[mee]

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}

That camera in the image was from 25 years ago? 1993? It looks more like something from the 70s or 80s to me. In the 80s or earlier, you didn't have much of a choice back then. Either way it is still relatively small and light (with lens) than what I'd consider large. But I like that more camera makers got into adding handgrips to a bulkier form in the 90s.


I could eat with chopsticks if I was forced to, but why should I if we can invent a fork and a spoon?

[surfar]

They could trash Sony and Nikon if they wanted to

Nikon are the smallest independent camera maker...Olympus is next....Then theres the diversified companies.

Ricoh is the smallest then $$$ony then Canon then Panasonic.

Samsung is double the size of Panasonic,but Sammy took a holiday.

[reh321]

That camera in the image was from 25 years ago? 1993? It looks more like something from the 70s or 80s to me. In the 80s or earlier, you didn't have much of a choice back then. Either way it is still relatively small and light (with lens) than what I'd consider large. But I like that more camera makers got into adding handgrips to a bulkier form in the 90s.

I could eat with chopsticks if I was forced to, but why should I if we can invent a fork and a spoon?

The camera on the left of my signature dates from 1983 - it was one of the first to use the KA-mount {it still works - I took some photos with it yesterday}. I dislike the way all the camera makers got in line copying the Canon T90 and not giving us a choice .... I much prefer the svelte form of the 1980's cameras; we learned to handle large lenses with two hands rather than grabbing on to the grip.


The Super Program was my second SLR - I used it for twelve years 1983-95. Then I used a collection of four Canon cameras 1995-2015. After two Rebels in a row died, I purchased my current K-30 in 2015.

[mee]

The camera on the left of my signature dates from 1983 - it was one of the first to use the KA-mount {it still works - I took some photos with it yesterday}. I dislike the way all the camera makers got in line copying the Canon T90 and not giving us a choice .... I much prefer the svelte form of the 1980's cameras; we learned to handle large lenses with two hands rather than grabbing on to the grip.


The Super Program was my second SLR - I used it for twelve years 1983-95. Then I used a collection of four Canon cameras 1995-2015. After two Rebels in a row died, I purchased my current K-30 in 2015.

So 35 years ago then.. not 25. Time flies.. I missed the past decade too.


I'd rather have a handgrip so I can carry the camera in one hand and have a free hand for fending off muckmen when I'm in the forest near the swamp. some of my lenses are pretty large and heavy... there is no physical way to hold them in one hand without a handgrip. Esp down on one side when moving around.


Kind of ironic you came to Pentax due to hardware failure only to pickup a body that is prone to hardware failure. Please don't order a Nikon Z !!

I started in 2010 with a Pentax K-x, then a K-30 in early 2013, then a K-5 II in late 2013, then a K-1 in early 2017, then a D750 in late 2017.


Rebels are the budget line though.. so that doesn't surprise me that you had issues with them. Something along the lines of an 80D today seems pretty nice.. and the 7D models are sharp. It is sad that Canon and Nikon cut corners on their budget bodies. Pentamirror, ultra-plasticky feel, limited shutter speed, super slower burst and buffer.. at least Pentax doesn't seem to go to similar depths on their lower tier models. The K-30 is limited to 12-bit raw output and it does have a plasticky-ish feel.. but it is a lot better than say T6i Rebel or D3x00 (I've shot with them).

That said, the higher end models are very nice.. so I couldn't say the Canon or Nikon DSLRs are poorer compared to Pentax, outside of lower tiers where Pentax has a distinct feature advantage (baring lens and accessory selection).

Horses for courses I suppose..

[reh321]

Kind of ironic you came to Pentax due to hardware failure only to pickup a body that is prone to hardware failure.

The Rebel failures were both "hard" failures - without the processor, nothing happens.

The K-30 failure is a "soft" failure - right now, first photo of each day is dark; assuming it spreads to all photos, I can switch to lenses with aperture rings, and it will give me normal service.

[repaap]

The Rebel failures were both "hard" failures - without the processor, nothing happens.

The K-30 failure is a "soft" failure - right now, first photo of each day is dark; assuming it spreads to all photos, I can switch to lenses with aperture rings, and it will give me normal service.

Interesting thing is that my K-1 seems to do that very same!!? First shot of the day is black. Then normal...?? Seems like a problem in program?

[Cannikin]

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.

Best part is those lenses don't have in-lens stabilization either, so it's just straight up no stabilization at all. Great deal for your $5300 for those two lenses.

[DeadJohn]

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...

Canon could seriously hurt themselves if they did that. They would gain some new converts, but they would also get less income from all the existing Canon customers who buy at current prices. If they are not making money on each sale, more customers = more losses.

[BWG]

Surely you mean six?

I forgot all about the 20-40. No, I don’t have it.

[BigMackCam]

Best part is those lenses don't have in-lens stabilization either, so it's just straight up no stabilization at all. Great deal for your $5300 for those two lenses.

Yeah, that's a weird decision on Canon's part - to offer a body and premium lenses without stabilisation. Just strange

For a lot of photography, it shouldn't be a problem, as at those focal lengths (and with the sensor's pixel pitch) the reciprocal rule will be sufficient to avoid blur due to shake. But it significantly limits minimum usable shutter speeds. I'm looking forward to hearing what was behind Canon's thinking. I've no doubt they thought it through and will have what they feel are good reasons for taking that decision. I just can't think what those reasons might be

[surfar]

those lenses don't have in-lens stabilization😊😊😊



that's a weird decision on Canon's part - to offer a body and premium lenses without stabilisation.

The body is stabilised electronically, thats what Canon are relying on.

Most of the reviewers skimmed over the specs and condemned both the Nikon and the Canon.For a number of things, and they are still ignorant of the facts...just a few have pointed out why both CaNik excluded "the accepted".

None of the cameras are released, lets wait and see what the real cameras are.I think a lot of people are in for some surprises.

[Dan Rentea]

Best part is those lenses don't have in-lens stabilization either, so it's just straight up no stabilization at all. Great deal for your $5300 for those two lenses.

You don't shoot at f1.2 or f1.4 at 1/20s or 1/40s so that you have to rely on stabilisation. At f1.2 or f1.4 the subject has to be frozen if you want to catch him in focus at low shutter speeds given the tiny DOF.

[BigMackCam]

You don't shoot at f1.2 or f1.4 at 1/20s or 1/40s so that you have to rely on stabilisation. At f1.2 or f1.4 the subject has to be frozen if you want to catch him in focus at low shutter speeds given the tiny DOF.

But, those lenses won't be used wide open all the time... That's just one feature. Many times, the photographer will want to stop down to achieve their desired DOF, and in lower light that's going to mean bumping up the ISO to keep shutter speed at or above the reciprocal limit.

[Dan Rentea]

But, those lenses won't be used wide open all the time... That's just one feature. Many times, the photographer will want to stop down to achieve their desired DOF, and in lower light that's going to mean bumping up the ISO to keep shutter speed at or above the reciprocal limit.

I don't deny the usefulness of image stabilisation and I do like to have it, especially when it comes to tele lenses starting from 85mm. When I shoot people, I tend to use shutter speeds like 1/100s and faster and with lenses up to 70mm the image stabilisation doesn't add anything which can help me. Yes, for tele lenses starting from 85mm image stabilisation becomes more usefull, especially in the situation you mentioned, when you want to close down the aperture. Even if I stop down the aperture at f5.6, the motion of the subject can't be avoided by turning the image stabilisation on in order to shoot at 1/40s or slower so I still have to use a fast shutter speed or I can freeze the action using flash.

I guess it depends on the subject photographed. Again, I would like to have image stabilisation in body for comfort, but for wide and normal lenses with fast aperture I didn't find the lack of the image stabilisation a real concern.

[BigMackCam]

I guess it depends on the subject photographed. Again, I would like to have image stabilisation in body for comfort, but for wide and normal lenses with fast aperture I didn't find the lack of the image stabilisation a real concern.

Agreed. In fact, with my Hasselblad HV, it's not possible to input the focal length for non-native lenses, so when I'm shooting those I have to disable stabilisation - and it rarely, if ever, causes me any problem... though I do sometimes have to shoot at higher ISO settings than I would with my A7 MkII with stabilisation running...