[northcoastgreg]

Perhaps someone can educate me on the value of a mirrorless FF body (using a FF lens mount and not a smaller lens mount [and thus not smaller lenses])? At this point, it seems to be more of a fad to slim the camera body than anything to me.

Some people are wired to want to try and use new things. They are gearheads, neophiles, upgrade junkies. For such people, APS-C DSLRs, which dominated the ILC market in the early days and constitute a mature product, are boring and need to go away. FF and mirrorless is where all the excitement is. And to combine the two in one package constitutes a sort of gearhead/upgrade junkie nirvana. So in a way it is kind of a fad -- at least for those who absolutely must feed an unquenchable desire for something "new" that constitutes "the future."

Small "slim" FF mirrorless cameras have their uses, even for those of us who are not gearheads and neophiles, but only as a niche product to be used with small primes. Bigger lenses (i.e., the lenses that most professionals and deep-pocket enthusiasts want to use) require larger cameras for better handling.

[jogiba]

Perhaps someone can educate me on the value of a mirrorless FF body (using a FF lens mount and not a smaller lens mount [and thus not smaller lenses])? At this point, it seems to be more of a fad to slim the camera body than anything to me.

I use a 36mp mirrorless FF and I don't see what the problem is. I used a Pentax 6x7 for a zillion years and the 36mp mirrorless has image quality that is light years better and is much smaller than my APS-C DSLRs.

[Uluru]

Some people are wired to want to try and use new things. They are gearheads, neophiles, upgrade junkies. For such people, APS-C DSLRs, which dominated the ILC market in the early days and constitute a mature product, are boring and need to go away. FF and mirrorless is where all the excitement is. And to combine the two in one package constitutes a sort of gearhead/upgrade junkie nirvana. .

You are right. Much of enthusiast's discontent is rooted in deep addiction to have the latest tech. The mind that appreciates the beautiful and the moment is gone and is substituted with a mind that feels pride in having the latest tech. And since mirrorless designs are dependant on electronic circuits and development of digital tech, the addiction is as severe as real heroin because the supply is never-ending.
I think FF mirrorless comes as close to purified heroin as one can get it, and if someone squeezes in a small camera a 645z sensor, that will be like junkie nirvana.
It has nothing to do with photography though, only an excuse for addiction of another kind.

[monochrome]

and is much smaller than my APS-C DSLRs

But that isn't a feature - it's a bug.

[ElJamoquio]

But that isn't a feature - it's a bug.

Have you held a A7? It's suprisingly comfortable. Kinda like an MX-size (more or less) but with a contoured grip. I thought I would hate it, like I hated the K-01 feel, but the A7 is top notch.

[monochrome]

Have you held a A7? It's suprisingly comfortable. Kinda like an MX-size (more or less) but with a contoured grip. I thought I would hate it, like I hated the K-01 feel, but the A7 is top notch.

Yeah - and I wasn't really wow'ed. It's comfortable but doesn't make me immediately want to buy it the way the K-3 did. But then I never liked the MESuper or MX either - too small on top for the dials (I know, heresy) and I think the K-01 is really a comfortable camera (which is, I know, very near the MESuper).

But we know I come at this from a different direction than most members here. I suppose it is a matter of preference. I tend to get annoyed every now and then when posters are so absolutely certain they - and only they - are right and know what is right for everyone.

Of course, that's a general attitude I have which isn't limited to camera discussions. IMHO there's good small, too small and obsessive. I have a Q and Q7 for obsessive.

[mee]

I use a 36mp mirrorless FF and I don't see what the problem is. I used a Pentax 6x7 for a zillion years and the 36mp mirrorless has image quality that is light years better and is much smaller than my APS-C DSLRs.

The body is smaller, sure. But what about the giant lenses sticking out of that camera body? It is still not really a compact system. Pentax can't make a compact system on the K mount.. ever. It was designed for a FF OVF camera body. Even many of the primes are too large for it to work well.

Attaching a zoom onto that mirrorless is going to look awkward and probably balance in your hand awkwardly too. much less a bigma.

And if you only have a handful of small primes, well you have limited your fancy shmancy Full Frame camera system to a small market.

IF a camera system is going to be shrunk, then I see it as defeating the purpose to have a giant lens strapped to the front. That is similar to designing a car to be more aerodynamic in the front and rear of the car, but keeping the cabin section as a giant block. And that is what we currently have with much of the K mount lens lineup. The system needs some kind of collapsible lens or muuuch smaller traditional lenses designed to make it work. I really really really doubt Ricoh/Pentax has the desire to invest and market this. Especially after past debacles..

[jogiba]

But that isn't a feature - it's a bug.

There are people here that would give their left nut for a compact 36mp full frame Pentax.

---------- Post added 06-18-14 at 08:28 PM ----------

The body is smaller, sure. But what about the giant lenses sticking out of that camera body? It is still not really a compact system. Pentax can't make a compact system on the K mount.. ever. It was designed for a FF OVF camera body. Even many of the primes are too large for it to work well.

Attaching a zoom onto that mirrorless is going to look awkward and probably balance in your hand awkwardly too. much less a bigma.

And if you only have a handful of small primes, well you have limited your fancy shmancy Full Frame camera system to a small market.

IF a camera system is going to be shrunk, then I see it as defeating the purpose to have a giant lens strapped to the front. That is similar to designing a car to be more aerodynamic in the front and rear of the car, but keeping the cabin section as a giant block. And that is what we currently have with much of the K mount lens lineup. The system needs some kind of collapsible lens or muuuch smaller traditional lenses designed to make it work. I really really really doubt Ricoh/Pentax has the desire to invest and market this. Especially after past debacles..

Giant lens ? Really ?

[mee]

There are people here that would give their left nut for a compact 36mp full frame Pentax.

---------- Post added 06-18-14 at 08:28 PM ----------


Giant lens ? Really ?

Yes. Look at the size of that lens on the Pentax body. It is massive. The one on the Sony isn't too small either..

The only way they are getting the Pentax lenses any smaller is redesigning them for the shorter flange distance. Do you expect Ricoh is going to want to redesign their lens lineup to accomodate an upper echelon camera body? Not saying it couldn't happen, only that I would be surprised if they went that route as it seems dangerous fiscally.

[ElJamoquio]

Mirrorless lenses have claimed-to-be-smaller but the ones on the market certainly haven't been much smaller if any.

[mecrox]

Given the stunning variety of equipment now available, it is surely possible to choose both camera and lenses which are physically fairly small, at least compared to others in their class. Pentax and Olympus come straight to mind, as does Leica. Or a Sony A7r with say a Voigtlander 20mm. If one "goes big" then presumably there's a reason such as fast and/or long. These days it's a choice. Maybe a lot of the stuff about small bodies stuck on big lenses is a proxy for dislike of mirrorless cameras or buyer's remorse over a questionable choice.

[jogiba]

Yes. Look at the size of that lens on the Pentax body. It is massive. The one on the Sony isn't too small either..

The only way they are getting the Pentax lenses any smaller is redesigning them for the shorter flange distance. Do you expect Ricoh is going to want to redesign their lens lineup to accomodate an upper echelon camera body? Not saying it couldn't happen, only that I would be surprised if they went that route as it seems dangerous fiscally.

Go use a 36mp FF mirrorless with the 35mm Zeiss lens and then tell me it's not small. It's amazing the amount of BS on this forum.

[Alizarine]

The APS-C Fuji's and their lenses, even the zooms, are a lot more compact than I thought they were (and lighter too). As for the A7 and the biggest in its dedicated lineup (24-70 f4) isn't so big either, especially for a full-frame camera.


see here, the XT-1 with the 18-55 f2.8-4 lens, with my K-5 IIs (no lens though, sorry!) but imagine the 20-40 f2.8-4 Limited lens on it - can't say the size difference is marginal, even for the lens. It's no question for the body, but both cameras being APS-C, I wonder how Fuji made their lens design smaller...

[northcoastgreg]

Mirrorless lenses have claimed-to-be-smaller but the ones on the market certainly haven't been much smaller if any.

Actually, there are some smaller mirrorless lenses on the market. Panasonic is the market leader here, with two pancake primes and two pancake zooms. The problem seems to be that many mirrorless aficionados are afflicted with a kind of schizophrenia. On the one hand, they are constantly bragging about the reduced size of mirrorless cameras, but on the other hand they suffer from a constant lust for faster lens, including fast telephotos and zooms. Fuji just released an 18-135 f3.5-5.6. It's 100 grams heavier than the Pentax version. But that's not what the Fujinistas are complaining about. On photography forums there's a tremendous amount of histrionic tearing of hair and gnashing of teeth over Fuji's decision to introduce another "slow," variable aperture zoom. Some of the most extreme fast lens advocates have even gone so far as to insist that the Fuji 18-135 should've been an f2.8 constant zoom! Imagine what that lens would weigh, or how well it would balance on an XT-1!

Curiously, this lust for fast glass seems to arise, not so much from a desire for narrow DOF (although that sometimes is the case), but merely from a kind of tripod-phobia. In the majority of cases, these photographers want fast glass for hand-hold shooting in low light.

[ElJamoquio]

Actually, there are some smaller mirrorless lenses on the market. Panasonic is the market leader here, with two pancake primes and two pancake zooms. The problem seems to be that many mirrorless aficionados are afflicted with a kind of schizophrenia. On the one hand, they are constantly bragging about the reduced size of mirrorless cameras, but on the other hand they suffer from a constant lust for faster lens, including fast telephotos and zooms. Fuji just released an 18-135 f3.5-5.6. It's 100 grams heavier than the Pentax version. But that's not what the Fujinistas are complaining about. On photography forums there's a tremendous amount of histrionic tearing of hair and gnashing of teeth over Fuji's decision to introduce another "slow," variable aperture zoom. Some of the most extreme fast lens advocates have even gone so far as to insist that the Fuji 18-135 should've been an f2.8 constant zoom! Imagine what that lens would weigh, or how well it would balance on an XT-1!

Curiously, this lust for fast glass seems to arise, not so much from a desire for narrow DOF (although that sometimes is the case), but merely from a kind of tripod-phobia. In the majority of cases, these photographers want fast glass for hand-hold shooting in low light.

My P&S is much smaller, too! Those Panasonic lenses have way too small of an aperture for my taste. That 20mm F/1.7 Panasonic would be a 40mm f/3.4 on FF. Heck I have that already, and it's tiny-er and almost a full stop faster.


The sony lenses are about the same size as Canon/NIkon lenses. The camera is much smaller. Pentax lenses are kind-a in a class of their own; no one else is going for small/slow/good build combo.