Nikon’s new mirrorless system, coming in ... late September 2018

[KLaban]

Right now I believe that the D850 is still superior to the a7rIII. But it seems clear that the mirrorless technology is maturing quickly and some of the advantages such as better eye AF, and more compact designs, more design freedom for lenses are very powerful, even if the current gen isn’t quite there yet.

So I would first add a mirrorless body and start to build a lens portfolio, probably starting with a 35mm as my first usage would be street photography.

I have considering a Leica M10 many times and gave up on the idea every time because of focus accuracy concerns. The mirrorless body’s first mission will be a Leica alternative.

Cheers,
Bernard

With eyesight problems in mind my desired full frame AF mirrorless offering would be based on the form of the Leica M series with the EVF of the SL in place of the rangefinder: an interchangeable lens Q offering AF native lenses and M lenses via an adapter.

There are plenty of folk out there hoping for similar. The surprise is that it hasn't yet made an appearance. 

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

What is wrong with the SL? Is it the size?

Best regards
Erik

With eyesight problems in mind my desired full frame AF mirrorless offering would be based on the form of the Leica M series with the EVF of the SL in place of the rangefinder: an interchangeable lens Q offering AF native lenses and M lenses via an adapter.

There are plenty of folk out there hoping for similar. The surprise is that it hasn't yet made an appearance.

[Telecaster]

With eyesight problems in mind my desired full frame AF mirrorless offering would be based on the form of the Leica M series with the EVF of the SL in place of the rangefinder: an interchangeable lens Q offering AF native lenses and M lenses via an adapter.

I've been using my Sony A7iii/Techart combo as something like that. It's not an optimal solution at all, but with 40mm+ lenses it works well enough for me to keep using it.

-Dave-

[KLaban]

Hi,

What is wrong with the SL? Is it the size?

Best regards
Erik

Indeed, the body and native lenses.

[D Fuller]

With eyesight problems in mind my desired full frame AF mirrorless offering would be based on the form of the Leica M series with the EVF of the SL in place of the rangefinder: an interchangeable lens Q offering AF native lenses and M lenses via an adapter.

There are plenty of folk out there hoping for similar. The surprise is that it hasn't yet made an appearance.

That sounds almost like the spec sheet for the Leica CL. It's APS-C, but I'm pretty sure it checks every box on your list.

[KLaban]

That sounds almost like the spec sheet for the Leica CL. It's APS-C, but I'm pretty sure it checks every box on your list.

Except full frame.

I've already downsized from medium format and wouldn't want a further downsize, also I wouldn't want to compromise the focal lengths of my existing M series lenses.

[Rand47]

With eyesight problems in mind my desired full frame AF mirrorless offering would be based on the form of the Leica M series with the EVF of the SL in place of the rangefinder: an interchangeable lens Q offering AF native lenses and M lenses via an adapter.

There are plenty of folk out there hoping for similar. The surprise is that it hasn't yet made an appearance.

Minus the FF, (which is much less relevant these days than once it was) the Fuji X-Pro 2 fits your description nicely! 😀

Rand

[KLaban]

Minus the FF, (which is much less relevant these days than once it was) the Fuji X-Pro 2 fits your description nicely! 😀

Rand

No it doesn't. Please see my post above.

I've used the X-pro, problem is when I pick it up all I want to do is put it down.

[Rob C]

No it doesn't. Please see my post above.

I've used the X-pro, problem is when I pick it up all I want to do is put it down.

Quite the opposite to how I felt about my last employer's M3 back in '65...

Rob

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

Personally, I see gear mostly as an imaging device. If it delivers great images I tend to ignore the rest.

Best regards
Erik

No it doesn't. Please see my post above.

I've used the X-pro, problem is when I pick it up all I want to do is put it down.

[KLaban]

Hi,

Personally, I see gear mostly as an imaging device. If it delivers great images I tend to ignore the rest.

Best regards
Erik

I need to love using my camera. Hopefully it will allow me to deliver great images.

[chez]

Hi,

Personally, I see gear mostly as an imaging device. If it delivers great images I tend to ignore the rest.

Best regards
Erik

I'm with you here as far as great images...but the damn outfit needs to be light. I'm done lugging heavy bulky gear through heated, humid, crowded alleys.

[Martin Kristiansen]

I'm with you here as far as great images...but the damn outfit needs to be light. I'm done lugging heavy bulky gear through heated, humid, crowded alleys.

I’m with you. But it takes some discipline. I am starting to carry more stuff and end up with the same weight.

[BernardLanguillier]

I’m with you. But it takes some discipline. I am starting to carry more stuff and end up with the same weight.

The moment you start to carry a tripod and a few lenses, the relative weight saving becomes negligible.

Most middle aged man have far greater weight loss potential watching their diet and doing more exercise.

Cheers,
Bernard

[KLaban]

I'm down to one small body and lens in hand (wrist strap/grip) and another small body and lens in a very small bag (bandolier). Works for me.

I've been the same weight (70kg) for my entire adult life.

;-)

[KLaban]

Quite the opposite to how I felt about my last employer's M3 back in '65...

Rob

I'm sure most current imaging devices that are available today would meet my needs in terms of image performance, but yes, I think one instinctively knows when a camera is right.

[scooby70]

The moment you start to carry a tripod and a few lenses, the relative weight saving becomes negligible.

Most middle aged man have far greater weight loss potential watching their diet and doing more exercise.

Cheers,
Bernard

If you're carrying the biggest f2.8 zooms and a tripod maybe the camera body becomes insignificant but I can carry my A7 and three or four compact primes in a small bag and my tripod easily. My 5D plus lenses were enough on their own and as much as I'd want to carry and needed a much bigger bag.

[BernardLanguillier]

If you're carrying the biggest f2.8 zooms and a tripod maybe the camera body becomes insignificant but I can carry my A7 and three or four compact primes in a small bag and my tripod easily. My 5D plus lenses were enough on their own and as much as I'd want to carry and needed a much bigger bag.

It would be great if you could share the list of lenses you used to carry with your 5D vs those you carry nowadays.

Cheers,
Bernard

[Martin Kristiansen]

On a long trip to remote areas of Tibet I carried a small tripod and two APSC bodies, three zooms that took me from 10 to 210 mm(equivalent to 15 to 315mm) and a bunch of little batteries. All in a messenger size bag. I have printed up to A2 no problems at all.

The FF is a little bulkier but still big weight savings overall. The problem is that I have to stop myself from taking three zooms and three primes and a flash and tripod simply because it’s all a bit lighter. For most stuff the body with the 24 to 70 is all I actually use or need.

Commercially it’s not a big deal as I tend to load up with gear and put it on a trolly.

[Rob C]

I'm down to one small body and lens in hand (wrist strap/grip) and another small body and lens in a very small bag (bandolier). Works for me.

I've been the same weight (70kg) for my entire adult life.

;-)

Spooky!

So was I, until Ann and her cooking vanished, and then I fell to around 66kg where I appear to be stranded. I conclude that age plays its bit too, because my biceps now hang where there was nothing visible before, and the pecs are fighting better judgement to say hello! to my lower rib, possibly in search of verification of the missing one which, apparently, is biblical myth. Who knew?