[chiane]

I currently have been shooting the k-01 for two years and the K-r before that. I mainly shoot architecture and family stuff. I recently bought a Leica 109, which is the Panasonic LX100, for a second smaller camera to take out and about for easy family stuff and better video. It has really opened my eyes a bit. I am really enjoying being able to access everything without diving into the menus. I love the manual dials for shutter speed and exposure compensation, I love how silent the whole thing is, and the AF on this little camera crushes my Pentax stuff, even in low light and tracking. I mean crushes them. So as much as I love my K-01, I am looking to get more of these features into an APS-C ILC main camera.

So the easier move is to the k3. I have been looking at the sensor shift to add a little help of a mini shift lens, which there is another thread on about right now. It also has better access to functions than my previous Pentax's. I have also been eyeing the x-T1, as it gives me the manual control dials atop just like the lx100/109 in APS-C. I don't have access to either, so which is a more enjoyable experience, or are they about the same, just different ways to change the same things?

The K3 allows me to use the few da limiteds I have and love, but the Fuji has some nice lenses too. They both have the same focal lengths I use (now I use a Sigma 30mm f1.4 for indoor around the house, an 18-135 for general outside, and a da 15mm for semi-wide angle and a Sigma 10-20 for architecture) but I have also been looking at the 16-50 and the 50-135 f2.8's. Fuji has a nice version of all of these, but I am not confident in the Pentax 16-50 and 50-135mm, even after they are supposedly fixed. Reports of failures still surfacing.

Now here's the kicker, and why I started my own thread when I see a few others out there. I rarely shoot with a viewfinder. Either I am shooting architecture on a tripod, or I am shooting my kids at every level except my eye level. I have heard that the K3 has about the same speed shooting LV as the K-01, or a little better. I thought that was great until I tried the lx100. I have no idea how fast the Fuji is.

The one issue I've read about Pentax shooters going to Fuji is extra steps converting raw files into lightroom. This would drive me batty. Not sure if that's still true now.

I realize not using a viewfinder is a bit of blasphemy and the response is often, "well use a viewfinder". I never have sun issues, my hands are steady as rocks, it just doesn't suit me. I am not old school and I am not crawling around like a war correspondent in the mud and snow to shoot my kids. If you were me, would you stick with Pentax for how I use a camera? Looking for some good food for thought.



Looking

[enoeske]

I currently have been shooting the k-01 for two years and the K-r before that. I mainly shoot architecture and family stuff. I recently bought a Leica 109, which is the Panasonic LX100, for a second smaller camera to take out and about for easy family stuff and better video. It has really opened my eyes a bit. I am really enjoying being able to access everything without diving into the menus. I love the manual dials for shutter speed and exposure compensation, I love how silent the whole thing is, and the AF on this little camera crushes my Pentax stuff, even in low light and tracking. I mean crushes them. So as much as I love my K-01, I am looking to get more of these features into an APS-C ILC main camera.

So the easier move is to the k3. I have been looking at the sensor shift to add a little help of a mini shift lens, which there is another thread on about right now. It also has better access to functions than my previous Pentax's. I have also been eyeing the x-T1, as it gives me the manual control dials atop just like the lx100/109 in APS-C. I don't have access to either, so which is a more enjoyable experience, or are they about the same, just different ways to change the same things?

The K3 allows me to use the few da limiteds I have and love, but the Fuji has some nice lenses too. They both have the same focal lengths I use (now I use a Sigma 30mm f1.4 for indoor around the house, an 18-135 for general outside, and a da 15mm for semi-wide angle and a Sigma 10-20 for architecture) but I have also been looking at the 16-50 and the 50-135 f2.8's. Fuji has a nice version of all of these, but I am not confident in the Pentax 16-50 and 50-135mm, even after they are supposedly fixed. Reports of failures still surfacing.

Now here's the kicker, and why I started my own thread when I see a few others out there. I rarely shoot with a viewfinder. Either I am shooting architecture on a tripod, or I am shooting my kids at every level except my eye level. I have heard that the K3 has about the same speed shooting LV as the K-01, or a little better. I thought that was great until I tried the lx100. I have no idea how fast the Fuji is.

The one issue I've read about Pentax shooters going to Fuji is extra steps converting raw files into lightroom. This would drive me batty. Not sure if that's still true now.

I realize not using a viewfinder is a bit of blasphemy and the response is often, "well use a viewfinder". I never have sun issues, my hands are steady as rocks, it just doesn't suit me. I am not old school and I am not crawling around like a war correspondent in the mud and snow to shoot my kids. If you were me, would you stick with Pentax for how I use a camera? Looking for some good food for thought.



Looking

The K-S2 with the swivel screen might be a consideration as well.

[twitch]

You need to figure out, or share with us:
1) what IQ is acceptable to you, m4/3, APSC or FF?
2) how important is weight? Do smaller cameras or mirrorless hold a great appeal due to their size?
3) how important is video?

I think that will help narrow the options.

[chiane]

You need to figure out, or share with us:
1) what IQ is acceptable to you, m4/3, APSC or FF?
2) how important is weight? Do smaller cameras or mirrorless hold a great appeal due to their size?
3) how important is video?

I think that will help narrow the options.

Well, I really want to stick with APS-C and not go down to m4/3 or up to FF. I shoot a lot around the house, and I shoot with natural lighting. Using the 30mm f1.4 just barely is passable with a shutter speed that doesn't blur with moving humans. I have found out with the Lx100/109 that 4/3rd sensor (yes, I know its not the whole sensor) just doesn't cut it. I either need flash, or it's too grainy. I also like better DOF control. I am not getting a ton of it with the lx100. So I still want an APS-C sensor I can stick a 1.4 lens on.

Weight is huge for me, and one reason I don't want to go FF, at least until I see what Pentax's version holds a year from now. Small lenses are what drew me to Pentax, and a lightweight body is what drew me to the K-01. I just don't enjoy schlepping weight around.

Video is big for me, but I think I might have satisfied it with the lx100. Both the Pentax and the Fuji kind of blow at video, at least for the on the fly video I shoot, mostly because I need AF tracking in video. I just can't keep up with manual and erratic moving subjects. I keep wanting Pentax to put a team of people on video, but they are going into it kicking and screaming it seems.

And yes, the Sony A7ii ticks a lot of boxes, and as I type this, I have to consider it as it does tick a lot of boxes. I don't love the lens selection, and I am not dying to shell out $1,300 for every lens, as it seems Sony is letting Zeiss do all their heavy lifting.

[twitch]

We have similair priorities I think.

I would look at the new Pentax K-S2 which is small and has good AF and obviously fits your existing glass. Otherwise I think the X-T1 is a good choice, but their lenses are at least as big as pentax limiteds and get ready to shell out a lot of money.

The other interesting camera for you would be the Samsung NX500; good video, small body, APSC, and reasonably priced lenses albeit limited options.

[chiane]

We have similair priorities I think.

I would look at the new Pentax K-S2 which is small and has good AF and obviously fits your existing glass. Otherwise I think the X-T1 is a good choice, but their lenses are at least as big as pentax limiteds and get ready to shell out a lot of money.

The other interesting camera for you would be the Samsung NX500; good video, small body, APSC, and reasonably priced lenses albeit limited options.

Twitch, thing is that the k-3 isn't all that much more that the ks-2 at it's current sale price. I am also worried that it gets me right back to about the same level of control as the K-r. Yes there's a second dial, but no top screen, the Iso button is not super easy to quick access, and not much for programmable buttons or buttons for other features. I really want a shooting experience like I'm getting customizing the lx100. I think the K-3 gets closer to that with way more access to stuff without diving into the menus.

[MJSfoto1956]

I rarely shoot with a viewfinder. Either I am shooting architecture on a tripod, or I am shooting my kids at every level except my eye level.

If the above is truly a primary requirement I would opt for a swivel screen over all else.
As suggested, the new K-S2 is your camera.

YMMV

M

[chiane]

If the above is truly a primary requirement I would opt for a swivel screen over all else.
As suggested, the new K-S2 is your camera.

YMMV

M

Thanks. I like the swivel screen, but I can still shoot live view with a fixed screen, hold it high or low, and see it just fine on the angle. AS much as I've always wanted one, it's not a deal killer not to have it. I just think the k-2 puts me right back to the kr as far as enjoyment and ease of access to controls, which is not where I want to be. Am I wrong about that? What can't you change on the k-2 that you can on the k3 from an outside dedicated button?

But more importantly, how slow is the af using LV on the k-2? I guess we don't know, but if it's anything like the k-50 or the k5-11, it's out for me. I am shooting moving objects. What I have now isn't cutting it. Am I just getting more of the same?

[Wolfeye]

All I can add is my own experience, as I own both cameras, bought them roughly the same time. I've taken hundreds of pics with the K-3, probably fewer than 200 with the X-T1. I am and always will be a SLR man. EVFs aren't there yet. That said, I love the Fuji's dials and wish the K-3 had them. I specifically bought the X-T1 b/c its control layout is exactly what I want in a camera. The only other camera to ever do that for me was the Mamiya ZE-X.

[carpents]

Well you don't need to give up Pentax glass to shoot Fuji, in fact that's one of the best aspects of the current mirrorless cameras.



But of course they become manual focus lenses.

That being said, the Fuji primes are as good as any lenses, from any manufacturer. I don't have an X-T1 but have heard the AF is acceptable. It isn't going to compete with the Nikon D4 but then neither is a Pentax.

There are no 'additional steps' in Lightroom for Fuji files. (Assuming you are using an up-to-date version of Lightroom.)

What I like the most about Fuji:
(1) The controls.
(2) The size.
(3) Nice menus/access for typical shooting scenarios.
(4) Ease of adapting & using other lenses.
(5) Excellent white balance - MUCH better than any Pentax or Nikon I've used.
(6) High ISO shooting (1600+) is IMO two stops better than the Pentax K-5.

[chiane]

All I can add is my own experience, as I own both cameras, bought them roughly the same time. I've taken hundreds of pics with the K-3, probably fewer than 200 with the X-T1. I am and always will be a SLR man. EVFs aren't there yet. That said, I love the Fuji's dials and wish the K-3 had them. I specifically bought the X-T1 b/c its control layout is exactly what I want in a camera. The only other camera to ever do that for me was the Mamiya ZE-X.

What makes you a dlsr man? is it using an optical viewfinder? What specifically makes you shoot more with Pentax, outside of the whole EVF/OVF discussion?

[skierd]

If you don't use a viewfinder and are weight sensitive, I'd save a couple hundred bucks and get a XE1 or XE2 over the XT1. Same sensor correct, just different ergos correct?

[ruggiex]

If you don't use a viewfinder and are weight sensitive, I'd save a couple hundred bucks and get a XE1 or XE2 over the XT1. Same sensor correct, just different ergos correct?

Lowest end Fuji with similar sensor as XT1 is XM1, but is missing phase detection. XE and XA have regular sensor.

Lightroom has ironed out most of its issues with Fuji's raw files. However, the result is supposedly not quite as good still. I use my XM1 for shooting Jpeg only so I don't know. I still am much more comfortable shooting with K3 when operational speed is required. Weight wise, if you go with KS2 or something like that it isn't that much different from XT1 but a bit bulkier. I prefer zoom lenses so using small body is pretty limited to standard zoom range before it becomes uncomfortable to use. I haven't even bothered with the 16-50 f2.8 because I know the weight is going to make my XM1 awkward. I'd say, if you can, play around with the camera before switching.

[MJSfoto1956]

just an FYI -- if you use DxO Optics Pro (which I do), there will be no profile for a camera body BrandX with camera lens BrandY combination. That would be a deal killer for me. Obviously if you don't use DxO that is not an issue. Just one more data point.

Michael

[carpents]

If you don't use a viewfinder and are weight sensitive, I'd save a couple hundred bucks and get a XE1 or XE2 over the XT1. Same sensor correct, just different ergos correct?

X-E2 for sure. Much faster, newer technology, etc. etc. The X-T1 does have a couple features that the others don't, like its 1/32,000th electronic shutter. But the X-E2 has almost everything else. (Or X-A1/X-M1/X-A2!)

Lowest end Fuji with similar sensor as XT1 is XM1, but is missing phase detection. XE and XA have regular sensor.

X-A1/A2 are the only Bayer-type sensors. All the others are Fuji X-Trans.

I was hesitant about the IQ of foliage as was reported by the X-Trans sensor. I'm fine with it. Sometimes it can be weird - but so too can Bayer output. Plus, once Lightroom Version XYZ figures it out, I can go back and re-process any Pulitzer shots then.