I tried a mirrorless. Have you?

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.

I've had some mirrorless before, also parallel to my K100D, K10D and K-1; a.o. Fuji X-T1, Ricoh GXR. In addition, I also own a Leica M.

Recently tried a Panasonic S1R, and the solid feel is at least equal to the K-1, as are the options for customizing the UI. The Panasonic-lenses feel better than the comparable Pentax-lenses (and so they should as most Lumix S-lenses are substantially more expensive)

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.

You can adjust the brightness of most EVFs; not sure about the R6 as I never used one.

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.

It depends; you can apply some settings to make a scene look (a bit) like the kind of image you'd typically produce in post, but it has limitiations. Myself, I prefer an OVF as it triggers my imagination a bit more than an EVF (which might limit my thinking a bit due to the pre-applied contrast, saturation, ...)

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.

How did you feel about the differences between the R3 and the R6? A friend has an R3 and its AF is indeed super-sticky.

Is it possible to enjoy both types of systems?

Yes.

I think every type of viewfinder has its own pecularities. E.g. the OVF of a DSLR is aperture-crippled, the OVF of a rangefinder is not through the lens but also shows more of the scene which makes it easier to anticipate the right moment, etc. Both a rangefinder and DSLR can potentially have calibration-worries.

Overall, my 1st pick is still the rangefinder (for its brutal simplicity) and 2nd pick would be the DSLR. However, some other reasons may make me decide to move away from DSLR, but those would get off-topic.