Originally posted by k1man the biggest problem i have seen with mirror less cameras is the size of the lenses, same size more or less as FF for the k1 etc but on a piss willy body unless all are F4 or so, crazy but true, ian
Totally true. A FF mirror-less system will require the same focal lengths as a mirror'ed system given a particular field of view. A 200mm lens is still a 200mm lens. So, the lenses are not necessarily smaller. Perhaps wide angle and ultra wide angle lens designs are simplified because of the significantly shorter registration distance. I don't know.
A camera by itself is as useful (or useless) as a lens by itself. The two need to be considered together. I have a Sony A7 II. The body is small and thin and nice to behold by itself. Adding a lens changes that and suddenly it becomes very awkward. The K-1, for as bulky as it may be, with long lenses is generally well balanced. It doesn't feel lopsided with a long lens. I do wish everything was lighter though, especially when adding a battery grip and on-camera flash.
I am a huge proponent of u4/3. It's a system of small bodies and small lenses. I have an older Olympus M10. Adding a Lumix 35-100mm f/2.8 lens is hardly a burden. You don't even feel the Lumix 12-35mm f/2.8 even though you know its there. A small prime like the 20mm f/1.7 practically blends into the body.
In the short term today's current FF mirror-less offerings will sell well. They are new, flashy, and still evolving. At some point I think they will evolve into a more traditional mirror'ed DSLR design. u4/3 went through that. Look at the M1 mk II or the offerings from Lumix. Thankfully, they still have "small" options available.
Let the K-1 be what it is ... a chunky, full featured, form fitting DSLR with a mirror that flaps like quail's wing. Just make it lighter.