[gatorguy]

Not small enough??? Look at the size of this lens (the white one in the picture). Is just a little bigger than 24-70mm. And it's an f2.8 lens. If this is not small enough, then I don't know what kind of lens you want that can have the build and the performance of an L lens.

I'm very happy in the Pentax ecosystem, but may still get the latest Fuji, X-T30, for it's size and weight and fast autofocus,pair it with a Fuji 50-230 for $200 and I'm thinking good for wildlife action... In for about $1100 total and carry it along with my Pentax gear rather than instead of.

But In general I've not seen what the big brouhoo over mirrorless is. For the most part it's much more expensive, loses the autofocus advantage (and granted eye-tracking on Fuji and Sony looks impressive) if you stray outside their own limited series of relatively expensive branded lenses, and to be honest those photogs I personally know who have gone mirrorless are not producing better pics than they did with their previous DSLR's despite the belief they are. Just spending a whole lot more on the lenses they need to do what they were already doing.

Who requires all those convoluted menu options anyway, even as a "convenience"? IMHO there's more to be gained by learning to work better with what you already have, fine-tuning shooting technique, instead of fine-tuning menu's on an entirely new system that requires modifying your shooting style to adapt to limitations and advantages on the new one that in essence accomplishes no more than the same "light and shadow" controlled by ISO, aperture, shutter speed that all our cameras offer. I think some buyers believe buying a $2000 camera and hanging a $2000 lens on the front of it turns them into a professional turning out better images than we dinosaurs can because "MIRRORLESS".

Now if someone like LeRolls, whose portraiture I highly admire, sees where mirrorless can improve his craft in certain shooting situations (and he does) that's understandable. He knows WHY it's advantageous for him, using the right tool for the right job. For most of us mirrorless instead of DSLR will not automatically make our captures better, or turn bad technique into good images. If we don't already get the ins-and-outs of what makes a compelling picture and understand how to get there then where's the rationale to dump our current gear to go mirrorless? I'm not seeing it.

My .02 anyway

---

Last edited by gatorguy; 02-14-2019 at 12:05 PM.

[biz-engineer]

Not small enough???

The 70-200 looks small in comparison to the 85 f1.2 because the 85 1.2 is enormous.

[Rico]

Is this a category killer?
Is Pentax doomed?
Canon announces EOS RP full-frame mirrorless camera at aggressive $1,299 price - The Verge
My guess is it'll demystify full frame by making it accessible and ordinary. Hopefully it'll make photographers more critical about the sort of camera they really need.

This is really the only way Canon can make the new Mount viable. Having a low priced body like this more people will get on board to buy lenses.

People who want such a Mirrorless body should be happy with Canons offer.

[Nunavut]

This is really the only way Canon can make the new Mount viable. Having a low priced body like this more people will get on board to buy lenses.

People who want such a Mirrorless body should be happy with Canons offer.

Did anyone also notice how expensive Canon's 28-105 f4 kit lens is? It's $900 on top of the body! $2,199 for a pared down mirrorless is not a bargain. It looks like they are going the Sony route. $$$$ lens.

Full-frame bodies were always going to drop in price. I'm very happy with the lens lineup of Pentax though – the cost (imo) is much more affordable, and we get many unique ones (like the FA limiteds).

---

Last edited by Nunavut; 02-14-2019 at 03:11 PM.

[gatorguy]

Did anyone also notice how expensive Canon's 28-105 f4 kit lens is? It's $900 on top of the body! $2,199 for a pared down mirrorless is not a bargain. It looks like they are going the Sony route. $$$$ lens.

Full-frame bodies were always going to drop in price. I'm very happy with the lens lineup of Pentax though – the cost (imo) is much more affordable, and we get many unique ones ones (like the FA limiteds).

It's a recycle of the printer marketing scheme: Sell it closer to cost and make it up (and more!) on the inks. Canon does it with their printers and now will do the same on their cameras. It's proven to work.

[Paul the Sunman]

Can't help but wonder if Pentax was peeling away sales with a "better" lower priced full frame solution with the K-1/K-1 II. Is this Canon trying to grab back a part of the market Pentax was nailing? Pentax certainly had the bang for the buck quotient nailed.

Canon have never heard of Pentax.

[Rico]

Did anyone also notice how expensive Canon's 28-105 f4 kit lens is? It's $900 on top of the body! $2,199 for a pared down mirrorless is not a bargain. It looks like they are going the Sony route. $$$$ lens.

Full-frame bodies were always going to drop in price. I'm very happy with the lens lineup of Pentax though – the cost (imo) is much more affordable, and we get many unique ones (like the FA limiteds).

How is this Canon RP body a pared down mirrorless? It's full frame Mirrorless at a reasonable price. The lenses might be more expensive now. A $900 kit lens may be worth it depending on the quality it delivers.

[Dan Rentea]

I'm very happy in the Pentax ecosystem, but may still get the latest Fuji, X-T30, for it's size and weight and fast autofocus,pair it with a Fuji 50-230 for $200 and I'm thinking good for wildlife action... In for about $1100 total and carry it along with my Pentax gear rather than instead of.

But In general I've not seen what the big brouhoo over mirrorless is. For the most part it's much more expensive, loses the autofocus advantage (and granted eye-tracking on Fuji and Sony looks impressive) if you stray outside their own limited series of relatively expensive branded lenses, and to be honest those photogs I personally know who have gone mirrorless are not producing better pics than they did with their previous DSLR's despite the belief they are. Just spending a whole lot more on the lenses they need to do what they were already doing.

Who requires all those convoluted menu options anyway, even as a "convenience"? IMHO there's more to be gained by learning to work better with what you already have, fine-tuning shooting technique, instead of fine-tuning menu's on an entirely new system that requires modifying your shooting style to adapt to limitations and advantages on the new one that in essence accomplishes no more than the same "light and shadow" controlled by ISO, aperture, shutter speed that all our cameras offer. I think some buyers believe buying a $2000 camera and hanging a $2000 lens on the front of it turns them into a professional turning out better images than we dinosaurs can because "MIRRORLESS".

Now if someone like LeRolls, whose portraiture I highly admire, sees where mirrorless can improve his craft in certain shooting situations (and he does) that's understandable. He knows WHY it's advantageous for him, using the right tool for the right job. For most of us mirrorless instead of DSLR will not automatically make our captures better, or turn bad technique into good images. If we don't already get the ins-and-outs of what makes a compelling picture and understand how to get there then where's the rationale to dump our current gear to go mirrorless? I'm not seeing it.

My .02 anyway

First, I can shoot with any camera and make it work as I want.

Second, I don't intend to change my DSLR any time soon because I'm more than satisfied with how my camera performs. That's why I bought it after I tested it long enough.

Third, I do like this new Canon mirrorless because:
- it's cheap and in 4-6 months it will be cheaper
- it has a full frame sensor (many say that APS-C sensors are good enough and I tend to agree more or less with this statement)
- I already have lenses that will work with this camera via adapter
- it is light (485g)
- it has focus staking which can be handy
- it has eye af and this is one nice feature that I like on mirrorless given the fact that I shoot (among other things) portraits with models
- I don't need to buy the equivalent new lenses that I now have for DSLR and because of this, if I will buy in the future a pro mirrorless body, the transition will be easier because if one of my lenses will fail due to age and intense usage, I will replace it one by one with mirrorless lenses. My lenses worked very well on EOS R (the first mirrorless from Canon) when I tested that camera so I won't be in a hurry to replace my lenses.

Forth, not a single client of mine couldn't tell wich image looks better when I showed them 3 sets of 6 images taken with different cameras from different brands. As long as the clients were happy with the images taken with A7III, D850, 5D Mark IV, D610 (the cameras that I've shot with for that test), I really don't care about which camera has better image quality in the eyes of the photographers that like to pixel peep images but they show their images on social media or they print their images at normal sizes. What I do care about when comes to gear is:
- how good it feels in my hands
- how customizable are the buttons and the menu in order to operate the camera fast in challenging situations
- how strong is the system in terms of lenses and accesories

That being said, I don't mind if in 5-7 years my gear will be smaller and lighter by slowly moving to mirrorless. The 70-200mm f2.8 lens for mirrorless is half the size of the same lens for DSLR (at least this are the reports from the people that saw the lens at the press event). This new Canon mirrorless is 90g lighter than Olympus E-M1 Mark II.

---------- Post added 02-14-19 at 10:39 PM ----------

The 70-200 looks small in comparison to the 85 f1.2 because the 85 1.2 is enormous.

The people who saw the lens at the press event said that is half the size of the 70-200mm f2.8 for DSLR. The Canon 70-200mm f2.8L IS lens (the one for DSLR) is smaller and lighter than Pentax 70-200mm f2.8. You still think that this mirrorless 70-200mm f2.8 is a big lens?

[Paul the Sunman]

Yesterday, Airbus announced the discontinuation of their A380 Superjumbo, with final deliveries in 2021. Although a brilliant airplane, it has been outcompeted by smaller more nimble 2-engine planes, from the economic viewpoint of the airlines.

As I walk around lugging my Pentax K1, with some subset of the enormous DFA* 70-200, DFA 150-450, DFA 15-30, and DFA* 50 lenses – glorious, beautiful, sensuous lenses – I cannot help but wonder whether a similar watershed has been reached in the camera market. Would I rather be flying on the magnificent 4-engine A380 or a much smaller 2-engine plane? I want the A380. But am I willing to endure less frequent services and higher prices for that privilege? Probably not. Would I rather have an optical viewfinder or an electronic viewfinder? At this stage, optical. But how much extra weight am I willing to carry, and how much longer am I willing to wait for innovations?

Does Ricoh/Pentax even think about these things? Or do they see themselves carving out the dinosaur-niche in the market?

P.S. I will continue to fly on the A380 and shoot Pentax. Just grizzling.

[Nunavut]

How is this Canon RP body a pared down mirrorless? It's full frame Mirrorless at a reasonable price. The lenses might be more expensive now. A $900 kit lens may be worth it depending on the quality it delivers.

The RP is pared down compared to the Canon R, everything is relative. There's a reason it's cheaper. A $900 kit lens is definitely expensive, when you compare it to the Pentax K1 kit lens; and sadly defeats the purpose of a cheap mirrorless. We will have to wait and see if it their lens is as good as the 28-105 for Pentax. [We're in a pentax forum after all!]

No debate mirrorless cameras are lighter and getting cheaper, and that benefits the overall market. But some of us are vested in Pentax, and we're such a small minority of global camera users. Here's hoping Pentax can continue to carve out their niche and survive.

[Dan Rentea]

Did anyone also notice how expensive Canon's 28-105 f4 kit lens is? It's $900 on top of the body! $2,199 for a pared down mirrorless is not a bargain. It looks like they are going the Sony route. $$$$ lens.

It's an L lens, it has constant f4 aperture and it's 24mm on the wide side compared to Pentax that has 28mm on the wide side and has variable aperture. That's why is more expensive and heavier than the Pentax 28-105mm f3.5-5.6. Is the lens worth the money? That's a question that no one has the absolute answer.

People may say that 28mm vs 24mm is not a big deal. But, I went to Dubai 3 months ago with 16-35mm lens mounted on my body. Guess what? I wish I had a 11-24mm lens with me for Burj Khalifa and for Dubai Marina. The difference would have been quite visible in the images. And I know that because I've met another tourist who was using a Nikon 12-24mm lens on his camera next to me and in that moment I realised once again that a proper lens for a specific task makes the difference.

---------- Post added 02-14-19 at 11:19 PM ----------

No debate mirrorless cameras are lighter and getting cheaper, and that benefits the overall market. But some of us are vested in Pentax, and we're such a small minority of global camera users. Here's hoping Pentax can continue to carve out their niche and survive.

As long as your camera delivers and you are happy about the results you're getting, then changing the system is a waste of time. I don't advice anyone to change the system because is trendy these days and if you think that by changing the system you will get better results, rent first the gear that you are interested in and do your own tests rather than spending money based on forum discussions or based on internet reviews.

[Nunavut]

It's an L lens, it has constant f4 aperture and it's 24mm on the wide side compared to Pentax that has 28mm on the wide side and has variable aperture. That's why is more expensive and heavier than the Pentax 28-105mm f3.5-5.6. Is the lens worth the money? That's a question that no one has the absolute answer.

Fair enough. Let's hear if it's worth the $!

[Rico]

Fair enough. Let's hear if it's worth the $!

OpticalLimits (formerly Photozone!) has done a review of the Canon R 24 105 ƒ4 L is.

[Paul the Sunman]

OpticalLimits (formerly Photozone!) has done a review of the Canon R 24 105 ƒ4 L is.

It looks OK, nothing special. It's probably intended as the lens that everyone will buy to go with the camera. I'm sure it will sell well.

[biz-engineer]

At this stage, optical. But how much extra weight am I willing to carry, and how much longer am I willing to wait for innovations?Does Ricoh/Pentax even think about these things? Or do they see themselves carving out the dinosaur-niche in the market?

Understood. For me the situation with cameras is more simple: between 2018 and 2019, there were I don't know how many new camera models released, mostly with new mounts and new lenses (A7III,A7rIII,A9,Z6,Z7,EOS R, EOS RP, S1,S1R). There is no way I can buy any of this without thinking it is a waste of money.

Pentax is not different from Canon and Nikon: all of them have released advanced DSLR dual memory cards etc (5DIV, D850) and shortly after releasing top of the line DSLR, without waiting for DSLR E.O.L., they launched mirrorless models with EVF but with lower specs in terms of AF tracking (2.5 frames per sec. for the Canon).

There are a lot of new camera models, more than we can ever buy, with tons of promotion, it was also in the past and it will be also in the future. Promotion creates desire, but does it mean we have to buy newer models when what we already have works very well?

After you get the smaller sized camera because for you DSLR is a dinosaur, there will be new cameras, don't worry about that... whether the selling point will be the small size, or the big size, or anything else. With the price a newer camera model that will not change your photography at all, you can easily buy yourself a vacation package to enjoy your Pentax, or you can spend the money into a new mirrorless and photograph your cat at home [metaphor]...