[mst]

Of course I can, but, I'm not sure you noticed, there was some blatantly false information in his post. If we'd all keep quiet, said falsehoods would be mistaken for truth.

No, he stated his opinion. You read it as an accusation towards Pentax. That's something different and not "falsehood" in any way. Feel free to disagree and answer with facts or your different opinion.

The precision of eye detection that is available with almost any mirrorless system nowadays can certainly not be achieved with a DSLR. In terms of focus precision, mirrorless has always had the advantage. Several advantages, actually, if we calculate in live adjustments for focus shifts.

Now, as a super moderator, what kind of forum do you want this to be?

One where we discuss calmly and most of all tolerate different opinions.

DSLRs could become a dead-end road only if Pentax fails (we can't count on Canon and Nikon, right?). This isn't a given.

I think you're overrating the market share of Pentax here. For the majority of users, DSLRs will simply be old and outdated technology pretty soon. Of course some market niche for DSLRs will remain, and Pentax may well survive in that niche (Leica managed, too). But with the latest high-end mirrorless cameras that have been announced, it's pretty clear now that the future is mirrorless.

One thing we should all understand: nobody benefits from Pentax failing.

We're talking about a market where a brand needs to survive as a profitable business and not as a charity. No one benefited from Contax failing, or Minolta, or Samsung, or Zeiss (with their camera business). Still, it happened, and the market just moved on.

What you're "adding" to the topic is self-defeating, you want to stick with DSLRs but you spread the MILC propaganda that "DSLR is a dead-end road".

It's not propaganda, it's my personal conclusion after using both kinds of systems for a considerable time in parallel.

How about a DSLR which has all the advantages of a mirrorless, but with an optical viewfinder? It's possible (though I don't know if there are actual plans towards an implementation).

Yeah, would be great. The sad thing is: it's just not possible. How do you add live preview, including white balance, exposure compensation, histogram, etc. into an optical viewfinder, for example? Or focus peaking? And absolutely no blackout during bursts? Frame rates higher than let's say 15 shots per second with AF tracking and a usable viewfinder image?

I'm not saying mirrorless cameras are flawless. Far from it. Personally, I still struggle with EVFs in high contrast situations. And on top I find it really annoying that more and more corrections are done in software than in the lens nowadays. But those cameras do have advantages that DSLR will never be able to achieve. And with all 3 big manufacturers now planning professional mirrorless cameras, it's pretty clear that the DSLR market will be shrinking considerably pretty soon.

That's completely independent of whether you or me or anyone else feel perfectly comfortable and at home in that (future) niche. You can still do so. It's just no longer a place for the majority of users.

[davidmanze]

Tip: you can ignore opinions you don't like by simply not reading them

 How is it possible to ignore something if you haven't first read it ?

[mst]

How is it possible to ignore something if you haven't first read it ?

Well, yeah But then: doesn't it happen to you occasionally that you read a poster's nickname and at least for some topics already know what he or she probably wrote, even without reading it?

[Kunzite]

No, he stated his opinion. You read it as an accusation towards Pentax. That's something different and not "falsehood" in any way. Feel free to disagree and answer with facts or your different opinion.

Wow. Did you ignore my post and responded to something else? :p
I specifically mentioned which are the falsehoods: that Pentax cannot significantly improve the autofocus because it lacks "advantages of getting a live signal from the sensor" (when there are DSLRs with much better autofocus than the current Pentax cameras), and that eye detection isn't possible with a DSLR (it is, and even the K-3iii has that).

The precision of eye detection that is available with almost any mirrorless system nowadays can certainly not be achieved with a DSLR. In terms of focus precision, mirrorless has always had the advantage. Several advantages, actually, if we calculate in live adjustments for focus shifts.

Now you're moving the goalposts from "isn't possible" to "precision". That isn't nice.

One where we discuss calmly and most of all tolerate different opinions.

Including mine? 

Yeah, would be great. The sad thing is: it's just not possible. How do you add live preview, including white balance, exposure compensation, histogram, etc. into an optical viewfinder, for example? Or focus peaking? And absolutely no blackout during bursts? Frame rates higher than let's say 15 shots per second with AF tracking and a usable viewfinder image?

You see, you lack imagination. There's nothing in a SLR design which says that the autofocus must be done by a separate module below the mirror, and metering by a separate sensor in the pentaprism housing. The actual, defining requirement is that a mirror would send light entering through the single/shooting lens to an optical viewfinder.
Actually some SLRs had off the film metering, but with a DSLR another configuration is possible: having both the autofocus and the metering (+WB, subject tracking, etc.) done by the main sensor. It should be obvious now that I said it: the main SLR mirror is actually a half mirror, semi-reflective; part of the light being sent to the viewfinder, part of it reflected by a secondary, full mirror, to the AF module. That is the classic/current configuration.
But what if the main mirror is now a single, still half mirror? The part of the light which passes through would reach the imaging sensor. And now you can do autofocus with tracking, metering etc. with perhaps a one stop loss but otherwise the full capabilities of a mirrorless - with a TTL optical viewfinder (even for the light loss, there are solutions).
I don't want to brag, but I thought about this possibility before seeing Ricoh Imaging patents about this very thing.

That's completely independent of whether you or me or anyone else feel perfectly comfortable and at home in that (future) niche. You can still do so. It's just no longer a place for the majority of users.

Regardless if I'm in a majority or not, my choice should be respected.

[mst]

Wow. Did you ignore my post and responded to something else? :p
I specifically mentioned which are the falsehoods: that Pentax cannot significantly improve the autofocus because it lacks "advantages of getting a live signal from the sensor" (when there are DSLRs with much better autofocus than the current Pentax cameras), and that eye detection isn't possible with a DSLR (it is, and even the K-3iii has that).

I thought you were referring specifically to eye detection through the viewfinder. Thx for clarification.

One where we discuss calmly and most of all tolerate different opinions.

Including mine? 

Of course. We're discussing, aren't we?

You see, you lack imagination.

Nope... but maybe you lack experience with already existing solutions?

I don't want to brag, but I thought about this possibility before seeing Ricoh Imaging patents about this very thing.

No need to brag... you're describing Sony SLT cameras.

Regardless if I'm in a majority or not, my choice should be respected.

As you should respect other's choices without more or less telling them to shut up No, it wasn't that direct, I know.

[Klaus]

The problem with DSLRs - the AF can never be as accurate as on a mirrorless camera. The data just isn't read from the main sensor.
The question may be whether this matters. For most, DSLR AF has been good enough for more than a decade.
That being said - eye-/animal-AF are certainly a killer argument for some.

Regarding Pentax - even if we assume that they improved the camera - their in-lens motors are just dated.
Their "updated' Limited primes still use drive screws and SDM was never top-notch.

However, once again - it's a question of whether these are no-goes.

The K-3 III looks awesome and I'm sure that the handling is better than on some of the mirrorless options.

[davidmanze]

How is it possible to ignore something if you haven't first read it ?

Well, yeah But then: doesn't it happen to you occasionally that you read a poster's nickname and at least for some topics already know what he or she probably wrote, even without reading it?

    How did I know that would be your answer ?? ........... this is clearly an "ignorance is bliss" scenario ..........

[Kunzite]

I thought you were referring specifically to eye detection through the viewfinder. Thx for clarification.

This was one of them, yes - again, the K-3iii does that.

Of course. We're discussing, aren't we?

Are we? Then, I was discussing with thomass as well.

Nope... but maybe you lack experience with already existing solutions?

Exactly which part of my posts suggested you that? Perhaps... none?

No need to brag... you're describing Sony SLT cameras.

Nope, it's quite the opposite of a SLT. The SLT was a configuration allowing an EVF with a dedicated , SLR-style AF system. It was a kludge momentarily necessary, because the on-the-sensor AF wasn't very good back then - but it's useless now.
What I'm describing is a DSLR where AF and other stuff would be done by the imaging sensor.

As you should respect other's choices without more or less telling them to shut up No, it wasn't that direct, I know.

What choice am I not respecting? His choice to spread falsehood about SLRs? Is that something to respect?

[mst]

What choice am I not respecting? His choice to spread falsehood about SLRs? Is that something to respect?

Tip: you can go mirrorless without explaining to us how bad DSLRs are.

Judge yourself.

[Kunzite]

The problem with DSLRs - the AF can never be as accurate as on a mirrorless camera. The data just isn't read from the main sensor.
The question may be whether this matters. For most, DSLR AF has been good enough for more than a decade.
That being said - eye-/animal-AF are certainly a killer argument for some.

Regarding Pentax - even if we assume that they improved the camera - their in-lens motors are just dated.
Their "updated' Limited primes still use drive screws and SDM was never top-notch.

However, once again - it's a question of whether these are no-goes.

The K-3 III looks awesome and I'm sure that the handling is better than on some of the mirrorless options.

My Pentax DSLRs are quite accurate (and mirrorless isn't bulletproof either, see the "eyelash AF" A1 samples on DPR ). My K-1 needs calibration, and I have to be careful about its large AF points - but otherwise, no issue here.
This doesn't apply to the K-3iii, but I've described a configuration which would make the DSLRs every bit as accurate as a mirrorless - because the data would be read from the main sensor. Before claiming (or supporting claims) that "DSLRs are a dead end", consider such possible evolutions.

As for the Pentax in-lens motors, they're using one of the 3: DC (reliable and faster alternative to the old SDM micromotors), ring-type SDM (works as expected) and PLM (very fast, can only drive light focus groups).
"SDM was never top-notch" is so outdated - because it's about lenses released in 2007-2008 - that it's ridiculous. This is the D FA* 50mm f/1.4's SDM motor, next to the 2007-2008 one you're talking about:



Lenses for the K-3iii - they'll be releasing a new DA* 16-50 f/2.8 with a PLM drive, and there's already a DA* 11-18mm f/2.8 (DC this time). Hope they'll complete the trio by re-releasing the 50-135.