[MESuperian]

What fascinates me is that forty or fifty years ago Canon, Nikon, Pentax, Olympus and Minolta all battled each other for consumer dollars, and each had different lens mounts, but the sensor (35mm film) was shared by all players.

Even then a fast fifty was the mainstay of the market. The common primes were 12, 24, 28, 35, of course the 50, 85, 135, and 200.

It’s always been true, that when you buy new you get what you pay for.

My mainstay camera and lens is an Olympus M5.2 with a 12-40 f2.8 Pro lens that when new cost a thousand for the camera and a thousand for the lens.

I also own an Olympus P-5 with an f1.8 17mm prime and VF-4 viewfinder that cost $1,500 new as a package.

Neither of those cameras are worth a hoot tracking a moving subject.

I also own a Canon T5i with STM kit lens, a 24mm STM prime, and 55-250 STM telephoto. It has excellent tracking autofocus for the few times I want that.

But I’ve had an epiphany recently about Pentax, and because of this:

Olympus is releasing a $2,000 new camera that I can use all my MFT lenses on plus adapt all my legacy glass to.

And if I give my current MFT cameras good light I’d not be able to tell much difference.

But if I spend $1,800 new (or $1,000 used) for a Pentax K1.2 body and another thousand for a new high end Pentax Fast Fifty the only step above that in image quality,,,

Is a Pentax medium frame digital.

And every medium frame Pentax lens on the market adapts to the K-x I now own or the K1.2 I will own.

MFT has advantages over APC and full frame. They are light, and I can spend $3,000 on an Olympus f4 300mm and get the same reach as a 600mm full frame lens. And there are advantages to mirrorless cameras. The live view is extremely good. Video is awesome, if I shot much video.

But for about the price of 27 spools of barbed wire ($2,300) I can and will own a Pentax K1.2 with a top end Pentax fast fifty prime.

The advantages of a K1 are they’ll shoot every lens Pentax ever made for an ILC camera, with infinity focus, and you get an optical viewfinder.

What Pentax really needs, is a $500 full frame starter camera, I think.

[kypfer]

What Pentax really needs, is a $500 full frame starter camera, I think.

I'd be tempted

[MESuperian]

I'd be tempted

The obvious move, is to upgrade the sensor in the K1.2 and use the old one in a stripped down $500 starter camera.

Nikon and Canon’s $500 APC DSLRs will be the last to die.

That should give them a push.

And the $500 full frame starter camera should take four AA batteries, and come with a cheap kit lens.

[reh321]

I’d like to point out a carton of good cigarettes is worth about two cheap Pentax lenses.

For my ME Super away at Rich Henderson being rebuilt, I own a Pentax 50mm M f1.7 and Pentax M 80-200, together worth $50.

I have several Takumars {a 28mm f/2.8, a 35mm f/2, a seven element 50mm f/1.4, and an eight element 50mm f/1.4}, which I use with my K-30.
I use them with it because this allows me to control the aperture at the lens.
In the “old days”, I never could have afforded ‘Takumars’ for that any purpose.

---

Last edited by reh321; 02-15-2022 at 05:19 PM.

[Wheatfield]

The obvious move, is to upgrade the sensor in the K1.2 and use the old one in a stripped down $500 starter camera.

Nikon and Canon’s $500 APC DSLRs will be the last to die.

That should give them a push.

And the $500 full frame starter camera should take four AA batteries, and come with a cheap kit lens.

Pentax tried that game decades ago. It's why they are now a name on Ricoh's spread sheet rather than their own company.
It's not a mistake Ricoh is likely to repeat.

[reh321]

The obvious move, is to upgrade the sensor in the K1.2 and use the old one in a stripped down $500 starter camera.

Nikon and Canon’s $500 APC DSLRs will be the last to die.

That should give them a push.

And the $500 full frame starter camera should take four AA batteries, and come with a cheap kit lens.

I would happily pay a few hundred more dollars for a manual focus camera Pentax camera body like that.
They wouldn’t even have to include the ‘cheap kit lens’.
I would retire my K-30, and use my Takumars with the new camera.

[pschlute]

may be suboptimal (at least in my ones) is the M135mm3.5

You are not the first to have that opinion about the M 135 3.5, but I have always liked my copy.

[John Shriver]

One reason is that fast manual focus lenses are nearly impossible to focus on the "bright" focusing screen of a K1. Forget about the Pentax-A 50/1.2! Also had trouble with the Pentax-A 16/2.8. I tried a modified Canon screen in it, and could focus, but the light metering went to hell. Maybe the next full-frame Pentax DSLR won't meter through the focusing screen. The K-3 III has a separate metering sensor.

[photogem]

And the $500 full frame starter camera should take four AA batteries, and come with a cheap kit lens.

Most normal users won't accept AA's.

AA's also will make the battery-compartment larger. Most users would not accept AA's these days.

A stick has always 2 ends.

[Sidney Porter]

To the OP.

It sounds like you are looking to collect older full frame lenses for an eventual purchase of a k1 or k1ii. I personally do not have those cameras but in reading threads around here it seems the sensor in those cameras out resolve the lenses. It seems like a lot of members tried to get by with their old stuff but then upgraded

[pschlute]

it seems the sensor in those cameras out resolve the lenses. It seems like a lot of members tried to get by with their old stuff but then upgraded

I have been taking photographs with the K1 with both new D-FA lenses and old "K" and M series lenses for the past 6 years. I view my images on a 2560x1440 pixel screen and regularly print at 24*16 inches. I have never thought any of my images with the older lenses have been "out-resolved" by the sensor.

If someone wants to do a series of tests in lab conditions then maybe they will find a difference. For any practical purpose in every day photography it does not happen.

Here is an image taken with the M 85mm f2.0, which was launched 45 years ago. I am linking to the full size image so you can view it in detail. No one can tell me this lens is out-resolved by the sensor. Click it to see full size

[Sidney Porter]

I have been taking photographs with the K1 with both new D-FA lenses and old "K" and M series lenses for the past 6 years. I view my images on a 2560x1440 pixel screen and regularly print at 24*16 inches. I have never thought any of my images with the older lenses have been "out-resolved" by the sensor.

If someone wants to do a series of tests in lab conditions then maybe they will find a difference. For any practical purpose in every day photography it does not happen.

Here is an image taken with the M 85mm f2.0, which was launched 45 years ago. I am linking to the full size image so you can view it in detail. No one can tell me this lens is out-resolved by the sensor. Click it to see full size

Like I said I don't have a k1 so I was going by what I have read on this forum. That being said I was more referring to some of the kit zoom lenses like the op just purchased.

According to the lens review page your lens sell for an average price of $250. We are discussing lenses that cost 1/10th of that

[mikesbike]

I have been taking photographs with the K1 with both new D-FA lenses and old "K" and M series lenses for the past 6 years. I view my images on a 2560x1440 pixel screen and regularly print at 24*16 inches. I have never thought any of my images with the older lenses have been "out-resolved" by the sensor.

If someone wants to do a series of tests in lab conditions then maybe they will find a difference. For any practical purpose in every day photography it does not happen.

Here is an image taken with the M 85mm f2.0, which was launched 45 years ago. I am linking to the full size image so you can view it in detail. No one can tell me this lens is out-resolved by the sensor. Click it to see full size

Well, maybe the sensor can out-resolve this lens. We'd never know it, because we'd be simply looking a the best possible result the lens can deliver, which would then be the limiting factor, But who cares? your point is well-taken when you took this image- it is so good it doesn't matter what sensor out there has even more resolving power. If there are shortcomings of this lens which might be made detectable by the sensor, they are so minor it doesn't matter. I have always believed there were great lenses made in previous decades that are still great, even though possibly surpassed by a modern equivalent. That is a marvelous photo!

[mikesbike]

I dunno. I think the used idea camera makes a whole lot of sense.
That's how I bought my K1 (not a K1ii: I got a real steal from KEH at ~$900 in 2020, bargain condition but it seemed/seems great to me). If it had cost $1800 or $2200, I simply would never have gotten it in the first place, no matter what warranties or bonuses were thrown in. And even if I had the extra $900-$1300 to spend at the time, I think a few $200-$500 used lenses of my choosing would serve me better than a warranty and a kit lens (though I fully understand that the 28-105 is a great lens).
I'm not convinced the difference between K1 and K1ii matters too much at all.

YMMV, as always.

If this amount is all you can muster in your budget, than that's the way it is, better than not having it. However, there is always some risk in buying used when dealing with such a complex electronic monster as a modern DSLR. The K-1 is very well constructed, but one never knows even then what it has been through.

At those prices, the cost of a new K-1 II represents one of the best bargains among pro-level FF DSLR cameras in the marketplace today. Its image quality and features, as well as design, are among the best available for still photography. A factory warranty might seem like some unnecessary item not worth much, and I've had many new Pentax camera bodies over the years which never required employing them. But I did have two Pentax DSLR bodies that failed some months after purchase, one of them being a very well-built flagship model. When it is needed, a warranty can be worth a lot of money.

The K-1 II was developed with some advancements, especially in terms of better high ISO performance. It has been shown capable of cleaner, lower noise imaging at higher ISO settings. But maybe this is something you don't need, as you rarely shoot using higher ISO settings.

It is much like the comparison between the K-3 II and the K-3 III. The K-3 III has been shown capable of cleaner, lower noise imaging at higher ISO settings, as well as its higher frame rate for burst shooting. But if you don't have need for these advancements, just go with a good used K-3 II, put your money towards the new DA* 16-50mm f/2.8 PLM lens and you'll have super fast AF and everything else that suits your needs, at quite a savings.

[stevebrot]

I have several excellent pre-DA/D FA Pentax lenses and none were particularly inexpensive and all are sharp enough for the tight pixel pitch on my K-2. One gets what one pays for.


Steve