[Madaboutpix]

The small form factor is just so elegant. The idea of not having a great big flapping mirror to interrupt the creative process also appeals.

Well, Pentax APS-C isn't exactly big, especially with the DA Limiteds, is it? Maybe not strictly jacket-pocketable, but that's what cameras like the Ricoh GR / GR II are all about, although they could use an effective dust sealing. Also, put one of the Sony G-Master lenses on an A7/A9 mirrorless, and the size advantage pretty much evaporates. Allot some extra space in your camera bag for all the spare batteries you'll likely end up carrying.

As for the mirror flap, I barely notice it on my K-3 - lightyears away from the distinct "ka-chunk" that my father's 1970s Revueflex used to emit - nor does it interrupt my creative process in any major way. Routinely having to watch TV on an EVF whenever I'm framing a shot feels a bit different to me. In fact, that would interfere to some extent with my creative process.

Don't get me wrong, mirrorless has its charms, but as of yet I really can't be bothered to "join the movement". Somehow, for no particular reason, I'm a little suspicious of "movements" anyway.

---

Last edited by Madaboutpix; 08-15-2017 at 10:50 AM. Reason: Typo corrected

[Steve Beswick]

Well, Pentax APS-C isn't exactly big, especially with the DA Limiteds, is it? Maybe not strictly jacket-pocketable, but that's what cameras like the Ricoh GR / GR II are all about, although they could use an effective dust sealing. Also, put one of the Sony G-Master lenses on an A7/A9 mirrorless, and the size advantage pretty much evaporates. Allot some extra space in your camera bag for all the spare batteries you'll likely end up carrying.

As for the mirror flap, I barely notice it on my K-3 - lightyears away from the distinct "ka-chunk" that my father's 1970s Revueflex used to emit - nor does it interrupt my creative process in any major way. Routinely having to watch TV on an EVF whenever I'm framing a shot feels a bit different to me. In fact, that would interfere to some extent with my creative process.

Don't get me wrong, mirrorless has its charms, but as of yet I really can't be bothered to "join the movement". Somehow, for no particalar reason, I'm a little suspicious of "movements" anyway.

There is zero chance of a DSLR, even from Pentax, ever really encroaching on mirrorless size. The Rebel SL-1, as small as it is, is still bigger than a K-01. Yes, you will probably want an extra battery or two if you are going out for a full day of shooting, but mirrorless camera batteries are tiny compared to DSLR ones, so that's pretty irrelevant. I suppose that you could argue that putting a huge lens negates the size advantage of a mirrorless camera. You could also say that putting a 500mm lens on a SLR negates its size benefit vs a 4x5 rail camera, which is at least partially true, but also not really a reasonable argument at the same time. And comparing a EVF to a television is either hyperbole or you being a curmudgeon. Ever used live view before? It's basically the same thing, only better. It's also more accurate than a OVF for manual focus, and has the added benefit of actually showing you DOF without darkening in all but extreme circumstances.

Now I will say that as a general rule I slightly prefer a DSLR to a mirrorless camera, but offhandedly dismissing mirrorless cameras just because they aren't your favorite is similar to dismissing digital photography in favor of film. You may prefer film, but if you do nothing but mock digital photography, you kind of sound like a grumpy fool.

[Madaboutpix]

I suppose that you could argue that putting a huge lens negates the size advantage of a mirrorless camera. You could also say that putting a 500mm lens on a SLR negates its size benefit vs a 4x5 rail camera, which is at least partially true, but also not really a reasonable argument at the same time. And comparing a EVF to a television is either hyperbole or you being a curmudgeon.

A little hyperbole, used for rhetorical reasons, aside, consider a size comparison like the following:

Compact Camera Meter

I deliberately picked the K-1 from the Pentax line-up, so that the comparison is between FF and FF. If anything, the much-advertised size advantage should be even more obvious then. And yes, a front view, also available on that linked site would exhibit a marked height difference. But otherwise, are the combos really worlds apart? Not to mention ergonomics/handling. For many users, the fast wideangle and standard zooms, while admittedly big lenses, are much-covetted pairings. (My apology for failing to dig up the latest DFA iteration of the fast standard zoom, which would be bigger than the somewhat long-in-the-tooth Sigma, but still not as huge as the Sony GM.

BTW, I was fairly open about my expression of a personal preference, my point being that for the foreseeable future mirrorless is just not a compelling option for me. If people want mirrorless, go ahead, by all means.

[Rondec]

There is zero chance of a DSLR, even from Pentax, ever really encroaching on mirrorless size. The Rebel SL-1, as small as it is, is still bigger than a K-01. Yes, you will probably want an extra battery or two if you are going out for a full day of shooting, but mirrorless camera batteries are tiny compared to DSLR ones, so that's pretty irrelevant. I suppose that you could argue that putting a huge lens negates the size advantage of a mirrorless camera. You could also say that putting a 500mm lens on a SLR negates its size benefit vs a 4x5 rail camera, which is at least partially true, but also not really a reasonable argument at the same time. And comparing a EVF to a television is either hyperbole or you being a curmudgeon. Ever used live view before? It's basically the same thing, only better. It's also more accurate than a OVF for manual focus, and has the added benefit of actually showing you DOF without darkening in all but extreme circumstances.

Now I will say that as a general rule I slightly prefer a DSLR to a mirrorless camera, but offhandedly dismissing mirrorless cameras just because they aren't your favorite is similar to dismissing digital photography in favor of film. You may prefer film, but if you do nothing but mock digital photography, you kind of sound like a grumpy fool.

Mirrorless cameras are thinner. That's about all you can say. If you look at a camera like the K-S1, it is really close in size to the K-01, albeit with slightly better ergonomics and better functionality. And it includes a full viewfinder with pentaprism, which the K-01 conveniently does not include -- no EVF in sight, only the rear LCD.

It really depends on the EVF, the refresh rate and where you are using it. It is also a different thing viewing a rear LCD screen from 18 inches (or farther) away versus having a tiny screen an inch from your eyeball. Many of the EVFs out there do leave a lot to be desired with regard to lag, noise/graininess, etc. It is certainly understandable if some folks don't like them for other reasons than that they are a grumpy fool.

[audiobomber]

I bought a 2nd hand Fujifilm X-E1 and about this I would say that EVFs aren't so good in bright sunlight. Also, Fujifilm kind of cook the colours. They look good but don't necessarily represent reality. Be warned about raw conversion also. There are plenty of blog posts about the watercolour effect when using Adobe Raw for conversion and also apparent poorer high iso image quality on the newer X-E2, XT1 generation sensor. Anyway, it's a nice enough camera and it's high iso images look surprisingly great. Just be warned that it isn't that much smaller than a Pentax using the DA Primes, or FA43mm or FA77mm. The X-E1 is also very slow to AF although this is a 1st generation camera. Definitely worth a try if you can get a good price 2nd hand. About adapters, be aware that you are just making up the registration distance so then the camera/lens combination is going to be the same volume wise as using a camera from the origin mount.

It is well known that Fuji lies about ISO. Their ISO settings are almost a whole stop understated.

I'm a little intrigued by the Sony a6000 as it supposedly has a fast autofocus, has an EFV, and the price is coming down. I'll have to do some research before I would buy any, Whatever I would get, I would have to get a couple of native lenses to use that autofocus, I don''t see a lot of reason to adopt K-mount lenses since I have Pentax cameras for those. I should probably sell some of the lenses I don't use that much

I had a few MILC's with no EVF and I will have no more. An LCD is a miserable way to compose, IMO.

The a6000 is a good choice for size and IQ, decent EVF and has a surprisingly good grip, which is something many MILC's lack. Lens selection is very limited for zooms, some nice primes. I'm pleased with mine, though I much prefer my K-3 for its handling.

The 16-50 power zoom is quite good for video, weak for stills. I don't much care for adapting lenses for the same reason as ramseybuckeye, I'd rather mount them on my K-3. Some might enjoy an inexpensive lens turbo but I rarely use mine.

An a6000 with primes is very light and fits in a small messenger bag. For landscapes and cityscapes I usually carry a medium sized messenger bag, holding a K-3 with Sigma 17-50 mounted, a6000 with Touit 12mm mounted and D FA 100mm spare lens. Very versatile, very few lens changes, and not significantly heavier than a Pentax body with two spare lenses.

[Madaboutpix]

Actually, I would be seriously tempted to add a furture GR III, as a carry-everywhere-street-photography-and-whatnot option, to my kit. Provided they take care of the well-documented dust intrusion issues of the earlier iterations.

[clackers]

Actually, I would be seriously tempted to add a furture GR III, as a carry-everywhere-street-photography-and-whatnot option, to my kit. Provided they take care of the well-documented dust intrusion issues of the earlier iterations.

Just go out and buy the GR II now, I did a couple of months ago.

Fantastic camera, Eric Kim's right.

It can be setup for near silent operation, and you can just jam down on the shutter release to take a pic immediately with focus at set distance (1.5 m or 2.5m is good, depending on your shooting style).

[Steve Beswick]

A little hyperbole, used for rhetorical reasons, aside, consider a size comparison like the following:

Compact Camera Meter

I deliberately picked the K-1 from the Pentax line-up, so that the comparison is between FF and FF. If anything, the much-advertised size advantage should be even more obvious then. And yes, a front view, also available on that linked site would exhibit a marked height difference. But otherwise, are the combos really worlds apart? Not to mention ergonomics/handling. For many users, the fast wideangle and standard zooms, while admittedly big lenses, are much-covetted pairings. (My apology for failing to dig up the latest DFA iteration of the fast standard zoom, which would be bigger than the somewhat long-in-the-tooth Sigma, but still not as huge as the Sony GM.

BTW, I was fairly open about my expression of a personal preference, my point being that for the foreseeable future mirrorless is just not a compelling option for me. If people want mirrorless, go ahead, by all means.

Your first post was obviously dismissive towards mirrorless cameras, unless you think characterizing composing a photograph using a modern EVF as watching television is a reasonable assertion. And seriously, cherry pick your lenses and bodies much? Those large, G-master lenses are clearly not what the OP is interested in.

As far as your size comparison is concerned, why don't we try using two of the cameras the OP listed. I also included the Sony a6000 because it is similar in many ways to the Fuji, and the CanonSL1/100D, because it is supposedly the smallest DSLR ever. Since I didn't find anything in the OP's post about lenses, I simply went with the kit lenses, which seemed like a much more reasonable starting point.

Compact Camera Meter

Please make a note how the a6000 with kit lens attached is barely thicker than the K3 without a lens attached. If I put the Sony 20mm on it, it would be thinner than the K3 with no lens on it. That's not just thinner, that's a LOT thinner. It's also about 2/3 as tall, and weighs about half what the K3 does. Without getting into a lens debate, all you are really giving up compared to the K3 is the OVF, IBIS, and you are most likely getting a weaker built in flash. You also gain constant DOF preview, instant review in the viewfinder, a camera that is a lot closer to pocketable, and not nearly as intrusive for things like street photo or portraits. I may prefer an OVF, but once I went to a camera with an EVF, my keeper rate went through the roof. I'd be willing to bet you would hear that from a lot of people who have shot both.

---------- Post added 08-15-17 at 06:35 PM ----------

Mirrorless cameras are thinner. That's about all you can say. If you look at a camera like the K-S1, it is really close in size to the K-01, albeit with slightly better ergonomics and better functionality. And it includes a full viewfinder with pentaprism, which the K-01 conveniently does not include -- no EVF in sight, only the rear LCD.

....

They are thinner, shorter, lighter, take (with adapters) just about any MF and most AF lenses ever made,... and there is a lot more I could say.

As far as the K-01 is concerned, that is about the worst example of a mirrorless camera I can think of. Seriously, it may be pretty to look at, but it's just terrible to use. It has none of the benefits usually attributed to a mirrorless camera (its not even remotely light or small, ...), and it doesn't have the #1 benefit of a DSLR, the prism. it's not comfortable in the hand, it doesn't do constant DOF preview like all the other mirrorless cameras, ... there is plenty more I could say there as well. Therefore, comparing the K-S1 to mirrorless cameras by comparing it to the k-01 is completely disingenuous. For goodness sake, its that big and doesn't even have an articulating screen!

[audiobomber]

Without getting into a lens debate, all you are really giving up compared to the K3 is the OVF, IBIS, and you are most likely getting a weaker built in flash. You also gain constant DOF preview, instant review in the viewfinder, a camera that is a lot closer to pocketable, and not nearly as intrusive for things like street photo or portraits.

Weather-resistance and IBIS are huge advantages for many uses. Those, along with lens selection and superior controls are the reasons the K-3 is my main shooter. The a6500 would be more to my liking than the a6000, but yikes, not at that price. Still, I believe the a6000 is one sweet little camera and a value standout among Mirrorless bodies.
PS The a6000 flash is GN 6, vs. 13 for the K-3.

[dannny]

I did, i choose Sony A7R and i use also my Pentax lenses on it with adapter that has aperture control.
My expectations were met, it's the most lightweight sony full frame option and probably also most lightweight in general.
Paired with 88g Pentax HD DA40 it's very easy to hold, no issue also with Pentax 100mm WR.
Sample foto: | Zonerama.com and more are there with lens info.
I enjoy 36MPx in small package, but when i need to shot action i take my K5IIs what is not so often.

[clackers]

I did, i choose Sony A7R and i use also my Pentax lenses on it with adapter that has aperture control.
.

I found that clickless aperture control awful, Dannny.

Really butchers your workflow, trying to be f4 for one shot, f11 the next, back to f5.6 for the one after that.

Autofocus and auto aperture mean my K-1 gets used instead of my Sony A7.

[Rondec]

Your first post was obviously dismissive towards mirrorless cameras, unless you think characterizing composing a photograph using a modern EVF as watching television is a reasonable assertion. And seriously, cherry pick your lenses and bodies much? Those large, G-master lenses are clearly not what the OP is interested in.

As far as your size comparison is concerned, why don't we try using two of the cameras the OP listed. I also included the Sony a6000 because it is similar in many ways to the Fuji, and the CanonSL1/100D, because it is supposedly the smallest DSLR ever. Since I didn't find anything in the OP's post about lenses, I simply went with the kit lenses, which seemed like a much more reasonable starting point.

Compact Camera Meter

Please make a note how the a6000 with kit lens attached is barely thicker than the K3 without a lens attached. If I put the Sony 20mm on it, it would be thinner than the K3 with no lens on it. That's not just thinner, that's a LOT thinner. It's also about 2/3 as tall, and weighs about half what the K3 does. Without getting into a lens debate, all you are really giving up compared to the K3 is the OVF, IBIS, and you are most likely getting a weaker built in flash. You also gain constant DOF preview, instant review in the viewfinder, a camera that is a lot closer to pocketable, and not nearly as intrusive for things like street photo or portraits. I may prefer an OVF, but once I went to a camera with an EVF, my keeper rate went through the roof. I'd be willing to bet you would hear that from a lot of people who have shot both.

---------- Post added 08-15-17 at 06:35 PM ----------



They are thinner, shorter, lighter, take (with adapters) just about any MF and most AF lenses ever made,... and there is a lot more I could say.

As far as the K-01 is concerned, that is about the worst example of a mirrorless camera I can think of. Seriously, it may be pretty to look at, but it's just terrible to use. It has none of the benefits usually attributed to a mirrorless camera (its not even remotely light or small, ...), and it doesn't have the #1 benefit of a DSLR, the prism. it's not comfortable in the hand, it doesn't do constant DOF preview like all the other mirrorless cameras, ... there is plenty more I could say there as well. Therefore, comparing the K-S1 to mirrorless cameras by comparing it to the k-01 is completely disingenuous. For goodness sake, its that big and doesn't even have an articulating screen!

The KS-1 versus the A6000 shows size to be pretty similar. The A6000 is a better camera and more expensive as well.

Compact Camera Meter

I understand you like mirrorless cameras. Just understand that there is a long history of making SLRs pretty small and what tends to make modern cameras larger is not the mirror.

[BigMackCam]

The KS-1 versus the A6000 shows size to be pretty similar. The A6000 is a better camera and more expensive as well.

I'd mostly agree with that However... much as I'm a fan of Sony gear for some applications (brave thing to say around here, sometimes ), the A6000 - despite being more expensive - doesn't have any image stabilisation capability, and there are situations (that I've personally encountered with my own Sony equipment) where the RAW compression of the A6000 will result in artefacts around high contrast edges and recovered shadows. It's not a big issue for most people, but it's there. For outright RAW image quality, I'd pick the K-S1, though in most situations the A6000 will be absolutely fine.

[Steve Beswick]

The KS-1 versus the A6000 shows size to be pretty similar. The A6000 is a better camera and more expensive as well.

Compact Camera Meter

I understand you like mirrorless cameras. Just understand that there is a long history of making SLRs pretty small and what tends to make modern cameras larger is not the mirror.

I am well aware of the history of small SLRs.

I feel you cherry picked those lenses unrealistically, whereas I went ahead and put the kit lenses from both cameras on them.

Compact Camera Meter

With the kit lens on, the a6000 is the same width,~22mm shorter, only 5mm deeper, and over 100 grams lighter than the K-S1 body -without a lens-. Once you add the kit lens the K-S1 actually came with, its almost twice as deep and weighs almost twice as much.

I'm not saying the K-S1 one is a bad camera. I've never actually used one, but I'm sure it's great, as almost all the Pentax cameras are. I for one love DSLR's, both big and small. I personally currently own a Rebel SL1, a Ds, a K10D, and a Olympus E-1. I've owned well over a dozen DSLRs and only 3 mirrorless camers. One of my favorite cameras I've ever owned was a Minolta 7D, which was both big and heavy, so no, I don't think size is everything. That being said, there was a time when all my cameras were mirrorless, and that really wasn't a bad thing either.

I guess what I'm wondering at this point is why you are so focused on the size of the K-S1?

[Rondec]

I am well aware of the history of small SLRs.

I feel you cherry picked those lenses unrealistically, whereas I went ahead and put the kit lenses from both cameras on them.

Compact Camera Meter

With the kit lens on, the a6000 is the same width,~22mm shorter, only 5mm deeper, and over 100 grams lighter than the K-S1 body -without a lens-. Once you add the kit lens the K-S1 actually came with, its almost twice as deep and weighs almost twice as much.

I'm not saying the K-S1 one is a bad camera. I've never actually used one, but I'm sure it's great, as almost all the Pentax cameras are. I for one love DSLR's, both big and small. I personally currently own a Rebel SL1, a Ds, a K10D, and a Olympus E-1. I've owned well over a dozen DSLRs and only 3 mirrorless camers. One of my favorite cameras I've ever owned was a Minolta 7D, which was both big and heavy, so no, I don't think size is everything. That being said, there was a time when all my cameras were mirrorless, and that really wasn't a bad thing either.

I guess what I'm wondering at this point is why you are so focused on the size of the K-S1?

Sorry if it is upsetting. The 18-50 was specifically designed as a compact kit lens. I'm not sure about the Sony lens. I assumed an 18-55 variable aperture lens was a kit, but I could be wrong. The KS-1 is one of the smaller Pentax cameras that I'm aware of, but the kx and kr and km were pretty small too. They just aren't on camera size's web site.

My point is only that everyone acts like the reason that SLRs is so big is because of the mirror and yes, if you remove the mirror, you can make them thinner. There is no doubt about that fact. But otherwise they are often similar size and if you want things like IBIS, easy access buttons, good ergonomics, you may need to make your camera a little larger in order to accommodate average human hands.