[MarkJerling]

Hey guys,

1. The prime lenses are quite slow (f 3.2, f2.8, f2.4)
2. The autofocus is not fast and has no silent motor (Not that much of a dealbreaker for my purposese I think)
and the most important point
3. Pentax seems to be economically weak. It could be that in a few years I sit on my expensive lenses and no new K-mount body will be ever released again. It's not about the selling value after a few years of usage, I don't care about that. I'm just scared that my lens collection could be completely useless, even if I'm still happy with them.

In all honesty, can you recommend a newbuyer wanting to build a good system over some time with Pentax and their K-Mount? With no gear at all, starting from the scratch? I ask in this forum, because most of the Pentaxians have experience with other systems, but not the other way round. And the quality of responses is very good in this forum.

Welcome to the forum.
Re your queries.
1. Since you can buy old primes cheaply, you'll find some nice options f1.7, f1.8 etc, all in K-mount, of course.
2. Some lenses are very noisy, some are quiet. I agree - not a dealbreaker.
3. Ricoh is very well off financially. (Probably more so than the other DSLR makers) I cannot see why they would move away from K-mount. If they do, I'll be happy to buy your k-mount glass!

The key advantage with K-mount is the large amount of cheap glass out there. Not to mention all the other stuff that can be made to work with adapters. Having said that; When I moved to digital from film I did have to ask myself if this was the time to move to Nikon, but, in my case, I decided to stick with Pentax. I'm very glad I did.

[BodenM]

I would argue the noisy part as well, really only the screw-drive lenses tend to err on the side of being noisy, my DA 18-135mm WR (with SDM in-lens AF motor) is nigh-silent when focusing, and even if it hunts it's not particularly noisy, and it's definitely FAR quieter than the 18-55mm kit lens on a 600D that I used to use. The shutter is also much quieter too, it's a dulled sound rather than a sharp click like the 600D.

[grispie]

In all honesty, can you recommend a newbuyer wanting to build a good system over some time with Pentax and their K-Mount? With no gear at all, starting from the scratch?

Yes, why not.
For sure other brands will do as well. But I have not regrets at all having started off with pentax from scratch myself, quite the opposite.
It has all been said by now.
Value for money & i don't see K mount going anywhere.

And i believe apsc is indeed the way to go for 95% of people.
I'm happy Pentax showed their dedication to that format.

[racingsnake]

I was thinking about changing systems but just couldn't justify it having all those beautiful lenses. Sold my k5IIs and just last night got myself a k-3 for $859 from eBay. Plus I got $86 in eBay bucks. Can't beat that.

[btnapa]

I have always said it. It is not the pixel count but the quality of the pixels. That is why K3 with its smaller sensor competes with full frame cameras with higher pixel count. I shot my Canon 6D along side my K5IIs for an assignment. Pentax was every bit as good if not better with smaller sensor and lower pixel count. Go figure!

[cxdoo]

I suppose yours is an earnest question, however you might find my almost serious thread informative. Not that I wasn't hoping for some more substantial suggestions, but as it turned out IMHO most of dissatisfaction with Pentax on this board stems from Ricoh not delivering what (some) people want, rather than other systems being better bang/buck.

Still, the answer to your question is, as always, depends. For non-professional like me Pentax is still looking great. Considering I really really love Pentax ergonomics, I guess I will stick with it as long as they don't fall significantly behind.
And maybe even then; there is a point where camera (computer, phone) is simply good enough.

[asp1880]

... I like the compact size of the limited lenses. My dream would be to get 2-3 high quality, small prime lenses and stick to it for a long time and only update the body from time to time. Pentax seems to deliver what I'm searching for, however:

1. The prime lenses are quite slow (f 3.2, f2.8, f2.4)
2. The autofocus is not fast and has no silent motor (Not that much of a dealbreaker for my purposese I think)

Those two points are what makes the limiteds small. You can't make a prime that is large aperture, quiet focusing and compact
at the same time.


And I also disagree about the AF being slow, actually. It just seems slow, because the motor draws attention to the focusing.


The limiteds (handling, rendering (just got the DA70 myself the other day - OMG 3D!)) are a unique Pentax forte. But they are extreme
and therefore not everyone's cup of tea.


Regards,
--Anders.

[Kerrowdown]

because most of the Pentaxians have experience with other systems

Equipment choices can be both emotive and subjective at the same time.

If it's the pro route your going longer term, you will need to pick a brand that has a strong pro "back up" from the manufacturer.

[CarlJF]

1. The prime lenses are quite slow (f 3.2, f2.8, f2.4)
2. The autofocus is not fast and has no silent motor (Not that much of a dealbreaker for my purposese I think)
and the most important point

1) Slow compared to what ? I don't know, but when I look on the BH Photo or Adorama website, I find plenty of prime lenses with aperture < 2. Same thing when I look on the used market. If there's something easy to find for the K mount, it's certainly a fast prime.

2) Actually, the AF on the K-50 is as fast or faster than any other DLSR in the same price range. And any difference is in the order of 0.1 sec, which is totally irrelevant in real world operation. The slow AF of Pentax is really a thing of the past. Sure, 20 years ago, there was a noticeable difference in AF speed. It's not true anymore. Unfortunately, many reviewers still seems to be biased toward "slow Pentax AF", even when their own numbers show otherwise. For example, a review of the Canon 70D, a higher end camera than the K-50, in a magazine described the AF as "extremely fast" with AF speed of 0.41s at EV6 and an average of 1.21s at EV -2. The same reviewer described the K-50 AF as sluggish with speed of 0.38s at EV6 and 1.48 at EV -2. Maybe I'm missing something, but based on their numbers, both seem quite similar and, if anything , the "sluggish" just look as speedy as the "extremely fast"... Unless 0.3s in very dim light makes a huge difference to you.

As for the noise, the K-50 certainly has more than competing products which have NO AF motor. So, they're silent, but at the price of only being compatible with motorized lenses. Which, as you may guess, will cost more than a non motorized one of the same quality... On the other hand, the counterpart of having the AF motor in the body is that you have full lens compatibility with any AF lens ever made for the mount. For me, this advantage more than balance the price of having a bit of noise from the AF motor. And this noise isn't as noticeable as some would like you to think. Unless you're looking specifically for the noise, you probably wouldn't be bothered by it.

[FrankC]

1.For me, I would base my buying decision on the body and lenses available, as it seems to be what you're doing. If Pentax offers the body and lenses that you want now and in the future, then I don't see why not to go with Pentax. However, if I was looking for a system that used Nikon's 14-24mm, I just might go with Nikon instead.
I get your point about the lenses being too slow, but take a look at the offerings from Nikon and Canon that are faster. Are you willing to pay the extra costs for a faster lens. If so, then maybe Pentax isn't right for you.

2. I have to disagree with your statement regarding the AF not being fast. Fast enough for what? I used to have the original Canon EOS-1 back in the late 80s and it was faster than what I could ever do manually. The current Rebel is far more advanced and faster than then top-of-the-line EOS-1, so I don't put a lot of value into statements that claim this body can AF faster than this one. They are all very fast. Where I do put a lot value is the body's ability to shoot at a frame rate while continuously AF.
and the most important point
3. Pentax seems to be economically weak. Yes, they certainly appear to be very limited as far what new product they're introducing. You also have to think about the smart-phone affect which has decimated the point-and-shoot market which is where the big brands got much of their profits. Canon's latest body, the 7D Mark II is their first new body in 2 years, and it replaced the 7D Mark I that introduced 5 years ago. So I think the strain on the market is being felt by all brands and not just Pentax. However, since Pentax has such a small market share, the effects on them may be far more detrimental.

[normhead]

I have always said it. It is not the pixel count but the quality of the pixels. That is why K3 with its smaller sensor competes with full frame cameras with higher pixel count. I shot my Canon 6D along side my K5IIs for an assignment. Pentax was every bit as good if not better with smaller sensor and lower pixel count. Go figure!

Careful what you say around here. There are folks who will tar and feather you for such blasphemy.

[aleonx3]

I have always said it. It is not the pixel count but the quality of the pixels. That is why K3 with its smaller sensor competes with full frame cameras with higher pixel count. I shot my Canon 6D along side my K5IIs for an assignment. Pentax was every bit as good if not better with smaller sensor and lower pixel count. Go figure!

Now that you bring this up for 6D and K5IIs comparison, a friend of mine have the 6D and we both shoot in every event (event-stage photographers). My K5IIs photos are far better than his in terms of tonal and dynamic range; as he also conceited that the Canon sensor is lacking behind on DR compare to the Sony sensor on Pentax models. I thought at least the 6D would have some advantage over high ISO noise.... but I also don't see a significant difference. Although his 85/1.8 is cheap... compare to my 77/1.8, but then I have to think of my 77/1.8 as "limited"....

[boriscleto]

as he also conceited that the Canon sensor is lacking behind on DR compare to the Sony sensor on Pentax models.

Conceded....

concede |kənˈsēd| verb
1 [ reporting verb ] admit that something is true or valid after first denying or resisting it: [ with clause ] : I had to concede that I'd overreacted | [ with obj. ] : that principle now seems to have been conceded.

conceited |kənˈsētid| adjective
excessively proud of oneself; vain.

[aleonx3]

Conceded....

Thanks.. boriscleto... for the correction... I meant conceded....

[boriscleto]

Thanks.. boriscleto... for the correction... I meant conceded....

Sorry, had to be a grammar nazi.