The guy's lips really is that colour.

If you look at the other pictures you'll find another one where peoples' lips are not as saturated. My conclusion? People have different lips. Some lips are redder than others.

Probably have nothing to do with either the profile or the sensor.

Disagree strongly. Maybe you need to check your monitor.

If the majority of people use a certain technology, than by definition it can not be dying or outdated.
You are comparing majority used versus minority used technology, which is an entirely different thing.

I think most people see "outdated" as something that is just replaced by a newer technology that is perhaps better, not necessarily that it's widely used or not widely used. And by my saying the DSLR market is slowly dying meaning that while perhaps the majority of users for now may still be using DSLRs, that number is dropping, as more people are moving to something else (mirrorless perhaps, and not necessarily to Sony either).

I'm not saying DSLRs are bad technology either. They've survived 60+ years. The shift to mirrorless will continue as time goes on. IMO if we were to equate mirrorless to a person, it would be like a teenager or high school student perhaps... It's not yet matured (there are still some kinks to be worked out to make them even more competitive to DSLRs, such as battery life which has been addressed in some cameras, among other things) but at the same time, mirrorless is not in its infancy either.

I wouldn't say that mirrorless is still in its infancy. It's almost a decade since Panasonic released the G1, the first mirrorless ILC (not counting the rangefinders by Epson and Leica). And mirrorless cameras of course existed already before that, just not with interchangeable lenses.

Thom Hogan recently wrote, that for the 18 years or so that we've had DSLRs, the most tangible improvements from model to model was during the first half of that period. The second half has mostly seen incremental improvements of mature technology. He further noted that we're now close to that half-way mark with mirrorless too, and that the coming decade will probably see less innovation and improvements from model to model than we've seen hitherto. He may be wrong, but I think he has a point in saying that mirrorless is now pretty mature technology.

Define "old dying". Fyi, the "wheel" (round and all that) is old. So is fire, so is...

DSLR are like vinyl records, whereas mirrorless are like music CDs.
Both are round, and both make music :)

Initially, there were only few and expensive CD players (= few expensive native lenses for mirrorless).

However, once it became mainstream, lots of choice emerging from 3rd parties in Asia, and fair prices, the transition away from vinyl records towards CDs was quite rapid in the end.

The vinyl records lost their market relevance, many factories closed down, but a small niche survived still today. A few odd chaps were still holding onto it, because vinyl records are so big, tactile, and with sweet nostalgia and emotions attached to it.

DSLR will probably face a similar development in the medium term, say, in 5 to 10 years.

Except maybe for Astrophotography.

I am actually thinking about getting a used A7Rii as a second body, but the A7Riii is too expensive, not weather sealed enough and does not have enough buttons to replace my K1.

FWIW, it is hard not to notice your repetitive criticism of the K1 and Pentax in these comments. It feels a bit excessive.
The A7Riii is in the same noise league as the Nikon D850 and the A7riii is not better at high ISO than the A7Rii. If Pentax can squeeze out half a stop of noise performance, the K1ii will join those three cameras. And at that point, other features become more important.
https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/sony-a7r-mark-iii-review/5

To be honest, I mistrust terms like "squeezing out more" (out of an old sensor).

Because this would mean, that denoising is stronger.

With JPEG I wouldn't care, but should the K-1 II start denoising RAWs a little (secretly), to keep up with better sensors in reviews, I would find this cheaty and less desirable.

In that context, I don't know what the role of the "accelerator" chip would be in the K-1 II. Hopefully it doesn't touch RAWs.

I always would prefer genuine sensor performance, like from BSI and dual gain pixels.

I would stay away from cheats (from in-camera denoised RAWs), be it with or without an "accelerator" chip.

Let's wait and see the dpreview test scene, if and how the left man's stubbles are coming across. Because a cheating circuitry could mistake stubbles as noise, and attempt to flatten it a little.

If you feel so strongly, then you should warn people of Sony's stareater algorithm ;)

Anyway, Pentax have shown that they managed to improve the RAW perfomance of the 24MP Sony APS-C CMOS without dodgy tricks, so if they can do that for the K-1, that would be great.

Sony still sells a lot of their previous A7 generations. So potential buyers for astrophotography still need to be careful about any model older than the III, and consider the III(+) only if they do not want the artefact.

People called "stareater" because it was most apparent for night skies. Surely a camera does identify night sky pictures and only de-noise then. By definition I'd call it, using your words - "denoising RAWs a little (secretly)".

SONY should just invest a little bit more money into usefull photography features instead of faster readout tricks to solve laggy EVF solutions and MILC only solutions.

Why are we still struggling with interpolated bayesian sensor pattern ?
Why does not SONY innovate with a real RGBW photosite designed sensor ?

So many here are so nitpicking with 0,3 EV of DR, need ultra precise AF for quasi unusable DoF, but NO ONE complain about the forged RGB pixels we still get from state of the art sensors, SONY's included !

Oh, it is better for them to hold down dSLR advantages and serve them the same sensors as the MILC. So, consumers get convinced that the mirror box and all its culprits but advantages too, are said to be 'old tech'...

Just a reminder : SONY buy out all sensor manufacturer that are able to invest enough money into alternative sensor, in the purpose to get their technology or not risk to be shadowed by an alternative manufacturer. Business is business

@dpthoughts
Dual Gain is an Aptina innovation, real named DR-Pix
BSI is noway a SONY innovation. Already existed before SONY successfully get good yields for their sensors...

Another try ?

They just perfected the manufacturing process of BSI sensors, and in meantime they bought out every other serious manufacturer...

Sorry, but one thing only SONY really made progres is gaining faster readout for better EVF experience, and we got faster fps too.

Market do not like alternative to bayesian pattern because Adobe is so lazy to support alternative design, and manufacturer are totally insane to think the mass will stop using Adobe software for their usually cumbersome raw software.

It is evidence that you cannot use tricks used with bayesian sensors than with alternative pattern. They need fine tuning.

But just get a try with foveon sensor to feel the "you don't need better RGB design than bayesian", or try SuperCCD vs same period CCD/CMOS and imagine what could be achieved.

I agree though that Sony is good (and somewhat smart) in buying strong competitors. Who wanted to blame a company who acts smartly.

I remember Toshiba sensors. The Nikon D7200 was the last one with a Toshiba sensor. The D7200 is better than any Pentax or Sony APSC camera ever made, with regards to its superior dynamic range. Even until today.

So, Sony bought Toshiba's sensor division ;) smart, ey? I don't blame them for that.

You still don't get the point : MILC geared sensors are holding back usual dSLR sensors, as they suck all the R&D budget and innovations are designed for faster global readout (aka global shutter or faster refresh).

Apart Aptina DR-Pix dual gain, we have seen ZERO innovation from SONY.
They only managed to serve efficient process to produce large FX sensors with BSI and DR-Pix at effective costs.

I know what EYE AF is, as I tried it. It works for portrait. Period. I don't do portrait, so it is useless for me until I take family shots. But in theses events, I never shot at full aperture, and even D810 3D AF is working fine, so nothing to rave about MILC AF for me...

I DON'T NEED MOVIE FEATURES, as I KNOW what movie making imply as work, and a smartphone is a better tool to take family or fun snapshots. Could I get refunded with all the movie technlogoies licences I have to pay for taking photos ??

@dpthoughts
Just about the 'like a pro' effect, not sure you are right with this one.

I mainly see pro using dSLR. The only 'PRO' touting SONY the 'all you need' MILC are mainstream youtubers in the need of followers and everyday "worthy" news and marketing.

I don't want to say that SONY Alpha 7 and 9 are bad devices, just that SONY is just getting better steam because Canon is in a too slow pace for the market, and Nikon is really bad in marketing.

Just look at all the pros needing a moviecam. Do they buy an MILC ? no, they lend an RED, ARRI or any cinecam. I do not even talk about the stupid AF war, as the average moviemaker using a photocamera have ZERO clue how pro moviemaker prepare and make the rushes, and then mount them. (I just have to laugh at the sound part so many wanabee Spielberg do not take into consideration).

Actually, the war in ILC between dSLR and MILC is just a marketing war, that generated a whole bunch of angressive and noisy fanboys.

just use the tool !

That is an interesting comment. I'm thinking of getting a Sony A7 of some variety to use my old manual focus Pentax lenses to benefit from the EVF focus assist and compact size.
My previous camera was a Sony A850, now I have the Pentax K-1.
Both brands have good points, great points and points that don't work for someone.

This comment would be levied 0 from a value added tax

I thought Canon produced the most beautiful, morst organic, most real images. Or was it Nikon? No. .. err.. wait a minute... I think it was Fujifilm. Or was it Hasselblad after all????? I'm so confused now...

@MrBrightSide

Considering it's hardware rev 1.1, and the top of the line, highest tech Pentax out there, I wouldn't compare it to an entry level Sony. It gets compared to a D850 and 5D IV. Both which will easily beat it in AF and lens selection, and the D850 beats it in IQ. So benchmark, it is not.

Back to the Sony, it can easily compete with the D850 and 5D IV in everything but MP count. Coming in at around 60% of the price of these two, the level of performance and image quality it shows for a budget model is unheard of, easily competing with current enthusiast and semi-pro cameras. THAT's where the benchmark comes in: raising the stakes like no other.

Correction to MrBrightSide:

1. The K-1 I was found to be a piece of junk with regards to its poor autofocus, as documented thoroughly in professional reviews (dpreview and fstoppers).
The K-1 II AF is said to be very similar, so then it would still be a piece of junk with regards to its poor autofocus.

2: Noise (high ISO and dynamic range): The current benchmark are sensors with combine BSI (back-side illumination) with dual pixel gain.
Currently, the Sony A7 III is a benchmark in this respect (don't know who else is using these sensors).

The K-1 II instead inherits the same old sensor of the K-1 (AFAIK), so that the K-1 II will still be sub-standard when compared to the current sensor benchmark (set by Sony) (but also the D850 sensor made by Towerjazz has remarkable benchmark qualities).

So, the K-1 II seems sub-benchmark with regards to sensor (noise), and sub-standard with regards to autofocus.

P.S.
The poor K lens choice devalues the K-1 II further, it is still a lens museum.

Because Ricoh can't engineer decent lenses, they had to pull the two most important lenses (the 15-30 and the 24-70) from Tamron's shelf, and re-lable it (and also remove the optical stabilization and almost double the price).

Because others (like Sigma) don't want to waste their time any longer with junk systems, Sigma (like the others) ceased to issue teir latest & greatest lenses for Pentax K.

For example, only 1 (one) Sigma ART prime was released as a test baloon (the 35mm of 2012). That was the first and last one for K. Canon instead has 14 Sigma ARTs by now. Sony as well via MC-11, but Sony gets now plenty native ARTs (8, with more to come).

So, the lens situation with the K-1 II is still a misery, the K-1 I couldn't change that situation. 3rd parties are still not interested in K at all.

The Pentax flash-system is also junk. still.

Thats all not "benchmark" ;)

I STRONGLY agree about Sony. Sony engineers don't even know what a camera is. A gadget is NOT a camera.

I think Sony comes from a professional background originally, making real cameras, e.g.
http://cdn3.volusion.com/hkxpf.reslh/v/vspfiles/photos/K10133-2.jpg

Pentax, on the other hand, is just making toys since the *ist . Or stuff like that, as if made from kids for kids:
https://i1.wp.com/www.itechnews.net/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/Pentax-K-50-color-choices.jpg

These background differences help to understand, why Pentax is so ambitious in inventing gimmicks which are only semi-working or semi-mature.

The most recent, pretty embarassing fail called "handheld pixel shift" is just another example in a long row.

Core features (such as autofocus) are falling more and more behind.

The only professional Pentax cameras are their medium format. However, these are now outdated and made obsolete by Fuji GFX.

dpthoughts, I don't know where you get your info, but it is wrong. Sony was not a film camera maker and clearly knows nothing about what most photographers want in a camera. Sony makes great sensors, but they should stick to that. You couldn't pay me to own one of those gadgets Sony calls a "camera."

And that is way more glass than I'll ever be able to afford or own in a few lifetimes.

Imagine how much longer that list would be if you add the excellent vintage manual focus lenses and the crazy, wonky boutique lenses available?

What lenses, exactly, does Pentax lack? A wideangle tilt shift, made less necessary by PP, and shift adapters for MF lenses. A compact 70-200/4 zoom, which I really do miss. Aside from that, there's nothing I can't do with the lenses available. I'm not much into the old manual focus lenses, but overlooked F-series lenses like the 35-50 and 80-200 give beautiful results, despite their tiny size and used prices. The current 28-105 gives fantastic sharpness in a small, water resistant package. And on the K-1, every lens has a convenient 1.5 crop option. Lenses are no issue here, unless you simply like shopping for more. lenses as a hobby.

The first three on that list are incredible in every way (build quality, Sharpness, Bokeh, color, contrast, 3D look, fast auto focus etc.) and smaller than most APS-C mirrorless lenses.

What about modern primes with decent, silent AF?
Modern wide angle prime (wider than 31mm)?
More compact f4 zooms?
These are the reasons i switched to sony and sold all my pentax (apsc) gear.
Nevertheless i like the brand and it's robust designed bodies.
I hope for pentax the announced 50mm is a winner and that more new lenses are comming soon.

>>A compact 70-200/4 zoom is apparently in development already.
for the existing pentax users i hope they are faster with development than with the 50mm.
Else you will see this lense earliest by 2020.

Also add to the list the DA lenses (200/2.8, 300/4, 560/5.6) that are FF compatible.

I can add:
SMC Pentax-DA* 200mm F2.8
SMC Pentax-DA* 300mm F4.0
SMC Pentax-DA 560mm F5.6
despite the DA tag they cover the FF and are fully managed by the k-1 software also without crop.

And with a little trick:
SMC Pentax-DA* 60-250mm F4.0
that now is glued on the my k-1

We want to speak about the used market? We want to speak about the 645->K adapter?

@tosiva, @skorpionet
The DA* 55/1.4 is also essentially an FF lens, as is the DA 35/2.4.

Have you seen my pointer to the full list above?

P.S.: There are some DA lenses (DA 40/2.8, DA 70/2.4, etc.) that some people claim are very usable on an FF camera, in particular when using the K-1 (II)'s 1:1 crop mode. However, I didn't include them in the "FF lenses" list because they clearly exhibit compromised corner performance, in particular when used wide open.

Not denying, Pentax makes a good camera.

ISO .8 M
...not worth paying for

Main improvements will be in JPG. Expect maybe 0.5 stop improvement in RAW.