Yes, I can see the logic in that. If the weight factor doesn't loom large, it's the next big step up in quality and versatility.

I have the 20mm Pancake too and it's become to me what my 35mm f2 was on my Nikon SLRs in my professional days, the lens on which I do everything unless there's a good reason to change it.

I'm touched, thanks very much.

I've had some great conversations here and learnt a lot.

The Micro 4/3 forums tend to be less entertaining for me because the cameras, while capable, are more consumer orientated so there is less of the talented amateur, enthusiast and professional input on their forums than on the Pentax User forum.

A Pentax rangefinder/ EVF hybrid viewfinder that would take the pancake lenses

What a brilliant idea because the lenses already exist so a ready made market worldwide for such a camera.

Yes please! Where can I pay my deposit?

I hoped I had framed my post in such a way that I had made it clear that I had no axe to grind nor was I expressing any resentments, so that any angry replies would be forestalled. I thought my thoughts and reasons might be of interest to a few people.

If that's not clear or the post is inappropriate, please feel free to delete it John.

This isn't one of those whinging 'why I'm giving up Pentax' posts!

However, I am selling my Pentax gear - K5, lenses from 12-44 zoom, 60-250mm, 200 2.8 and many in between. The camera is superb, I have no complaints. Neither do I have about the lenses, each and every one of them a great example of its type. So why am I selling?

I bought a Panasonic GH2 as a carry around camera, with a few Olympus and Panasonic lenses. A 12mm f2, 45mm f1.8 17mm f1.7 and others to come as my gear sells.

I also supply pix to Alamy, which has pretty stringent IQ requirements. My first 80 images on the GH2 passed QC with no problems. The camera is light, versatile and a joy to use with its large, bright EVF, articulated LCD and ergonomic control layout and alternative touch screen control which I personally adore.

No, its out and out image quality doesn't match the K5, nor its image capture speed. But it is light, I can carry a couple of bodies plus lenses in a tiny and light bag compared to my K5 and equivalent lenses.

The things I, as an EX Pro, now keeping my hand in with stock images, need to do are done perfectly well by this 4/3 camera. And with the new 16Mp sensor, with good quality up to 1600 ISO. I'd put the quality at about 1.5 stops behind the K5 noise wise. For my purposes, good enough.

I'm selling now because I ain't getting younger and the weight of the 4/3 stuff on my back is so much easier when I'm cycling (my main transport) and photographing around London. I can slip the camera and the new, tiny, 28-85mm equivalent X zoom in my shoulder bag so that it is always with me now that I am a lazy old s*d.

I had thought of getting a set of pancake lenses for the K5 but in order to get the long focal lengths, the laws of physics dictate they get very big.

The main reason I have made my decision now, however, is that I waited for Pentax to produce some radical new stuff. And they did, the Q. But getting images from that past the stock agency IQ Nazis(:wink would be, like with my old LX3 Panasonic, just too painstaking.

I had hoped they would produce a mirrorless micro 4/3 on the same general philosophy as the K5. I think such a model from Pentax would have knocked the GH2 into a cocked hat. But Pentax appear not to take my personal requirements into consideration when making their global corporate decisions

If I could have kept the K5 and lenses and bought the Panasonic/ Olympus stuff as well, I would have. Unfortunately, buying one means selling the other in my real world.

I anyone sees any criticism of Pentax or their products in this post, they should read it again. I am as happy with the equipment as when I bought it and my thoughts would apply the same if it had been Nikon or Canon. Please no muck throwing!

I just thought I'd put my view forward for what it's worth (nothing, did I hear?) as a discussion topic. My feeling is that micro 4/3 represents a fertile future development platform for all makers. Pentax, Nikon, Sony, Canon etc all make DSLRs.

Why can't they all make micro 4/3rds as well?

There seems to be a bit of paranoia in this thread. People looking at you funny because you use a certain brand of camera? Oooer

The Pentax K5 is a very good camera and holds its own with any other in its price range. I doubt the the OP would regret such a change but really, any comparable priced Nikon, Canon or Sony would do much the same job.

Given the lenses he is being offered, a k5 would be a good buy.

My little haiku for lost pages...

The links should work now.

If not, for pix link here

I have one, bought a few months ago. The first one I bought was very eccentric, it would focus perfectly, then not, then hunt around.

I took it back (to MicroGlobe) and they gave me a replacement. Chalk and cheese. A very, very sharp lens, by f2.8 as sharp as any I have.

It is very usable at f1.4 though you need to be very careful over your focussing accuracy! By f2 it is as sharp as you'd need and at f2.8 truly excellent. I tried the Pentax equivalent but found that by comparison it lacked contrast wide open - and is far too expensive. I don't hesitate to use the Sigma wide open and you can see why from the pix I've posted.

I find the 50mm lens one of the most useful in my bag and it is the one I generally leave on the camera.

I have posted some examples of the lens performance here

It's a big lens but very handsome on camera, as you can see below though the appearmace of a lens holds no interest for me whatever, of course


This is a scene I did with it at Richmond Hill last weekend.

Assuming that a large part of the market for FF cameras would be professional, the main thing pros would want would be a professional backup service, service facilities, equipment loan and so on at major events. I doubt that Pentax would be interested in doing that, given that it is a market sewn up by Canon and Nikon.

What would Pentax bring to the table that Nikon and Canon can't? Why, then, would a pro with batteries of specialised lenses that don't exist in the Pentax range change systems?

On the other hand, neither Nikon or Canon have a medium format camera. Pentax do, and lenses to go with it. Seems an entirely logical strategy to me, APS-C To MF.

What is the magic about FF? It was chosen as a format by Oscar Barnack because all that was available was cine film at the time with a width of 24mm. If the width had happened to be 16mm, then the APS-C sensor would have been FF.

There's no magic in 36x24!

This is very interesting technology. However, if you read the inventor's treatise, you will see that it requires a 100mp sensor to give an 1800x1200px image which in turn needs a huge amount of software manipulation to make the IQ acceptable.

Taking nothing away from it but it's a heavy price to pay for the ability to choose where you wanted to focus after the event.
Not to mention that there are no 100mp sensors available yet even in medium format to give a 2.2mp image.

If you want a 16mp image resolution to output, you'll be needing a (100/2.2)x16 = 720mp sensor to do it. If you don't want to take moving subjects, take a dozen images moving focus slightly and put them together using Photoshop image stacking. It's the same thing.

Or how about focus bracketing instead of exposure bracketing?