[filmamigo]

I have shot multiple systems as I figured our what I liked. It helped that there were good sources of used gear for cheap (KEH etc.) Plus I like to shoot film as well as digital, which makes some things cheaper.

I've sampled the Contax system; the Fuji X digital system, and Nikon (digital and film.)

If I had my way, I would shoot a Nikon F3 and F100 with Pentax Limited lenses. Unfortunately, I haven't liked the results from adapted lenses (Pentax to Nikon requires a glass-element adapter that robs resolution, and I wasn't a fan of manually focussing my Limiteds on the Fuji XE1.

So I have stayed true to Pentax in large part thanks to the Limited lenses. (The Pentax bodies are good, but not the reason I stay.)

Of course this only applies to miniature formats (35mm and below.) In medium format I'm a Bronica guy!

[Alex645]

How many of you shoot two systems?

I primarily shoot Pentax medium format film and Nikon FF digital, but sometimes find myself with a Nikon 35mm film and Pentax APS-C. It works for me; I have my own reasons and history.

I have no intension to become a professional.

I understand, but if you're being paid, the couple expect you to be and act as a pro, which includes the calibre of your equipment.

I am thinking of getting the Sony A6500 mirrorless plus the Tamron 28-75 f2.8 FE lens soon to be released mid year. I was thinking of getting the K-1. But even the K-1 at reduced price is 500€ expensive than the A6500.
And I am not sure if I really care about FF.
My question is, Is this sound thinking?

Yes and no. You've probably thought thru a lot not mentioned in your post. I have no doubt the APS-C Sony a6500 can get the job done. But if I were you, I would spend 500€ more for a K-1. You should be making that difference in just one wedding. FF will put you ahead of all the other mirrorless cameras at the event in terms of both results, options to crop, and perception.

Most couples, or most parents that may be paying for the photographer, don't know photography. All they know is that if you're running around with what looks like a 500€ camera, they will judge you and your price and also you'll command a little less authority when posing shots. (Yes, I know the a6500 is worth 3x that.) When you're out there with a FF DSLR that looks pro and expensive, the couple and their family will feel they are getting their money's worth because they don't know how to use a DSLR and don't have one at their disposal.

The best argument for having a mirrorless IMO is being able to shoot nearly silently during the ceremony.

[UncleVanya]

The main reason is the AF. I didnt want to mention the main reason because I know where it will lead.
I have seen countless thread.
Another reason is that one of the camera shop close to me (80km away) that had Pentax stopped the pentax brand.
At this moment there are only two shops that I know of that sell Pentax is this country.
I am not leaving pentax. But I want to have some flexibility.[COLOR="Silver"]

Where you lose me is the 28-75 on an APSC for wedding use. I am not seeing how a lens that narrow gives you the range you need at a wedding. The same lens on a FF body would be a no brainer, but on crop that seems very narrow.

As for Focus. The K-3 is inferior to the K-1 from all accounts but I have no idea how much better (and under what conditions) the Sony is. I don't find my Panasonic GX-7 to exceed my K-3 but I also don't shoot anything that might benefit from enhanced AF MOST of the time. I wish I could provide better input here. In truth maintaining multiple systems is a pain unless the payoff is big or the expectations are small. I ended up with m43 by trying to assemble a smaller travel kit and play with mirrorless. I got in for cheap and expectations were small. My Dad then grew the system by buying more stuff and for a time was happy playing at it but never really got his hobby back off the ground. I then reacquired my gear and his and have two systems. It's more costly to maintain - two systems to upgrade over time, two times the lenses, etc. I don't know that I would ever consider doing what you are doing - I think I would only do so as a trial to see if switching was possible. Most two or three system users I know are either pro's or they need multiple formats (645, FF, APSC, M43, 1", etc.)

[CDW]

I recently sold my 645Z system and lenses, as I no longer find it a satisfactory system to travel with due to some airline weight restrictions. I also find my K1, using pixel shift, essentially equals the Z in image quality, so far as the average buyer is concerned.

I also shoot a considerable amount of video using a GH4 but I've not been happy with low light performance, so it is being augmented with a pre-ordered SONY A7III, giving me some video capabilities the GH4 is unable to provide, as well as a FF backup body for my K1. I'll use a number of my legacy manual focus K mount lenses with the SONY via an adapter. The SONY, incidentally, is getting rave reviews for its tracking autofocus and 10fps capability.

I simply find it impossible to find one camera system that meets all shooting requirements. Video requirements aside, the K1 is still the Swiss army knife of DSLRs for those of us that shoot nightscapes. I'll likely upgrade my K1 to mkII specs later in the year.

[Billk]

I have Pentax APS-C (and 35mm film) plus Nikon 1. The main reason for the Nikon 1 system was portability (its small) and indestructability. While the K-3ii is “weather resistant” the AW1 is submersible to 15m and can can be dropped on concrete from 2m, so when I want to throw a camera in the tank bag of a dirt bike, it is going to be the AW1.

I managed to destroy my Nikon 1. It got moisture inside it and fried all the electronics. I've heard lots of bad stories about it, especially as an underwater camera, so glad to hear it works for you.

[virusn3t]

I just bought a new camera system yesterday, i will go (Pentax K1 + Olympus OM-D E-M10 Mk3), sometimes the size of the FF is too big to carry or i just dont grab it cause the bulky side of it, so i choose olympus (the camera was the cheaper with good enough value) and the 12-40 PRO (24-80 2.8 equivalent) i will recieve the camera this friday.

[abruzzi]

I managed to destroy my Nikon 1. It got moisture inside it and fried all the electronics. I've heard lots of bad stories about it, especially as an underwater camera, so glad to hear it works for you.

Well I don’t scuba, I just figure that the AW1s weather sealing in a tank bag in the rain is going to be far more weather resistant than the WR on a Pentax K3ii and a WR lens. I also worry about the jarring vibrations on a non fixed image sensor like the sensor on the K3ii, and the fact that I crash a lot.

[Billk]

Well I don’t scuba, I just figure that the AW1s weather sealing in a tank bag in the rain is going to be far more weather resistant than the WR on a Pentax K3ii and a WR lens. I also worry about the jarring vibrations on a non fixed image sensor like the sensor on the K3ii, and the fact that I crash a lot.

Yep I think it would be good as an all terrain/ all weather camera. Pretty nice images for a point and shoot. However, I'm replacing it with something with a better reputation for underwater.

[Culture]

Comparing the K-1 to the A6500, if you were doing landscapes I would say the K-1 is far superior. For portraits and events, though, they each have appeal. A6500 main advantage IMO is smaller size. K-1 main advantage is at low-light events. For on-screen viewing and printing at moderate sizes up to around 16x20 you probably won't see a significant image quality difference between the 2 cameras.

I hardly do landscapes anymore. I dont travel much so the opportunity does not come. From review it seem like the A6500 does very well with movement. So that is my main aim.

---------- Post added 13-03-18 at 08:59 ----------

That is the critical question. If the Sony gives you something that you are not getting from the Pentax then by all means get the Sony. But shooting two systems, particularly at the same time, for example at a wedding, would not be something I would want to do. Too many camera adjustments are for me 'muscle memory', I don't want to think about where the button is or how the menu works.

Trust me. I know this very well. I shot my K-3 this weekend for the life of me could not find where jpg color settings was. On the K-30 it on the info menu.

---------- Post added 13-03-18 at 09:12 ----------

i have shot multiple systems as i figured our what i liked. It helped that there were good sources of used gear for cheap (keh etc.) plus i like to shoot film as well as digital, which makes some things cheaper.

I've sampled the contax system; the fuji x digital system, and nikon (digital and film.)

if i had my way, i would shoot a nikon f3 and f100 with pentax limited lenses. Unfortunately, i haven't liked the results from adapted lenses (pentax to nikon requires a glass-element adapter that robs resolution, and i wasn't a fan of manually focussing my limiteds on the fuji xe1.

So i have stayed true to pentax in large part thanks to the limited lenses. (the pentax bodies are good, but not the reason i stay.)

of course this only applies to miniature formats (35mm and below.) in medium format i'm a bronica guy!

phew! :d

---------- Post added 13-03-18 at 09:25 ----------

I primarily shoot Pentax medium format film and Nikon FF digital, but sometimes find myself with a Nikon 35mm film and Pentax APS-C. It works for me; I have my own reasons and history.



I understand, but if you're being paid, the couple expect you to be and act as a pro, which includes the calibre of your equipment.



Yes and no. You've probably thought thru a lot not mentioned in your post. I have no doubt the APS-C Sony a6500 can get the job done. But if I were you, I would spend 500€ more for a K-1. You should be making that difference in just one wedding. FF will put you ahead of all the other mirrorless cameras at the event in terms of both results, options to crop, and perception.

Most couples, or most parents that may be paying for the photographer, don't know photography. All they know is that if you're running around with what looks like a 500€ camera, they will judge you and your price and also you'll command a little less authority when posing shots. (Yes, I know the a6500 is worth 3x that.) When you're out there with a FF DSLR that looks pro and expensive, the couple and their family will feel they are getting their money's worth because they don't know how to use a DSLR and don't have one at their disposal.

The best argument for having a mirrorless IMO is being able to shoot nearly silently during the ceremony.

I hear you about the K-1 but for me FF is not the holi grail. I plan to own one someday. I like I said I was thinking about it.
I think I care more about High ISO performance than anything else. At this moment I think the APS-Cs are getting on par with the FFs. Maybe only two stops behind.
This whole Sony thing started with release of the A7III, an FF camera. But I realized that my need was more about AF than anything else. The A6500 has great reviews.

As to the gear and impression, I am there with you. Though not fully. But i understand what you mean. I think clients will come with what they see on my site.
But lugging professional gear around impress people. That is why I dress cool (tie and pants shoe) when I am on a gig.
A lady I had met once did not recognize me when I was in my "professional" mode, slinging two bodies with my diy holdfast straps.

---------- Post added 13-03-18 at 09:28 ----------

Where you lose me is the 28-75 on an APSC for wedding use. I am not seeing how a lens that narrow gives you the range you need at a wedding. The same lens on a FF body would be a no brainer, but on crop that seems very narrow.

As for Focus. The K-3 is inferior to the K-1 from all accounts but I have no idea how much better (and under what conditions) the Sony is. I don't find my Panasonic GX-7 to exceed my K-3 but I also don't shoot anything that might benefit from enhanced AF MOST of the time. I wish I could provide better input here. In truth maintaining multiple systems is a pain unless the payoff is big or the expectations are small. I ended up with m43 by trying to assemble a smaller travel kit and play with mirrorless. I got in for cheap and expectations were small. My Dad then grew the system by buying more stuff and for a time was happy playing at it but never really got his hobby back off the ground. I then reacquired my gear and his and have two systems. It's more costly to maintain - two systems to upgrade over time, two times the lenses, etc. I don't know that I would ever consider doing what you are doing - I think I would only do so as a trial to see if switching was possible. Most two or three system users I know are either pro's or they need multiple formats (645, FF, APSC, M43, 1", etc.)

Yeah I know right. the 28-75 is FF and the plan was someday when I get an FF. Future proofing.
Interestingly I have not had a problem. Even though I keep saying I should buy a wider one. Because I see that wedding venues are quite small here. It was worked well.

Nice collection you have there.

---------- Post added 13-03-18 at 09:32 ----------

I recently sold my 645Z system and lenses, as I no longer find it a satisfactory system to travel with due to some airline weight restrictions. I also find my K1, using pixel shift, essentially equals the Z in image quality, so far as the average buyer is concerned.

I also shoot a considerable amount of video using a GH4 but I've not been happy with low light performance, so it is being augmented with a pre-ordered SONY A7III, giving me some video capabilities the GH4 is unable to provide, as well as a FF backup body for my K1. I'll use a number of my legacy manual focus K mount lenses with the SONY via an adapter. The SONY, incidentally, is getting rave reviews for its tracking autofocus and 10fps capability.

I simply find it impossible to find one camera system that meets all shooting requirements. Video requirements aside, the K1 is still the Swiss army knife of DSLRs for those of us that shoot nightscapes. I'll likely upgrade my K1 to mkII specs later in the year.

Thanks for sharing. The A7III the source of all these problems. Which adapter are you thinking of. The Techart pro?

[Mallee Boy]

Originally Pentax, currently K3 plus too much glass, added a Nikon D 800 w/- Tamron 24-70 & 70-200 & Nikon 50mm, to the stable, have now got rid of that, found two systems cumbersome and confusing, nothing wrong with the Nikon, but could not see any significant improvement in images, in fact quality glass, such as FA 43 on the K3 produced the best images. PS I shot a lot of motorsport including motox....where I use a Sigma 70-200 f2.8 on the K3 for best results.

[UncleVanya]

Originally Pentax, currently K3 plus too much glass, added a Nikon D 800 w/- Tamron 24-70 & 70-200 & Nikon 50mm, to the stable, have now got rid of that, found two systems cumbersome and confusing, nothing wrong with the Nikon, but could not see any significant improvement in images, in fact quality glass, such as FA 43 on the K3 produced the best images. PS I shot a lot of motorsport including motox....where I use a Sigma 70-200 f2.8 on the K3 for best results.

Was the crop factor a part of the reason the k-3 won out.

[Mallee Boy]

Was the crop factor a part of the reason the k-3 won out.

G'day Uncle....not really, it had more to do with an old dog learning new tricks. Functions and things that I can do with the Pentax with my eyes closed were a new learning curve on the Nikon...stop, look & find. Which button does what ? oops...not that one !
Also found the Nikon FF lens range, as much as it is heralded for choice, to be restrictive and expensive, the Pentax APS C offering is pretty good and I was loathe to get rid of that. Image quality was not markedly better, pixel peepers will argue no doubt, but for what I do and print (wide format) the Pentax does just fine. I also enter competitions regularly and the Pentax more than holds its own with numerous wins.

[UncleVanya]

G'day Uncle....not really, it had more to do with an old dog learning new tricks. Functions and things that I can do with the Pentax with my eyes closed were a new learning curve on the Nikon...stop, look & find. Which button does what ? oops...not that one !
Also found the Nikon FF lens range, as much as it is heralded for choice, to be restrictive and expensive, the Pentax APS C offering is pretty good and I was loathe to get rid of that. Image quality was not markedly better, pixel peepers will argue no doubt, but for what I do and print (wide format) the Pentax does just fine. I also enter competitions regularly and the Pentax more than holds its own with numerous wins.

Very informative, thanks.

[rdenney]

I have (or will soon have) two digital systems plus a little Leica/Panasonic digicam plus an iPhone. And then I have probably six different film systems.

My digital systems include Canon 5D/5DII and a range of lenses, and will soon have a 645z and a range of lenses.

It will be interesting to see how I arbitrate between them. Portability will be part of it; need to make large prints will also be a factor. The Canon is faster-handling and has a battery grip, and will probably continue to be my main camera for most parts of, say, a wedding. The Pentax will be better for the formal pictures—bridal portraits and altar returns—which might want a larger print. Landscapes will favor the Pentax unless I lack the space to bring it.

My film systems include, among others, the Pentax 645 and 67, a range of stuff around the Pentacon Six mount, and a Sinar 4x5 view camera. Those arbitrate on format and image management needs. Of those, I use the 67 and the Sinar most frequently to support large prints and image control.

I don’t think I could keep it to two. But I don’t have two different digital systems that use the same format.

Rick “different requirements for different use cases” Denney