[BWG]

I wish Pentax would release a K-01 ii, or even a completely new design. I have all five DA Limiteds and would love to use them on a good mirrorless APS-C body.

[BigMackCam]

I wish Pentax would release a K-01 ii, or even a completely new design. I have all five DA Limiteds and would love to use them on a good mirrorless APS-C body.

Surely you mean six?

[alamo5000]

+1 suspicion confirmed that canon photographers feel the need to over compensate.

I am kind of of the school that rather than just purely 'small' the camera needs to be balanced and comfortable. I am not of the studio variety (yet) so 98% of the time I am out and about running around or walking or moving when I shoot photos.

Small helps when you're packing your luggage but aside from that for anyone who primarily works in the field ie outside/not within steps of the car the balance and ergonomics of things matter more than pure size and weight. My system might overall be a few oz heavier but if I use a superior way to carry gear it more than makes up for it.


I figured I would ask you to opine here and share your thoughts on my comment since you're clearly more of the professional level/type photographer with a lot more years under your belt in the arena.

[BigMackCam]

I am kind of of the school that rather than just purely 'small' the camera needs to be balanced and comfortable.

A note on the whole balance issue...

A few years back I bought my Sony A99-based Hasselblad HV and, over the course of a year or so, built up a small collection of decent quality A-mount glass including several quite large and heavy models - the Sony Zeiss 24-70 f/2.8 SSM that came with the camera, a Tamron 70-200 f/2.8 USD, and a Tamron 150-600 (G1). Not long after that, I bought a Sony A7 MkII - primarily to shoot my growing collection of vintage Soviet lenses, but also as a backup / second body to use with my A-mount glass via the LA-EA4 autofocus adapter.

The HV is quite heavy (more so than the A99, due to the body materials used) and balances beautifully with the 24-70 and 70-200. It's even perfectly usable hand-held with the 150-600 for short periods at a time. Knowing how much smaller and lighter the A7 MkII would be, I was resigned to the fact that it wouldn't handle at all well with these relatively big, heavy lenses. But I was quite wrong...

When shooting the HV with heavier lenses, the left and right arms share the load in, I would estimate, a 50/50 to 70/30 ratio respectively, depending on the size and weight of the lens. When shooting the A7 MkII with those same lenses, the weight distribution is more like 70/30 to 95/5 - so the left arm supporting the lens is working harder, and the right hand acts more to steady the whole setup. That may sound awkward, but to me it doesn't actually feel any worse to shoot... just different.

Some folks may genuinely dislike the combination of bigger lenses and smaller, lighter mirrorless body. If that's based on their own experience of shooting that setup for several days, weeks, months or - as in my case - years, then it's a valid conclusion - yet very much a personal and subjective one, like my own. However, I strongly suspect a number of people who criticise the balance of a mirrorless body plus large lens do so because it sounds plausible and/or it's what they've heard in various forums, YouTube videos and other web resources. Given that, it's best to try out a combo for yourself and see how it works for you

[repaap]

A note on the whole balance issue...

A few years back I bought my Sony A99-based Hasselblad HV and, over the course of a year or so, built up a small collection of decent quality A-mount glass including several quite large and heavy models - the Sony Zeiss 24-70 f/2.8 SSM that came with the camera, a Tamron 70-200 f/2.8 USD, and a Tamron 150-600 (G1). Not long after that, I bought a Sony A7 MkII - primarily to shoot my growing collection of vintage Soviet lenses, but also as a backup / second body to use with my A-mount glass via the LA-EA4 autofocus adapter.

The HV is quite heavy (more so than the A99, due to the body materials used) and balances beautifully with the 24-70 and 70-200. It's even perfectly usable hand-held with the 150-600 for short periods at a time. Knowing how much smaller and lighter the A7 MkII would be, I was resigned to the fact that it wouldn't handle at all well with these relatively big, heavy lenses. But I was quite wrong...

When shooting the HV with heavier lenses, the left and right arms share the load in, I would estimate, a 50/50 to 70/30 ratio respectively, depending on the size and weight of the lens. When shooting the A7 MkII with those same lenses, the weight distribution is more like 70/30 to 95/5 - so the left arm supporting the lens is working harder, and the right hand acts more to steady the whole setup. That may sound awkward, but to me it doesn't actually feel any worse to shoot... just different.

Some folks may genuinely dislike the combination of bigger lenses and smaller, lighter mirrorless body. If that's based on their own experience of shooting that setup for several days, weeks, months or - as in my case - years, then it's a valid conclusion - yet very much a personal and subjective one, like my own. However, I strongly suspect a number of people who criticise the balance of a mirrorless body plus large lens do so because it sounds plausible and/or it's what they've heard in various forums, YouTube videos and other web resources. Given that, it's best to try out a combo for yourself and see how it works for you

I have K-1 + 15-30 and 70-200. They do feel quite balanced. I'm quite strong so they are quite comfortable to use and carry. But honestly even now carrying tripod and couple other thing to balance that 15-30(on tripod). Well it feel like, no more. Beoynd that would be too much. Then I'd need to get car to get to nature(I have 4X4 actually ), and often tripod stays behind, if I'm not sure that I'll need it. Now if K-1 was little smaller, i'm not sure how well it would balance, perhaps not a big deal, but how much would I save on weight? But these modern mirrorless things, they are no longer for being smaller, they are for performance and video, well they will be even more so.

[BigMackCam]

I have K-1 + 15-30 and 70-200. They do feel quite balanced. I'm quite strong so they are quite comfortable to use and carry. But honestly even now carrying tripod and couple other thing to balance that 15-30(on tripod). Well it feel like, no more. Beoynd that would be too much. Then I'd need to get car to get to nature(I have 4X4 actually ), and often tripod stays behind, if I'm not sure that I'll need it. Now if K-1 was little smaller, i'm not sure how well it would balance, perhaps not a big deal, but how much would I save on weight? But these modern mirrorless things, they are no longer for being smaller, they are for performance and video, well they will be even more so.

Yep, I'm with you completely

I should have said, regardless of whether I'm shooting my HV or the smaller, lighter A7 MkII, I find bigger, faster, heavier lenses limiting and tiring to shoot with for long periods. My rheumatoid arthritis is very slowly, but very surely, impacting my stamina and enjoyment when carrying and shooting with heavier gear. So, regardless of the camera body's dimensions and weight, I expect I'd find Canon's new big, fast lenses prohibitive for the kind of walk-around photography I do. But if I was at an event, or in a studio, I can see their practicality. For now, I guess Canon's mirrorless users can buy one of the adapters and use their existing EF glass.

As a parallel, I can shoot my A7 MkII with the LA-EA4 adapter and a Minolta AF 50 f/1.7 all day long - it's a light-weight setup, and gives very nice image quality... Not heavily-corrected, but for me that's actually a plus

[repaap]

Yep, I'm with you completely

I should have said, regardless of whether I'm shooting my HV or the smaller, lighter A7 MkII, I find bigger, faster, heavier lenses limiting and tiring to shoot with for long periods. My rheumatoid arthritis is very slowly, but very surely, impacting my stamina and enjoyment when carrying and shooting with heavier gear. So, regardless of the camera body's dimensions and weight, I expect I'd find Canon's new big, fast lenses prohibitive for the kind of walk-around photography I do. But if I was at an event, or in a studio, I can see their practicality. For now, I guess Canon's mirrorless users can buy one of the adapters and use their existing EF glass.

As a parallel, I can shoot my A7 MkII with the LA-EA4 adapter and a Minolta AF 50 f/1.7 all day long - it's a light-weight setup, and gives very nice image quality... Not heavily-corrected, but for me that's actually a plus

That is how it goes! I also have my limiteds to have good and light time

[DeadJohn]

I wonder how popular the adapters will be. They have quite a few of them, I'm not sure how wise it was to not settle on a single feature set.

The drop-in filter adapter will be very popular for astrophotography. Buy one smaller light pollution filter and it works with every lens, even large bulbous lenses that would require custom filter solutions. Canon and Nikon can currently do something similar with clip-in filters that sit inside the mount, but lens compatibility and mirror interference are issues.

[HomeMadeSin]

You can use one of the various adapters on your old EF glass.

I'm surprised that this isn't discussed more in these ILC threads. I realize there are trade-offs with adapters, but to me the whole ILC body size versus DSLR body size is minimally relevant. It's the appeal of accessing a wider array of glass (crippled, yes, but glass none-the-less). I think I would sell all my gear for a Pentax...let's call it short flange...body with access to the world's best glass. And yes, I realize the Pentax has fine glass...

But I'm still of the mindset, glass rules. If that holds water anymore (some would argue good is good enough), then locking yourself down to one platform tends to promote the big boys over the little guys. I really like the idea of a Pentax body (sensor, menus, weather sealing) coupled with (just about) any glass I could want.


And I still miss my K-01.


FWIW.

[reh321]

Yep, I'm with you completely

I should have said, regardless of whether I'm shooting my HV or the smaller, lighter A7 MkII, I find bigger, faster, heavier lenses limiting and tiring to shoot with for long periods. My rheumatoid arthritis is very slowly, but very surely, impacting my stamina and enjoyment when carrying and shooting with heavier gear. So, regardless of the camera body's dimensions and weight, I expect I'd find Canon's new big, fast lenses prohibitive for the kind of walk-around photography I do. But if I was at an event, or in a studio, I can see their practicality. For now, I guess Canon's mirrorless users can buy one of the adapters and use their existing EF glass.

As a parallel, I can shoot my A7 MkII with the LA-EA4 adapter and a Minolta AF 50 f/1.7 all day long - it's a light-weight setup, and gives very nice image quality... Not heavily-corrected, but for me that's actually a plus

I'm not interested in 'perfect' lenses - I'm fine with size and level of perfection obtained by designers of Takumar 50mm f/1.4.

[reh321]

A note on the whole balance issue...

A few years back I bought my Sony A99-based Hasselblad HV and, over the course of a year or so, built up a small collection of decent quality A-mount glass including several quite large and heavy models - the Sony Zeiss 24-70 f/2.8 SSM that came with the camera, a Tamron 70-200 f/2.8 USD, and a Tamron 150-600 (G1). Not long after that, I bought a Sony A7 MkII - primarily to shoot my growing collection of vintage Soviet lenses, but also as a backup / second body to use with my A-mount glass via the LA-EA4 autofocus adapter.

The HV is quite heavy (more so than the A99, due to the body materials used) and balances beautifully with the 24-70 and 70-200. It's even perfectly usable hand-held with the 150-600 for short periods at a time. Knowing how much smaller and lighter the A7 MkII would be, I was resigned to the fact that it wouldn't handle at all well with these relatively big, heavy lenses. But I was quite wrong...

When shooting the HV with heavier lenses, the left and right arms share the load in, I would estimate, a 50/50 to 70/30 ratio respectively, depending on the size and weight of the lens. When shooting the A7 MkII with those same lenses, the weight distribution is more like 70/30 to 95/5 - so the left arm supporting the lens is working harder, and the right hand acts more to steady the whole setup. That may sound awkward, but to me it doesn't actually feel any worse to shoot... just different.

Some folks may genuinely dislike the combination of bigger lenses and smaller, lighter mirrorless body. If that's based on their own experience of shooting that setup for several days, weeks, months or - as in my case - years, then it's a valid conclusion - yet very much a personal and subjective one, like my own. However, I strongly suspect a number of people who criticise the balance of a mirrorless body plus large lens do so because it sounds plausible and/or it's what they've heard in various forums, YouTube videos and other web resources. Given that, it's best to try out a combo for yourself and see how it works for you

I agree totally. 25 years ago, the average SLR was smaller than many MILC's today, but we managed to take photos with long lenses. Today I use a K-mount Sigma 70-300mm lens with my Q-7; usually I use that combination with a monopod, but I have been known to hand-hold it {the major issue in that case being manual focus, since even it never has large DOF at 300mm}

[Not a Number]

It looks like the EF to R adapters are jumped up extension tubes with all the contacts to maintain function. Some have optics like filters and probably one or two are TCs.

Does anyone know what the "custom" ring does? Is it just an aperture ring?

Kind of what I thought Ricoh could do to maintain the K-mount on a mirrorless body.

[surfar]

Does anyone know what the "custom" ring does? Is it just an aperture ring?

It can be an apeture ring but can be assigned to other functions...it might help to get to the Canon website to familiarise.

---------- Post added 09-12-18 at 10:38 AM ----------

I'm still of the mindset, glass rules.

The best lens with the worst camera rule,doesnt work the other way round.

[Digitalis]

am kind of of the school that rather than just purely 'small' the camera needs to be balanced and comfortable.

I too, am a firm believer in having a well balanced camera. In my own work with my Leica camera systems the body and lenses I choose are reasonably balanced - even the Noctilux-M 50mm f/0.95 balances well on the M system cameras. However a Canon 5D with their 24-70 mm f/2.8 lens can be jarring to hand hold for extended periods of time.

I am not of the studio variety (yet) so 98% of the time I am out and about running around or walking or moving when I shoot photos.

When I'm in the studio I rarely sit down, I work on my feet. I don't rely on my assistants to do the footwork for me - as they are there to observe and learn from me as well as assist....sitting down all the time doesn't make for an interesting example.

Some folks may genuinely dislike the combination of bigger lenses and smaller, lighter mirrorless body. If that's based on their own experience of shooting that setup for several days, weeks, months or - as in my case - years, then it's a valid conclusion - yet very much a personal and subjective one, like my own. However, I strongly suspect a number of people who criticise the balance of a mirrorless body plus large lens do so because it sounds plausible and/or it's what they've heard in various forums, YouTube videos and other web resources. Given that, it's best to try out a combo for yourself and see how it works for you

I'd say any of the Fuji cameras sans grip will feel awkward with the new Fujinon 200mm f/2, though the camera grip will improve ergonomics the combination will always feel front heavy. I'll give the Nikon mirrorless offerings a shot - though I already have a mirrorless system I'm perfectly content with my Leica M and my Pentax SLR cameras and their native DNG support.

[mee]

The lenses do look BIG. But that 50mm f/1.2 is collecting an awful lot of light. And a 28-70 f/2? That's impressive. Big, for sure... but potentially very useful...

It's a shame Canon decided to stick with in-lens image stabilisation and leave it out of the body. Still, overall it looks like an impressive entry into the MILC market.

Every time I look at Canon to get into one of their camera systems, they give me a big reason not to.

I was going to buy a D750 early but heard of the 6D II upcoming.. so I waited a couple of months. Only to discover it was a downgrade in some aspects to what it replaced. doh.

Thought maybe I'll splurge and get a 5D IV as I liked the idea of 30 MP and the EF lenses. But the DR is still relatively poor and the shutter is super loud (louder than even the no-frills 6d). double doh.


Eyeballing the EOS R over the Z yet they leave out IBIS. triple doh.

I'm surprised Canon doesn't just offer all the Sony mirrroless offers and undercut them on price. They could trash Sony and Nikon if they wanted to. But they don't. I suspect they have (un)spoken "friendly" agreements of some sort...