[EssJayEff]

I like to hear an announcement in 2023 so I can move on to MILC or stay with the last full frame featured DSLR.

This was my previously expressed belief, but in mid-December I changed my mind after a lot of thought. I had my hypothetical sights on a Nikon Z7 II or a Fujifilm GFX50S II, but for me the cost of switching did not match my level of photographic activity. Three thousand dollars for the Z7 alone; another grand+ for the 24-120mm lens. Comparable numbers for the Fuji, too.

The reason for wanting/needing to change was my growing frustration when using my wounded K-1 (self-inflicted during a firmware upgrade). The headache was having to remove the battery to turn off the camera, which I did when changing lenses between locations and uses, etc. But a $4,000 entry point is beyond my reckoning. I could have offset that some buy selling my Pentax gear, but I wasn't likely to get much for my crippled K-1, a K-5, a K-01, and smattering of lenses (mostly vintage, but some modern) . . . especially around Christmas.

So, why the pivot? I had a light-bulb moment for my circumstance. If I bought a K-1 II, I could keep my 28-105 on the K-1, reducing the number of times I needed swap lenses (i.e., remove the battery) then use the Mark II for everything else. So while shopping for the umpteenth time on one of the major online dealers, I added a Mark II to my cart for just under $1,700 USD. It came with a free strobe, but I rarely use flash so no biggie there. Then something extraordinary happened . . . .

At the bottom of the screen displaying the contents of my shopping cart, the (algorithm?) had a few suggested offers, including the HD 43mm Limited, a lens I've wanted for some time—for LESS than $100. REALLY? For a $600 lens? I clicked on the offer immediately lest the (algorithm?) come to its senses. I paid for the bundle, but the lens was backordered. Surely, I thought, the man behind the "algorithm curtain" would catch the mistake once it shipped! Nope . . . it arrived a couple weeks later without an "um, er, excuse-our-mistake" email.

I did not open the shipping box until this morning. I was hoping that, in the meantime, Ricoh might announce the upcoming Mark III so I could ship it back. The return deadline is next week, however, so I unpacked the camera and the battery is charging as I type. Should Ricoh announce a Mark III on Monday . . . so be it. I'll buy a used 645Z when I've saved up enough pennies . . . or find another "too-good-to-pass-up" deal.

---

Last edited by EssJayEff; 02-04-2023 at 09:24 AM. Reason: the usual typo

[biz-engineer]

I had my hypothetical sights on a Nikon Z7 II or a Fujifilm GFX50S II, but for me the cost of switching did not match my level of photographic activity. Three thousand dollars for the Z7 alone; another grand+ for the 24-120mm lens. Comparable numbers for the Fuji, too.

That was my conclusion as well. And I think everyone is more or less in the same boat. All former DSLR brands (except Pentax) turned to mirrorless systems, dumped DSLR. Mirrorless systems bring advanced auto-focus, and video, but image quality and resolutions aren't significantly better, in many cases pretty much the same. So if you don't have a big need for eye and video, it's hard to justify the cost of switching. I've seen many people in the field still using their DSLR. Now, if mirrorless market leaders keep improving sensors and cameras, five years from now, the performance gap between DSLR and mirrorless will widen, then maybe improvements will be worth the cost of switching. For me, there are only 3 mirrorless bodies that are games changers: Sony A1 (speed @ 50Mp), Nikon Z9 (speed@45Mp) and GFX100s (102Mp in a single shot, body size of a K1), but they are not cheap! Everything else give pretty much same as DSLR image quality, except for AF and video. I'll wear down my Pentax kit for some more years, until we start seeing GFX100s for sale at half the price, maybe 2 to 3 years down the road if Fuji introduces some new models.

[jersey]

IMHO a 45.7 MP would not seem to be enough of technological leap for a K-1 Mk III. I realize the larger pixel size is important to minimize noise and maximum dynamic range but going to a BSI 45.7 or 50 + MP would be a minimum up grade on the sensor for the K-1 Mk III. I'd probably take a BSI 50 MP over the 62 MP sensor, but at this point it's all hyperbole. If even there's an announcement in 2023, we'll be waiting until 2024 to hold the K-1 Mark III in our mitts. I like to hear an announcement in 2023 so I can move on to MILC or stay with the last full frame featured DSLR.

Question is will it be worth it? Money term? I mean - if you earn money on your photos then it is nobrainer, you use gear that brings you most of return for money put in it. But if you are a hobbyist, and your hobby is not printing photowallpapers then will additional Mpx be really worth spending money on different system? Only for Mpx?

[bad2thegnome]

This was my previously expressed belief, but in mid-December I changed my mind after a lot of thought. I had my hypothetical sights on a Nikon Z7 II or a Fujifilm GFX50S II, but for me the cost of switching did not match my level of photographic activity. Three thousand dollars for the Z7 alone; another grand+ for the 24-120mm lens. Comparable numbers for the Fuji, too.

The reason for wanting/needing to change was my growing frustration when using my wounded K-1 (self-inflicted during a firmware upgrade). The headache was having to remove the battery to turn off the camera, which I did when changing lenses between locations and uses, etc. But a $4,000 entry point is beyond my reckoning. I could have offset that some buy selling my Pentax gear, but I wasn't likely to get much for my crippled K-1, a K-5, a K-01, and smattering of lenses (mostly vintage, but some modern) . . . especially around Christmas.

So, why the pivot? I had a light-bulb moment for my circumstance. If I bought a K-1 II, I could keep my 28-105 on the K-1, reducing the number of times I needed swap lenses (i.e., remove the battery) then use the Mark II for everything else. So while shopping for the umpteenth time on one of the major online dealers, I added a Mark II to my cart for just under $1,700 USD. It came with a free strobe, but I rarely use flash so no biggie there. Then something extraordinary happened . . . .

At the bottom of the screen displaying the contents of my shopping cart, the (algorithm?) had a few suggested offers, including the HD 43mm Limited, a lens I've wanted for some time—for LESS than $100. REALLY? For a $600 lens? I clicked on the offer immediately lest the (algorithm?) come to its senses. I paid for the bundle, but the lens was backordered. Surely, I thought, the man behind the "algorithm curtain" would catch the mistake once it shipped! Nope . . . it arrived a couple weeks later without an "um, er, excuse-our-mistake" email.

I did not open the shipping box until this morning. I was hoping that, in the meantime, Ricoh might announce the upcoming Mark III so I could ship it back. The return deadline is next week, however, so I unpacked the camera and the battery is charging as I type. Should Ricoh announce a Mark III on Monday . . . so be it. I'll buy a used 645Z when I've saved up enough pennies . . . or find another "too-good-to-pass-up" deal.

What a great find on the 43mm limited. It is my favorite lens in the Pentax system, and is the main reason I keep my K1. I also love the 77 for portrait work. Maybe one day I will spring for the DFA 85 but until there is a K1 MK3 I won't be putting that kind of money into the system. I think the plans to stay with the OVF is a great idea from Pentax. With how many Leica shooters I see on the street... there certainly is a market of people that like to shoot things other than mirrorless. Not to mention the recently announced film cameras which I am sure will be very popular.

[Edward Brock]

Not in our lifetime!

hahahahaha

[Roland Karlsson]

That was my conclusion as well. And I think everyone is more or less in the same boat. All former DSLR brands (except Pentax) turned to mirrorless systems, dumped DSLR. Mirrorless systems bring advanced auto-focus, and video, but image quality and resolutions aren't significantly better, in many cases pretty much the same. So if you don't have a big need for eye and video, it's hard to justify the cost of switching. I've seen many people in the field still using their DSLR. Now, if mirrorless market leaders keep improving sensors and cameras, five years from now, the performance gap between DSLR and mirrorless will widen, then maybe improvements will be worth the cost of switching. For me, there are only 3 mirrorless bodies that are games changers: Sony A1 (speed @ 50Mp), Nikon Z9 (speed@45Mp) and GFX100s (102Mp in a single shot, body size of a K1), but they are not cheap! Everything else give pretty much same as DSLR image quality, except for AF and video. I'll wear down my Pentax kit for some more years, until we start seeing GFX100s for sale at half the price, maybe 2 to 3 years down the road if Fuji introduces some new models.

• For me, one of the major advantages of MILC is that it do focus on the sensor. Then I no longer need to worry whether my lens need calibration or not.
• The possibility to take totally quiet photos also has a value sometimes.
• Then there is also the advantage of new fancy lenses, which is much easier to make for a shorter registration distance.

And this and other stuff you mentioned are balancing against

• An optical view finder.
• A view finder that works without batteries.

[Lord Lucan]

... And this and other stuff you mentioned are balancing against

• An optical view finder.
• A view finder that works without batteries.

The K-1iii will not work without batteries, so it will not matter whether the viewfinder does or not. However, it is true that DSLRs use less battery power than MILCs.

[Rondec]

This was my previously expressed belief, but in mid-December I changed my mind after a lot of thought. I had my hypothetical sights on a Nikon Z7 II or a Fujifilm GFX50S II, but for me the cost of switching did not match my level of photographic activity. Three thousand dollars for the Z7 alone; another grand+ for the 24-120mm lens. Comparable numbers for the Fuji, too.

The reason for wanting/needing to change was my growing frustration when using my wounded K-1 (self-inflicted during a firmware upgrade). The headache was having to remove the battery to turn off the camera, which I did when changing lenses between locations and uses, etc. But a $4,000 entry point is beyond my reckoning. I could have offset that some buy selling my Pentax gear, but I wasn't likely to get much for my crippled K-1, a K-5, a K-01, and smattering of lenses (mostly vintage, but some modern) . . . especially around Christmas.

So, why the pivot? I had a light-bulb moment for my circumstance. If I bought a K-1 II, I could keep my 28-105 on the K-1, reducing the number of times I needed swap lenses (i.e., remove the battery) then use the Mark II for everything else. So while shopping for the umpteenth time on one of the major online dealers, I added a Mark II to my cart for just under $1,700 USD. It came with a free strobe, but I rarely use flash so no biggie there. Then something extraordinary happened . . . .

At the bottom of the screen displaying the contents of my shopping cart, the (algorithm?) had a few suggested offers, including the HD 43mm Limited, a lens I've wanted for some time—for LESS than $100. REALLY? For a $600 lens? I clicked on the offer immediately lest the (algorithm?) come to its senses. I paid for the bundle, but the lens was backordered. Surely, I thought, the man behind the "algorithm curtain" would catch the mistake once it shipped! Nope . . . it arrived a couple weeks later without an "um, er, excuse-our-mistake" email.

I did not open the shipping box until this morning. I was hoping that, in the meantime, Ricoh might announce the upcoming Mark III so I could ship it back. The return deadline is next week, however, so I unpacked the camera and the battery is charging as I type. Should Ricoh announce a Mark III on Monday . . . so be it. I'll buy a used 645Z when I've saved up enough pennies . . . or find another "too-good-to-pass-up" deal.

I recently looked at the cost of changing to a Z mount system. To convert my two K-1 IIs and DFA 24-70 f2.8, 15-30, and 70-200 into a couple of Nikon Z7 IIs and equivalent lenses, I think the cost would be about 6000 dollars for the bodies plus 7500 dollars for those lenses. Add in my DFA *50 and 85 lenses and I guess you have to go with the f1.2 Z mount options which are 2800 dollars for the 85mm and 2100 dollars for the 50mm. Even going with the f1.8 versions runs 650 for the 50mm and 800 dollars for the 85mm.

Quite simply, prices for MILC gear are very high. Companies have raised prices to compensate for lower overall sales and that means that cost of switching systems is pretty astronomical.

My wife shoots weddings and she really needs a couple of full frame cameras plus f2.8 zooms and the primes. I never thought that accumulating them was that expensive, but I suppose in hindsight we got some good deals along the way.

[Roland Karlsson]

The K-1iii will not work without batteries, so it will not matter whether the viewfinder does or not. However, it is true that DSLRs use less battery power than MILCs.

I think it matters. That is good enough for me. I like to be able to look in the view finder without turning on the camera. Its a thing for me. Not a big thing, but I like it.

BTW - you can save battery with a MILC by turning it off when not taking pictures.

---------- Post added 03-26-23 at 02:08 PM ----------

I recently looked at the cost of changing to a Z mount system. To convert my two K-1 IIs and DFA 24-70 f2.8, 15-30, and 70-200 into a couple of Nikon Z7 IIs and equivalent lenses, I think the cost would be about 6000 dollars for the bodies plus 7500 dollars for those lenses. Add in my DFA *50 and 85 lenses and I guess you have to go with the f1.2 Z mount options which are 2800 dollars for the 85mm and 2100 dollars for the 50mm. Even going with the f1.8 versions runs 650 for the 50mm and 800 dollars for the 85mm.

Quite simply, prices for MILC gear are very high. Companies have raised prices to compensate for lower overall sales and that means that cost of switching systems is pretty astronomical.

My wife shoots weddings and she really needs a couple of full frame cameras plus f2.8 zooms and the primes. I never thought that accumulating them was that expensive, but I suppose in hindsight we got some good deals along the way.

The K-3 III is not cheap for an APS-C camera. It is more expensive than most Canon, Nikon and Sony APS-C MILC cameras, maybe all.

One wonders what Pentax contemplate setting for price on K-1 III when it arrives?

[gatorguy]

I think it matters. That is good enough for me. I like to be able to look in the view finder without turning on the camera. Its a thing for me. Not a big thing, but I like it.

BTW - you can save battery with a MILC by turning it off when not taking pictures.

---------- Post added 03-26-23 at 02:08 PM ----------



The K-3 III is not cheap for an APS-C camera. It is more expensive than most Canon, Nikon and Sony APS-C MILC cameras, maybe all.

And then there are the lenses....
Canon EOS RF Lenses | B&H Photo Video

It's not as bad as printers and the ink, but it's in the same vein. With Pentax they aren't changing the mount to strongly "encourage" new lens sales so they have to be more honest with the camera price.

[Roland Karlsson]

And then there are the lenses....
Canon EOS RF Lenses | B&H Photo Video

It's not as bad as printers and the ink, but it's in the same vein. With Pentax they aren't changing the mount to strongly "encourage" new lens sales so they have to be more honest with the camera price.

To be fair. Without changing the mount, they can never compete with Sony. One of the advantages of MILC is the shorter registration distance.

There have been several suggestions that Pentax should go MILC with the K-mount. But - it will not fly.

[sebberry]

There have been several suggestions that Pentax should go MILC with the K-mount. But - it will not fly.

Why not? People are mounting Canon DSLR lenses to Canon MILC bodies...

[gatorguy]

To be fair. Without changing the mount, they can never compete with Sony. One of the advantages of MILC is the shorter registration distance.

There have been several suggestions that Pentax should go MILC with the K-mount. But - it will not fly.

Of course they can't "compete with Sony", and for far more reasons than the lens registration distance.

There's no indication they intend to compete with any mirrorless manufacturer. Those guys already provide plenty of competition for each other in a dwindling market. Long term they cannot all survive, at least not as any more than a shell of what they were.

Pentax on the other hand is staying right where they belong: DSLR.

[Roland Karlsson]

Why not? People are mounting Canon DSLR lenses to Canon MILC bodies...

Sorry. But your answer is incomprehensible.

They are using DSLR lenses via an adapter. They do not have the old mount ob the MILC camera.

---------- Post added 03-27-23 at 12:03 AM ----------

Of course they can't "compete with Sony", and for far more reasons than the lens registration distance.

There's no indication they intend to compete with any mirrorless manufacturer. Those guys already provide plenty of competition for each other in a dwindling market. Long term they cannot all survive, at least not as any more than a shell of what they were.

Pentax on the other hand is staying right where they belong: DSLR.

That is your guess. I would say that competing with Sony making MILC with an old DSLR mount would have been infinitely more difficult than doing so changing mount.

I would say that changing mount was necessary.

Then you might have the opinion that "everybody dies".

[Rondec]

I think it matters. That is good enough for me. I like to be able to look in the view finder without turning on the camera. Its a thing for me. Not a big thing, but I like it.

BTW - you can save battery with a MILC by turning it off when not taking pictures.

---------- Post added 03-26-23 at 02:08 PM ----------



The K-3 III is not cheap for an APS-C camera. It is more expensive than most Canon, Nikon and Sony APS-C MILC cameras, maybe all.

One wonders what Pentax contemplate setting for price on K-1 III when it arrives?

My point was that the cost of a new system was more. I would purchase a K-1 III when it arrives, even if the cost is 3000-ish (which it probably will be). On the other hand, if I moved to Nikon or Canon, it would cost me over 10,000 to purchase roughly equivalent gear.

As far as the K-3 III goes, that simply is an indication that Nikon and Canon have pretty much abandoned APS-C. The only company that is really investing resources in APS-C right now is Fuji and cameras like the XT-5 are similar in price to the K-3 III and the XH2S is quite a bit more expensive.

As far as your comments about a new mount go, the shorter registration distance is only a benefit when it comes to designing wide angle lenses. The reason that people like the shorter mounts has to do with being able to mount legacy lenses via an adapter. Since I don't see Pentax going MILC any time soon, they won't launch a new mount either.