[Socrateeze]

For this , Ricoh decided that the apsc product line is the better choice for light weight / traveling, there is the 55-300 PLM and Pentax KP for that. Saving weight with Sony full frame is an illusion. Fuji apsc with apsc glass would be more logical if weight/size was really the concern. You'll never get a small light weight tele lens for full frame, unless the max aperture end-up being f5.6 - f8.

Cameras are just tools to take photos. With the market shrinking and no camera maker exit that market to make it a healthy place, there will be losses and dead mounts along the way. Buying new camera gear and switching brands is like playing catch 22, chasing the elusive perfect system that never become one as the newer better model is released.

I'm chasing better, not perfect. I could go with the Sony a7R3 and still have a better system *for my needs* within my current financial limitations.

As for weight savings, it is *not* an illusion. Sony equivalent top-tier FF lenses are almost always lighter when compared with their closest Pentax equivalent, sometimes by a *huge* amount. At lower tiers it is more mixed, I agree, but for an equivalent overall top-tier set-up Sony is definitely lighter (note, I say "lighter", not "light"). Sure, if you compare Pentax with recent and massive mirrorless offerings from Canon and Panasonic, you’d have a great point. But *I’m* considering Pentax specifically in relation to Sony. I’m not saying mirrorless FF lenses are intrinsically or even generally lighter than DSLR equivalents. And it is not just the lenses, of course, it starts with the body. Here are the numbers:

Pentax K-1ii: 925g
Sony a7r4: 665g

Pentax 15-30mm f2.8 D-FA: 1040g
Sony 16-35mm FE f2.8 GM: 680g

Pentax 24-70mm f2.8 D-FA: 787g
Sony FE 24-70mm GM f2.8: 886g

Pentax 28-105mm f3.5-5.6 D-FA: 440g
Sony FE 24-105mm f4 G: 663g

Pentax D-FA* f2.8 70-200mm: 1755g
Sony FE f2.8 GM 70-200mm: 1480g

Pentax 150-450mm: 2000g
Sony FE 100-400mm GM: 1395g

If we just consider the body plus “holy trinity” covering 15mm to 200mm lenses this comes to:

Pentax: 4507g
Sony: 3711g

For me, that is a *hefty* 800g difference, equivalent to, say, one or two primes, depending on focal length, speed, and so on.

And it only gets more significant if I want to extend my telephoto range beyond 200mm or even the 250mm that the superb 60-250m DA* offers (such as for wildlife, say) – and I do. For zooms, at least, I need to consider the Pentax 150-450mm. But with that I still have to include the 70-200mm or else I have a gap in the focal range I can natively cover. Even opting for the less than top-tier, but more rangy and still quite excellent D-FA 28-105mm still leaves me with no coverage between 105 and 150mm. So to cover the full focal range with best D-FA glass from 15mm to 450mm I would have to carry 6507g!

With Sony, by contrast, I have the option of swapping out a 24-70mm 2.8 *and* the 70-200mm f2.8 for their 24-105mm f4 (like the Pentax close equivalent, very good if not quite top tier - as a tripod using landscape shooter, the slower aperture doesn't impact me much if at all) together with their 100-400mm GM lens for the full focal range coverage I’m looking for. And that comes to 3403g! That is almost *half* the weight for the relatively small sacrifice of 50mm at the top end (which can be readily compensated for by cropping a little from Sony's higher resolution sensor), 1mm at the low end, and with no loss of image quality - arguably, perhaps, even with a gain in image quality. There was a time when Sony lenses were inferior - that time has past.

Money to one side, I can't see why switching to Sony is not clearly the best option for me and my needs. For others with different needs, it can be a totally different story.

[biz-engineer]

For me, that is a *hefty* 800g difference, equivalent to, say, one or two primes, depending on focal length, speed, and so on.

For me, that 800gr makes no difference practically, because I still have to carry the same bag, and still 3.7kg for the Sony. What really makes a difference is when the 3.7kg become 500gr so I can have the camera together with non camera belongings and even be on a bike tour without having to carry a specific photography bag on top of other things. Now, as soon as I have to carry a tripod, the small size/weight of camera+lens isn't any meaningful benefit anymore because the tripod is both large (even folded) and heavy (even for a carbon tripod ~2Kg). Mirrorless full frame , including Sony, are not more portable than DSLR. The claim that Sony mirrorless make a difference, is purely a view of the mind. The GRIII (257gr) is a lot more portable than your Sony (3.7kg), now that's a huge difference, you can have the GR in a pocket, you can't have the Sony combo in a pocket even with huge pockets.

[clackers]

So unless you can tell me that Pentax's market share is increasing, I think my point stands. Honestly, I'd love to be shown that I was wrong on this.

Um, yes, you were, Socrateeze. See what the little niche brand did last quarter no one else did.

[Rondec]

I'm chasing better, not perfect. I could go with the Sony a7R3 and still have a better system *for my needs* within my current financial limitations.

As for weight savings, it is *not* an illusion. Sony equivalent top-tier FF lenses are almost always lighter when compared with their closest Pentax equivalent, sometimes by a *huge* amount. At lower tiers it is more mixed, I agree, but for an equivalent overall top-tier set-up Sony is definitely lighter (note, I say "lighter", not "light"). Sure, if you compare Pentax with recent and massive mirrorless offerings from Canon and Panasonic, you’d have a great point. But *I’m* considering Pentax specifically in relation to Sony. I’m not saying mirrorless FF lenses are intrinsically or even generally lighter than DSLR equivalents. And it is not just the lenses, of course, it starts with the body. Here are the numbers:

Pentax K-1ii: 925g
Sony a7r4: 665g

Pentax 15-30mm f2.8 D-FA: 1040g
Sony 16-35mm FE f2.8 GM: 680g

Pentax 24-70mm f2.8 D-FA: 787g
Sony FE 24-70mm GM f2.8: 886g

Pentax 28-105mm f3.5-5.6 D-FA: 440g
Sony FE 24-105mm f4 G: 663g

Pentax D-FA* f2.8 70-200mm: 1755g
Sony FE f2.8 GM 70-200mm: 1480g

Pentax 150-450mm: 2000g
Sony FE 100-400mm GM: 1395g

If we just consider the body plus “holy trinity” covering 15mm to 200mm lenses this comes to:

Pentax: 4507g
Sony: 3711g

For me, that is a *hefty* 800g difference, equivalent to, say, one or two primes, depending on focal length, speed, and so on.

And it only gets more significant if I want to extend my telephoto range beyond 200mm or even the 250mm that the superb 60-250m DA* offers (such as for wildlife, say) – and I do. For zooms, at least, I need to consider the Pentax 150-450mm. But with that I still have to include the 70-200mm or else I have a gap in the focal range I can natively cover. Even opting for the less than top-tier, but more rangy and still quite excellent D-FA 28-105mm still leaves me with no coverage between 105 and 150mm. So to cover the full focal range with best D-FA glass from 15mm to 450mm I would have to carry 6507g!

With Sony, by contrast, I have the option of swapping out a 24-70mm 2.8 *and* the 70-200mm f2.8 for their 24-105mm f4 (like the Pentax close equivalent, very good if not quite top tier - as a tripod using landscape shooter, the slower aperture doesn't impact me much if at all) together with their 100-400mm GM lens for the full focal range coverage I’m looking for. And that comes to 3403g! That is almost *half* the weight for the relatively small sacrifice of 50mm at the top end (which can be readily compensated for by cropping a little from Sony's higher resolution sensor), 1mm at the low end, and with no loss of image quality - arguably, perhaps, even with a gain in image quality. There was a time when Sony lenses were inferior - that time has past.

Money to one side, I can't see why switching to Sony is not clearly the best option for me and my needs. For others with different needs, it can be a totally different story.

Would you have money left for another prime?

Just looking at Sony primes, their 100 macro is 800 dollars and weighs 505 g while the Pentax 100mm WR is 550 and weighs 340 g. I don't think Sony has anything really like the FA limiteds either. I'm not trying to convince you to stay, but I think all full frame systems have some base level of weight and size of bag that they take. While the weight of your bag with Sony might be a little less, I think you would find it actually takes the same size bag to carry everything as it is the volume of the lenses rather than their weight that makes the difference and lenses tend to be bulky.

Regardless, good luck as you make your decision.

[repaap]

I'm chasing better, not perfect. I could go with the Sony a7R3 and still have a better system *for my needs* within my current financial limitations.

As for weight savings, it is *not* an illusion. Sony equivalent top-tier FF lenses are almost always lighter when compared with their closest Pentax equivalent, sometimes by a *huge* amount. At lower tiers it is more mixed, I agree, but for an equivalent overall top-tier set-up Sony is definitely lighter (note, I say "lighter", not "light"). Sure, if you compare Pentax with recent and massive mirrorless offerings from Canon and Panasonic, you’d have a great point. But *I’m* considering Pentax specifically in relation to Sony. I’m not saying mirrorless FF lenses are intrinsically or even generally lighter than DSLR equivalents. And it is not just the lenses, of course, it starts with the body. Here are the numbers:

Pentax K-1ii: 925g
Sony a7r4: 665g

Pentax 15-30mm f2.8 D-FA: 1040g
Sony 16-35mm FE f2.8 GM: 680g

Pentax 24-70mm f2.8 D-FA: 787g
Sony FE 24-70mm GM f2.8: 886g

Pentax 28-105mm f3.5-5.6 D-FA: 440g
Sony FE 24-105mm f4 G: 663g

Pentax D-FA* f2.8 70-200mm: 1755g
Sony FE f2.8 GM 70-200mm: 1480g

Pentax 150-450mm: 2000g
Sony FE 100-400mm GM: 1395g

If we just consider the body plus “holy trinity” covering 15mm to 200mm lenses this comes to:

Pentax: 4507g
Sony: 3711g

For me, that is a *hefty* 800g difference, equivalent to, say, one or two primes, depending on focal length, speed, and so on.

And it only gets more significant if I want to extend my telephoto range beyond 200mm or even the 250mm that the superb 60-250m DA* offers (such as for wildlife, say) – and I do. For zooms, at least, I need to consider the Pentax 150-450mm. But with that I still have to include the 70-200mm or else I have a gap in the focal range I can natively cover. Even opting for the less than top-tier, but more rangy and still quite excellent D-FA 28-105mm still leaves me with no coverage between 105 and 150mm. So to cover the full focal range with best D-FA glass from 15mm to 450mm I would have to carry 6507g!

With Sony, by contrast, I have the option of swapping out a 24-70mm 2.8 *and* the 70-200mm f2.8 for their 24-105mm f4 (like the Pentax close equivalent, very good if not quite top tier - as a tripod using landscape shooter, the slower aperture doesn't impact me much if at all) together with their 100-400mm GM lens for the full focal range coverage I’m looking for. And that comes to 3403g! That is almost *half* the weight for the relatively small sacrifice of 50mm at the top end (which can be readily compensated for by cropping a little from Sony's higher resolution sensor), 1mm at the low end, and with no loss of image quality - arguably, perhaps, even with a gain in image quality. There was a time when Sony lenses were inferior - that time has past.

Money to one side, I can't see why switching to Sony is not clearly the best option for me and my needs. For others with different needs, it can be a totally different story.

That seems quite obvious for you. If you really think that this is what you want, then do it. For what it looks like now. This new when ever it is coming 70-200/4 wont serve you well enough and you will suffer for too many kg at your bag.

Now you should know Pentax gear by now and know what it will give to you and what it will not. We will wait for your report, of how it did go. I will not take any respondibility of it if it is expensive, or what ever it is not. But as far as your comments goes. Where you are now does not make you happy. And we get to read it and be unhappy about that too..

[Socrateeze]

That seems quite obvious for you. If you really think that this is what you want, then do it. For what it looks like now. This new when ever it is coming 70-200/4 wont serve you well enough and you will suffer for too many kg at your bag.

Now you should know Pentax gear by now and know what it will give to you and what it will not. We will wait for your report, of how it did go. I will not take any respondibility of it if it is expensive, or what ever it is not. But as far as your comments goes. Where you are now does not make you happy. And we get to read it and be unhappy about that too..

I think that a 70-200mm f4 that was light and compact, as "promised", would keep me in the fold by being just enough to make the gains of jumping ship not worth the (extreme) costs. If the optics were top notch (something that remains an unknown, at this time, although I should say that I've never felt disappointed by any of the D-FA or DA glass I've tried). I've been holding out for one since it was first announced, which must be over a year ago now. It feels much longer. So, to be clear, I'm not at all disgruntled with the quality of what there is - it's great glass and a truly great camera in the K-1. But I have recently come into a sizeable chunk of change that makes jumping ship and getting (for me and my needs) a better set-up, a realistic possibility. Had it not been for that I'd be waiting for as long as it takes.

---------- Post added 08-17-19 at 10:29 PM ----------

Um, yes, you were, Socrateeze. See what the little niche brand did last quarter no one else did.

I am truly delighted to be corrected on that! That is wonderful news!

I imagine that the Ricoh GR III really helped. It is very much a niche camera and a wonderful one at that. And I'm sure that APS-C Pentaxians likely feel less disgruntled than many full-framers might, there being much more DA glass out there. The less than enthralling update of the K-1 did not help, for me at least, to instil long-term confidence in their full-frame ambitions, either. The K-1ii was a terribly unambitious camera, especially given how Pentax has shown in the past that it can lead the way. So I remain skeptical that Pentax has a long-term future in full frame market if it does not embrace mirrorless.

Still, I'm more confident given that information that Pentax is on to a strategy that could work in the medium term at least, developing for the APS-C and niche markets.

Cheers,

[repaap]

I think that a 70-200mm f4 that was light and compact, as "promised", would keep me in the fold by being just enough to make the gains of jumping ship not worth the (extreme) costs. If the optics were top notch (something that remains an unknown, at this time, although I should say that I've never felt disappointed by any of the D-FA or DA glass I've tried). I've been holding out for one since it was first announced, which must be over a year ago now. It feels much longer. So, to be clear, I'm not at all disgruntled with the quality of what there is - it's great glass and a truly great camera in the K-1. But I have recently come into a sizeable chunk of change that makes jumping ship and getting (for me and my needs) a better set-up, a realistic possibility. Had it not been for that I'd be waiting for as long as it takes.

---------- Post added 08-17-19 at 10:29 PM ----------



I am truly delighted to be corrected on that! That is wonderful news!

I imagine that the Ricoh GR III really helped. It is very much a niche camera and a wonderful one at that. And I'm sure that APS-C Pentaxians likely feel less disgruntled than many full-framers might, there being much more DA glass out there. The less than enthralling update of the K-1 did not help, for me at least, to instil long-term confidence in their full-frame ambitions, either. The K-1ii was a terribly unambitious camera, especially given how Pentax has shown in the past that it can lead the way. So I remain skeptical that Pentax has a long-term future in full frame market if it does not embrace mirrorless.

Still, I'm more confident given that information that Pentax is on to a strategy that could work in the medium term at least, developing for the APS-C and niche markets.

Cheers,

Well if it is coming 2020 it is not ’that’ far away. There might be coming a lot of things. Ricoh said that they are developing for example AF system from the scratch. Because old system would not improve othervise. That is taking a lot of time. And for a small company with limited resources one could understand this.

Can’t really saa more. I hapen to have 15-30 and 70-200 too. I know what it is. But if I know that I will need those lenses I would pack them in. How ever lighter 70-200 would be nice too, if the quality would be as good. If pentax does those lenses them self, we know that it will not be bad. My only gripe with those big lenses is actually not the size. Or with 15-30 it is, because using filters would mean investing filter kit what I could use only with that lens. And it would be big too.

Big factor actually is that 70-200 is so exspensive that I take it only with me when I need it

[biz-engineer]

For me, if Ricoh was releasing a new "flag ship" every 5 years it would still be Ok, given that the new product brings meaningful improvements over the previous one. I would actually much prefer less frequent products and larger improvement steps. I just can't believe how much quantity of good equipment used is for sale.

[Socrateeze]

Would you have money left for another prime?

Just looking at Sony primes, their 100 macro is 800 dollars and weighs 505 g while the Pentax 100mm WR is 550 and weighs 340 g. I don't think Sony has anything really like the FA limiteds either. I'm not trying to convince you to stay, but I think all full frame systems have some base level of weight and size of bag that they take. While the weight of your bag with Sony might be a little less, I think you would find it actually takes the same size bag to carry everything as it is the volume of the lenses rather than their weight that makes the difference and lenses tend to be bulky.

Regardless, good luck as you make your decision.

Thanks. I was actually looking at Sony's 90mm f2.8 Macro G OSS that is 602g and a somewhat eyewatering CAN$1499. But it is also (I believe) ranked by DxO as the sharpest macro they have ever tested! The weight of such a lens is not actually much of a factor for me since if I'm out to take macro I'm rarely if ever out to take landscape (or vice versa). I have Pentax's more recent 100mm macro and I think it is great. No complaints at all! I'm fairly new to macro photography so it is hard for me to imagine the Sony 90mm macro being better, to be honest. Nevertheless, DxO tested the Pentax 100mm on a K-3 and scored it 10 for sharpness, and the Sony on an a7r2 and gave it 42. On the more comparable (24MP) a7R it still clocked up 36 for sharpness, so it looks like the Sony 90mm macro is some genuinely stunning glass. *Sometimes* the grass actually is greener elsewhere.

A lot of this, for me, just comes down to becoming increasingly fed up with waiting for the lens that I need to get on with doing the photography I want to do in the way that I want to do it. Life is finite and I'm acutely aware that the number of years that I can get to the places I want to get to with a FF camera is also finite. Maybe I'm just not a patient enough person.

I take your point about the bag, of course, and and the overall volume of the gear is not likely to be reduced by much, if at all. I *might* try to opt for a lighter tripod in some cases that would not be a realistic option with my Pentax gear. And none of this would be under realistic consideration were it not that I recently received a bit of a financial windfall. I might well decide to hang on to my Pentax gear, as I really do love shooting with my K-1. Most of you are ecumenical, right?

---------- Post added 08-17-19 at 11:28 PM ----------

... My only gripe with those big lenses is actually not the size. Or with 15-30 it is, because using filters would mean investing filter kit what I could use only with that lens. And it would be big too.

Yes, that is another additional weight saving that I was not including in my figures. The Sony 16-35mm has an 82mm filter thread and can be used with my regular filter system without vignetting. It's also much more convenient to have one filter system for all my lens.

[biz-engineer]

The Sony 16-35mm has an 82mm filter thread and can be used with my regular filter system without vignetting.

The only problem is that 100mm filters will only work down to 20mm on FF due to additional distance between the filter thread and the filter position, because the filter glass isn't stuck on the lens directly. It's not only about the lens filter thread diameter. Trust me, I've tried.. So for wide angle below 20mm, there are the 130mm and 150mm filter systems. Or.. you have to stick the 100m square filters on the lens front and hold it there with rubber bands.


---------- Post added 18-08-19 at 08:46 ----------

DxO tested the Pentax 100mm on a K-3 and scored it 10 for sharpness, and the Sony on an a7r2 and gave it 42. On the more comparable (24MP) a7R it still clocked up 36 for sharpness, so it looks like the Sony 90mm macro is some genuinely stunning glass.

That's because on FF , DXO count the whole sensor area, so the score is higher than apsc. Now for macro if you take magnification into account, the K3II and DFA100 will still do a better job because the magnification on a K3 will 1.5x what it is on a Sony A7 with Sony macro lens.

[Rondec]

Thanks. I was actually looking at Sony's 90mm f2.8 Macro G OSS that is 602g and a somewhat eyewatering CAN$1499. But it is also (I believe) ranked by DxO as the sharpest macro they have ever tested! The weight of such a lens is not actually much of a factor for me since if I'm out to take macro I'm rarely if ever out to take landscape (or vice versa). I have Pentax's more recent 100mm macro and I think it is great. No complaints at all! I'm fairly new to macro photography so it is hard for me to imagine the Sony 90mm macro being better, to be honest. Nevertheless, DxO tested the Pentax 100mm on a K-3 and scored it 10 for sharpness, and the Sony on an a7r2 and gave it 42. On the more comparable (24MP) a7R it still clocked up 36 for sharpness, so it looks like the Sony 90mm macro is some genuinely stunning glass. *Sometimes* the grass actually is greener elsewhere.

A lot of this, for me, just comes down to becoming increasingly fed up with waiting for the lens that I need to get on with doing the photography I want to do in the way that I want to do it. Life is finite and I'm acutely aware that the number of years that I can get to the places I want to get to with a FF camera is also finite. Maybe I'm just not a patient enough person.

I take your point about the bag, of course, and and the overall volume of the gear is not likely to be reduced by much, if at all. I *might* try to opt for a lighter tripod in some cases that would not be a realistic option with my Pentax gear. And none of this would be under realistic consideration were it not that I recently received a bit of a financial windfall. I might well decide to hang on to my Pentax gear, as I really do love shooting with my K-1. Most of you are ecumenical, right?

---------- Post added 08-17-19 at 11:28 PM ----------



Yes, that is another additional weight saving that I was not including in my figures. The Sony 16-35mm has an 82mm filter thread and can be used with my regular filter system without vignetting. It's also much more convenient to have one filter system for all my lens.

I wouldn't use DXO Mark as a source for lens judgments. Their numbers really don't seem to have much meaning and are very much related to the sensor used to test a lens. The Sony is a good lens, but quite expensive. E Photozine reviewed both... Sony FE 90mm f/2.8 Macro G OSS Lens Review | ePHOTOzine Pentax-D FA 100mm f/2.8 Macro WR Lens Review | ePHOTOzine

Most of the review sites go based on a single copy. DXO Mark certainly does. Roger Cicala did some testing and found that the 90 macro has some of the highest copy to copy variation of any of the Sony lenses he tested. Lens Rentals | Blog

[repaap]

---------- Post added 08-17-19 at 11:28 PM ----------

[/COLOR]

Yes, that is another additional weight saving that I was not including in my figures. The Sony 16-35mm has an 82mm filter thread and can be used with my regular filter system without vignetting. It's also much more convenient to have one filter system for all my lens.

Well I’m not actually sure if I really need filtersystem with my 15-30. Other than that it is all good. I’m wishing for you luck to determine what will be best system for you.

[clackers]

I am truly delighted to be corrected on that! That is wonderful news!

I imagine that the Ricoh GR III really helped. It is very much a niche camera and a wonderful one at that. And I'm sure that APS-C Pentaxians likely feel less disgruntled than many full-framers might, there being much more DA glass out there. The less than enthralling update of the K-1 did not help, for me at least, to instil long-term confidence in their full-frame ambitions, either. The K-1ii was a terribly unambitious camera, especially given how Pentax has shown in the past that it can lead the way. So I remain skeptical that Pentax has a long-term future in full frame market if it does not embrace mirrorless.

Still, I'm more confident given that information that Pentax is on to a strategy that could work in the medium term at least, developing for the APS-C and niche markets.

Cheers,

Canon and Nikon got punished by the market with reduced sales when they went to FF mirrorless, Socrateeze, so
I'm not sure what conclusions you draw from that. I can't prove it, but I suspect the Panasonic SR-1 - a desperate effort to move away from small sensors - will fail.

It may be that Pentax releases a MILC in MF or APS-C before FF. They have said they are studying the market very carefully, and it could be in any format.

They certainly cannot make a mistake of the magnitude of Canon and Nikon, they have such a small share already that a similar loss would probably cause Ricoh to close them down.

Similarly, copying Canon and Nikon's strategy of orphaning their old mounts and trying to get R and Z buyers to also acquire a new set of lenses would not go down well with all Pentaxians. We like the K mount.

[Socrateeze]

The only problem is that 100mm filters will only work down to 20mm on FF due to additional distance between the filter thread and the filter position, because the filter glass isn't stuck on the lens directly. It's not only about the lens filter thread diameter. Trust me, I've tried.. So for wide angle below 20mm, there are the 130mm and 150mm filter systems. Or.. you have to stick the 100m square filters on the lens front and hold it there with rubber bands.

I think that rather depends on the specifics of the filter system. For example, Lee *claims* that with their 82mm wide angle adapter most people use their 100 system down to 16mm, and they implicitly claim that it will be without vignetting unless you are using more than two slots or adding their CPL on the front. In that case you'd have to zoom to 18mm to avoid vignetting. (Of course, this would not work with the threadless Pentax 15-30mm).

In any case, I've used 100mm filters on the Irix 15mm without significant vignetting using their own filter holder, which is specifically designed to be used with the 15mm (which has a 95mm filter thread) - and it works with other lenses via an adapter ring. That works okay until I want to use a CPL with other filters, then it vignettes. Have you tried Nisi? I'm about to try their system which reportedly does not vignette at 16mm even with a CPL (which cleverly sits inside the filter system attachment ring).

[Kunzite]

I can't prove it, but I suspect the Panasonic SR-1 - a desperate effort to move away from small sensors - will fail.

It might be their Konica-Minolta 7D.