Why I think Pentax Is Just Fine and Mirrorless failed

Digital Camera World: We don’t want smaller cameras, we want SMALLER LENSES (or even bigger cameras).

We don’t want smaller cameras, we want SMALLER LENSES (or even bigger cameras) | Digital Camera World

 

 

Pentax hasn't really budged on the DSLR stance. It hasn't abandoned the K mount. And it still makes great DSLRs with a great mount that has been updated just enough. The thing is, Pentax lenses are matched to the bodies, even old lenses feel great on a new(ish) K-1 and new lenses even better. But this article on where the mirrorless body lenses and bodies go wrong really shows why Pentax never bailing on its system is a good thing. The system just works. No gimmicks. No tiny bodies and giant lenses and the smallest bodies and the pancake lenses work perfectly. The bodies are perfectly sized and balanced to the system. So hate the quirks or love them, but Pentax is a lot more sound a system and a lot more balanced than people have really given credit for.

Here is my Travel Gear: Pentax camera: K5- IIs, Pentax Lenses 15mm f4, 20-40 f2.8-4, 70mm f2.4 If Mirrorless has anything smaller than that please let me now..

Here is my Travel Gear: Pentax camera: K5- IIs, Pentax Lenses 15mm f4, 20-40 f2.8-4, 70mm f2.4 If Mirrorless has anything smaller than that please let me now..

Well, Olympus makes some pretty small bodies and lens. I have one that I take bicycling with me because it is smaller. And, then there is Fuji who has some smaller bodies as well. Now Sony, Nikon and Canon all have smaller body mirrorless too. I once owned the Pentax K-01 and liked it in general. I think they should have put a VF on that body and it would have been much more popular; with the DA lens on it the system was pretty small. I like mirrorless and I think it is the future in most cameras. I am not saying there is not a place for DSLR optical VF bodies, but choices are good. I like my Pentax but I also like my mirrorless cameras too.

It really depends on your choice of gear. You could stick a giant zoom on a 24x36 camera. OTOH here’s a kit I often use...

I'm guessing the OP(and obviously the author of the article)never spent quality time with a Fuji XT or X-Pro series body and the petite "Fujicron" primes.

It really depends on your choice of gear. You could stick a giant zoom on a 24x36 camera. OTOH here’s a kit I often use...

[ATTACH=full]1344747[/ATTACH]

I belong to a Photo Club in my area and once in a while a salesman from "Bedford Camera" our local retailer will come by to demonstrate some new product they are selling there. A few months ago a salesman came to our group meeting to demonstrate mirror less cameras from different manufacturers. He would talk a little about the camera then pass each camera around the room so all of us could get a feel for them.

 

The cameras he demonstrated was the Nikon Z6 and Z7 , the Sony 7 Ar III, The Canon EOS R, the Fuji XT3 ? All the cameras seemed impressive, but since we didn't have the time to really test them, so we had to go by looks and feel. To me and this just my humble opinion there was a tie between the Nikon Z6 and the Sony 7 AR III as far as how the cameras felt in my hands. The Canon camera was small enough, but the size of the lens negated any benefits you gained from the size of the camera. You could say the same about the Nikon and the Sony, but to a lesser extent. The Fuji was just too small and toy-like and I have small hands ! I know the trend these days is to go smaller and lighter, but I still like the heft I feel from some camera bodies. Although pretty small, the Pentax K-5 offers a lot of heft. At least you know that you are not paying for plastic.

I belong to a Photo Club in my area and once in a while a salesman from "Bedford Camera" our local retailer will come by to demonstrate some new product they are selling there. A few months ago a salesman came to our group meeting to demonstrate mirror less cameras from different manufacturers. He would talk a little about the camera then pass each camera around the room so all of us could get a feel for them.

 

The cameras he demonstrated was the Nikon Z6 and Z7 , the Sony 7 Ar III, The Canon EOS R, the Fuji XT3 ? All the cameras seemed impressive, but since we didn't have the time to really test them, so we had to go by looks and feel. To me and this just my humble opinion there was a tie between the Nikon Z6 and the Sony 7 AR III as far as how the cameras felt in my hands. The Canon camera was small enough, but the size of the lens negated any benefits you gained from the size of the camera. You could say the same about the Nikon and the Sony, but to a lesser extent. The Fuji was just too small and toy-like and I have small hands ! I know the trend these days is to go smaller and lighter, but I still like the heft I feel from some camera bodies. Although pretty small, the Pentax K-5 offers a lot of heft. At least you know that you are not paying for plastic.

 

Fuji makes a few sizes. I find the X-T small (though the X-T4 is a bit larger than the 3) but the X-H is a great size. But don’t be fooled by heft. A lot of these mirrorless cameras are small and light but have a tough metal build.

Fuji makes a few sizes. I find the X-T small (though the X-T4 is a bit larger than the 3) but the X-H is a great size. But don’t be fooled by heft. A lot of these mirrorless cameras are small and light but have a tough metal build.

 

Dunno but the battery grip on the XT-1 right-sizes it for me. The metal hand grip does the trick on a second XT-1 and my X100T. Despite having big paws, I found the XT form factor to be Goldilocks perfect—but then I have a couple pet Nikon FE bodies I adore.YMMV, as always.

I find Fuji's APSc mirrorless cameras to be 'just right' in terms of size.

Cameras have come in many different shapes and sizes over the years, but I don't understand the current obsession with enormous SLRs. I find the battery grip makes my X-T2 too big and cumbersome for my taste, but I appreciate the benefits for portrait shooting and battery life. It's still probably the smallest interchangable lens camera in my camera club though.

I find Fuji's APSc mirrorless cameras to be 'just right' in terms of size.

[ATTACH=full]1345091[/ATTACH]

Cameras have come in many different shapes and sizes over the years, but I don't understand the current obsession with enormous SLRs. I find the battery grip makes my X-T2 too big and cumbersome for my taste, but I appreciate the benefits for portrait shooting and battery life. It's still probably the smallest interchangable lens camera in my camera club though.

I agree that many DSLRs seem huge and heavy, but for those of us who began with film SLRs, it is important to remember the added size and weight that a 3 or 4 fps motor drive added to the more svelte dimensions of something like a Pentax MX. These monster DSLRs are shooting at 8 or 9 fps or faster, have autofocus, etc. so it isn't really surprising that they are bigger and heavier. Think of the size and weight if all of this was powered by 1970's era NiCads!

I agree that many DSLRs seem huge and heavy, but for those of us who began with film SLRs, it is important to remember the added size and weight that a 3 or 4 fps motor drive added to the more svelte dimensions of something like a Pentax MX. These monster DSLRs are shooting at 8 or 9 fps or faster, have autofocus, etc. so it isn't really surprising that they are bigger and heavier. Think of the size and weight if all of this was powered by 1970's era NiCads!

But that motor drive was (usually) removable...

 

I think the ability to configure a system to the users needs and tastes mustn't be overlooked; I take the camera and lens(es) I feel most suited to the work I'll be doing. For portrait or event work, I'd be perfectly ok with a big dSLR, or, in my case, a gripped X-T2. But for more general use, traveling, hiking or just wandering around with a camera, I like something smaller.

 

If I could only have one camera, it would be a smaller one, with a grip as an optional (but not essential) extra.

 

I don't and won't shoot massive zooms though, so in that respect, I agree with the linked article; the overall balance of the system is important. While I agree that a bigger body better balances a bigger lens, my back prefers smaller, lighter systems.

 

(and in a pinch, even the X-E1 pictured above can shoot at 6fps, something which still boggles the mind coming from a film mentality)

I can see why Pentax doesn't make mirrorless. They started out making SLR before other manufacturers. They have SLR's as big as 6x7 and as small as 110.

But that motor drive was (usually) removable...

 

I think the ability to configure a system to the users needs and tastes mustn't be overlooked; I take the camera and lens(es) I feel most suited to the work I'll be doing. For portrait or event work, I'd be perfectly ok with a big dSLR, or, in my case, a gripped X-T2. But for more general use, traveling, hiking or just wandering around with a camera, I like something smaller.

 

If I could only have one camera, it would be a smaller one, with a grip as an optional (but not essential) extra.

 

I don't and won't shoot massive zooms though, so in that respect, I agree with the linked article; the overall balance of the system is important. While I agree that a bigger body better balances a bigger lens, my back prefers smaller, lighter systems.

 

(and in a pinch, even the X-E1 pictured above can shoot at 6fps, something which still boggles the mind coming from a film mentality)

I agree that smaller and lighter cameras are certainly desirable--that is a major reason why I started using Pentax 35 mm SLRs back in the 1970's. With the exception of the fairly massive K 1 their DSLRs have also been smaller than average, with many small compact prime lenses made to work with them along with the large f/2.8 zooms. One of the best arguments for their APS-C DSLRs is their 50-135 f/2.8 equivalent to a 75-200 on a FF camera. It is a lot lighter and easier to handhold than the typical 70-200 f/2.8, and it is also a very good lens in my experience. When I was shooting a lot of theater dress rehearsals I could work with this lens on one body and a wide angle zoom on another for several hours without a lot of discomfort--my 80-200 f/2.8 Tokina lived on a tripod with another body attached since working handheld with it under the lighting conditions that I faced wasn't going to work.

I can see why Pentax doesn't make mirrorless. They started out making SLR before other manufacturers. They have SLR's as big as 6x7 and as small as 110.

 

I hope they don't go in the way of Kodak...

Their latest pro-SLR video made me want to go shoot an SLR. But it didn’t really work because I used a Nikon.

Actually, if you go to Camera Size.com website you can compare the various sizes of cameras against others. I did not see that much difference between the Pentax K-5 II and the Fuji XT-2, except for the thickness: Compare camera dimensions side by side . Not enough to get me to switch anyway.... Edited July 19, 2020 by hjoseph7

Actually, if you go to Camera Size.com website you can compare the various sizes of cameras against others. I did not see that much difference between the Pentax K-5 II and the Fuji XT-2, except for the thickness: Compare camera dimensions side by side . Not enough to get me to switch anyway....

Well, they're both APSc, so I'd hope they would be of a similar size.

 

This is a bit more the kind of comparison I was getting at:

Compact Camera Meter

(camerasize.com)

That should show X-T2 vs K-5ii vs 7D mk 2, all with 'normal' lenses.

 

I came very close to buying a Pentax, but I came across a cheap Fuji before I saw a cheap Pentax.

Edited July 19, 2020 by steve_gallimore|1

I am at an age when, whatever optical equipment I use, the horizon appears to be undergoing a steady earthquake ! I have 7 x 42 binoculars, to try to mitigate the effects, and even for them I find resting my elbows on something solid (such as a five-barred gate) pays dividends. As for cameras, I use Pentax K10D and K20D, each with battery grip attached. The added weight (or mass, whichever is correct) means that non-subject movement is minimised, as does in-built Shake Reduction in the Pentax bodies, although there is a trade-off between high shutter speed and higher ISO, leading to more noise. I also have a couple of 'go anywhere' pocket cameras, for those days when I am firmly told 'No Photography' - but I find their lighter weight less comfortable to hold, and in my view (!) IQ is compromised by this, except for 'snapshot' type images. For me, lighter is not better.

I am at an age when, whatever optical equipment I use, the horizon appears to be undergoing a steady earthquake ! I have 7 x 42 binoculars, to try to mitigate the effects, and even for them I find resting my elbows on something solid (such as a five-barred gate) pays dividends. As for cameras, I use Pentax K10D and K20D, each with battery grip attached. The added weight (or mass, whichever is correct) means that non-subject movement is minimised, as does in-built Shake Reduction in the Pentax bodies, although there is a trade-off between high shutter speed and higher ISO, leading to more noise. I also have a couple of 'go anywhere' pocket cameras, for those days when I am firmly told 'No Photography' - but I find their lighter weight less comfortable to hold, and in my view (!) IQ is compromised by this, except for 'snapshot' type images. For me, lighter is not better.

 

Well if you like to hike or backpack to photograph nature, I can guarantee that lighter is better! Especially with an aging body to carry said equipment.

Well if you like to hike or backpack to photograph nature, I can guarantee that lighter is better! Especially with an aging body to carry said equipment.

 

I do - and I put up with the weight for the sake of the results, which I am sure would be even worse with unfamiliar equipment.

"but I find their lighter weight less comfortable to hold, and in my view (!) IQ is compromised by this, except for 'snapshot' type images. For me, lighter is not better."

 

My first digital camera was a Panasonic Lumix DMC-TZ5 point and shoot. I wanted to get my feet wet before jumping head first into digital. This was a great little camera which I still use when I don't feel like carrying a DSLR and a bunch of lenses. It fits right into a jacket pocket or large pants pocket. The great thing about this little camera was that it came with shake-reduction. It also had a Zoom lens that was the equivalent 28-280 mm on a Full frame camera. However, tying to shoot anything above 80mm and you needed a tripod or something to stabilize the camera. A tripod with a point-and-shoot ? It was nearly impossible even with the shake-reduction to get a clean shot.

I can see why Pentax doesn't make mirrorless. They started out making SLR before other manufacturers. They have SLR's as big as 6x7 and as small as 110.

Ricoh could easily make their smaller Ricoh iii bodies mirrorless. And, if they joined the "L" group could make bodies without having to immediately make lens. Just a thought.

I'm enjoying my various pre-DSLR Pentax lenses on my Samsung NX5 and other Samsung NX. Incredible 28.5 sensors, easily equal to CanIkon, M setting is nearly instanatly intuitive ( like Leica/film era). No need to use Samsung's own excellent "mirrorless" lenses unless I want/need a zoom.. Sometimes I carry full Samsung along with Samsung/Pentax. Different strokes.

 

Favorite Pentax lens on Samsung APSC is 50/1.4 (i.e 75/1.4). Pentax 85/2 is astounding and 50/2.8 macro is incredible on APSC. Little need for image stab down to maybe 1/10th.