[ccc_]

there are some interesting MILCs out there

however none of them are really small in practical terms
in order to make images the IL component is required

the only deficiency I found in the k01 was a lack of a viewfinder
it is an interesting design exercise that makes great images as long as you can see the lcd

the fact that it stirred such unrelenting controversy was just an added bonus

whoever convinced the buying public that smaller and lighter was a genius or a monster
visit any forum related to any pursuit and you will find one half crying...smaller!... lighter!
the other half moaning...my expensive plastic dream machine is broken!

I pretty much retired my q in favor of a Fuji x30
both are beautifully made machines that make wonderful images

users complain that the q has no viewfinder and the x30 is too big

that I guess is my point...you can't have it both ways

as a gentle observation...if users used instead of just buying the situation would be much different

I have a lot of cameras and I take a lot of pictures (some years approaching 50k)
each one of those cameras is a compromise as are the lens that ride on them
(before you ask...I generally pair a body with a couple of lens that perform well on it and carry that combination as a kit)
frankly I enjoy them all, to some degree or another

I think/feel that if a user masters his tool and learns to use it instead of lusting after some theoretical improvement there might be a bit more joy out there

[reh321]

there are some interesting MILCs out there

however none of them are really small in practical terms
in order to make images the IL component is required

the only deficiency I found in the k01 was a lack of a viewfinder
it is an interesting design exercise that makes great images as long as you can see the lcd

the fact that it stirred such unrelenting controversy was just an added bonus

whoever convinced the buying public that smaller and lighter was a genius or a monster
visit any forum related to any pursuit and you will find one half crying...smaller!... lighter!
the other half moaning...my expensive plastic dream machine is broken!

I pretty much retired my q in favor of a Fuji x30
both are beautifully made machines that make wonderful images

users complain that the q has no viewfinder and the x30 is too big

that I guess is my point...you can't have it both ways

as a gentle observation...if users used instead of just buying the situation would be much different

I have a lot of cameras and I take a lot of pictures (some years approaching 50k)
each one of those cameras is a compromise as are the lens that ride on them
(before you ask...I generally pair a body with a couple of lens that perform well on it and carry that combination as a kit)
frankly I enjoy them all, to some degree or another

I think/feel that if a user masters his tool and learns to use it instead of lusting after some theoretical improvement there might be a bit more joy out there

I kind of agree with you, but only kind of.

I am one of those who bought {and regularly uses} a Q-7, but will not buy a K-01. The Q-7 provides me with capabilities that a larger {or larger sensored} camera cannot provide, so I tolerate its lack of EVF; after studying other MILC's and viewfinders on various cameras, I am convinced adding an EVF would cost roughly 1/4" in height, and I really doubt that would harm the value of a Q.

I did not, and will not, buy a K-01 because of it's lacking an EVF - unlike the Q-7, there are other options with viewfinders that will provide the same utility. I notice that Canon's latest EOS-M camera does {finally} have a built-in EVF. My personal belief is that is essential these days. It is also the primary benefit of MILC. As has already been commented, for some focal lengths, a shorter flange distance leads to a larger lens, so "small" seems to be a false promise/goal for MILC. However, difficult lighting conditions is where MILC really shines, because of its ability to add gain to what we see in the viewfinder. For example, a few months ago, just as the migration season started, my family spent the day at a county park. It was a cloudy day; just before we left, my wife noticed a bird 'way out on the lake, in a shaded area, dark even by the standards of that cloudy day. Using the 300mm lens on my Q-7, I was eventually able to find and photograph it - I could not see it without the Q-7's LCD + hoodman, but my wife could describe roughly where she thought it was. The picture was not very good to my eyes - I had to use an ISO setting of 1600 and I had mis-told the Q-7 that the focal length was 400mm, so that was no surprise - but it was good enough for a friend to say "the is a good picture of a double-breasted cormorant". This experience alone convinced me that EVF increases the value of a camera.

[Painter]

I use a K-3 for things that it's good for but I long for a smaller lighter APSC mirrorless. On trips I tend to take the K-01 but would love to have something like it with an EVF. Keeping the K mount registration distance would be a good move I think in the current market rather than a new shorter flange distance. It's too late for that move now. My Q7 has also been pushed to the less used pile because of my Fuji x30 and it's good EVF.

[pete-tarmigan]

"the is a good picture of a double-breasted cormorant".

Freudian slip? Double-crested (Phalacrocorax auritus).

---

Last edited by pete-tarmigan; 12-05-2016 at 12:51 PM. Reason: omitted parenthesis

[reh321]

Freudian slip? Double-crested (Phalacrocorax auritus).

I guess my wife misread the email.

[mecrox]

there are some interesting MILCs out there

however none of them are really small in practical terms
in order to make images the IL component is required

the only deficiency I found in the k01 was a lack of a viewfinder
it is an interesting design exercise that makes great images as long as you can see the lcd

the fact that it stirred such unrelenting controversy was just an added bonus

whoever convinced the buying public that smaller and lighter was a genius or a monster
visit any forum related to any pursuit and you will find one half crying...smaller!... lighter!
the other half moaning...my expensive plastic dream machine is broken!

I pretty much retired my q in favor of a Fuji x30
both are beautifully made machines that make wonderful images

users complain that the q has no viewfinder and the x30 is too big

that I guess is my point...you can't have it both ways

as a gentle observation...if users used instead of just buying the situation would be much different

I have a lot of cameras and I take a lot of pictures (some years approaching 50k)
each one of those cameras is a compromise as are the lens that ride on them
(before you ask...I generally pair a body with a couple of lens that perform well on it and carry that combination as a kit)
frankly I enjoy them all, to some degree or another

I think/feel that if a user masters his tool and learns to use it instead of lusting after some theoretical improvement there might be a bit more joy out there

M43 seems the best compromise currently available. One can go smaller with cheaper (and smaller) lenses or go flagship with bigger bodies and bigger (but also faster, WR) lenses. Depending on the camera, it comes with all or only some bells and whistles. They all have IBIS, like Pentax, which is a godsend. The sensor is smaller, of course, but in reasonable light the difference between it and APS-C is pretty minor and probably not discernible on the average print or screenshot. In low light, the bigger sensor always has some advantage. I think M43 is currently the closest one can get to having it both ways. Fuji, for example, offers a slightly larger sensor and higher resolution with some superb lenses, but this is offset by no IBIS, greater weight and bulk and often higher prices. And, for some, the Fuji ergonomics are too old school.

I had a lot of fun with the K-01 but the lack of a VF did not endear me to it and the focusing was simply too hit and miss for me. In some ways it came out too early, before on-sensor AF had been properly established. Now everyone takes it for granted. However, I suspect the days when an ugly duckling camera could succeed because it was mirrorless are long past. These days the bar is set very high and any new mirrorless camera would need to perform extremely well in all respects and look good too.

[rbelyell]

i dont know how much smaller a lens can be than the m4/3 14/2.5, 20/1.7, 9-18 and 12-32 zooms. and i could go on. ive shot almost evry camera system and m4/3 are the smallest by a very large margin. plus for those who like to shoot vintage lenses, m4/3 cams handle the very small m mount rangefinder lenses much better than any other mirrorless alternative other than native m mount digitals.

[lytrytyr]

i dont know how much smaller a lens can be than the m4/3 14/2.5, 20/1.7, 9-18 and 12-32 zooms. and i could go on. ive shot almost evry camera system and m4/3 are the smallest by a very large margin

Well, you're steering clear of the very unfavorable telephoto comparison here, but let's play anyway:

m4/3 9-18: 50mm long retracted, but 70-77mm in use, 155 gm, versus Q 08: 38-40mm long in use, 75 gm.

[surfar]

Fuji, Oly, and Panasonic are all committed to their respective shares of the small M43 pie

Have Fuji shrunk their sensor down to M4/3?....I actually thought they had moved into the shrunken MF like the 645Z size.

---------- Post added 12-06-16 at 03:12 PM ----------

, I think that a 20mb 1" sensor is the optimum for a small MILC

Well the Samsung Mini NX is finished, that sector is open.


Sony/Panasonic offer bridge cameras that do a goodish job but they are sizeable too and cost plenty.Not ILCs but competent tools for some.

[Mistral75]

(...) I think that a 20mb 1" sensor is the optimum for a small MILC. (...)

(...)

Well the Samsung Mini NX is finished, that sector is open.

(...)

Not completely open since there are still the Nikon 1 cameras. Not that they have been a huge success either: there are only three bodies available and the latest one (Nikon 1 J5) was announced 20 months ago, an eternity for an entry-level camera.

[Zygonyx]

It is more and more probable that Nikon drops this. 1" / 1 ML serie....

[mecrox]

As much as I love my Q7, I think that a 20mb 1" sensor is the optimum for a small MILC. The M43 format is too close to APS-C to offer much of a real advantage, and the lenses, although smaller, aren't that small, and are no cheaper. The Nikon 1 wasn't user-friendly and had other issues, but its lenses and image quality (in its better models) was excellent. There may still be a breakthrough small format MILC system, but I don't think Pentax will make it. Nikon got burned by the 1, Fuji, Oly, and Panasonic are all committed to their respective shares of the small M43 pie. Canon is the only major not to have made a small MILC but they seem to be too conservative to try anything new. The market just isn't there.

Every camera company seems to be moving up the market - fewer units but more valuable ones - but for that reason the focus seems to be on systems which can justify high prices. So I guess the decision has mostly already been taken. It's larger sensors with higher prices, Sony's RX100 and some bridge cameras notwithstanding. It's relatively much, much easier to ask 1-2K or more for an M43 or APS-C item than for a 1" one. I guess the motivation is profit, not any photographic sweet spot.

[surfar]

Not completely open since there are still the Nikon 1 cameras

Oh Yes, I forgot about that one.Reason being that I was interested in the AW 1 when I saw it at a bargain price,researching a bit found leakage and overheating complaints aplenty.So I lost interest in that system and haven't followed much of Nikons development stuff.

[Float]

Try calling a Pentax ME big and bulky. If only it could take a DA or DA XS 40/2.8; fortunately the SMC-M 40/2.8 is little bigger.

Well obviously we cant compare film cameras to digital cameras in terms of size. Not only is a film room much thinner than a sensor stack, but the circuit boards for most modern cameras take up far more room than the mechanisms in older film cameras. Even the digital Leicas are much fatter than their film counterparts.

A very short flange distance might end up a camera system like Sony A7: very thin camera, and very long lens

not necessarily. Rangefinder lenses have very short flange distances and incredible optical performance. You can definitely have your cake and eat it too when it comes to flange distance and optical quality.

interestingly, Pentax has made at least one rangefinder lens. they made a version of the 31mm for either M or LTM iirc.

[Digitalis]

Pentax has made at least one rangefinder lens. they made a version of the 31mm for either M or LTM iirc.

Don't you mean the Leica thread mount 43mm f/1.9 Special ? Rumors suggest that lens wasn't made entirely by Pentax, the evidence points squarely at Cosina, who made the lens mount, RF coupling, and the accessory 43mm viewfinder for the lens.

Rangefinder lenses have very short flange distances and incredible optical performance

RF lenses also have longer MFD than SLR lenses: because at distances closer than 1m, you can't see the focus errors coming with a rangefinder. The optical performance gains are only apparent at focal lengths that are roughly equal to, or longer than the flange, past that point you get into retro-focus territory which even Leica has had to deal with this, the size difference between the 21mm f/1.4 and 21mm f/3.4 is massive.