Re: Camera size has the K-1 available for comparison.

Malcolm Smith wrote: >P.J. Alling wrote: > >> It's quite a bit smaller than the Nikon D810. >> >> http://camerasize.com/compare/#659,557 > >I know I'm in the minority, but I like the size of the D810. If you have >large hands, this continual race to make a smaller camera results in tiny >buttons

Re: Camera size has the K-1 available for comparison.

I'm pleased that it's of substantial mass. It will be a better match for the 150-450 in terms of balance. But regardless of that is the package bigger than it has to be to accommodate the 24x36 sensor and features? I don't know. How does it compare to comparable Nikon and Canon products. Paul

Re: Camera size has the K-1 available for comparison.

On 2/18/2016 9:45 PM, Mark C wrote: Yeah - but 6x7 / 67 lenses are pretty big and heavy. With lens attached the 6x7 would be quite a bit larger and heavier. I've handled some of these new lenses Pentax is making. Granted they are zooms, but they are also ginormous. Note that the K1 body

Re: Camera size has the K-1 available for comparison.

On 2/18/2016 10:45 PM, Mark C wrote: Yeah - but 6x7 / 67 lenses are pretty big and heavy. With lens attached the 6x7 would be quite a bit larger and heavier. On 2/18/2016 8:28 PM, Bill wrote: The K1 is 136.5 x 110 x 85.5 and weighs 1010 grams. For comparison, the Pentax 67 was 177 x101 x91.

RE: Camera size has the K-1 available for comparison.

P.J. Alling wrote: > It's quite a bit smaller than the Nikon D810. > > http://camerasize.com/compare/#659,557 I know I'm in the minority, but I like the size of the D810. If you have large hands, this continual race to make a smaller camera results in tiny buttons to press. Nothing wrong with a

Re: Camera size has the K-1 available for comparison.

Yeah - but 6x7 / 67 lenses are pretty big and heavy. With lens attached the 6x7 would be quite a bit larger and heavier. On 2/18/2016 8:28 PM, Bill wrote: The K1 is 136.5 x 110 x 85.5 and weighs 1010 grams. For comparison, the Pentax 67 was 177 x101 x91. and weighed 1290 grams. bill ---

Re: Camera size has the K-1 available for comparison.

Bill wrote: > > On 2016-02-18 12:32 , P.J. Alling wrote: >> The image I stole to post last night was a bit misleading. The K-1 is >> quite >> a bit bigger than the K-3II. >> >> http://camerasize.com/compare/#659,619 > >The K1 is 136.5 x 110 x 85.5 and weighs 1010 grams. > >For comparison, the

Re: Camera size has the K-1 available for comparison.

On 2016-02-18 12:32 , P.J. Alling wrote: The image I stole to post last night was a bit misleading. The K-1 is quite a bit bigger than the K-3II. http://camerasize.com/compare/#659,619 The K1 is 136.5 x 110 x 85.5 and weighs 1010 grams. For comparison, the Pentax 67 was 177 x101 x91. and

Re: Camera size has the K-1 available for comparison.

Well the boyz from digitalrev seem to think that m43 has hit or is about to hit a dead end. That Olympus has no where to go improving it's sensor, that it's about topped out in dynamic range, resolution etc. I'm not sure I see it that way, but hey it's a data point. I happen to think the

Re: Camera size has the K-1 available for comparison.

On 2016-02-18 12:32 , P.J. Alling wrote: The image I stole to post last night was a bit misleading. The K-1 is quite a bit bigger than the K-3II. http://camerasize.com/compare/#659,619 alas, this is the direction camera life has been leading me:

Re: Camera size has the K-1 available for comparison.

Well, I appreciate you doing this crap. ;) I've been *this* close a couple of times to pulling the trigger on a D750, but I prefer a smallish-er camera... :) -c On Thu, Feb 18, 2016 at 2:32 PM, P.J. Alling wrote: > The image I stole to post last night was a bit