[hobkyl]

When I first bought my kx, I had grandeur ideas of becoming a semi pro. I bought some glass, and upgraded to the k30.

Life happened, and since that first year with the kx (previous year with a Canon s5is) I find that I rarely get out shooting. I'm a landscape kinda guy, not really into photographing much else. And with that requires time and money to travel to locations worthwhile (IMO) for shooting.

Then come all the great stories I've heard and photos I've seen from mirrorless, m4/3, and p&s.

I also get out once/twice a year for hiking/backpacking in the mountains and appreciate what a smaller kit could do for me.

My question is, if I traded out for a say a Sony rx100, Ricoh gr, or a Nex what am I loosing?

I would say that the ability to add filters (ND and CP) are high among my list of musts as well as being able to set the shutter speed. A lot of my photography revolves around waterfalls-and I strive for the milky flow.

Occasionally I like to shoot birds in my backyard as well, so a zoom would be nice but not top priority. (I say this bc if I understand correctly-the GR and rx100 don't have a zoom?)

Thanks

[6BQ5]

You already have the K-30 so if I were you I would just keep it. Trading, selling, buying, etc takes time that could be used for exploring and shooting. Maybe you can pair down your lenses but keep the camera unless it hurts to keep it. One prime and one superzoom with your K-30 may be enough.

[stevebrot]

I ask that question every time I use my phone camera. A high-end mirrorless may well better meet your needs, but that is for you to decide.


Steve

[causey]

I've been recently considering lighter options. (I have a K-30 and back pain Also, my favorite lenses are heavy: Sigma 17-50mm, Rokinon 14mm, Rokinon 85mm.) Here are my conclusions:

Fuji X-E1 seems to be the best deal, IMO: lightweight (about 500 grams with kit lens), nice viewfinder, very good 16-50mm kit, decent AF, decent price (the new version, X-E2, costs twice X-E1's price)... Fuji has excellent, expensive glass. I wish DxO supported Fuji cameras though--they say it's not possible, due to a property of Fuji sensors.
The NEX series is great, except for the lens offering: no good normal zoom. The new Sony 16-70mm seems to have focus problems, which isn't acceptable given the price ($1200). (The newer Sony A6000 is currently the best mirrorless from Sony. It offers very good AF in addition to a 24mp sensor and a great viewfinder, but it's expensive.) If you don't need a zoom, you could just go with a NEX + the light&cheap trio from Sigma: 18mm, 30mm, 60mm.
Samsung: no viewfinder, rather noisy 20mp sensors, good optics.
M43 systems don't have much appeal to me. I looked at numerous pics, and photos taken with APS-C cameras still look better... It is my subjective impression that for pics taken in good light the IQ difference between FF and APS-C is significantly less than the IQ difference between APS-C and m43.

Now, after considering the effort of switching to mirrorless and other drawbacks that would come with such a switch (e.g., no in-body stabilization, plasticky construction), I decided to wait for the next entry-level camera from Pentax. Who knows? They might give us a 400+something grams camera... (In my case, lightness trumps weather-sealing.)

---

Last edited by causey; 06-18-2014 at 01:09 PM.

[Na Horuk]

I recently had a similar train of thought here:
https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/173-general-photography/265701-compact-backup-camera.html


But I can't help thinking I am just really spoiled. The K-01 is already pretty small, especially when paired with the limited lenses (which are almost all practically pancakes).

[OregonJim]

I would say that the ability to add filters (ND and CP) are high among my list of musts as well as being able to set the shutter speed. A lot of my photography revolves around waterfalls-and I strive for the milky flow.

By the time you add filters, adapters, and the required tripod, what will you really be saving, size-wise?

[hobkyl]

Some interesting POVs here, thanks.

None of you have fully advocated jumping to a a GR or Rx100 or the like....are there limitations that I am not seeing? Other than a fixed 28mm lens?

IQ seems to be as good if not better than the k30 from what comparisons I've seen.

Don't get me wrong, the K30 isnt heavy IMO and isn't the biggest out there. However, if I could save some space in my pack while climbing high peaks as well as have it more readily accessible for trail photos vs taking it only when I stop. Or the ability to throw it in my pocket or a camelbak when roaming around locally to waterfalls...why wouldn't I....if I can attain the same quality photos for my use?

Maybe I read the wrong review somewhere, but for some reason the K-01 doesn't appeal to me. Aside from that, it's one of the heaviest MILCs available...so that doesn't really get me anywhere.

I'm not totally against keeping the k30, I do love it. Just wondering if something smaller would suit my needs and am hoping for some advice from those who made the switch if those folks exist.

---------- Post added 06-18-14 at 02:13 PM ----------

By the time you add filters, adapters, and the required tripod, what will you really be saving, size-wise?

Do these cameras require a different tripod per se?

Filters are 90% of the time on my camera, and if not stow away not taking up much room at all. The camera bodys space hogging/required stowage is more of what I am possibly looking to change.

[Kendigitize]

No interest in the Pentax Q?
Small, compact, bult in nd filters with Q lenses, CP filters available and if you want to shoot birds, get the adapter coupled with an Kmount lens for a super-telephoto. Not the same IQ as the other cameras though, if that's a main goal.

[causey]

Why a GR or Rx100, and not a NEX 6 with a Sigma 30mm lens? Only about 100-150 grams more--the NEX 6 + Sigma 30mm will weight about 400 grams (vs. 650 grams of K-30)--and you can use your Pentax lenses with a cheap adapter. Plus, you have an EVF, in addition to the LCD.

Some interesting POVs here, thanks.

None of you have fully advocated jumping to a a GR or Rx100 or the like....are there limitations that I am not seeing? Other than a fixed 28mm lens?

[Lowell Goudge]

When I first bought my kx, I had grandeur ideas of becoming a semi pro. I bought some glass, and upgraded to the k30.

Life happened, and since that first year with the kx (previous year with a Canon s5is) I find that I rarely get out shooting. I'm a landscape kinda guy, not really into photographing much else. And with that requires time and money to travel to locations worthwhile (IMO) for shooting.

Then come all the great stories I've heard and photos I've seen from mirrorless, m4/3, and p&s.

I also get out once/twice a year for hiking/backpacking in the mountains and appreciate what a smaller kit could do for me.

My question is, if I traded out for a say a Sony rx100, Ricoh gr, or a Nex what am I loosing?

I would say that the ability to add filters (ND and CP) are high among my list of musts as well as being able to set the shutter speed. A lot of my photography revolves around waterfalls-and I strive for the milky flow.

Occasionally I like to shoot birds in my backyard as well, so a zoom would be nice but not top priority. (I say this bc if I understand correctly-the GR and rx100 don't have a zoom?)

Thanks

Landscape is all about perspective, not necessarily great locations. There is a lot you can do to explore landscapes without travel. You don't say what lenses you have, but go out and force yourself to shoot a specific focal length for 1-2 weeks, then change focal lengths and shoot the same subject / place with the new focal length. Make yourself work for the shots. You might be surprised

[savoche]

The main limitation I see with the GR is the lack of a viewfinder. That is a real dealbreaker for me. If I were to get a more compact companion to my K-5 right now it would probably be a Fuji, even though they aren't really that small. Maybe the RX100iii (with a VF) could be an alternative. Of course, if you shoot landscapes from a tripod you could do just fine without a VF.

But yes, at times I could wish for a lighter kit. Then again, if it gets too small it would be awkward to shoot with and sap all the fun out of it - for me. We all have different needs and priorities, and I can well understand that some will find a Pentax DSLR too big and cumbersome just the way I see a D800 with a 200-400 f/4 as totally out of the question for my needs. Or an FA*250-600 for the K-5 for that matter. I would like the quality, though

[hobkyl]

No interest in the Pentax Q?
Small, compact, bult in nd filters with Q lenses, CP filters available and if you want to shoot birds, get the adapter coupled with an Kmount lens for a super-telephoto. Not the same IQ as the other cameras though, if that's a main goal.

IQ isn't there for me.

---------- Post added 06-18-14 at 03:01 PM ----------

Why a GR or Rx100, and not a NEX 6 with a Sigma 30mm lens? Only about 100-150 grams more--the NEX 6 + Sigma 30mm will weight about 400 grams (vs. 650 grams of K-30)--and you can use your Pentax lenses with a cheap adapter. Plus, you have an EVF, in addition to the LCD.

I mentioned the NEX in my original post, must have forgot it in the secondary...I do like photos I have seen taken with that camera.

---------- Post added 06-18-14 at 03:06 PM ----------

Landscape is all about perspective, not necessarily great locations. There is a lot you can do to explore landscapes without travel. You don't say what lenses you have, but go out and force yourself to shoot a specific focal length for 1-2 weeks, then change focal lengths and shoot the same subject / place with the new focal length. Make yourself work for the shots. You might be surprised

This may be true for many a photographer, but for me at least...my backyard, the local park etc aren't what I want hanging on my wall. I'm sure many awesome photos come from close to home for photographers...but mountains, ravines, sweeping vistas etc are what excite me about photography. I guess in a sense if I can see it on a daily or weekly basis-I have no interest in capturing forever in time a photo of it.

I have the 16-45, 55-300, and a handful of M lenses. I've rented some faster, longer glass for trips and concerts as well. Most of the time I have the 16-45 mounted-it fits my needs for waterfalls and summit views.

---------- Post added 06-18-14 at 03:07 PM ----------

The main limitation I see with the GR is the lack of a viewfinder. That is a real dealbreaker for me. If I were to get a more compact companion to my K-5 right now it would probably be a Fuji, even though they aren't really that small. Maybe the RX100iii (with a VF) could be an alternative. Of course, if you shoot landscapes from a tripod you could do just fine without a VF.

But yes, at times I could wish for a lighter kit. Then again, if it gets too small it would be awkward to shoot with and sap all the fun out of it - for me. We all have different needs and priorities, and I can well understand that some will find a Pentax DSLR too big and cumbersome just the way I see a D800 with a 200-400 f/4 as totally out of the question for my needs. Or an FA*250-600 for the K-5 for that matter. I would like the quality, though

However I am forever stuck with a 28mm lens. I guess I don't know why I listed it as a potential other than it's great reviews and it would fit my use for landscapes well. But other than that....it would make a better 2nd camera than an all in one.

[Lowell Goudge]

This may be true for many a photographer, but for me at least...my backyard, the local park etc aren't what I want hanging on my wall. I'm sure many awesome photos come from close to home for photographers...but mountains, ravines, sweeping vistas etc are what excite me about photography. I guess in a sense if I can see it on a daily or weekly basis-I have no interest in capturing forever in time a photo of it.

I have the 16-45, 55-300, and a handful of M lenses. I've rented some faster, longer glass for trips and concerts as well. Most of the time I have the 16-45 mounted-it fits my needs for waterfalls and summit views.

Given where you live, at the northern tip of the finger lakes, and just south of Lake Ontario, I think you we selling your local short.

There are a lot of landscapes to photograph there,

While I understand a little the sentiment, as we all tend to explore our local area less than the tourists do, but there is a big difference in shooting and hanging something on your wall, having done so in a way no one else has, than just knowing it is in your back yard literally

Aside from that you missed one important point in my last post, it is all about trying different techniques, viewpoints, and learning, learning learning. Then when you go to that exotic place you are a) prepared B) profificient and C) conditioned to explore alternate views.

Otherwise you are simply going to repeat the great shots of others before you.

[stevebrot]

The main limitation I see with the GR is the lack of a viewfinder. That is a real dealbreaker for me.

Same here. I shoot a lot in full sunlight and most LCDs just don't cut it.


Steve

[northcoastgreg]

My question is, if I traded out for a say a Sony rx100, Ricoh gr, or a Nex what am I losing?

You lose different things, depending on which mirrorless option you choose. Generally speaking, you may lose a bit in the ergonomics and handling department with mirrorless (smaller cameras with smaller buttons and fewer external controls, sometimes matched with lenses that are too large). Mirrorless (except the K-01) suffer substantially lower battery life, don't do tracking auto focus well, don't have as many, or as high quality, longer focal length options, are sorely lacking in mid-level standard zoom options (lots of consumer grade zooms, some real nice high end zooms, virtually nothing in between).

If you're content with a consumer grade lens, the best mirrorless option for landscape photography is probably the OM-D EM-5 coupleedwith the 12-50 kit lens. The EM-5 is one of the more versatile mirrorless cameras, with IBIS, an EVF, dual control wheels, lots of buttons, tilting LCD and, when combined with the 12-50, provides a weather-sealed option for outdoor photography. If you want better zoom lens quality than the 12-50, it gets real pricey real fast. The best option for high quality landscape photos (excluding the pricey Sony options) is probably the Sony 16-70 lens matched with any of the Sony E-mount bodies. That will provide excellent quality while still remaining relatively lightweight.