[Winder]

OK - then a camera to you is the same as a truck to the guy who owns a Frito-Lay Potato Chip route. You should probably lease.

If I could find a good deal on a lease I would, but it would end up costing more than buying. My Canon 5D I had for 5 years and my Contac 645 I had for almost 10. My Canon 5D and Olympus E-3 were both factory refurbs that I picked up for a really good price. The K-7 I bought used. The K-5 I bought from Sammy's when they screwed up and applied the $300 rebate to the price twice and the honored the price ($600 off). Because bodies don't hold value I typically don't buy new. I have only done that twice in the last 10 years.

[monochrome]

No, but just like my wife's car, I buy equipment knowing that I'm not keeping it forever.

If I could find a good deal on a lease I would, but it would end up costing more than buying. My Canon 5D I had for 5 years and my Contac 645 I had for almost 10. My Canon 5D and Olympus E-3 were both factory refurbs that I picked up for a really good price. The K-7 I bought used. The K-5 I bought from Sammy's when they screwed up and applied the $300 rebate to the price twice and the honored the price ($600 off). Because bodies don't hold value I typically don't buy new. I have only done that twice in the last 10 years.

Wow! How do your talk your wife into driving a used car? I could never get away with that.

[Nicolas06]

Over time, good quality glass does tend to keep or increase its value. On the other hand, camera bodies tend to decrease in value.

Most common glass that was expensive before now sell for 50-100$. Because it lack AF. Only the most mythical and advenced glass from MF era keep some value.

I think that except from exceptionnal glass (like 300mm f/2.8 and alike) the fact that there more and more new model with ultrasonic motors, optical stabilization and new optical design means that the old model are less interresting and don't hold their value. This mean all not so old glass will have less value.

As for stab and in lens motor, combined with lower quality construction than 40 years ago mean the lens is more likely to break at some point. This can drastically reduce value !

The trend with electronic view finder is likely to mean that the current mounts will be dropped at some point by most manufacturers. Maybe 5 years, maybe 10 years. After that glass using theses mount and requiring advenced adapter to keep AF will loose even more value.

If we also have the mythical gains from new sensor many think we will have (I'am myself not convinced) this will mean there will be far less value in FF and associated heavy lenses. f/1.4 become almost useless in most situations. The tendency we have for big lenses may really change and most consumers might favor things like micro four third or APSC.

If you buy new now, don't expect to gain any money by selling. If you buy used you might if you are good dealer, like you might do the same with any good. If you try to sell it in 10 years, I really doubt it would keep it value adjusted by inflation rate. (so it you paid it 1000$ new now, not sure you'll sell it 1300-1500$ used in 10 years).

[fast50]

Again, why are you here arguing with Pentax users about whether Fuji is better?

No idea how you arrived at that weird conclusion from what I said. I am a Pentax user, I'm not arguing with anyone. I'm just saying making lenses as small as possible (DA 40 XS) seems like a wasted effort when the body is the main size factor.

[Parallax]

Respectfully, the body is one of the size factors. i.e. if you mount a Bigma, or any of the several other large lenses the body is no longer the main size factor. Any way you slice it, a K-whatever with a 40mm XS or Limited mounted is lighter and takes up less space than the same K-whatever with a 31Ltd, or a DA*55 mounted.

[LensBeginner]

No idea how you arrived at that weird conclusion from what I said. I am a Pentax user, I'm not arguing with anyone. I'm just saying making lenses as small as possible (DA 40 XS) seems like a wasted effort when the body is the main size factor.

There's also a certain coolness in having some cool lenses in your lineup.
From a brand which produces certain cameras in n! different color combinations, this is a logical move.
Remember that the XS was born in order to be paired with the K-01.
Besides, Olympus has done the same with that wacko "lenscap-lens"...

[northcoastgreg]

No idea how you arrived at that weird conclusion from what I said. I am a Pentax user, I'm not arguing with anyone. I'm just saying making lenses as small as possible (DA 40 XS) seems like a wasted effort when the body is the main size factor.

But lenses aren't just used on a body. If you're taking multiple lenses in the field, the fact that the lens is small makes it easier to carry around. If I go out shooting landscapes, the one lens I always have with me is the DA 15 f4. If, however, I owned the DA 14, which is not a lens designed to be as small as possible, that would not be the case.

There are other advantages to making a lens small besides just ease of bringing it with. Smaller lenses tend to be slower; which means they need less glass. Less glass potentially better flare control (the DA 15 has better flare control, for example, than the DA 14). The smaller lenses require smaller filters (which leads to savings on filters). The smaller lenses attract less attention from thieves.

[LensBeginner]

But lenses aren't just used on a body. If you're taking multiple lenses in the field, the fact that the lens is small makes it easier to carry around. If I go out shooting landscapes, the one lens I always have with me is the DA 15 f4. If, however, I owned the DA 14, which is not a lens designed to be as small as possible, that would not be the case.

There are other advantages to making a lens small besides just ease of bringing it with. Smaller lenses tend to be slower; which means they need less glass. Less glass potentially better flare control (the DA 15 has better flare control, for example, than the DA 14). The smaller lenses require smaller filters (which leads to savings on filters). The smaller lenses attract less attention from thieves.

Well, that doesn't always pan out as a good thing...
Imagine you're bringing a small and a large lens: you'll still need a backpack that can accomodate the large lens even if you start with the large lens on the camera.
Now think of "normal" filter sizes and "XS" filter sizes...
If you don't want to buy another set of filters your only option is 27mm->37mm step-up ring + 37mm->49mm step-up ring (+49mm->52mm step-up ring), definitely NOT an advantage...

[monochrome]

Well, that doesn't always pan out as a good thing...
Imagine you're bringing a small and a large lens: you'll still need a backpack that can accomodate the large lens even if you start with the large lens on the camera.
Now think of "normal" filter sizes and "XS" filter sizes...

Why would I use filters on a digital camera? What, an ND10 for the one moving water shot I'll do in my entire life?

If you don't want to buy another set of filters your only option is 27mm->37mm step-up ring + 37mm->49mm step-up ring (+49mm->52mm step-up ring), definitely NOT an advantage...

The entire mirrorless benefit to the consumer is small. You give up an optical viewfinder in exchange for small. The manufacturer gets the benefit of lower cost and you actually pay MORE for the cool factor.

Whenever you put a large lens on a small camera you defeat the ONLY consumer benefit of a mirrorless camera (small), plus the handling is abysmal.

I believe the K-01 paired with 3 Limiteds or an XS lens is the same size as a MILC with a normal lens and has better handling.

I use a dSLR for large lenses. I don't use filters. I don't care about the cool factor.

[Winder]

Wow! How do your talk your wife into driving a used car? I could never get away with that.

We are debt free. She has a nice car, but we only buy used an pay cash. When you don't have a mortgage or car payments its easy to save money. I still drive a 40 year old Bronco. Its the only vehicle I've ever had. Never had a payment in my life.

---------- Post added 10-04-14 at 05:48 PM ----------

Again, why are you here arguing with Pentax users about whether Fuji is better?

I have not said Fuji in general is better. I have said the new Fuji glass is better. It is better in many ways, and it should be. The Fuji glass is all state of the art when it comes to design and technology. The Fuji bodies are still a work in process. The Trans-x sensor is not really any better or worse. If I thought Fuji was a better system I would have switch last year.

The point is that Fuji is moving really fast and if Pentax does get moving they will find themselves falling behind Fuji in market share. Fuji is going after the market that has been a strength for Pentax over the years. Can Ricoh develop a FF lens system and compete against Fuji for the dedicated ASP-C buyer? Will they dedicate the resources necessary?

[monochrome]

Will they dedicate the resources necessary?

I don't know - but I've always said Fuji is the competition, not Canon, Nikon and Sony.

Can they? Probably. Will they? I don't know.

[Rondec]

Well, that doesn't always pan out as a good thing...
Imagine you're bringing a small and a large lens: you'll still need a backpack that can accomodate the large lens even if you start with the large lens on the camera.
Now think of "normal" filter sizes and "XS" filter sizes...
If you don't want to buy another set of filters your only option is 27mm->37mm step-up ring + 37mm->49mm step-up ring (+49mm->52mm step-up ring), definitely NOT an advantage...

I don't use a lot of filters, but Pentax is pretty standard. If I take a prime kit in the field, I can use 49mm filters on my DA 15, 40, FA 77 and DFA 100. I can use a 58mm filter on my FA 31 and DA *55. Awfully handy from my standpoint.

I usually do either primes or zooms, not both. If I want flexibility, I'll do zooms (DA *16-50/50-135), otherwise I pack along the primes (and have a lot more fun).

(This is a link to someone else's kit, but it is impressive how tightly everything is packed).

https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/22-pentax-camera-field-accessories/273575...ml#post2949472

[totsmuyco]

I'm not going into FF but, probably that's what those 2 unidentified lenses in Photokina are for. No labels and as one of the forumer said, the reps were so secretive about them. Maybe there's truth to the FF camera coming out next year. If it is, I am all happy for you guys who wants a FF. And yes it is true, I see a lot of Pentax users looking the other way due to the delay in the release of the FF camera. I agree Ricoh should deliver that camera next year.

[Jan67]

Ask me, do I want ƒ1.4 300 grams compared to ƒ3.2 and 100 grams and I'll take the 100 grams.

Really interesting view on photography :-) We should start to use new unit, called "gram/apperture" :-)

Well, this thread starts to be a Fuji one, right?
Allow me then some more notes since I am previous K3 and current X-T1 user.

1) Lenses
Fuji does not have such a long history of the Xmount. But 12 lenses in two years is quite impressive. Sure, there are still some FL missing, specifically long teles.
If you look on their roadmap (which is btw realised in time) you see that there are two lines of primes, beside zooms.

bigger lenses, larger apperture: 16/1.4 (2015), 23/1.4, 35/1.4 and 56/1.2
more compact lenses, smaller apperture: 14/2.8, 18/2, 27/2.8, 60/2.4 and 90/2 (2015)
So you have the freedom to choise your quality/compactness/price.

They also have "economic" XC zoom line, but with ED elements, optical stabilisation and WR
I also owned 21/3.2 and liked it. But 23/1.4 is absolutely amazing. It opens me new possibilities how I can express reality on a picture. Well, 1.4 lenses are simply more expensive. That's life. I would pay the same price to Pentax with pleasure, if such lens exists.

2) Sensor
You can study tests or you can make pictures. I prefere the second option. Then you realise, that the sensor is simply good enough up to iso 3200, without need of corrections in RAW developer. I prefer somehow 16Mpx of X-T1 (and K5II) more than 24Mpx of K3, which requires certain shooting discipline. Although results from K3, if well exposed, are excellent.

3) RAW
The fact is, that Lightroom is not the best tool for fuji RAW. But you can use Ninja plugin in LR and it gives very good results. I did not shoot in JPG with K3 at all. Now I still evaluate X-T1 and shoot both JPG and RAW. For the first time in my photo experience are JPGs good enough that I sometimes don't bother with developing RAW.
DR is btw 13.1EV compared to K3's 13.4 EV (according to imaging resource), just for test lovers.

4) Shooting experience
That is actually main reason (beside lenses) why I moved to X-T1. It is very much connected with MILC generally. As I already wrote, I changed completely my style of shooting. You expose with DSLR and check, if the result suits your intention and is well focused. With MILC you see directly the light mood of the picture. And it's sharp, thanks to contrast focusing. I have some friends, who own DA55, nice lens with character. Some of them are really unhappy with focusing issues. The same happens with Sigma 18-35, which is also fast lens. So my guess is, that Pentax AF module has to be more optimalised for fast lenses (AF strip length). MILC bring generally big advantage here.
Anyhow, X-T1 is not perfect. It has only 9 phase detection points, which speed up focusing (OMD EM1 has more and is quicker).

5) Viewfinder
Try it. No other words are needed. It is TV, but very good one :-)

6) FA31, 43 and 77
I still own FA77 and use it on X-T1. Thanks to focus peaking and electronic loupe in viewfinder I am able to focus precisely (well, not children and other quick moving elements...). Fuji has another jewel, XF56. XF35 is also a nice lens.

I am not sure, if X-T1 is just second system for DSLR owner. Investment into good lenses for both MILC and DSLR are already high. Street, portrait and even wedding are areas where X-T1 gives you good service. If I would consider purchase of X-T1 and D750 , I would buy X-T1 again. D750 gives you better quality, AF is probably amazing but X-T1 is (for me) more joy.

I understand that this is Pentax forum, so my X-T1 adoration does not remain without response :-)
Take me as an example of somebody, who likes Pentax, owns Pentax LX and 6x7, but is not resistant to nice products of different producer.
I am 100% sure, that if X-T1 would be a Pentax product, it would be celebrated on this forum intensively.

[Kunzite]

In 2008 and 2009, Pentax announced 12 lenses; Fuji actually did 11 in 2012 and 2013, so it's a win for Pentax

But indeed, this is a Pentax forum, and despite having an entire section dedicated to other brands cameras, it's filled with Fuji/Sony/whatever propaganda. "Hey, look, I have a brand X camera and I like it so much better than a Pentax!" over and over again.
Try that on a Canon or Nikon (or Sony, Olympus...) forum. Here it's an accepted practice