[Sigma2021]

I am going in opposite direction, having used larger / heavy cameras in the past (film days all metal monsters). As the years progressed I have switched to fixed lens lighter weight. Currently a Ricoh GR IIIx.

---

Last edited by Sigma2021; 05-03-2022 at 02:46 AM.

[iheiramo]

I found K1ii body weigth insignificant compared to lens weight. Body with M series prime is lighter than DFA*85 alone. With big heavy lenses I actually find K1ii more comfortable to use than lighter k3 as it gives better balance in the hand. Well truth is I always prefer K1ii, but in that case more than usual

So instead of body weight only, one should consider weight and size of body+lens combination. When I want to go light, I choose light lenses. Occasionally I take only M40 pancake with K1ii and then it's pretty easy combo to carry along.

[UncleVanya]

My main cameras are Pentax KP and Sony A7.
Although they are different type of cameras there are a lot of similarities between them.

Similar sized cameras, with similar sized grip, shutter button placement and same type of rear screen.
So it is quite easy to switch between them for the most basic things, but there is a noticeable difference in weight between them.

The KP weighs 703g with battery and sd card. My a7R III weighs 658g with battery and one sd card. I can’t tell that the KP is heavier since the lenses I use on the Sony are often heavier than the equivalent ones on the KP. For example my 18-135 weighs 405g and covers the equivalent of 28-200. The Sony 24-105/4 is a much larger lens with a wider angle of coverage but it is what I have that’s most similar and weighs 663g but for comparison the Tamron 28-200 f2.8-5.6 is possibly a more similar lens and weighs 575g. I often carry the KP with my DA 20-40/2.8-4 (283g, 30-60 equivalent) and I own but rarely use the FE 28-70/3.5-5.6 (295g) this is hardly a fair comparison as the 20-40 Is a much nicer lens, The HD DA 18-50 (158g) is closer in range and price point. My KP uses a DA* 55/1.4 (375g) or FA 77/1.8 (270g) vs my A7R III using the FE 85/1.8 (371g). My KP telephoto most often used is the 55-300 f4.5-6.3 plm (442g, 83-450 equivalent) vs Tamron 70-300 f4.5-6.3 (545g, not as wide of a range, nor as long). The Sigma 100-400/5-6.3 (1135g) is closer in scope and reach and is one of the lightest lenses for Sony FE in this range.

The differences in weight typically favor the KP but sometimes fall the other way. The overall feel of carrying the two cameras isn’t that different in my opinion - but specific lens choices make a difference. All of which should suggest that of you find a k-1 too heavy on paper, pair it with the lenses you would want and rent or try in person before deciding.

[texandrews]

But not without certain compromises to accompany the benefits, right? For example, how long would you want to walk with the 645Z around your neck, and a brace of medium format lenses in your shoulder bag? Or do you pick a couple of lenses - or maybe just one - and shoot mostly from a tripod?

On recent trips, I was comfortable with the Z all day, with several lenses in the bag. When I have to carry more, I use my pack---and that way I can also take the tripod. Occasionally I work with a monopod.

I just don't have a problem with the weight---I'll be 66 shortly and am definitely not Charles Atlas. The thing about carrying stuff is to have the proper carriers/straps.

[AgentL]

I am going in opposite direction, having used larger / heavy cameras in the past (film days all metal monsters). As the years progressed I have switched to fixed lens lighter weight. Currently a Ricoh GR IIIx.

They can definitely have my GR when they pry it from my cold, dead fingers!

[BigMackCam]

On recent trips, I was comfortable with the Z all day, with several lenses in the bag. When I have to carry more, I use my pack---and that way I can also take the tripod. Occasionally I work with a monopod.

I just don't have a problem with the weight---I'll be 66 shortly and am definitely not Charles Atlas. The thing about carrying stuff is to have the proper carriers/straps.

That, Tex, is what I'd call dedication to your art. You have my admiration in spades. I guess it depends on your definition of "comfortable"... Me? I'll stick with my K-3 and a couple of lenses (maybe three at most) for an all-day shoot. I sound like a real wimp, don't I?!

[Fogel70]

The KP weighs 703g with battery and sd card. My a7R III weighs 658g with battery and one sd card. I can’t tell that the KP is heavier since the lenses I use on the Sony are often heavier than the equivalent ones on the KP. For example my 18-135 weighs 405g and covers the equivalent of 28-200. The Sony 24-105/4 is a much larger lens with a wider angle of coverage but it is what I have that’s most similar and weighs 663g but for comparison the Tamron 28-200 f2.8-5.6 is possibly a more similar lens and weighs 575g. I often carry the KP with my DA 20-40/2.8-4 (283g, 30-60 equivalent) and I own but rarely use the FE 28-70/3.5-5.6 (295g) this is hardly a fair comparison as the 20-40 Is a much nicer lens, The HD DA 18-50 (158g) is closer in range and price point. My KP uses a DA* 55/1.4 (375g) or FA 77/1.8 (270g) vs my A7R III using the FE 85/1.8 (371g). My KP telephoto most often used is the 55-300 f4.5-6.3 plm (442g, 83-450 equivalent) vs Tamron 70-300 f4.5-6.3 (545g, not as wide of a range, nor as long). The Sigma 100-400/5-6.3 (1135g) is closer in scope and reach and is one of the lightest lenses for Sony FE in this range.

The differences in weight typically favor the KP but sometimes fall the other way. The overall feel of carrying the two cameras isn’t that different in my opinion - but specific lens choices make a difference. All of which should suggest that of you find a k-1 too heavy on paper, pair it with the lenses you would want and rent or try in person before deciding.

The newer Sony cameras is a lot heavier and have bigger grip than the original A7.
The A7 is 465g with battery.

I usually use smaller lighter prime lenses on my cameras, so with a lens the A7 often weight less than KP with no lens.

[UncleVanya]

The newer Sony cameras is a lot heavier and have bigger grip than the original A7.
The A7 is 465g with battery.

I usually use smaller lighter prime lenses on my cameras, so with a lens the A7 often weight less than KP with no lens.

I had forgotten just how light that model was!

[Viking42]

On recent trips, I was comfortable with the Z all day, with several lenses in the bag. When I have to carry more, I use my pack---and that way I can also take the tripod. Occasionally I work with a monopod.

I just don't have a problem with the weight---I'll be 66 shortly and am definitely not Charles Atlas. The thing about carrying stuff is to have the proper carriers/straps.

+1 to that. I'm pushing 60, and I do a lot of hiking in the mountains, often in very remote areas, and I struggled with a heavy camera backpack on longer hikes. It just got so uncomfortable after a couple of hours, and the weight being all on my shoulders often put me off balance on steep rocky scrambles (high center of gravity). Pretty scary at times, almost losing my balance, in areas where a fall would mean a chopper rescue. To make things worse my pack had the tripod off on one side, which put a lot of the weight on one shoulder. So I recently bought a Lowepro pack with a wide padded waistbelt and a tripod holder in the center. This shifted all the weight to my hips, and keeps it all centered. Perfect! I can now carry more weight for longer distances in total comfort. My posture is better too - more upright, less hunched forward - which saves so much energy. And it puts the center of gravity lower so it's much more stable and balanced.

I highly recommend a pack like this for anyone doing long hikes with heavy gear. Worth every penny.

Hope this helps.

Cheers,
Svend

[Wheatridger]

+1 to that. I'm pushing 60, and I do a lot of hiking in the mountains, often in very remote areas, and I struggled with a heavy camera backpack on longer hikes. It just got so uncomfortable after a couple of hours, and the weight being all on my shoulders often put me off balance on steep rocky scrambles (high center of gravity). Pretty scary at times, almost losing my balance, in areas where a fall would mean a chopper rescue. To make things worse my pack had the tripod off on one side, which put a lot of the weight on one shoulder. So I recently bought a Lowepro pack with a wide padded waistbelt and a tripod holder in the center. This shifted all the weight to my hips, and keeps it all centered. Perfect! I can now carry more weight for longer distances in total comfort. My posture is better too - more upright, less hunched forward - which saves so much energy. And it puts the center of gravity lower so it's much more stable and balanced.

I highly recommend a pack like this for anyone doing long hikes with heavy gear. Worth every penny.

Hope this helps.

Cheers,
Svend

How you carry your gear is SO important, and a backpack is much more ergonomic than a sling bag, if less convenient. And don't even think of hanging your K-1 on the Pentax strap! I prefer a stretchy neoprene OpTech strap, at least 1.5 inches long.

[MaineNative]

I own both the K-1 and now the K-3 iii. Like BigMack, I take the full-frame camera when my primary purpose is to take pictures and might want the extra quality that comes with the K-1, such as astro shots, waterfalls or Fall leaves. Otherwise, I will just take my crop sensor K-3 iii which will still give great pictures.

I agree with the people recommending to rent first. I was looking at buying the DFA 15-30 and I found the weight of that lens paired with the K-1 was too much—very hard to carry with just one hand, which is what I am used to. Instead I bought a used FA 20mm/2.8 which got me my speed, my ultra-wide lens and auto focus in a very small package for a third of the price!

Because I do mostly landscape shots, I don’t need a fast (and heavy) f2.8 lens. That means most of my lenses are pretty light and the extra K-1 weight is fine. My astro lens is a little heavy, but that is always used with a tripod.

[mlag]

I have acces to smartphone, pocket camera (high iso, decent zoom), bridge camera (superzoom) and a pentax K3II, as we share the lot in my family. Each of them is typically not the cheapest but a better representative of its category, we like ’good’ pictures and invest a bit in cameras.


The phone is what you have always on you, and that’s why you use it. Quality is nowadays good enough for the occasional picture, in normal daylight.

The pocket camera is what I use when I want a better camera than the phone but it needs to be small to carry or go unnoticed.
The bridge I typically skip ( I have to admit it is a good camera , competing with my dslr for many uses)
The pentax dslr with aps-c has my preference .
- I like to choose lenses, and this gives you the little extra (light, reach, sharpness..) On pentax APSc there is wide(r) choice of lenses, so easier to find your choice.
- I prefer aps-c for its extra reach in tele and the lighter lenses. I am not tempted by FF , it’s bit heavier especially if you include the (telel)enses... On the wide end I have the 10-17 fish-eye, some wide primes and and never felt the need for a ”wide” FF. I don't mind using fullframe lenses, both old vintage or new when convenient - had never the feeling that a lens performed incorrect because it was FF lens on APSc..., it is just more choice on lenses. Sometimes I prefer a 28-75 as my standard APSc lens which is actually a FF format....

If there would come a pentax APSc wit 50 mpixels, I would upgrade my K3II, but if I am honest I even crop my 24mpixel images occasionally...without regrets, so maybe it’s not needed.

---------- Post added 05-04-22 at 02:25 PM ----------

+1 to that. I'm pushing 60, and I do a lot of hiking in the mountains, often in very remote areas, and I struggled with a heavy camera backpack on longer hikes. It just got so uncomfortable after a couple of hours, and the weight being all on my shoulders often put me off balance on steep rocky scrambles (high center of gravity). Pretty scary at times, almost losing my balance, in areas where a fall would mean a chopper rescue. To make things worse my pack had the tripod off on one side, which put a lot of the weight on one shoulder. So I recently bought a Lowepro pack with a wide padded waistbelt and a tripod holder in the center. This shifted all the weight to my hips, and keeps it all centered. Perfect! I can now carry more weight for longer distances in total comfort. My posture is better too - more upright, less hunched forward - which saves so much energy. And it puts the center of gravity lower so it's much more stable and balanced.

I highly recommend a pack like this for anyone doing long hikes with heavy gear. Worth every penny.

Hope this helps.

Cheers,
Svend

I am also a backpack addict.

I have a medium sized one with a sideloader ( you can release one shoulder strap and sling it on the other shoulder and easily grab the camera), when needed.
This one carries 3..4 lenses and a camera and a little space for stuff (rain jack, drink).

The second is bigger and has a waist strap, which indeed is a relief for yor shoulders/back to support the weight and improves stability when hiking on rough ground (even when younger than sixty! ) The bigger one I use when I need space for both camera/lenses and other stuff for the longer hikes (clothes, food,...) or just more camera gear...it has two compartments, both can be equipped for camera gear when needed.

[Lord Lucan]

If you need a feel for how heavy it is to carry a K-1 (or anything else) around, try adding a measured weight of baked bean cans to your existing kit to carry around for a bit. Seriously. Much cheaper than renting. The pictures themselves won't be much different from those taken with a good APS-C or M4/3 tbh.

[AgentL]

If you need a feel for how heavy it is to carry a K-1 (or anything else) around, try adding a measured weight of baked bean cans to your existing kit to carry around for a bit. Seriously. Much cheaper than renting. The pictures themselves won't be much different from those taken with a good APS-C or M4/3 tbh.

Wait, are you saying the pictures won't be much different with a can of baked beans attached to the camera? Heheh.

I would think the 36mp FF sensor would be rather better than my M4/3. Not that I'm concerned with raw IQ quite as much as the ability to use legacy lenses at their natural field of view, instead of heavily cropped into inconvenient effective focal lengths.

[texandrews]

The pictures themselves won't be much different from those taken with a good APS-C or M4/3 tbh.

This is only true for certain sized prints, and certain types/styles of photography. By your logic (which isn't incorrect, but leaves out lots of considerations) for lots of things, phones are just as good as m4/3 and apsc. And for most viewers, there's no difference between a phone image and the very best photographs ever taken, just as they can't tell the difference/don't care about the difference between a truly great painting and something made for mass market sales by workers using formulae cranking out 50 paintings a day.