[lotech]

There are lot of Youtube video reviewing adapting uncommon, cheap and special lenses on camera, like projector and enlarger lenses, and produced great result I eagerly wanted to try, unfortunately many of those lenses are made to short back focus distance impossible to use with any D/SLR, so that most people will go for a Sony. I did have a Fuji for a short while, but I did not enjoy using it, I felt quite sick and tired with it, so I quickly traded it before I've the chance to play with other lenses. I might get a OM later, but it is not preferable due to the crop factor, I want something FF or APSC. Pentax does not have a "real" mirrorless model, and unlikely will produce one with comparably scarce resources, so I considered the Sigma Quattro, it has an unusual but great sensor and quite affordable, but too it is too thick to adapt other lenses, and the FP is too expensive and I don't shoot video, so those uncommon, cheap but great lenses are out of my reach ! wonder what is your trick with those mentioned lenses, please don't tell me SONY ok !

[pepperberry farm]

there are several mirrorless system threads in the non-Pentax portion of the forum....

Non-Pentax: Canon, Nikon, Sony, etc. - PentaxForums.com

[luftfluss]

There are lot of Youtube video reviewing adapting uncommon, cheap and special lenses on camera, like projector and enlarger lenses, and produced great result I eagerly wanted to try, unfortunately many of those lenses are made to short back focus distance impossible to use with any D/SLR, so that most people will go for a Sony. I did have a Fuji for a short while, but I did not enjoy using it, I felt quite sick and tired with it, so I quickly traded it before I've the chance to play with other lenses. I might get a OM later, but it is not preferable due to the crop factor, I want something FF or APSC. Pentax does not have a "real" mirrorless model, and unlikely will produce one with comparably scarce resources, so I considered the Sigma Quattro, it has an unusual but great sensor and quite affordable, but too it is too thick to adapt other lenses, and the FP is too expensive and I don't shoot video, so those uncommon, cheap but great lenses are out of my reach ! wonder what is your trick with those mentioned lenses, please don't tell me SONY ok !

Nikon Z5 can be had used/refurbed for $1000 USD or less. And, unlike the Sigma Quattro, it has IBIS as well as a higher-res EVF.

Not all Fujis are the same; the X-H1 and X-S1 are DSLR-style mirrorless cameras, so you might enjoy that.

[BigMackCam]

There are lot of Youtube video reviewing adapting uncommon, cheap and special lenses on camera, like projector and enlarger lenses, and produced great result I eagerly wanted to try, unfortunately many of those lenses are made to short back focus distance impossible to use with any D/SLR, so that most people will go for a Sony. I did have a Fuji for a short while, but I did not enjoy using it, I felt quite sick and tired with it, so I quickly traded it before I've the chance to play with other lenses. I might get a OM later, but it is not preferable due to the crop factor, I want something FF or APSC. Pentax does not have a "real" mirrorless model, and unlikely will produce one with comparably scarce resources, so I considered the Sigma Quattro, it has an unusual but great sensor and quite affordable, but too it is too thick to adapt other lenses, and the FP is too expensive and I don't shoot video, so those uncommon, cheap but great lenses are out of my reach ! wonder what is your trick with those mentioned lenses, please don't tell me SONY ok !

Rather than tell you SONY, could I perhaps ask "why not Sony"? A few years ago I bought an A7 MkII for precisely the purposes you mention, and it's been close to perfect in that role. Adapters for almost every vintage lens mount are readily available, image quality from the 24MP sensor is great and - somewhat-infamous Sony menus aside - it's nice to use, with excellent features to assist with manual focusing. Plus, the full frame sensor means I can enjoy my lenses on the format for which they were originally intended. It was relatively inexpensive for a full frame camera when I bought it new, and used examples of the same model are positively cheap these days. As such, I'm wondering why you wouldn't consider one?

---

Last edited by BigMackCam; 02-12-2022 at 12:44 AM.

[lotech]

...Not all Fujis are the same; the X-H1 and X-S1 are DSLR-style mirrorless cameras, so you might enjoy that.

You are quite right, I just played with the X-H1 in the local showroom, and it handles quite well and operates like regular DSLR. I don't like the XE-2 due to bad ergonomic and menu design, I felt physically tired using it, and still the X-H1 is quite plasticky like most other models from the company, does not give me the solid and reliable feels like with the Pentax, but it does make my eyes turn ! but I don't like the fly-by-wire design of their lenses, but I will, if decided to get the X-H1, there will be a kit zoom to go with it that's all.

[biz-engineer]

Rather than tell you SONY, could I perhaps ask "why not Sony"? A few years ago I bought an A7 MkII for precisely the purposes you mention, and it's been close to perfect in that role

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

[Joetitch]

Precicly why I do not want one as LBA is hard enough to control with the huge range of K mount not to mention M42 as well. The evil one is calling to you. You must resist.😁

[lotech]

Rather than tell you SONY, could I perhaps ask "why not Sony"? ......

The simple reason is, Sony has no root in photography, it did produce digital camera in the pass, but it wasn't Sony's own design at first it was Minolta, like cell phone with Ericsson. Sony produced sensors for most other cameras including Pentax, but it's only a piece of electronics component, without the help from Minolta and Zeiss I doubt Sony will be successful on it's own as a camera production company. I did handle couple Sony DC and Video equipment in the pass, the only one got my attention and I praised was the floppy disc camera back in the late 1990s, it was quite an innovation, together with the sun screen (sun lit LCD), and the first Lithium battery management system that can accurately tell the battery usage are the first in the industry (I could be wrong on this part). I also handled an early model of RX bridge camera, I spent 15min. still couldn't find how to turn on the EVF it was quite an headache, it was much worst than the Fuji S1. Only Pentax can give me the kind of ergonomic and human engineered feels, so comfortable and easy to use without the need to look up the user menu.


Something I "hated" about Sony is it uses proprietary connector where unnecessary, like the tiny "advanced hotshoe" and RGB in one tiny and fragile plug on some video camera....etc. Sony is a design house to me, it did creative things like no others, most of the designs are pretty and out of this world I've to admit, but as a photographer started with shooting film I will not invest on Sony cameras, I insist to stick with those has "root" in photography. In real world comparison, Pentax produce images on par if not better than Sony with the same sensor, only lacking is video that I rarely shoot, so that I will not spend on something I occasionally use, like adapting special lenses, on a new system that I don't speak the language.

[BigMackCam]

The simple reason is, Sony has no root in photography, it did produce digital camera in the pass, but it wasn't Sony's own design at first it was Minolta, like cell phone with Ericsson. Sony produced sensors for most other cameras including Pentax, but it's only a piece of electronics component, without the help from Minolta and Zeiss I doubt Sony will be successful on it's own as a camera production company. I did handle couple Sony DC and Video equipment in the pass, the only one got my attention and I praised was the floppy disc camera back in the late 1990s, it was quite an innovation, together with the sun screen (sun lit LCD), and the first Lithium battery management system that can accurately tell the battery usage are the first in the industry (I could be wrong on this part). I also handled an early model of RX bridge camera, I spent 15min. still couldn't find how to turn on the EVF it was quite an headache, it was much worst than the Fuji S1. Only Pentax can give me the kind of ergonomic and human engineered feels, so comfortable and easy to use without the need to look up the user menu.

I see where you're coming from, but I guess we just look at things very differently. When I bought my A7II, I didn't (and still don't) care about Sony's photographic heritage or lack thereof. All I wanted was a tool that did the job, did it well, and came within my budget. Thus far I've had several years of excellent use from that camera. I don't even think about it being Sony... it may as well have Walmart, McDonalds or Hugo Boss branding on it for all I care. It's just a tool, and a very good one at that. As for Pentax, it hasn't been the real, original Pentax for decades. Ricoh is a business electronics and services giant manufacturing printing and copying solutions. The imaging division is just a small piece, and Pentax merely a brand within that. The K-mount camera platform was an acquisition, so whilst we might choose to maintain a romantic association between the Pentax gear we use now and its origins, the fact is it's the product of a huge, IBM-like corporation. Ricoh's relationship to Pentax is much the same as Sony's to Minolta. Sony may be a huge consumer-electronics manufacturer, but it's been in the photography business for many years now. At some point, folks are going to have to accept that it has gained a lot of expertise in this area, is making some great gear, and is - by now - as legitimate a photographic brand as any other (I say this as someone who is primarily a Pentax user and fan of the equipment, only using Sony gear for specific purposes).

Something I "hated" about Sony is it uses proprietary connector where unnecessary, like the tiny "advanced hotshoe" and RGB in one tiny and fragile plug on some video camera....etc. Sony is a design house to me, it did creative things like no others, most of the designs are pretty and out of this world I've to admit, but as a photographer started with shooting film I will not invest on Sony cameras, I insist to stick with those has "root" in photography. In real world comparison, Pentax produce images on par if not better than Sony with the same sensor, only lacking is video that I rarely shoot, so that I will not spend on something I occasionally use, like adapting special lenses, on a new system that I don't speak the language.

Honestly, I've adapted to Sony's ergonomics and quirks quite easily. I like some things, dislike others, but don't hate anything about their cameras (or any of the other photography brands, for that matter). The proprietary hotshoe connector was a bit perplexing and frustrating initially, but it hasn't been a problem. Image quality? I've not been anything other than delighted with the photos it produces. Good exposure and half-decent post-processing result in great-looking images from any camera these days. If you put two identical photos side-by-side, one from a Pentax camera and one from Sony (or Nikon, Canon, Fuji, Olympus, Panasonic etc.), for all practical purposes you and I wouldn't be able to tell which was which. We might pixel-peep and compare the minutiae, but the reality is it just doesn't matter.

If you want a mirrorless system from a brand with pure photographic pedigree, I guess you're limited to Nikon and Canon. Both are (like all the other camera brands, Pentax and Sony included) excellent...

[lotech]

I see where you're coming from, but I guess we just look at things very differently. When I bought my A7II, I didn't (and still don't) care about Sony's photographic heritage or lack thereof. All I wanted was a tool that did the job I wanted, did it well, and came within my budget. Thus far I've had several years of excellent use from that camera. I don't even think about it being Sony... it may as well have Walmart, McDonalds or Hugo Boss branding on it for all I care. It's just a tool, and a very good one at that. As for Pentax, it hasn't been the real, original Pentax for decades. Ricoh is a business electronics and services giant manufacturing printing and copying solutions. The imaging division is just a small piece, and Pentax merely a brand within that. The K-mount camera platform was an acquisition, so whilst we might choose to maintain a romantic association between the Pentax gear we use now and its origins, the fact is it's the product of a huge, IBM-like corporation (I say this as someone who is primarily a Pentax user and fan of the equipment, only using Sony gear for specific purposes). Sony may be a huge consumer-electronics manufacturer, but its been in the photography business for years now. At some point, folks are going to have to accept that it has gained a lot of experience by now, and is making some great gear. These days, it's just as valid a photographic brand as any other.



Honestly, I've adapted to Sony's ergonomics and quirks quite easily. I like some things, dislike others, but don't hate anything about their cameras (or any of the other photography brands, for that matter). The proprietary hotshoe connector was a bit perplexing and frustrating initially, but it hasn't been a problem. Image quality? I've not been anything other than delighted with the photos it produces. Good exposure and half-decent post-processing result in great-looking images from any camera these days. If you put two identical photos side-by-side, one from a Pentax camera and one from Sony (or Nikon, Canon, Fuji, Olympus, Panasonic etc.), for all practical purposes you and I wouldn't be able to tell which was which...

If you want a mirrorless system from a brand with pure photographic pedigree, I guess you're limited to Nikon and Canon. Both are (like all the other camera brands, Pentax and Sony included) excellent...

I admitted I am a stubborn die-hard Pentaxian, I used different cameras when I started the hobby long time ago, Yashica/Contax, Nikon, Minolta, Fuji, Praktica, Pentax, and decided to stick with Pentax for a reason. I used Russian lenses due to the low cost, there are 3 types of lenses Russian (Soviet) offered back in the days, m42, K mount and N mount, where m42 is the most common, being part of Pentax's history m42 is quite easy to adapt to. And then later I pickup my first DSLR, a used Olympus E300, yes it is DSLR with mirror and a FT sensor, and started my adventure into the digital age. While I was deciding which route to go next, the OM or the Pentax, I came across a bargain of a display unit of K20D, quite affordable I bought it w/o 2nd thought, I am glad I did that, it was one of the best handling of all cameras I used so far and it is weather sealed, it suited my need for outdoor activities, there were very few such cameras back then at affordable cost. Ever since then I keep upgrading, I did not spend much due to Pentax wasn't a hot brand back then, most shops wanted to get rid of it quick at lower price tag ! so that for digital camera I only handled 2 brands, the Pentax and a early model of OM, Sony DSLR was unheard of back then, and I don't want to take the risk to invest on it while I already got something I felt at home with. I am not saying Sony is completely trash, it is simply I don't feel comfortable using it, same as the Fuji XE. To be frank, it is sort of emotional tie with Pentax in me that I don't want to part without a good reason, and it would be painful to learn something new and get used to it. Since I rarely shoot video, Pentax already got everything I need and working great, my 2nd camera would be for occasionally use so it must be simple and cheap.

[BigMackCam]

Pentax already got everything I need and working great, my 2nd camera would be for occasionally use so it must be simple and cheap.

Depending on what you mean by "cheap", you may be out of luck. Cheap mirrorless ILC options tend to be slightly older used cameras. For APS-C that means Sony or FujiFilm, while for full frame it's just Sony (Olympus and Panasonic were both micro 4/3rds.. OM still is). You'll need to swallow your pride and learn the ergonomics and user-interface for one of those, or ante up for a newer Nikon, Canon or Panasonic - but none of them is simple, as such. They'll all require some familiarisation and learning, coming from Pentax. Perhaps the simplest - most film-camera-like - are some of the FujiFilm models due to the top panel dials... something like an X-T2, perhaps. But you're not keen on FujiFilm, so...

[AfterPentax Mark II]

The simple reason is, Sony has no root in photography, it did produce digital camera in the pass, but it wasn't Sony's own design at first it was Minolta, like cell phone with Ericsson. Sony produced sensors for most other cameras including Pentax, but it's only a piece of electronics component, without the help from Minolta and Zeiss I doubt Sony will be successful on it's own as a camera production company. I did handle couple Sony DC and Video equipment in the pass, the only one got my attention and I praised was the floppy disc camera back in the late 1990s, it was quite an innovation, together with the sun screen (sun lit LCD), and the first Lithium battery management system that can accurately tell the battery usage are the first in the industry (I could be wrong on this part). I also handled an early model of RX bridge camera, I spent 15min. still couldn't find how to turn on the EVF it was quite an headache, it was much worst than the Fuji S1. Only Pentax can give me the kind of ergonomic and human engineered feels, so comfortable and easy to use without the need to look up the user menu.


Something I "hated" about Sony is it uses proprietary connector where unnecessary, like the tiny "advanced hotshoe" and RGB in one tiny and fragile plug on some video camera....etc. Sony is a design house to me, it did creative things like no others, most of the designs are pretty and out of this world I've to admit, but as a photographer started with shooting film I will not invest on Sony cameras, I insist to stick with those has "root" in photography. In real world comparison, Pentax produce images on par if not better than Sony with the same sensor, only lacking is video that I rarely shoot, so that I will not spend on something I occasionally use, like adapting special lenses, on a new system that I don't speak the language.

You seem to forget that at that time they were great in video, which is after all also a kind of photography, but with moving images. And the strongest point is that it readily works with all kind of lenses with the right adapters like no other. I do not own a Sony, because I am not into using aged gear on a modern camera.

[lotech]

Depending on what you mean by "cheap", you may be out of luck. Cheap mirrorless ILC options tend to be slightly older used cameras. For APS-C that means Sony or FujiFilm, while for full frame it's just Sony (Olympus and Panasonic were both micro 4/3rds.. OM still is). You'll need to swallow your pride and learn the ergonomics and user-interface for one of those, or ante up for a newer Nikon, Canon or Panasonic - but none of them is simple, as such. They'll all require some familiarisation and learning, coming from Pentax. Perhaps the simplest - most film-camera-like - are some of the FujiFilm models due to the top panel dials... something like an X-T2, perhaps. But you're not keen on FujiFilm, so...

Fuji XH-1 is possible, but not sure how "cheap" it can get if available in used market

[BigMackCam]

Fuji XH-1 is possible, but not sure how "cheap" it can get if available in used market

Here in the UK, I see them for around GBP £550 - £600. Lot of camera for the money. I'm not sure how different or simple it can be compared to your previous FujiFilm experience, but as I said, it's that or Sony...

[JPT]

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).