I only make a video when I have something that I want to say and think might be beneficial to somebody somewhere. Anyone who has followed my video journey knows that I have basically 2 professional requirements of my camera systems: 1.) Landscapes, which require the making and selling of up to 30x40 inch prints and panoramas, and 2.) Weddings, which don't tax any of the major systems too much these days.
So far the Fuji's have been great for weddings and not so great for landscapes. The XTrans sensors have issues when enlarging far away fine details in landscapes to 30x40. The "watercolor" effect is really a bad interpolation of data that makes fine details look like "little worms." All the major guys I have been using as examples of "great" Fuji work don't shoot "big landscapes." I am not sure if I could make it work or not, but I do know I don't want to waste a lot of time trying to find out if it does or not.
So that leaves me with Pentax for both pursuits. And there is no doubt in my mind that the K3 and K3II is more than capable of delivering the results I need for both of my requirements. We shot a wedding 2 weeks ago 100% Pentax and it was great.
BUT, lenses come in 4 major categories: bad, good, excellent and LEGENDARY. I have shot LEGENDARY glass. In 2008 I was shooting Nikon's 14-24, 24-70 and 70-200 2.8 VR II. I have also shot Canon's 24-70 and 70-200 2.8 L II.
(Note, Canon never really had any LEGENDARY wide zooms until recently. The 11-24 and new 16-35 F4 L IS are LEGENDARY quality optics.)
For my landscape work, I have always struggled to find a Pentax APS-c wide lens that is of LEGENDARY quality. Some are excellent, but not LEGENDARY. Tony Northrop made a video in the last few days where he said Pentax's biggest mistake was making the K1 instead of focusing on the APS-c lens line and cameras. I feel the same way. I would have much preferred some LEGENDARY quality Pentax glass for APS-C instead of the K1. (Hey this is about what I would have wanted.
) Now Pentax has a LEGENDARY FF camera with no glass for it, yet.
The 15-30mm Tamron doesn't take filters. The 70-200 2.8 Tamron isn't smaller and lighter like the F4 Canons. The 24-70 Tamron I have no use for. So how fast can Ricoh come up with some LEGENDARY F4 Lenses for their K1? Why bother when B&H can have the Canon lenses at my door in a day?
At the end of the day, a camera bag with a 6D, 16-35mm F4L IS, 50mm 1.4, and 70-200 F4L IS, is going to be almost as light as a K3II with 12-24, 35 LTD, and 50-135mm, and much much lighter than the same bag with a K1, 15-30 (that doesn't take filters) 50mm, and 70-200mm 2.8 Tamron.
So there's a video here somewhere, but what has been holding me back is the desire to not have it sound like I'm saying Pentax is "no good." What I want to say is that Ricoh made a marketing decision to pursue full frame, when what attracted me to the system was their commitment to APS-c. Ricoh has now split their attentions, and made it less likely to give me what I want, (I want, not what EVERYBODY SHOULD WANT,) and I am reevaluating my options...
If Fuji had traditional Bayer sensors, it would be game over. If Ricoh concentrated on a full lens set for APS-c, game over. If the K1 gets anything resembling the 16-35mm F4L IS, game over. I could make any of those scenarios work. Or just order a 6D and 3 Canon lenses and I'm done... (for now. for landscapes.
)