This is not a gear thread. I just want to use as an example the Pentax K-3 III, which is an APS-C DSLR designed specifically to cater to people who enjoy the process of taking photos. The huge, bright pentaprism viewfinder, the many customizable external controls, the suite of Limited-series primes that are designed for quality and compactness, keeping the entire camera very easy to handle, IBIS so you can use any K-mount lens, magnesium alloy frame and weather-sealed body so you don't have to worry about the camera while getting to your destination. It's all designed to improve the experience of photography.

Pentax charges a similar price for this camera as other manufacturers are charging for intermediate full-frame mirrorless cameras, and multiple times more than what other manufacturers are charging for nice APS-C mirrorless cameras. The idea is that a bright OVF, external controls and metal lenses could make a system so appealing to photographers that they'd pay twice as much for your camera seems to be what Ricoh/Pentax is betting on.

To me, I can certainly see the appeal of a DSLR, despite owning a Canon R6. You just can't beat the experience of using an OVF. Many outings, I'll only bring my old 5DII, despite it being way out of date compared to the R6, just because there's something special about it. Personally, I would have trouble justifying the $2000 price tag of the K-3 III, though.

Do you think, as Ricoh/Pentax does, that a well-enough designed DSLR is worth more than a mirrorless camera of the same vintage?