Finally succumbed

Finally given in and bought a mirrorless camera complete with the "kit" lenses. Can't believe the difference in weight from the K-3 (gripped or ungripped). I will still be keeping the K-70, which at the moment has a bellows attached and 2mm microscope objective, but may well trade in the K-3, (7459 shutter count). I won't be leaving Pentax completely so will stay on the forum etc. I have an adapter with which I can use the old lenses with an aperture ring on the mirrorless but as yet not tried out any of those.

Be interested to know how you get on with your new system, and apart from the weight advantage, how image quality and versatility etc compare! All the best Stan.

Let's not forget the purpose of the forum though, that is to discuss Pentax related subjects. Obviously sometimes there is a bit of overlap that is of Pentax interest, but we have kept things, shall we say Pentaxocentric? Does that word even exist?

Why did you keep the K70 rather than the K3?

Best wishes with the new system Stan but I'm glad you're keeping a Pentax presence.
I've been amazed at the number of serious photographers who've been going over to mirrorless systems in the past couple of years. I can see the benefit of lighter gear, especially for those of us of a certain age, but not so long ago the race was on for bigger, better(?) full frame cameras. Quite a few people in my camera club have made the leap, some of them top class operators.
For now I'll resist the move to mirrorless although I must admit the weight of my gear seems to get heavier as I get older especially as I use my D FA*70-200 zoom more and more often. (Its such a superb lens but its heavy).
It means my lightest and smallest DSLR, the blue K30, is getting more and more use, particularly when I go hunting for street photo opportunities.
David

I suspect many who were too quick to switch to mirrorless from Nikon and Canon harbour regrets now, especially if they needed to replace expensive lenses, flash and other accessories. As for the heavy f 2.8 70-200mm, an f4 version is due next spring and I dare say some will be keen to swop, cheaper than changing whole systems.

Moving to mirrorless, change is required to:

- Focus method (equivalent to live view focusing).
- Viewfinder.

Most everything else is the same, including ergonomics, menu systems, physical mode/adjustment dials, sensor, battery, SD card slots, SR, mechanical shutter etc

I believe there's more in common between DSLR's and Mirrorless cameras than different. They take photos in the same way, via mechanical shutter, so they're more similar than say an iPhone or GoPro with a full electronic shutter only.

All I want is a Pentax that can track something moving (eg my kids on a bike, skiing or running race/athletics day etc), give me that sweet eye AF for portraits and some improved (lets say 2016? vs 2012 currently :thumbdown: ) level video capabilities, so I can use that same rugged body, nice sensor with technical SR and fleet of lenses for video as well as stills

I like the 2.8 capability of my 70-200 particularly when I'm doing railway photography in poor light or at events such as the Edinburgh Fringe where I'm grabbing on-the-move portraits of performers and want to have great bokeh. I frequently go wider than f4.
But f4 v f2.8 raises a technical question that I don't quite understand. Does any f2.8 lens stopped down to f4 give better image quality than a wide open f4? I'm sure some of the technical wizards on here will know the answer.
David

I can't use either the K-5 or K-1 without the Pentax O-ME53 Viewfinder Magnifying Eyecup. I hate the smaller view without it. I wonder if mirrorless would be the same?

Can a magnifier be used with mirrorless. Is the view small without?


--

Older lenses used to be better stopped down at least two stops. Nowdays they can be designed to give excellent results wide open. The Pentax DA* 300mm f/4 doesn't get any sharper stopping down except when the 1.4x TC is added in which case one stop down is better. The 70-200mm f/2.8 is very sharp wide open and I would expect it to be better than an f/4 lens. An f/4 version could be made to be sharp at f/4, but to save on costs it might not be.

--

Another point on the f/2.8 and f/4 debate is the fact that the f/4 lens on the K-1 will for most intents and purposes give an image very similar to that of a 50-135/2.8 on an APS-C camera.

Now pretty much everyone knows how amazing the bokeh was on the old DA* lens so I don't think the look of an image will suffer at all. The only trade off will be the extra stop of light from f/2.8 on the DA* to f/4 on the D-FA.

The 70-200/2.8 is in a league of its own regarding bokeh and can only be beaten by prime lenses.

Main reason for change is weight. As for image quality its probably on a par with other cameras with the "kit" lenses. To answer Barrie, I would keep the K-70 for the articulated view screen as the camera is mainly used for photographing things like a slide of the inside of a snails mouth and other microscopic items and I don't have to get into funny angles to watch the focus. I have an old Canon 650D on my microscope bought because the software was very easy to set up and again articulated screen. Knowing me I will probably keep the K-3 too but also needed to appease the "Financial Controller". Advantage of K-3 two card slots and two batteries when gripped. My eyesight is not that good now and I don't get out as much due to back problems so weight of kit is important to me.

I think you like the articulated view screen for selfies


--

woudnt a Q have sufficed?

Looked at a Q ages ago, Barrie had/has one and it seemed tiny. At the time I was in much better condition for the heavyweight stuff.