Originally posted by Madaboutpix 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 ----------
Originally posted by Rondec 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!