[acoufap]

Ricoh's relationship to Pentax is much the same as Sony's to Minolta.

Hm. Ricoh once had analog SLRs that used Pentax K-mount as also Chinon and Petri did. So there is at least a little bit common history. ;-) That was around 1983 when I bought my Pentax ME Super. There were 5 competing Ricoh K-Mount time automating models: Ricoh XR-6, Ricoh KR-10 Super, Ricoh XR-F, Ricoh XR-7 and Ricoh XR-S. Pentax four, Chinon and Petri had three time automating K-Mount models.

---

Last edited by acoufap; 02-12-2022 at 05:17 AM.

[BigMackCam]

Hm. Ricoh once had analog SLRs that used Pentax K-mount as also Chinon and Petri did. So there is at least a little bit common history. ;-) That was around 1983 when I bought my Pentax ME Super. There were 5 competing Ricoh K-Mount time automating models: Ricoh XR-6, Ricoh KR-10 Super, Ricoh XR-F, Ricoh XR-7 and Ricoh XR-S. Pentax four, Chinon and Petri had three time automating K-Mount models.

I'm not saying the relationships are identical... just that they're much the same. The relevance of those Ricoh film SLRs to modern Pentax cameras is negligible, IMHO. Ricoh's old SLR business was long gone by the time it bought Pentax from Hoya. It was essentially starting from scratch with an acquired platform and product line-up of cameras, lenses and accessories from Hoya for which it continued production and development (even the venerable K-1 has its roots in the Hoya days, if I remember correctly). That's pretty darned similar to the position Sony was in when it bought Minolta...

[normhead]

Find people who do what you want, use the camera they use.... then you have advice available.

[reh321]

Problem is , it's not a Pentax. I wouldn't recommend myself.

My issue is that different systems require different lenses, and I have limited understanding of them and of how different systems interact.

[normhead]

My issue is that different systems require different lenses, and I have limited understanding of them and of how different systems interact.

My issue is I have no interest in learning another system. I've done what the OP wants to do in my teens with an SLR. We made makeshift hard board mounts etc. I find it hard to believe people would buy a camera to mess around like that. But then my perspective is, you do these things while you're young and your brain is still pliable. But that's probably just because I did these things when I was young...I've never thought of it as an adult pursuit.

I guess I don't appreciate the benefits of my childhood as they might apply to people taking this up later in life. It was all very exciting at the time. MY buddy DOUg and I were always in competition to see who could get the best results from some really bizarre combos. I see it now as great background info to help understand lenses etc. but part of that was, I thoroughly now understand the benefits of using a lens on the system it was designed for doing what it was designed to do.

Trust me, for most, the whole "use every piece of glass I can make work with my camera a try" is not a productive use of the time I have for photography.

My anarchist photography phase was out grown by the time I was 20.

[ProfessorBuzz]

Another option in APS-C is Canon M. I know this doesn't get recommended much to enthusiast users, but that is mainly because of the limited range of native lenses. If you're adapting old lenses, you just need to make sure that the adapters are available.

There are a few generations of bodies, both with EVF and without, and they are designed for simplicity. I always feel the ergonomics of the M cameras are great (that is the M6, M3 or M2 bodies).

I've owned an original EOS M and an M5. Both were very innovative and ergonomic. I gave away the M a few years ago, and really liked the M5 for its size, flexibility, and the ability to use adapters on it.
Unlike the original poster, I realized what I really wanted was to expand my 645Z setup - going in totally the opposite direction.

So the Canon M5 and lenses got traded in toward a beast of a lens - HD Pentax-DA645 1:45 28-45 ED AW SR - and its spectacular.

I played with the Fujis and Sonys and found the ergonomics weird, and the user interface clunky. The Canon M5 was more natural. It seems like Pentax, Canon and Nikon design for photographers; the Sony not so much.

Anyway, a used M5/M6 might be a worthwhile option. Was a great travel camera. My GRIII replaced it.

[pepperberry farm]

I currently have three MILC bodies - two Fuji, one Olympus....

all three are solidly-built, robust bodies - none of them, however, feel like the solid lump like a K-5 or K-3 (which I also have sitting here)...

I do not own a FF camera at all and aren't interested in moving to one - APS-C is big enough for me and my photography...

to be honest, I was concerned about the IQ abilities of the M4/3 platform, so I bought into the system with a cheap used camera body that is now nearly 10 years old... and I'm blown away by the camera's build, capability, and the sheer beauty of the jpg's that come out of it....

probably the ONLY reason I haven't bought a Sony body is that I've kept reading over the years that their color-science isn't quite up to everyone else's when it comes to their jpg engines - and I don't work in RAW files at all....

it takes time to get used to a different menu system and how the controls are arranged for different systems, but stretching your brain is always a good thing....

[pepperberry farm]

I almost missed this one:

My anarchist photography phase was out grown by the time I was 20.

[luftfluss]

My issue is that different systems require different lenses, and I have limited understanding of them and of how different systems interact.

The thing with many mirrorless systems is unless you need the absolute latest and greatest lenses, you can use most DSLR lenses on any system.

For example, if you have a set of Canon EF lenses collecting dust, you can buy an adapter and use them on Canon R, Sony, Nikon Z, Fuji, m4/3... while maintaining autofocus. You could, quite literally, keep using the same lenses over and over on dozens of bodies from nearly all the camera manufacturers, and never buy anything except for the necessary adapter.

[normhead]

The thing with many mirrorless systems is unless you need the absolute latest and greatest lenses, you can use most DSLR lenses on any system.

For example, if you have a set of Canon EF lenses collecting dust, you can buy an adapter and use them on Canon R, Sony, Nikon Z, Fuji, m4/3... while maintaining autofocus. You could, quite literally, keep using the same lenses over and over on dozens of bodies from nearly all the camera manufacturers, and never buy anything except for the necessary adapter.

I usually buy lenses to replace lenses. Once I have something better, I don't go back. Those lenses are for back-up, and mostly sit in the case.

I do not even use my older Pentax glass, forget about glass from other brands, not in K mount.

[Wasp]

I got into the mirrorless lark with a Samsung NX100. It came with the 20-50 plastic kit lens. After that I got an NX1 body with Samsung 16-50/2-2.8 and 50-135/2.8 lenses. I then splashed out on a Samyang 95/1.4 in NX mount. Then came another NX1 body, another 16-50/2-2.8 and a 45/1.8. I also got a 18-55/3.5-5.6 because it was cheap. Sadly, the NX100 and 20-50 has been stolen.


Total money spent is less than USD1000 and I am quite happy. The NX1 really was ahead of its time and can still cut it today. Sadly, it was abandoned by its maker. It has given me a taste for mirrorless. Thanks to an adapter, I can use it with all my K mount lenses. Manual focus with the EVF is way easier than the OVF on my Pentax. At this stage I don't know what is next but the Nikon Z5 is looking really good. Maybe a Canon EOS RP Mark II, but they haven't released that one yet.

[normhead]

I guess if cheap is the thing, then you're doing well.

If I wanted old cheap stuff, I'd use my K-x a lot more and FA 35-80, FA-J 18-35 and FA 70-210 and Total cost.

$100+$80,+$100-$30.... $310. I can go as cheap as anyone and cover APS-c 18-210mm... how sweet is that?

Manual focus, it's niche in this day and age and as you mentioned cheap. I also have 2 K-5s, a K-5 and a K-5ii. I have all kinds of cheap if that's the goal.

[acoufap]

I'm not saying the relationships are identical... just that they're much the same. The relevance of those Ricoh film SLRs to modern Pentax cameras is negligible, IMHO. Ricoh's old SLR business was long gone by the time it bought Pentax from Hoya. It was essentially starting from scratch with an acquired platform and product line-up of cameras, lenses and accessories from Hoya for which it continued production and development (even the venerable K-1 has its roots in the Hoya days, if I remember correctly). That's pretty darned similar to the position Sony was in when it bought Minolta...

Sony and Ricoh started into the digital camera era with digital compacts and had no footprint in digital SLRs. That's right.

My guess is that Ricoh still has some employees that were part of their camera division history and culture. Culture is about people not technique. Ricoh had to reduce their camera appearance to digital compacts and had some success with the GRX. Now there was the chance to continue their SLR history successfully through a acquisition contract with Hoya/Pentax. They agreed and carried and developed the Pentax DNA further - also on a cultural level. A great step IMO.

So I'm still not convinced that it's the same story as that of Sony and Minolta, where the latter already had a merger with Konica - if I remember right.

[StiffLegged]

Nikon Z-50 is aps-c and can be bought used for under £600 in the UK (YMMV). Z5 for 900-950 used if you must have full frame. The Z mount has the smallest flange distance and largest diameter mount so chances of a getting mount to suit a Gronkyo Ultra Sonnar or just an ordinary Cine Tessaflex are better than with most. That’s not a recommendation ’cos I haven’t handled or used either; just a suggestion.

[normhead]

Nikon Z-50 is aps-c and can be bought used for under £600 in the UK (YMMV). Z5 for 900-950 used if you must have full frame. The Z mount has the smallest flange distance and largest diameter mount so chances of a getting mount to suit a Gronkyo Ultra Sonnar or just an ordinary Cine Tessaflex are better than with most. That’s not a recommendation ’cos I haven’t handled or used either; just a suggestion.

Cool information.....but, actual usage is important.