[jatrax]

Curious why you say that?
Landscape is mostly on tripod so the weight does not matter.

What is your reasoning?

[Alex645]

Actually the mirrorless systems like the Olympus OM-D and the Fujifilm X-T1 are the closest thing in form factor right now to our classic 135 format SLR cameras. (And let us not forget, 135 film was successful because of its portability, not from great image quality.)

Am I wrong?

Yes and no. First let's look at a few facts in terms of weight, all including batteries, no lens:

MF=Pentax 645Z 1550g.

FF=Canon EOS 1D-X Mk.II 1530g.
FF=Pentax K-1 1010g.
FF=Canon EOS 6D 770g.

APS-C=Nikon D500 860g.
APS-C=Pentax K3II 800g.
APS-C=Pentax K-S1 558g.
APS-C=Canon Rebel SL-1 407g.

Micro Four Thirds=Olympus OM-D E-M10 II 390g.
Micro Four Thirds=Fujifilm X-T1 440g.

35mm=Nikon FM10 397g.
35mm=Pentax ZX-5n 400g.
35mm=Pentax LX w/ FA-1 finder 582g.
35mm=Pentax K1000 613g.
35mm=Nikon F3HP 760g.
35mm=Canon F-1 795g.
35mm=Nikon F6 975g. (w/o batt)

So the heaviest FF is almost the same weight as the lightest MF, but both the lightest FF and APS-C is half the weight of the heaviest model and some FF are lighter than some APS-C. And there are APS-C cameras that are as equally light as the Micro 4/3 you mentioned.

So if we don't consider the lenses used, a Micro 4/3 camera is equivalent to the lightest plastic 35mm FSLRs, but the average APS-C camera was a lot closer to the average 35mm FSLR and some FF were even lighter.

And for size/dimensions?

Micro 4/3=Fujifilm XT-1: 5.1 x 3.5 x 1.8"

APS-C=Canon SL-1: 4.6 x 3.6 x 2.7"
APS-C=Pentax K-S1: 4.8 x 3.7 x 2.8"
APS-C=Pentax K-3: 5.2 x 3.9 x 3.1"

FF=Canon 6D:5.7 x 4.4 x 2.8"
FF=Pentax K-1:5.4 x 4.3 x 3.4"
FF=Nikon D810:5.7 x 4.8 x 3.2"

MF=Pentax 645Z:10.0 x 9.291 x 8.583"

35mm=Nikon FM10:5.5 x 3.4 x 2.0"
35mm=Pentax K1000:5.63 x 3.6 x 1.93"
35mm=Pentax LX:5.7 x 3.6 x 1.9"
35mm=Nikon F6:6.2 x 4.7 x 3.1"

In terms of dimensions, the Micro 4/3's you listed are only equivalent to 35mm FSLRs in terms of depth for the average. APS-C and FF are more similar in overall dimensions.

Ultimately, ergonomics is a personal choice. For me, a Pentax 67 is too big, but I'm okay with any 645. My friend is fine with his D810, but the 645 is too much for him. My daughter is fine with her Nikon D200, but the Pentax K-50 is just right for my son. So if Micro 4/3 is your cup of tea, drink up I don't see however that it is "closest thing in form factor right now to our classic 135 format SLR cameras."

[jlstrawman]

Afraid I must concur. The K-1 is small and robust compared to the current industry equivalents. Don't see the issue...at all.

+1. Well said.

[joergens.mi]

I never said I wanted to shoot it one-handed or that it was a good idea to do so. I merely observed that Simon was holding it with one hand, and his hand was shaking -- thus making it apparent that this is a large and hefty camera.

It only 80 gr more than a K3 a little bit higher am deeper, thats all.

[Winder]

Am I wrong?

There is not right or wrong. For me the K-3 is just a little too small. If you get real small then you have to put a lot of the controls into a menu system and you end up with the same problem Sony has. Having a lot of direct control is important for many people. We don't want to stop shooting and dig around in a menu to change something. You want buttons and controls to be large enough that you can use them with gloves and tactile enough you can make changes without looking down. I haven't held on yet, but looking at the size increase and the controls, I think I like the size of the K-1 a lot.

[noelpolar]

It only 80 gr more than a K3 a little bit higher am deeper, thats all.

210g actually..... quite a bit more...almost 3 times the weight difference than from K5 to K3.... that some complained about at the time....I'm not complaining just correcting.

An interesting observation is..... a K1 with a 43 is 20 grams (<1oz) or so within a K3 and a 31

Anyway, if there is something the DFA 150-450 has taught me (as well as old age), it's how quickly you get use to gaining weight.....

[Kerrowdown]

It's small compared to other FF DSLRs...

Any chance you could also add a K1 with grip fitted to that line up, just for interest, thanks.

[Tony Belding]

This thread has turned up some interesting analysis, and has given me a lot to think about.

If I were only going to have one camera body and one lens mount, and I had to strike a careful compromise between portability and image quality, then those mirrorless cameras that I mentioned before from Olympus and Fuji are highly appealing. As compromises go, it seems to me like they hit a sweet spot.

Then I look at the Pentax catalog as a whole, from Q to APS-C to full-frame to 645, not to mention K-mount lenses ranging from little limiteds to big-azz full-frame zooms. . . And it all looks kind of chaotic and confusing at first, but there's actually a huge amount of flexibility there that those other companies have no answer to. With a little planning you can put together whatever kind of kit that meets your needs, or your preferences, or your eccentricities, and there's no use case that you can't cover in some way.

[jatrax]

And it all looks kind of chaotic and confusing at first, but there's actually a huge amount of flexibility there that those other companies have no answer to. With a little planning you can put together whatever kind of kit that meets your needs, or your preferences, or your eccentricities, and there's no use case that you can't cover in some way.

Good point. And one that is not often mentioned. I suspect other brands could offer a similar choice if pressed but Pentax is well on their way to having a very broad line with something to offer a lot of people. Lots of holes to fill in of course, but that's the fun. If they were all done filling what would we buy.

[monochrome]

Apparently "it's not getting any smaller and it's not getting any lighter" unless it's made by Fuji or Olympus, who don't seem to have any problem turning out cameras with 35mm SLR form factor today. The Fuji even has a control scheme that mimics a Pentax ZX-5n. We don't have to wait for some future technological breakthrough to enable cameras of this type.

This contrast has been argued so many times and so contentiously - contrasting a camera with no mirror box and no optical viewfinder and declaring it 'better' doesn't make sense. It is different. Neither better nor worse. There are things not done as easily nor as well with mirrorless (long lenses, external controls, seeing the actual natural subject), and vice versa (portability). I fully understand some people hew more to portability as a benefit that trumps those of traditional bodies, but I just as seriously hew to the ergonomic advantages of a traditional body.

The same irreconcilable argument flares up around EVF's - which of course are integral to MILC's. Some people tolerate lag (or swear it doesn't exist) and celebrate in-VF gain and focus peaking. Others (I'm in this group) can't or won't adjust to not seeing the actual view. Again, neither better nor worse, just different.

Aren't we all fortunate we're alive now and have the opportunity to choose?

IMO all dSLR's (and all SLR's, for that matter) are two-handed affairs for proper stability and operation.

For a full-featured FF body the K-1 is svelte.

[reh321]

There is not right or wrong. For me the K-3 is just a little too small. If you get real small then you have to put a lot of the controls into a menu system and you end up with the same problem Sony has. Having a lot of direct control is important for many people. We don't want to stop shooting and dig around in a menu to change something. You want buttons and controls to be large enough that you can use them with gloves and tactile enough you can make changes without looking down. I haven't held on yet, but looking at the size increase and the controls, I think I like the size of the K-1 a lot.

Maybe I don't change nearly as many things as the average guy does, but I hardly ever get into the menu system on my Q-7 {which has controls very similar to those on my K-30}

[jheu02]

Just compared sizes and weights to my K20D...not too much bigger. Excellent since I love the feel of the K20.

[Tony Belding]

Maybe I don't change nearly as many things as the average guy does, but I hardly ever get into the menu system on my Q-7 {which has controls very similar to those on my K-30}

I've also been surprised at how easy the Q7 is to operate, especially since I don't have dainty hands at all.

[Wheatridger]

I prefer lightweight cameras, but many photographers don't. Especially those with "pro" aspirations and big 2.8 zooms to match. They need some counterweight to counterbalance those 2-5 lb lenses. Otherwise, you end up at the other extreme, like an outfit showed me at a camera store recently: the new Olympus 300mm lens, bigger and heavier than the Pentax DA, attached to a tiny mft body. Looked like a sawed-off bazooka with a pack of cigarettes at one end.

The weight of FF DSLRs if of concern to me. I like things lightweight and easy to tote around. But I think the size of the lens matters more than that of the camera body. I've made this advance into full frame format years ago, when I got a Sony alpha a850. It but not much bigger than its APS-C predecessor, except oddly wider, by almost a half-inch. My concern about camera size vanished once I experienced its big, immersive OVF, though. I found that using a smaller lens, of f4, could easily make up the difference. I favored a Minolta 24-85; I've acquired a Pentax-F 24-50/4 that I can't wait to try on my next new camera. With modern ISOs, f4 is plenty, and with modern resolution levels, I wouldn't hesitate to use 2-3x digital zoom whenever necessary.

The only time my FF Sony did seem excessively bulky and heavy was the day I demoed a Sony Zeiss 24-70/2.8 lens on it. On a crowded transit car, it was always on the way, and every stray eye went for it. Such a serious piece of kit... where was the lighting crew, and the models. After an hour downtown with it, I wouldn't have traded it even for my cheap old Minolta, which was half its weigh and size, if I'd have to promise that I'd use the big Zeiss every day from then on.

[reh321]

I prefer lightweight cameras, but many photographers don't. Especially those with "pro" aspirations and big 2.8 zooms to match. They need some counterweight to counterbalance those 2-5 lb lenses. Otherwise, you end up at the other extreme, like an outfit showed me at a camera store recently: the new Olympus 300mm lens, bigger and heavier than the Pentax DA, attached to a tiny mft body. Looked like a sawed-off bazooka with a pack of cigarettes at one end.

Yesterday I took a few handheld pictures trying a 70-210mm AdaptAll on my Q-7 {usually I use a monopod attached to the adapter for stability when I have longer lenses on the Q-7}, which is kind of the situation you describe here; I found myself holding the lens with my left hand and stabilizing it with my right hand on the camera - the reverse of how I'd normally do it, but it worked just fine for me.