[Erictator]

The answer... it depends! If I'm over-riding quick shift manual focus, I'm holding the right grip supporting most of the weight and focusing left handed. Not uncommon in a dark church where AF is not always on target and you don't have time to reposition for a correct hold... Or if just plain shooting fast or you will miss "the kiss". NEVER rely on any AF for the kiss, pre-focus and shoot manual if you can, or silly things like AF lock will lock out the shutter while your AF hunts around.
If I'm wearing a short wrist strap, I'm leveraging off my wrist and yes, supporting under the camera with my left hand like the old days. But when you tuck your elbows and let out your breath for that shot, it's nice to have a balanced camera package in your hands, and not fighting a big downward pull on the front end even with your left hand for support.


I owned an ME Super or two, and I used it with the optional grip/drive. I still have the horrible 28-70 F2.8 AF lens somewhere, that takes all those AA's. Talk about a nose heavy mess!


What you say is true, there are methods to compensate a poorly balanced combo, but only further makes my point, that it's easier for a long day of shooting to hold a well balanced camera combo.


I'll shut up now and let y'all jaw on about your new fangled toys, heh.


Eric


I

extend htex
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)

[fuent104]

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.

I think you're severely underestimating the full frame video market. It's a big part of why the 5D MkII was so successful, and the only reason the Sony A7s is mentioned on every video website. It's why 3rd party manufacturers have made a lot of accessories for that camera.

I know a lot of 5D mkii owners, and every one of them chose it in part or in whole for its video capabilities.

The camera I mentioned, which would outspec the whole market, and which was proven possible years ago by a group of hackers working for peanuts, could potentially make a huge splash.

[lytrytyr]

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

The Contax T was 98mm x 66.5 x 32.5mm with an optical viewfinder and a prime lens.

The Q7 is already 102 x 58 x 33.5 mm without either.

[kooks]

Just had a chat with Ricoh. Pentax Japan are holding the cards VERY tight here. So only FEW knows..Everything else is just speculations. But both me and Ricoh are pretty certain on what they will deliver with the FF. I know a few bits and pieces already, but if i share that information already, they will hunt me down..haha!

soooooo.. without saying too much.. where should you put this camera?? mid range FF.. high end FF?? or a hibrid FF more like something "unique"??

[rawr]

I think you're severely underestimating the full frame video market.

Where are all these FF VDSLR users? Not on flickr

[Quicksand]

soooooo.. without saying too much.. where should you put this camera??

Under my Christmas tree would be fine, thanks.

[wtlwdwgn]

Wow, I really didn't expect the response to this thread. As for me, I'm with the less is more crowd. 24 Megapickles is plenty for what I do and I think that going up against the D750/6D is a better starting point for Pentax and Ricoh. The most important thing for Ricoh to focus on (!) is the auto focus! This is the one area where Nikon and Canon blow Pentax out of the water. Shooting with an old Canon 1D Mk II N is a revelation and that's from 2005. Shooting with a used Nikon D700 is also a revelation and that's from 2008.

As I do a lot of wildlife and bird shooting, APS-C makes the most sense for me. Put a 150-600 on APS-C and you'll have a great wildlife and bird setup.

But I also like to do architecture and landscape and that's where a FF can make a difference because wider is easier to do on a FF body. That's not to say that it's better only that it's easier. Weight is going to make a difference though as a K-3 with a grip is lighter than a D700 body without a grip. The D750 is much lighter than the D700 because it's a D70 with a FF sensor and made with a lot of plastic.

Just my $0.02.

[kenspo]

soooooo.. without saying too much.. where should you put this camera??

I will put 2 in my bag.

[kooks]

Under my Christmas tree would be fine, thanks.

hahaah.. thats for sure..

[RockvilleBob]

Wow, I really didn't expect the response to this thread. As for me, I'm with the less is more crowd. 24 Megapickles is plenty for what I do and I think that going up against the D750/6D is a better starting point for Pentax and Ricoh. The most important thing for Ricoh to focus on (!) is the auto focus! This is the one area where Nikon and Canon blow Pentax out of the water. Shooting with an old Canon 1D Mk II N is a revelation and that's from 2005. Shooting with a used Nikon D700 is also a revelation and that's from 2008.

As I do a lot of wildlife and bird shooting, APS-C makes the most sense for me. Put a 150-600 on APS-C and you'll have a great wildlife and bird setup.

But I also like to do architecture and landscape and that's where a FF can make a difference because wider is easier to do on a FF body. That's not to say that it's better only that it's easier. Weight is going to make a difference though as a K-3 with a grip is lighter than a D700 body without a grip. The D750 is much lighter than the D700 because it's a D70 with a FF sensor and made with a lot of plastic.

Just my $0.02.

AF - my sentiments exactly.
Shooting eagles in flight at Conowingo I see Nikon and Canon shooters getting great shots while my K3 is still searching. Indeed some of this S - L - O - W response and poor tracking is due to some better photographers than me but all the Nikon and Canon shooters are probably not less skilled than me. AF acquisition with Pentax is slow and tracking in AF.C is poor as compared to competition.
Most of my shooting is also wildlife. If the FF has state of the art auto focus vis-a-vis Nikon and Canon along with a cropped mode I'll probably go for it.
It is very frustrating to spend lots of time and money traveling to shoot wildlife, get yourself in a position to get some great shoots only to have the Pentax camera screw around looking for the bird and if it finds it, trying to keep it. Very frustrating. In many cases the moment is gone before Pentax arrives.
While I enjoy my Pentax and really like the Sigma 500 - it might be time for a change if Pentax cannot deliver the goods with respect to AF in the next generation of cameras.

[reh321]

The Contax T was 98mm x 66.5 x 32.5mm with an optical viewfinder and a prime lens.

The Q7 is already 102 x 58 x 33.5 mm without either.

The only Contax T I can find is an old film camera with built-in lens but without image stabilization, LCD, etc.. These days the comparable camera is something like a Ricoh GR, not any form of ILC.

[Rondec]

The Contax T was 98mm x 66.5 x 32.5mm with an optical viewfinder and a prime lens.

The Q7 is already 102 x 58 x 33.5 mm without either.

Hard to bring film cameras into the conversation. Most folks these days expect some form of automation, LCD to view things, 4 or 5 frames per second and the ability to shoot more 36 shots without changing memory cards. All of this comes at some cost in terms of size.

If you stuck a full frame sensor in a K-01 body and put a DA 40 on it, you would have a pretty small form factor. The problem is that folks these days like zooms pretty well and somehow those how a way of increasing the overall size of the camera as well.

[Pål Jensen]

What I meant to object to is the idea that a crop-sensor design is superior to using a full-frame sensor design..

Isn't this silly? Any sensor is a cropped larger sensor; this is true until the sensor fills the whole universe. Whats is superior and in what way is totally in the mind of the beholder.

[Nicolas06]

I'm sorry if my phrase rubbed you or anyone else the wrong way.

There are a lot of fantastic APS-C cameras and Pentax produces some of the best (for certain purposes).

There is nothing wrong about APS-C as a sensor size per se.

What I meant to object to is the idea that a crop-sensor design is superior to using a full-frame sensor design. Here, "crop-sensor" could refer to the original Q sensor (who was smaller than its successors), an APS-C sensor in an otherwise 135 format camera, or a digital 645 sensor that only provides ~63% of a full-frame MF sensor.

If an APS-C sized sensor is used then ideally the mount size, etc. should have the respective dimensions. While it is nice that one can use existing FF lenses on an APS-C crop-sensor camera and the current Pentax DSLRs are excellent photographic tools, AFAIC, one should not suddenly mistake a cost saving stop-gap solution with an "optimal" tool.

You can make mount of any size and flavor. There no law that say one registration distance is better than the other and a wider diameter may help to design some kind of lenses.

The great thing with the current APSC sensor and K-mount is that my FA77 is a significant tele while still remaining quite small. This is not true on FF where I need a 120mm to get the same framing and much bigger lense and it is not true neither on mirrorless bodies where anything past 50mm tend to be massive due to very short registration distance.

With current FF compatible mount for DSLR you gain compatibility with many lenses, including one that are 40 years old and you get smaller/lighter teles. That's not that much worse than smaller WA you get with mirrorless. That's different.

[Zygonyx]

I will put 2 in my bag.

Good enough, at least this means correct if not unprecedented compacity
Let's hope it will still be better looking than the 3D printed mock-up !

---------- Post added 10-07-15 at 12:58 ----------

I will put 2 in my bag.

Good enough, at least this means correct if not unprecedented compacity
Let's hope it will still be better looking than the 3D peintes mock-up !