens selection via adaptors makes it almost as robust if not more so than K Mount (especially if manual focus is fine). Third party support is basically the same for both.

I have no trouble using an EVF, in fact I have come to prefer it. I can shoot silently at 20-30 frames a second for birding or events. I can also slow it down just like a DSLR for landscape work via the LCD panel.

I love Pentax, as id was my first SLR 25 years ago, and I had a K-1 and KP as of this time last year. But for me, Canon and modern mirrorless gets my money moving forward, and my photos are also better for it alas.

Yeah, I agree.

I regularly use both my Pentax DLSR and mirrorless (shot with my Q yesterday). And with an R6 too.

Yes, the R6 is miles ahead of the K-1 and K-3ii in AF. Haven't used the K-3iii.

Of course one can change the EVF brightness. I suppose inexperience with this tech to all sorts of problems. Nor do I "see" a dynamic range problem when I use the R6, but if one doesn't know how to use the EVF I suppose one could blow out everything in its view. And it can be accurate re what's in the final image, although if you shoot raw perhaps not. Again, depends on what the settings are (I once accidentally hit a green slider when setting the profile and things were kind of nuts for a bit). One can do a lot of customization. But an OVF is always a guess.

And I love the manual focus aids in the R6, much better than a K1. It's funny, but the little arrow matching system reminds me of a split screen OVF in a film SLR. Unfortunately it only works with Canon lenses, not adapted Pentax lenses.

The advise to avoid mirrorless is OK, I suppose, but one is going to miss out on a lot of good cameras. Even the Q is fun to use. I love my K-1, and like OVFs for some things, but there are good reasons the OVF is dying out. I hope it's always an option, especially for folks that won't be able to learn to use EVFs, but I'll never limit my shooting to only OVF cameras.