I don't know the sales figures, but I'd be VERY surprised if Pentax/Ricoh sold even half as many K1 cameras any quarter after release as Canon sold of the old 6D, old 5D3 or new 5D4 in the same quarter.

That is definitely a window finder, which unless it is dull with age should not darken the image at all, though I've never used one and can't say for sure.

I own three rangefinder cameras at present, a Leica M-D digital, an M5 and a IIIg for film, and the IIIg window finder is dim (not to mention small). The rangefinder on the IIIg is also dim, while the M-D and M5 are bright and contrasty.

A live view camera (I own two, Nikon Df when using the rear screen and Leica X-E (X2) with screen and EVF) will be brighter in very dim light, but it is definitely a mixed blessing, with that brighter image extremely grainy and lacking in contrast. The Leica rangefinders (except for the IIIg which needs to be overhauled) are much easier to manually focus in extremely low light than the Leica X-E (which is limited to an f/2.8 lens) and pretty close with the Nikon Df when the Nikon is fitted with an f/1.2 lens. Put an f/2.5 or slower lens on the Nikon and the Leica rangefinders win most of the time, though very low contrast subjects or subjects lacking in sharp lines are easier for me to focus using the live view systems.

Either way, I prefer the optical viewfinder and rangefinder of the Leica M to any other viewing and focusing system I've tried. It is fast and accurate, but more importantly I just enjoy using it, especially with a 50mm lens where I can see outside the frame lines and predict objects entering and leaving the composition.

Again you keep equating more as being better. It isn't always. Focus and recompose is far faster and more intuitive than selecting focus points with a joystick or D-pad for someone raised on manual focusing, especially because once the back button is released (or the shutter released held) the lens stoops focusing. For subjects that aren't moving quickly, this is often a better way to go, especially if you plan on moving the camera around to alter composition. Multiple focusing points are much better for fast moving subjects, but the 6D and its successor are not marketed as sports cameras, but as portrait and travel cameras. If advanced AF tracking is important to you then Canon has an outstanding new 5D4 with your name on it.

As for composition, I rarely put my subject in the center, but it is where I like have my focusing aid and also where I like my meter to read (matrix metering is another "feature" I tend to disable if it is present at all).

Which rangefinder camera were you using? A true rangefinder camera (Leica, Zeiss Contax, Nikon RF, Konica etc) do not darken the image at all, because you are essentially just looking through glass. The rangefinder itself is only the center patch, and yes, that can be a bit darker, but usually with enhanced contrast to make focusing easy even in extremely dim light. All rangefinders are not created equal, and they definitely lose their contrast over time (Most can be serviced depending on parts availability and made like-new again, including ALL Leica's going back to at least the M4 (1967) and likely the M3 (1954).

If the "rangefinder" you used before was a single lens reflex referring to the split-image rangefinder focusing aid in the center, then that was not a rangefinder camera at all, and would be considerably darker than a true rangefinder camera's optical viewfinder.

My Nikon Df in live view mode on the rear LCD gains up in darkness and is much brighter than any optical viewfinder in very dim lighting, but it also loses most color and detail in so doing.

I could capture a sharper picture, or capture a picture under worse conditions with my current gear, but a better picture? I pay just as much attention to light, color (or how that color translates to grays), composition, contrast and a wealth of other things that matter more than ultimate sharpness.

A Nikon D810 or Canon 5Ds or Sony A7rII has far better specs than my Leica M-D, but I highly doubt I could take a better picture with one than I can with my current gear. A higher resolution picture? Absolutely. A better one? Highly doubtful.

6D, K1 andD610 are NOT entry level DSLRs. They are full frame cameras aimed at experienced photographers. I would imagine that SOME experienced photographers buy on specs, but that most buy for specific uses and often for use with specific lenses. No amount of features will lure a Canon shooter wanting to use a special lens to another mount, and no, adapters on a Sony (or Leica) is not the same as native support.

Yes, EVFs "gain up", usually resulting in an ugly, grainy mess that lacks detail. OVFs are hardly completely dark and useless as they let your eye see exactly what is there, particularly the window finder on a Leica which does not darken anything at all as there is no focusing screen, mirror or complex lens between your eye and the scene.

Give it a rest already, features per dollar clearly matters a lot to you, but most experienced photographers don't care so long as the camera gives them the feature(s), performance and handling they want at a price they are willing to spend.

I have never bought a camera off of a spec sheet, or a car, computer or much of anything else for that matter. It's the same as the old Windows vs Mac arguments that you could get more features and better specs on a PC for the same price, problem being you'd be stuck using a PC instead of a Mac.

It doesn't "blow away" anything except previous Pentax models, and then only for those who want a full frame sensor.

Specs don't matter much, results do. It (the K1) looks like a great camera for those who want to shoot FF digital on K mount lenses. The 6D2 is vastly superior for shooting FF digital on Canon lenses. I've switched mounts a few times and it is no trivial matter.

Even with specs, less is often more. Nikon is discounting D610 and D750 cameras, while the Df is still at the same price it was at release in 2013. Df owners, myself included, paid more for much lower resolution and a complete lack of video and scene modes. Why is that?

For me I would much rather have fewer and larger pixels than more and smaller ones. The autofocus system is irrelevant as I use manual focus, but even if I were to use AF, it would be center point only, making the number of points above one entirely redundant. Until the 5D4 (EV-4) and 6D2 (EV-3) the old 6D's center point was tied with the latest 1DX mk-whatever for having THE MOST SENSITIVE AF point in the industry at (EV-3), and is still only one stop off from the very best FIVE YEARS AFTER INTRODUCTION. Now for available darkness photographers like me, that is a statistic that really matters, and is why until I could afford my Leica 50mm f/0.95 Noctilux it was a Canon 6D with EF 50mm f/1.2L that was my primary camera and lens combination. For my use, the original 6D and 50/1.2 L was the best system I could afford for the way I like to shoot, and we're I buying today, I'd compare image quality with the old 6D, the new 6D2 and the 5D4 and buy the one with the best image quality at ISO 6400.

Even with the expensive light-sucking Notilux the original and new 6D cameras with the 50/1.2 L are about a stop better in low light, with the 6D's ISO 12,800 about equal to the Leica M-D's ISO 3200. An M10 would give another stop or two. I'd love the extra stop, but prefer the ergonomics (no screen, rangefinder focusing) of the M-D, and without a flapping mirror I can handhold to 1/30th with a 50mm instead of the 1/60th I'm good for with a DSLR.

A Sony A7sII would be even better in low light, but the ergonomics are a total fail to me as the A7s and A9 feel like computers instead of a cameras and at very low light the EVF is very grainy. Fwiw, I have the same complaints about the Leica SL EVF, though that camera does feel a lot better in the hand than the Sony cameras do.

I still often regret letting my 6D and 50/1.2L go, but I just didn't like the feel of manual focus with any AF lensand the ancient Nikkor AIS 50mm f/1.2 is almost as good for what I use them for (and of course the Noctilux is vastly superior).

Or "I don't want the increased epth of field of a 35mm lens when shooting with the FoV of a 50mm.

And back to "value for money", which again is just a specification.

Image quality, ergonomics etc are more important than feature count.

One reason people liked the original 6D more than the Nikon D600/D610 was its simpler, cleaner design. They both cost the same, the Nikon had more features and looked better in a spec sheet, but many people, me included, liked the Canon much better. Why is that? I think it's because Canon paid more attention to the little details like keeping the menu simple and the body uncluttered instead of trying to cram in as many features as possible.

My apologies, that is the way it sounded.

AND he then tried to sell me on Sony's "best in the industry EVF" (its second best, actually) and Fuji's hybrid as substitutes for the optical viewfinder and rangefinder that I clearly stated is my favorite way to frame and focus. He even tried to push the Fuji viewfinder despite Fuji only putting it on APS-C camera when I clearly indicated that I'm only interested in full-frame.

Of course, his suggesting EVF-equipped mirrorless cameras makes even less sense as I already own the gear that I want to use. I was quite clear that I'm not interested in upgrading either body to get better "specs", which is easily done in both Leica M lenses (M10 and SL) and manual Nikon F lenses (D810 and Leica SL).

Oh well.

I only shoot fast(fish) primes, so clean ISO 1600 is more than adequate for me. The A900 was close, but back then 24 MP was just too much for high-quality at high ISO while 12-16MP was the sweet spot with the technology of the time. Today its much the same, with 24MP the sweet spot, and 40-50MP at very high quality in good light, but falling apart at high ISO and low light (I know a lot of 5Ds and A7RII owners might disagree).

Back to the original topic, were I buying a camera today to use with autofocus lenses, the 6DII would be VERY high on my list. It is very small and light for a DSLR, is near the sweet spot for resolution, is likely to have outstanding image quality and I like the way Canon DSLRs feel in my hand. Just like 5-years-ago it would come down to looking at what it gives up compared to the 5D4 and then deciding if those things mattered to me.

Since I don't like menus and computer-like interfaces, nothing Sony makes is on my radar.

I don't want (or have) autofocus. I only shoot raw, so white balance means nothing (though both Leica M-D and Nikon Df get it right most of the time). I only shoot in M or occasionally A modes, always set a hard value for ISO and love that both of my cameras let me do so with a dial.

The only time I ever use a menu is to change time zone before an international trip (I just let it be a few hours off for domestic) and to change lenses on the Nikon, as none of my lenses have a chip in them (all ancient pre-AI, AI and a single AIS).

The last Sony camera that interested me was the A850/900 (I loved my old 85/1.4 Minolta lens), but they are marketing to the spec sheet crowd now.

If I needed an EVF, I'd buy a Leica M10 and use it's adequate (about equal to original A7) one I those rare moments that the rangefinder wasn't suitable (macro and long lenses). Since I use the Nikon for those things, my M-D is perfectly fine.

The A9 EVF has twice the resolution of any Sony EVF .

Since you like specs so much:
Sony A9 EVF = 3686 pixels
Leica SL EVF = 4400 pixels.

I haven't tried the Sony, but I did take the Leica for a 3 day test drive and shot a workshop with it. It was nice, but the Leica M optical viewfinder/rangefinder is nicer for street photography.

There is also that whole looks and feels like a camera instead of a computer thing, the tiny but outstanding Leica lenses with their fully mechanical all-metal build.

Sorry Cholly, no Sony for me.