- I am just questioning the presumption in the original post that its a problem - which is a totally legitimate stance to take. Feel free to disagree, but I fail to see how either of my posts were "ranting".
I think we can adapt to most things, however we do have a preference. For example I can use small cameras such as the Sony RX100 but it does feel small and fiddly. That doesn't mean it's not useable of course.I really don’t get the ‘big hands’ issue with cameras.
According to glove manufacturers my hands are Large, and I’ve never had a problem with the handling of any camera. Whether the Fuji XE1 or a pro DSLR.
I think there’s always been so much nonsense talked about camera size.
The ‘small’ 6d which is comparable to the R5 and 6 is bigger than an AE1p, which was apparently a perfect size decades ago, but smaller than the EOS 5, which was also a perfect size.
Early DSLR’s were ‘too big’ even though they were similar in size to the EOS5. And as soon as they got smaller, but still bigger than film SLR’s they became too small.
So is the problem the size of cameras? Or simply that people now believe that if something isn’t exactly what they wish it to be, it’s WRONG.
TBF I very quickly replaced all my short EF lenses with RF, because the added weight and size just felt ‘wrong’. An adaptor that almost doubles the weight and length of a 50mm is unwieldy to me.I think we can adapt to most things, however we do have a preference. For example I can use small cameras such as the Sony RX100 but it does feel small and fiddly. That doesn't mean it's not useable of course.
What I don't get is people who buy something and then moan about it. I get that not everyone has access to a store to try before you buy, but I would hazard a guess most people do. And for those that don't you have 14 days to return if you don't like it
I must admit, I felt the same way about the adapter when I used the 50L on the R3. I was very impressed with how a lens that I'd have to take three frames to ensure one in focus would nail it every time but still give a less clinical look that it's modern version.
I get it, but haven't found that to be a problem. I'm still only at 2 RF lenses - 85 1.2 and 135 1.8.
Almost as soon as I got the R6 I bought the 50 and 85 because I hated the adaptor on 2 of my most used lenses.
Thanks Phil. How do you rate the 24-70 vs the EF mark 2?Almost as soon as I got the R6 I bought the 50 and 85 because I hated the adaptor on 2 of my most used lenses.
Since then I bought the 24-70 (my retirement present to myself) and the 16mm as it was a bargain whilst buying the zoom.
And I’m now eyeing up the 70-200 f4 as I’ve recently spent a lot of time using my old 2.8 and I really think the weight saving is worth the spend. It’s about a kilo lighter
I never owned the EF version - long story, my std zoom was the 17-55, then I started using primes almost exclusively.
I’m surprised you found the gap between the grip and lens too small on the A7IV. Mark III and older I definitely struggled with this but not anymore. The A1 II and A9 III have even more distance between the grip and lens so I’d imagine other future Sony bodies to follow suit. I guess we’ll see later this year (probably) when the A7V comes out.
No my knuckle was resting on the lens but we are all built differently, so what works for one may not work for the other
I have Om4 ti and that feels more ergonomic in the hand than the r5 mk2.
Factor of 1000 there @Phil V (tongue firmly in cheek)
