FracturedRabbit may well be right!

[MJP]

In support of Rabbit's belief that the DSLR is dying and mirrorless is the future . . .

The demise of the DSLR

http://blog.mingthein.com/2013/08/24/the-demise-of-the-dslr/

My question is; Is smaller better?

I find the K-5 body to be just right regards stable handling and I include the battery grip with this. Smaller camera bodies I find tricky to keep hand arm vibration down.

[FracturedRabbit]

It's not so much the bodies, my E-M1 is almost the same size as your K-5 (admittedly this is an extreme example, most Micro Four Thirds bodies are smaller); but note that the K5 is almost 50% heavier than the E-M1; that will be thanks to the chunky mirror box assembly. And the lenses for my system are much smaller.

I have been banging on about the demise of mirrors for a long time; wrote this more than three years ago: http://www.pattayadays.com/2010/09/i-have-seen-the-future-and-it-has-no-mirror/

In itself, a mirror adds nothing to a camera other than weight, complexity, vibration and volume. It does facilitate an optical view via mirrors and prisms; but electronic viewfinders are so competent nowadays and bring so many advantages of their own; it's hard to see the mirror surviving the onslaught of technology. Even better EVF systems, electronic shutters reducing noise and vastly increasing shutter speeds and shots per second, improved stabilisation, on-sensor PDAF, in small bodies with sensors of various sizes to suit the needs of the consumer. I still think that is the future and we seem to be getting closer to it with each new generation of cameras.

[MJP]

It's not so much the bodies, my E-M1 is almost the same size as your K-5 (admittedly this is an extreme example, most Micro Four Thirds bodies are smaller); but note that the K5 is almost 50% heavier than the E-M1; that will be thanks to the chunky mirror box assembly. And the lenses for my system are much smaller.

I have been banging on about the demise of mirrors for a long time; wrote this more than three years ago: http://www.pattayadays.com/2010/09/i-have-seen-the-future-and-it-has-no-mirror/

In itself, a mirror adds nothing to a camera other than weight, complexity, vibration and volume. It does facilitate an optical view via mirrors and prisms; but electronic viewfinders are so competent nowadays and bring so many advantages of their own; it's hard to see the mirror surviving the onslaught of technology. Even better EVF systems, electronic shutters reducing noise and vastly increasing shutter speeds and shots per second, improved stabilisation, on-sensor PDAF, in small bodies with sensors of various sizes to suit the needs of the consumer. I still think that is the future and we seem to be getting closer to it with each new generation of cameras.

Yes, the mirror box, it's a poxy thing really. The vibration is the main issue for me and you're right about the weight, the K-3 is yet heavier still, 800 grammes I believe.

[Fiddlesticks]

It's not so much the bodies, my E-M1 is almost the same size as your K-5 (admittedly this is an extreme example, most Micro Four Thirds bodies are smaller); but note that the K5 is almost 50% heavier than the E-M1; that will be thanks to the chunky mirror box assembly. And the lenses for my system are much smaller.

I have been banging on about the demise of mirrors for a long time; wrote this more than three years ago: http://www.pattayadays.com/2010/09/i-have-seen-the-future-and-it-has-no-mirror/

In itself, a mirror adds nothing to a camera other than weight, complexity, vibration and volume. It does facilitate an optical view via mirrors and prisms; but electronic viewfinders are so competent nowadays and bring so many advantages of their own; it's hard to see the mirror surviving the onslaught of technology. Even better EVF systems, electronic shutters reducing noise and vastly increasing shutter speeds and shots per second, improved stabilisation, on-sensor PDAF, in small bodies with sensors of various sizes to suit the needs of the consumer. I still think that is the future and we seem to be getting closer to it with each new generation of cameras.

Yes, the mirror box, it's a poxy thing really. The vibration is the main issue for me and you're right about the weight, the K-3 is yet heavier still, 800 grammes I believe.

I can agree that the weight of the better DSLR's is on the heavy side but the vibration issue is simply a discipline issue. If you are doing street photography, then vibration is not a big issue. Doing glamour or landscape, macro, or still-life photography where SHARP detail is usually desirable, there are ways to avoid mirror vibration simply by using mirror lockup and a delayed shutter actuation.

As far as the demise of the DSLR, I for one, thought the days of the large format view cameras was over but serious landscape photographers are still enamored with them and for good reason.

[tw25rw]

I have long thought it.. I think professional DSLRs will go on longer, and maybe bottom end as well. But the mainstream will go mirrorless because it has so many advantages for the ordinary enthusiast.

[canuckamuck]

Makes sense that the mirror is no longer required, it was a necessary element but the technology has moved past it, why be nostalgic.

I was quite tempted to go mirror-less recently. But decided to stick with a DSLR for two more years. There will be more options, and enough time for my wife to realize how much I need the new system

[MJP]

Makes sense that the mirror is no longer required, it was a necessary element but the technology has moved past it, why be nostalgic.

I was quite tempted to go mirror-less recently. But decided to stick with a DSLR for two more years. There will be more options, and enough time for my wife to realize how much I need the new system

After reading the reviews of the Pentax K-3, it's barely any different to the K-5 IIs, AF is the same but the 24MP sensor gives more noise.

Looking at the A7r and waiting on AF adapters for PK mount.