[Digitalis]

You forgot Leica.

Leica doesn't make a 35mm DSLR*. The closest thing is the Leica S2 which is medium format (in a fashion, it has a 45X30mm sensor)


*Using the visoflex system on a current Leica M RF is like using a hammer to drive in a screw, you're better off using an actual DSLR.

[ChristianRock]

Leica doesn't make a 35mm DSLR*. The closest thing is the Leica S2 which is medium format (in a fashion, it has a 45X30mm sensor)


*Using the visoflex system on a current Leica M RF is like using a hammer to drive in a screw, you're better off using an actual DSLR.

Oops you are right... I was thinking 35mm ILC, not DSLR...

[GeneV]

I also own both Pentax DSLRs and Sony ML (A6000 & A7R), and I would also like to see a Pentax FF which could take an adapter like the Sony and retain AF. ML lenses with real size savings could be added as time goes on. There are two big reasons for ML IMHO: First, I like a well done EVF for MF in low light. No dark finder or modified Canon screens are needed. Second, the ML design lets me adapt every SLR lens from every manufacturer. My wife's Zeiss Contax lenses have new life. For a brand increasingly abandoned by third party lens makers, this would be a huge benefit.

I added Sony FF to my kit only recently as the II series drove the price of the earlier models so low that one can try my Pentax film lenses on FF digital for a three figure price. I only own one Sony FF lens, but the adaptability is what makes this system work. What if your new Pentax FF would accept Pentax FA/DFA and Canon E mount lenses with nearly complete functionality?

[str8talk83]

I also own both Pentax DSLRs and Sony ML (A6000 & A7R), and I would also like to see a Pentax FF which could take an adapter like the Sony and retain AF. ML lenses with real size savings could be added as time goes on. There are two big reasons for ML IMHO: First, I like a well done EVF for MF in low light. No dark finder or modified Canon screens are needed. Second, the ML design lets me adapt every SLR lens from every manufacturer. My wife's Zeiss Contax lenses have new life. For a brand increasingly abandoned by third party lens makers, this would be a huge benefit.

I added Sony FF to my kit only recently as the II series drove the price of the earlier models so low that one can try my Pentax film lenses on FF digital for a three figure price. I only own one Sony FF lens, but the adaptability is what makes this system work. What if your new Pentax FF would accept Pentax FA/DFA and Canon E mount lenses with nearly complete functionality?

This is why I shoot Sony mirrorless. There are just so many options from different manufacturers to use on the camera.
- want to shoot Sony a mount lenses? Get an laea4 adapter (or laea3 on the newer models.)
- want access to the entire canon lens lineup? Get a metabones adapter.
- want to use film era lenses? Get the corresponding adapter and shoot away.

The Sony is very attractive to users who are willing to manually focus. For this group it is the most capable system available (in my opinion.)

There are shortcomings for some though.
-EVF dim in bright light
-"slideshow effect" for burst shooting
-ergonomics with longer heavier lenses is inferior for most people.

[jcdoss]

The Sony is very attractive to users who are willing to manually focus. For this group it is the most capable system available (in my opinion.)

..and in my opinion too. I never bought a full frame Sony, but I'm thinking I'll eventually pick up a used A7II sometime, maybe when used prices come down a bit. For now, I'm having a great time using my K and M primes on a NEX6.

[GeneV]

..and in my opinion too. I never bought a full frame Sony, but I'm thinking I'll eventually pick up a used A7II sometime, maybe when used prices come down a bit. For now, I'm having a great time using my K and M primes on a NEX6.

The A7II is fairly reasonable, but the sensor is nothing special. You can pick up an A7R for about the same price.

[pathdoc]

Make the body small and thin enough, and large, long lenses become awkward. This is why my ME and MX don't often see use with zooms, especially of the brass-and-glass, one-touch variety, and the primes I tend to put on them are very short (SMC-M 40/2.8), very light (Vivitar 28mm/2.8), or both. Even an FA50 starts to become noticeably nose-heavy after a while. For weight and balance, the FA28-90 would be perfect if the focusing ring weren't so horrifically poorly damped.

Ergonomics can sometimes trump optics.

[osv]

The A7II is fairly reasonable, but the sensor is nothing special. You can pick up an A7R for about the same price.

this ^^^ used a7r's are going for $1k or even less, at fredmiranda, craigslist, etc... it's about the best bang for the buck there is in used cameras right now, the pq is stunning.

i expect that a7r pq ~= pentax ff pq, for less than half the cost used, but we all know that pentax is going to be pulling some rabbits out of the hat with this new camera

if pentax puts ibis and pixel shift on the new ff, for example, it's going to be a very interesting camera, for people who can handle shooting with an ovf.

[GeneV]

this ^^^ used a7r's are going for $1k or even less, at fredmiranda, craigslist, etc... it's about the best bang for the buck there is in used cameras right now, the pq is stunning.

i expect that a7r pq ~= pentax ff pq, for less than half the cost used, but we all know that pentax is going to be pulling some rabbits out of the hat with this new camera

if pentax puts ibis and pixel shift on the new ff, for example, it's going to be a very interesting camera, for people who can handle shooting with an ovf.

Some liquidators are selling new A7Rs for ~$1,100 on Fleabay. It is quite a bargain right now. Barring some big issue with the body, I will eventually get the K1, but I am not an early adopter. The A7R is at about the point of the product cycle where I buy. The A7R II costs about what I think the K1 will cost on launch, and that is more than I will pay to be a tester for either body.

[Digitalis]

Make the body small and thin enough, and large, long lenses become awkward. This is why my ME and MX don't often see use with zooms, especially of the brass-and-glass, one-touch variety, and the primes I tend to put on them are very short (SMC-M 40/2.8), very light (Vivitar 28mm/2.8), or both.

I'm doing it wrong then:

[penties rider]

Make the body small and thin enough, and large, long lenses become awkward. This is why my ME and MX don't often see use with zooms, especially of the brass-and-glass, one-touch variety, and the primes I tend to put on them are very short (SMC-M 40/2.8), very light (Vivitar 28mm/2.8), or both. Even an FA50 starts to become noticeably nose-heavy after a while. For weight and balance, the FA28-90 would be perfect if the focusing ring weren't so horrifically poorly damped.

Ergonomics can sometimes trump optics.

add the power winder (but not the motor drive necessarily) to MX (or pw to ME) and it'll just be the right size, shape as well as weight (still light enough though) to hold many small to medium size zoom lenses!

wanna use ultra long really heavy telephotos with MX or ME?
well, you'll need a tripod for that first, no matter what camera model from which brand you're having!

hope this answers your 'question' ... :-)

---------- Post added 02-23-2016 at 01:11 AM ----------

We'll need to give up also the LCD screen and the SR which take most of the space behind the sensor ... to emulate SLR we just need a battery that's good for around 36 exposures

---------- Post added 01-22-16 at 01:45 AM ----------



If you are trying to make a point that almost nobody makes full frame mirrorless cameras you can just as well say almost nobody makes full frame digital cameras period.

Companies that currently produce cameras and do have full frame DSLR cameras:
- Canon
- Nikon
- ...Sony (?)

However, this list might change in the near future

i hope i'm posting this in the right place, although i'd rather start a new thread on it if there isn't one already:

if we're talking full frame digital AND mirrorless digital cameras as highly innovative ideas only a few have tackled so far, well, then let's rest assured that Pentax was a pioneer in both, however unsuccessful for mostly silly reasons!

check out the link below please:
PENTAX DSLRs: Timing is everything. Important facts about Pentax you should know. Read this blog then share it with your Canikon friends. :)

[GeneV]

For me it is only a small number of lenses, in the size range of the DA*50-135 which feel much Better on a DSLR than on a mirrorless body. However, if they were made for mirrorless they would be physically shorter. As someone else pointed out, for any lens 300mm or longer a pod is your friend anyway. For long MF lenses, the ability to use focus peaking in a good EVF at eye level and view at actual DOF is huge.

---------- Post added 02-23-16 at 06:59 AM ----------

Yes, I certainly understand that constraint, my point was simply that currently the A7 ISN'T really that much more compact (and hence the K-01 seems to get more of a bad rap for bulkiness than is really warranted). The A7 COULD be made thinner, but that would likely compromise ergonomics even further, so it is a bit of a trade-off. I personally don't see the the K mount size constraints as THAT much of a deal breaker for mirror-less, since I would want some sort of balance against longer lenses and a grip would likely protrude at least that far, anyways.

The things that are inside the Sony bodies which aren't in the K-01 are IMHO, the reasons why those bodies are selling and the K-01 did not. One of the ones which takes up space is the fully articulated screen tucked into the back of a Sony. The wifi and other slick electronics need to live somewhere, too.

I would like to see a K-02 as well, but it would need to have the features and ergonomics of a serious ML body. Opinions vary, but my K-01 ended up being used primarily for jewelry and minerals on a tripod in a studio where I could connect a separate monitor. Even there, the way the HDMI out works keeps it from being used to its full potential.