[gazonk]

"SLR" and "a camera that you carry with you everywhere" are two very different things.

Really? I always bring my K-5 and at least my DA three limiteds. The only exceptions are when I'm out running (I have my iPhone) or swimming in the sea (I sometimes have my Optio W10).

[ak_kiwi]

"Purchasing an SLR camera is a big decision.
You want a camera to carry with you everywhere, not just on special occasions,"

Or they may really actually think a K-mount DSLR with lens is pocketable.

Looking at "5 reasons to choose Pentax" I think they may be referring to to the first reason where they refer to the fact you can shoot in all conditions"-

[Kunzite]

"SLR" and "a camera that you carry with you everywhere" are two very different things. They may have placed that there intentionally, hinting at future developements. Or they may really actually think a K-mount DSLR with lens is pocketable.

Do you really believe they would "hint" at not buying their existing products, but either the competition's or to wait indefinitely some supposed "future developments"?
Of course, a SLR can be a camera that you carry with you everywhere. You just will have to find other way to carry it than to put it in your pocket (which you can't do with most ILCs anyway). For example, a shoulder strap. And it's a high-end Pentax, rugged, dependable; you don't have to coddle it.

[Clavius]

You just will have to find other way to carry it than to put it in your pocket (which you can't do with most ILCs anyway).

Guess which of my cameras gets used the most: the A7r that fits right in my jacket or one of my K-mount DSLRs that require a big bag?

[monochrome]

Guess which of my cameras gets used the most: the A7r that fits right in my jacket or one of my K-mount DSLRs that require a big bag?

1. Sometimes I wonder why you bother with Pentax. And PentaxForums.
2. Sometimes I wonder which lens is mounted on your Sony whilst in your pocket.

[mecrox]

There are plenty of situations in which a DSLR is not a good idea so the notion of always carrying one doesn't add up, for me. Inside public buildings, museums, stations, parties, hotels - a DSLR attracts the most unwelcome attention, usually. In such places or even on the street few people pay attention to my K-01 or MX-1, but in truth neither of these is really pocketable either unless one has a big coat with big pockets. Better either to take what you want in a bag or, if you don't want to carry a bag, then the smartphone it is or perhaps one of those miniature cams designed for Japanese housewives of either sex

[Kunzite]

1. Sometimes I wonder why you bother with Pentax. And PentaxForums.
2. Sometimes I wonder which lens is mounted on your Sony whilst in your pocket.

What a coincidence, I wonder the same things.
By the way - and no favors done to Pentax:
Compact Camera Meter
You can go smaller, for example (and that's not the smallest lens):
Compact Camera Meter

With their compact (but not overly small) cameras and compact high quality lenses, you can get a highly portable kit. You can get weather sealing. You can get cold proof. You can take it on the beach, in the rain, or in the fine sands of Afganistan - and it might not fit in your pocket, but it won't break your back while doing so.
It's absolutely clear they were talking about advantages they have today.

[normhead]

And Pentax lenses are smaller but edge performance isn't as good as the stuff Nikon is releasing nowadays.
The Sigma 35/1.4 is excellent even at the edges...but compare its size to the old slower FA35.

You said "but", you should have said "because." Pentax markets themselves as a maker of lightweight glass, easy to carry, functional. They are not a "Me too" company making stuff for the Nikon Sigma Canon fanboys. Again reading between the lines, Pentax has carved out a niche with light glass, fewer elements and not as much size.

I have two Sigma lenses, the 70 macro and 8-16, they bloat my camera bag. If I sold those two lenses, I could carry the 15 ltd, 31 ltd and 77 ltd, and it would be less weight. The point people seem to be missing here is these 1.4 lenses, are specialty lenses. These are not lenses where you can throw a bunch of them in your camera bag, and go find a picture. And that is one of the great joys of photography. You go for a walk with your camera, and you find something to take a picture of that is just stunning.

My Sigma 8-16, is heavily corrected, sharp edge to edge etc. etc. but quite often it gets left home because it's heavy. For many Pentax shooters, if it's not in your bag while you're walking around, it's useless. Very few of us have studios.

I love posting this image.


My client on this trip brought his D800e, and we shot a lot of side by side images. We were on a day hike that passes by 4 or 5 waterfalls when I took this image. He chimped my image and said "oh I can't take that, my 14-24 was too heavy to bring."

I simply cannot fathom how quickly the "it has to be perfect" edge to edge guys will slough this off, and I can't say it loud enough.

You cannot carry every edge sharp monster lens you might need on a trip or a hike.

Do you understand? You will be like my client… no picture because you didn't bring the right lens.

Not an edge soft picture, No picture.

I have been on so many hikes where I had every intention of coming back to a spot where there wads an image I didn't have the right lens for, but it usually doesn't happen. And if you do go back, the light isn't the same or something else is different.

You simply cannot slough off weight. For most, it is a major disadvantage in a lens. With a lightweight edge soft lens you can get a fantastic image. WIth no lens, you can't get any image.

This whole train of thought is predicated on the notion of the unlimited ability to bring heavy lenses. That is an absolute, unequivocal fallacy. Now, I hope you will pause and reflect on that before you post another of these absolutely crazy heavier but not edge sharp comparisons. Lighter lenses can go where heavy lenses cannot. There is a a whole class of image that uses the best portable glass. But it has to be portable. Discussing you Nikon 14-24 isn't part of the conversation.

If Canon, Nikon, SIgma etc. are so good, why can't they produce something lightweight and sharp on the edges? They can't and they don't. They've taken one side of the trade off, Pentax has taken the other.

What there should be would be a rule that only lenses of similar weight should be compared against each other. It would solve a lot of confusion. Even though measubating poster after measurebating poster conveniently posts like they are, no argument they make can over come that first fallacy. If your premise is wrong, any argument based on it is wrong. Sigma's 1.4 30, is not the same type of equipment as Pentax's 31 ltd.. You can tell just looking at them.

So, instead of coming on here and repeating "Pentax glass isn't as sharp edge to edge." every time someone talks about how light Pentax lenses why don't you all learn to stay on topic. If we're talking about weight, we're talking about weight. For those of us concerned about weight we don't give a crap about any little dweeb chirping in the background, talking about some specialty lens that weighs twice as much. We're talking about weight because, that is the first thing that's important to us. There is no "but." We want the best lightweight glass. If heavy glass exists, it doesn't exist in our universe. it's in a whole different galaxy.

Am I starting to get through?

There is a whole universe of top notch light weight glass out there. And not one of it's users is un-aware that they could buy a piece of glass that cost a lot more and weighs twice as much, that would perform better technically but probably not artistically better. We know about it, we don't want it. You guys are like a bunch of 747 pilots talking to glider pilots. it's all flying, but were not in the same plane. Gliders have landing gear, 747s have landing gear, but not the same landing gear. What is relevant to one is not relevant to the others, even though it's all flying.

---

Last edited by normhead; 12-20-2013 at 12:04 PM.

[Rondec]

Guess which of my cameras gets used the most: the A7r that fits right in my jacket or one of my K-mount DSLRs that require a big bag?

The biggest problem with the e mount is that there aren't many native e mount lenses that are full frame compatible. As time goes by, I certainly see Sony challenging for domination in the mirrorless market. I would not expect Pentax to make anything resembling the A7, since I expect them to keep the same mount/registration distance.

However, I don't really believe that any of these cameras are particularly pocketable, until you get down to Q size with a prime. Your A7, even with most primes, will not fit in any pocket I have. Once your resign yourself to carrying a bag of some kind, there just isn't that much difference between a K5 and a DA limited and your A7 with whatever lens you choose.

[normhead]

The first two lines of that link says something special:

"SLR" and "a camera that you carry with you everywhere" are two very different things. They may have placed that there intentionally, hinting at future developements. Or they may really actually think a K-mount DSLR with lens is pocketable.

Your whole argument is a statement that applies only to you personally. Many of us take our DSLRs everywhere. Now if if you look at the film SLRs they were designed to be portable "go places where you can't take your linhof type cameras. Nikon and Canon FFs, yes those FF cameras because of their size have lost a lot of there "go any-where-ness". They are more like the MFs of the past. But Pentax DSLRs can go anywhere. Go anywhere does not mean "pocketable". Pocketable means pocketable. Family gatherings, the beach, mountain climbing, hiking, canoeing, pretty much anywhere, unless you stick one of those big honking Nikon or Canon type Sigma lenses on the front, then you can can no longer go anywhere. But you always have the choice to have camera that will go anywhere, it's your choice. Should you choose to disable it with monster glass, that's also your choice.

The camera is built to go anywhere, with the WR, even more so than most pocket cameras.

[normhead]

Guess which of my cameras gets used the most: the A7r that fits right in my jacket or one of my K-mount DSLRs that require a big bag?

Knowing you, it would be the A7r. Just because you're resolution obsessed. The range of lenses you can put on a A7r, and still put in your pocket is pretty small, but then the number of lenses for the A7r period is pretty small so I guess that's not a factor. When hiking I often have my K-01 in my pocket with the 21 ltd or 40XS on it while my A-400 or DA* 60-250 is on the camera.

Honelstly? You put this in your pocket?



Mae West would say… Is that an A7r in your pocket, or are you happy to see me?

I do carry a K-01 with a 40XS in a large coat pocket from time to time. An A7? I don't think so, unless I have my 40 XS on it. ANd with all the exposure and AF stuff I'd have to deal with on the A7, why would I bother? I thought the whole point of a pocket camera was grab and shoot, no muss and fuss.

You consistently point out to us that you've really never taken the time to find out what a Pentax might be good for. You simply don't know. You continually bring up other camera systems, that you think out perform Pentax's based on your own usage. But as a Pentax user I read your posts, and wonder how none of those things interest me… but that's because I'm the kind of guy Pentax is made for. Why you own any Pentax cameras is completely beyond me. By your own admission, you don't like using them and can't find a use for them.

What kind of person constantly comes on a site where people could care less about what he owns and tells them constantly how what he owns is better? Is that some kind of personality disorder? If I ever got to the point where I was always going on Nikon, Sony and Canon sites telling everyone they should by Pentax gear because it suits my style, I'd probably just shoot myself. Personally, I'd take it as a sign a switch was loose somewhere, short circuiting.

[Canada_Rockies]

For you resolution addicts - as opposed to people who like pictures - I just sold a 16x24 canvas wrap. It was on my wall at home, and I wanted to hang something else so I lent it to the local library. One of the staff took it home to see how it would look in her house, as a Christmas present for her husband, who would get the say on where and if she should buy it. She's bringing a cheque.

Now here is the technical crap:

Pentax K10D
SMC Pentax DA 12-24 f/4 at 12mm
1/250 @ f/6.7
ISO 100
HAND HELD, SR ON
Shot towards the afternoon sun (top left)

Pixel peep here: All sizes | Elk River, BC-4 | Flickr - Photo Sharing!

Oh, yeah, the town bought a copy as a gift to our sister city in Japan a couple of years ago. Terrible camera. Lousy lens. Right.

[stevebrot]

Guess which of my cameras gets used the most: the A7r that fits right in my jacket or one of my K-mount DSLRs that require a big bag?

I own several "pocketable" cameras* and each is MUCH more compact than the A7r with any of its current line of Sony/Zeiss lenses. About the only A7r combos that I could imagine might be truly pocketable would be some of the short-registration normal and wide-angle rangefinder lenses originally made for Leica M, Leica LTM, Nikon S, or Contax or possibly an adapted pancake (e.g. Pentax-M 40/2.8).


Steve

* Jacket pocket with any of Samsung Infuse 4G (phone), Olympus XA, Canon G2, or FED-2 with Jupiter-12 35/2.8. If I owned the Pentax-M 40/2.8, I might be able to add the Super-Program to the list as well.

[stevebrot]

If you are shooting with a 55mm f1.4 on APS-C, I guess you would shoot with an 85 mm f2 on full frame. Those lenses are the same size, at least as long as you have the same registration distance and mount size.

I own lenses that fit both those specs and while both are heavy, the 85 is substantially larger.


Steve

[stevebrot]

a lot is dependent on registration distance and mount size. This is why Leica lenses and some four thirds lenses are relatively small compared to full frame lenses.

If Pentax/Nikon wanted to truly take advantage of APS-C though, they would have designed a specific mount for it.

You totally lost me there. The reason why many rangefinder lenses (not just Leica) are small is because they are (for the most part) non-retrofocus designs that are possible due to the lack of a mirror box. Longer lenses for rangefinder cameras are just as big and nasty as SLR lenses of the same focal length. The smaller mount diameter of the Leica lenses is fairly coincidental and has more to do lack of aperture coupling than registration distance*. Oh, and one other thing, the Leica-M and LTM lenses have no AF mechanism to bulk up the barrels.

As for 4/3 lenses...I don't know that they are particularly small, at least not those made for SLRs.

Example of 85mm lens in a rangefinder mount:

Jupiter-9 85/2 in Contax/Kiev mount


Same physical size as the same lens in M42 mount

I don't have a photo of the Jupiter-12 35/2.8 on the same camera for size comparison (the J-12 is pretty tiny), but I do have the J-12 in LTM mount:

Jupiter-12 35/2 in M39 (LTM) mount


(The Canon P is very close in size to the Kiev 4A in the photo above)

Summary? About the only generalization that can be made regarding lens size is that that it is difficult to make a generalization regarding lens size.


Steve

* Case in point would be the original Asahiflex SLR with a 37mm mount and the same registration distance as today's Pentax SLRs. Ditto for the early Russian Zenit SLRs (39mm) which also have the same registration distance as Pentax. To be complete, I should also mention the M42 Praktica/Pentax mount.