[Rondec]

That argument cuts both ways. There are plenty of people out there who think m4/3 offers the best balance of size and weight versus IQ. Who am I to say they are wrong?

You aren't.

There is no perfect sensor size for all situations. You could say that the Q only has slow equivalent lenses, but there is no way that you could create a full frame camera that was as small as the combination of the primes and the Q bodies, even if you made the lenses as slow as molasses.

Not every situation needs a large sensor and a really fast aperture and as long as people make informed decisions, I don't think you can go wrong with the interchangeable lenses on the market these days.

[bxf]

...
In the end, the biggest reason that APS-C has sold so well is and has been cost...

That, yes. But I'd be willing to bet that many buyers also choose APS-C because they don't want to walk around with cement-block size cameras.

[rawr]

You know what's crazy? A video-optimized camera would probably be enough to shake up the market. Something with great features, nice codec options, and in-camera RAW video, straight out of the box. ...There's nothing like it in the full frame market.

Talk about niche upon niche. Full-frame is about 5% of the camera market, and video focussed full-frame buyers are probably 5% of that.

But the A7s and A7 R II seem close enough to such a full-frame video ideal, if one wants it.

[reh321]

FF sensors do offer a noticeable bump in image quality, without much of a burden increase in either price or weight if you buy the right lenses and bodies.

......................................

Which is why I say, just take the price of the K-3 II and add about $1000. That's all there is to it. Yes, they'll have to contend with lower sales volumes than Canon or Nikon's competing full-frame bodies, and even lower sales volumes than their own APS-C flagship. But ~$1000 is still more than enough to make up for any of that

To you, $1K may not be "much of a burden increase in price". Apparently we live in different worlds. The total cost to me of the three cameras in my signature photo was less than $1K (of course, I bought the Super Program 30 years ago). The total cost to me of everything in my current K-30 camera bag is less than $1K, and of course the total cost to me of everything in my current Q-7 camera bag is much much less than $1K.

[rawr]

many buyers also choose APS-C because they don't want to walk around with cement-block size cameras.

Many buyers choose mirrorless FF vs APS-C for similar reasons, of course



A7 vs K-3

[Cynog Ap Brychan]

I know beauty is in the eye of the beholder, but that Sony is a homely one! Like it was designed in cooperation with Lego.

[bxf]

Many buyers choose mirrorless FF vs APS-C for similar reasons, of course

Sure, I wouldn't argue with that. Could very well apply to my own purchasing decision, assuming no significant negative issues.

I can understand that to a pro who needs to get specific tasks done, size may not be a significant consideration. But for those who comprise the mass market, the typical (up to now) FF size would be a deterrent.

[D1N0]

The a7II looks and is a lot more ergonomic

[bxf]

I know beauty is in the eye of the beholder, but that Sony is a homely one! Like it was designed in cooperation with Lego.

Well, those who grew up with today's DSLRs feel that they represent what a camera should look like. I, on the other hand, would welcome a small version of the Nikon DF. Or better still, give me a digital version of a Pentax ME, or Olympus OM2, etc.

[Clavius]

I can understand that to a pro who needs to get specific tasks done, size may not be a significant consideration. But for those who comprise the mass market, the typical (up to now) FF size would be a deterrent.

The A7r has been a dream come true for professional use in my studio. The small size and extreme control over focussing are both more then welcome. And the instant review in the VF, without taking my eye away from the camera at, a very welcome addition to the workflow.

[Erictator]

I think we tend to look just at bodies and forget about balance.


Ever look at an A7 with their own big new zooms, or the Zeiss Otus 85mm mounted on it? My wrist hurts just looking at them!


On film camera's I'd shoot weddings with 645 medium format, and 35mm backup, and the battery grip on the 35mm was to save my wrist on a long night as much as for the extra run time.


If you stick to Pentax limited primes, you would be fine, but for a camera targeting Pro's, of which a fair percentage might shoot big heavy f2.8 zooms or fast large mid tele primes, I think the DSLR OVF is still the best practical solution.


But what do I know... just another voice out here in the ether...
Eric

[rawr]

the typical (up to now) FF size would be a deterrent.

It's a classic trade-off. Extra body size can improve usability and ergonomics, for example - ie buttons and knobs can be easier and quicker to access and manipulate - but at the cost of having a less compact body.

One camera (shape/sensor size/colour/brand) will never be perfect for everyone, and every job, fortunately for camera makers.

[reh321]

extend htex

I think we tend to look just at bodies and forget about balance.
Ever look at an A7 with their own big new zooms, or the Zeiss Otus 85mm mounted on it? My wrist hurts just looking at them!

How do you hold your camera?

When I got my first SLR, a Pentax ME, in 1979, I learned to hold and operate it with my right hand,
while supporting {perhaps zooming} and focusing the lens with my left hand.

With the advent of auto-focusing lenses, I've had to adjust where I put my left hand to keep it from possibly interfering with the AF functionality,
but my left hand is still supporting the weight of the lens, and avoiding any torque pulling on my right wrist.
The small size of the Q forces me into changing my grip, but when I hand-hold it with a larger adapted lens on it, most of the weight is borne by my left hand which is holding the lens.

But what do I know... just another amateur voice out here in the ether...

added thought: if I owned one of these new MILCs and had a longish lens for it, I would almost treat it as a camera mounted on the lens - that is, I would basically hold the lens with my left hand, and "all" I would do with my right hand is operate the camera (and keep the system straight if I needed to twist the lens to zoom)

[bxf]

But what do I know... just another voice out here in the ether...

But what do I know... just another amateur voice out here in the ether...

Welcome to my world...

[Rondec]

Many buyers choose mirrorless FF vs APS-C for similar reasons, of course



A7 vs K-3

What happens to the camera size when you mount an f2.8 zoom on it?