Originally posted by poordecisions Hi,
I am currently using the micro four thirds system, but am interested to also potentially have an ovf camera system. Since Pentax is the only company interested in staying OVF going into the future, I'm trying to work up the nerve to sink money into running two different systems. Which as a hobbyist doesn't sound that wise. I have been eyeing a used 50-135 2.8 and old body as an alternative to the super pricey Olympus 40-150 2.8, to try and justify the move into Pentax.
We'll see how it goes. Hopefully a new Pentax obsession won't send me to the poorhouse.
At one time I had m43, Pentax APSC, and Sony Full Frame gear. All three required care and feeding and knowledge and time to use. I sold the m43 gear this past year due to attempting to reduce complexity and duplication. I only have two systems now rather than three - and the Sony is due to my 80+ year old dad - to share gear and experiences with him.
As much as I like Pentax, I’d suggest you stick to one platform. So unless you plan to divest from m43 - I would stick to that system. The exception would be if you find m43 can’t do something you really want to do. Pentax makes great cameras and lenses, and there are advantages to apsc over m43, but I doubt the differences are stark enough to make it worth the duplication unless you find specific shortcomings in the m43 system that Pentax fits.
If I hadn’t enjoyed ovf and had a large amount of Pentax experience, history, and gear I might have ditched Pentax and kept m43 and Sony FF. In a similar way if you want ovf i suggest looking at the k-1 and full frame gear rather than apsc since the two formats (m43 and apsc) have larger differences (depth of field, sensor performance, size, weight).
On the other hand gear is fun for many people including me. I am glad I used m43 as I think it gave me more perspective. You may enjoy Pentax apsc in a similar way. Just beware it’s a rabbit hole that can swallow time and money you could use to take more images…