A smaller camera system - your views please!

Some really interesting views here, I have enjoyed reading them all. I came to Pentax relatively recently having mainly shit Mirrorless (starting with Sony, then Micro Four Thirds for many years and eventually settling on Nikon Z for a few years). I used to always think I wanted a smaller camera, but it was getting a Nikon D4S that made me realise the comfort of handling a camera matters more than the weight. I still kept my Nikon ZF, but in all honesty since I got the K1 Mark II Last year it has had very little use. If you really want Mirrorless I can recommend Nikon Z in particular because they are the best for adapting vintage lenses. As a travel set-up for my last trip I took the K1 II with the 43mm 1.9, and the 135mm 3.5. With these two lenses this was about as light and easy to handle travel set up as I can imagine ever wanting. Apologies if that was a ramble but thought it might be of interest coming from someone who didn't start in the Pentax ecosystem but came from Mirrorless.

An interesting post, SF62. It wasn't a 'ramble' at all, As you say, it comes from someone who 'came from Mirrorless.' Thus, incredibly useful. Thank you.

John should be congratulated for posting the original question. I have no doubt that others have asked the same thing. I know I did, hence my trying out of Leica.

Hasselblad is interesting so I wonder if there will be any comments about that system.

We continue to learn.

Thanks Lennybloke

That's an estimate, I can weigh everything out, or itemise it but the biggest weight is the 25 - 45 lens.

There's additional batteries, filters and a flash plus trigger in that as well

Total weight is 11.2kg inc bag and bits and bobs 645z, 28 - 45, 45 - 85, 80 - 160, 120 macro with ext tubes

Do you get a free hernia with that ?

Currently looking around ourselves for what’s next.

Looking at OM System and trialling the OM-5 mkii as a taster. Mix of basic lenses to get started - the 17mm prime is tiny and makes the whole thing really compact.

Miss the image quality of the Pentax but need to do a fair comparison and make sure using similar lens qualities. 4:3 is an odd aspect ratio and the smaller sensor means thinking in a different effective field of view that I’m used to > 1.6 on aps-c vs 2.0 on m43.

Overall package is much smaller than the k-3. Much more modern aspects like usb-c charging makes it ideal for travelling. I’m not a fan of the EVF. Perhaps I should compare to the flagship OM-1 camera at nearly 3x the resolution.

OM system seem almost a spiritual connection to Pentax with great ibis and weather sealing. The computational tech doesn’t seem to be gimmicky either. Likes of live ND where you see the long exposure image building up on the screen live in front of you looks really handy.

I don’t want to change, as in I would rather stay with Pentax, but it’s like they’re not playing the modern game at all anymore. I can’t even find stores selling the k-3 iii, and any of them that will it’s a back order and very very expensive, especially given it’s already quite old and discontinued.

This interesting thread has my thoughts drifting towards (that old chestnut, pardon the pun) of the great vintage lenses available, light in weight being the obvious advantage. Not to mention the HD upgrade/ modifications to the fa limiteds.

Agree. Forgot to mention as a plus the OM System prime lenses are weather sealed. This came up in another thread here recently, but I hadn’t realised the Pentax equivalents were not - which seemed a huge opportunity oversight.

I'd get more bags and break down into sets of 3's

FF - nicely corrected - DFA21, *50, Choice of *85 or *70-200

FF - Wide to Std - DFA21, 31, *50

FF - Macro DFA50/2.8, 100WR and A*200/4

FF - Portrait - FA43(Group), 77 to be wrinkle lenient, *85 if they are young or you're feeling brutal

A bit of street shooting? All limiteds - personally I'd lean towards a 43 but we all have our personal preferences. 21 for wider, 31 as catch all, 43 for the moment, and 77 to lock in a subject.

APSC? DA15, 20-40 & 55-300, very light, versatile, perhaps a 77 to give a bit of speed for not much weight or size.

One big bag needed for the DFA*s, the rest can go into a smaller Billinghams easily enough, with a flash or two, wipes, cards, batteries.

No need to go complicating life with another system when there'll be a new K-1 soon

@robbiec - funnily enough that's pretty much the approach I've been taking for the last year or two, and your FF suggestion is my preferred option most of the time - BUT ( that's a big but), even the weight of the DFA21, *50, Choice of *85 or *70-200 is too much for a several hour walk. The last walk I did up in the Lake district I chose to take the DFA21, the DFA*50/1.4 and the F*300/4.5 - that was just about manageable and when I checked the photos I'd taken I found that I'd used the 300mm once, the 50mm 30+ times and the 21mm 190+ times.

@richandfleur - I can see the appeal of the OM system, they certainly tick the weigh/size option and the WR I take for granted (being a Pentax die-hard) but it's the crop-ability and potentially the lack of shallow focus that it fails on for me.

@loadoftripe - the compatibility with older lens is of course the bedrock of many Pentax users systems, to be able to use my K28/2.0 and A*85/1.4 is just a joy - but I don't think I'd ever fully part with Pentax anyway, I'd just like a more comfortable option for trips.


I'm hoping to get up to Leamington Spa over the summer in the hope that they have a couple of option to explore - Urbanmeister suggest the Hasselblad which has lead me on to the cheaper Fujifilm MF options!

If I get up there I'll report back on my finding

The other option for travelling light is keeping things simple, perhaps just taking one lens rather than every lens that we own. Really stemming from doing reviews, where a trip out for sample shots is a focused, single minded affair. If subjects come up that can't be covered, then they have to wait for another day, but by and large a single lens can be used creatively in a surprsingly wide set of circumstances.

As an example, I use the 18-135mm lens most of the time and it is very rare that unexpected subjects arise that need something closer focusing or longer. I would not take that lens as a choice to, say, Martin Mere to photograph birds, but then I'd choose something else for that day. A trip to a stately home could be covered with the 18-135mm plus an ultra-wide prime and the overall burden would still be be fairly reasonable.

One thing I have noticed is that sometimes photographers carry everything in their bags, even chargers and flash guns into situations where these are just not needed. So a close look at what we carry and what we actually need could also reduce the load.