[Mikesul]

Even when i use AF lenses, I usually use the QS to fine tune the focus. When it comes to critical focus, I rarely trust AF, at least with delicate subjects or contrasty backgrounds. I wish more lenses had QS, because to me, that is the best of both worlds. But I don't mind using MF lenses, I have a few. Focus peaking, with a couple improvements, can really make these lenses viable again. To me, the priorities are image quality and size of camera. AF.. I will have a hard time trusting AF anyway.

It is funny how quickly we become used to features like QS and take them for granted. I recently picked up an FA 31 and was shocked the first time I tried to adjust focus. It is clearly a minor issue but I realized I had come to take it for granted that Pentax lenses all had this handy feature. Easy to work around for a wonderful lens like the FA 31 but I am now a weaker man because of QS.

[Na Horuk]

It is funny how quickly we become used to features like QS and take them for granted.

Haha yess! The whole photographic world did just fine without this, but now..!

[normhead]

this is the earth calling norm: most people do hold a camera with two hands

Earth calling osv, yes but one steadies the camera, not destabilizing it cranking a lens. As I said, I use both an A-400, and the DA*60-250. The A-400 gives me more magnification, but the DA*60-250 with 1.4 TC will give me 10 times the number of keepers. You can spin this any way you want, but anyone who has experience knows what I'm talking about.

[Mikesul]

Earth calling osv, yes but one steadies the camera, not destabilizing it cranking a lens. As I said, I use both an A-400, and the DA*60-250. The A-400 gives me more magnification, but the DA*60-250 with 1.4 TC will give me 10 times the number of keepers. You can spin this any way you want, but anyone who has experience knows what I'm talking about.

Yes. AF, especially with a big lens, is easier and probably more reliable when off a tripod.

[adwb]

I bought a A7 with the intention of using my A lenses and a couple of M lenses with a photdiox adapter and have not been disappointed. With the focus peaking and the zebra stripes its a joy to use , no examples to hand to show you but these all shot with the so call poor kit lens that came with the camera .
https://www.dropbox.com/sh/5nczemw2zgcokcx/AABYdhyA1Yam9Rl6wnjdeGGJa?dl=0

[normhead]

I bought a A7 with the intention of using my A lenses and a couple of M lenses with a photdiox adapter and have not been disappointed. With the focus peaking and the zebra stripes its a joy to use , no examples to hand to show you but these all shot with the so call poor kit lens that came with the camera .
https://www.dropbox.com/sh/5nczemw2zgcokcx/AABYdhyA1Yam9Rl6wnjdeGGJa?dl=0

However, the fact that you bought the adapter, for your Pentax glass, and then shot with the kit lens that came with the camera... well, that's exactly what I'm talking about.

I find it impossible to get away from the (what I see as an indisputable) fact, that if I buy a Sony system, I'm changing systems. I am going to buy glass for it. The whole adapter thing to me is a transition thing. If I buy a Pentax FF, I'm using the same glass on both bodies. If I buy a Sony system, I'll want to have some Sony glass. For me the relatively small savings in weight I'd save by not waiting for a Pentax DSLR would be wiped out when I bought my first native Sony lens, and get worse and worse with each additional lens. The object for me here is to save weight in the camera bag. For the Sony system to do that for me, I have to use it with only Pentax glass.

[adwb]

I find it impossible to get away from the (what I see as an indisputable) fact, that if I buy a Sony system, I'm changing systems. I am going to buy glass for it. The whole adapter thing to me is a transition thing. If I buy a Pentax FF, I'm using the same glass on both bodies. If I buy a Sony system, I'll want to have some Sony glass. For me the relatively small savings in weight I'd save by not waiting for a Pentax DSLR would be wiped out when I bought my first native Sony lens, and get worse and worse with each additional lens. The object for me here is to save weight in the camera bag. For the Sony system to do that for me, I have to use it with only Pentax glass.

I think you will find the lenses weigh about the same , but the A7 being mirrorless is small and very much lighter. When used with a Pentax 50mm or a zoom it is a much lighter combo than my K5IIs with the same lenses.

The only reason I used the kit lens for the drop box images was like a idiot I left the bag with the lenses behind and had to make do with the K5 and a Sigma 2.8 24-60 and the Sony with its 3.5/5.6 28-70.

If Pentax do produce a FF unless they go mirrorless I am pretty sure it will be as heavy as a K3 / K5 so weight saving will unfortunately happen.

Given the new A7version2 just released apparently has shake reduction the body like pentax the benefit will be obvious to users of legacy glass, yes have to set the aperture manually and yes you have to manually zoom, for me not a big deal I often do that with the Pentax kit anyway.

As to the original posters question a simple search on DXo website will give a decent comparison and till you have tried the A7 focus systems and the ability to get instant zoom to fine tune the focus ( if necessary) ther is no real way to compare the two very different systems.

[Mikesul]

However, the fact that you bought the adapter, for your Pentax glass, and then shot with the kit lens that came with the camera... well, that's exactly what I'm talking about.

I find it impossible to get away from the (what I see as an indisputable) fact, that if I buy a Sony system, I'm changing systems. I am going to buy glass for it. The whole adapter thing to me is a transition thing. If I buy a Pentax FF, I'm using the same glass on both bodies. If I buy a Sony system, I'll want to have some Sony glass. For me the relatively small savings in weight I'd save by not waiting for a Pentax DSLR would be wiped out when I bought my first native Sony lens, and get worse and worse with each additional lens. The object for me here is to save weight in the camera bag. For the Sony system to do that for me, I have to use it with only Pentax glass.

I agree. That is why I stayed with Pentax after trying and liking the A6000. I wanted to use my wonderful Pentax lenses without adapter. But that does not mean that these new Sonys are not very tempting particularly for manual lenses.

[normhead]

I agree. That is why I stayed with Pentax after trying and liking the A6000. I wanted to use my wonderful Pentax lenses without adapter. But that does not mean that these new Sonys are not very tempting particularly for manual lenses.

Very tempting to bring along as a landscape alternative for squeezing the absolute max out of a great scene. I'd still use my K-3 for every day... but being able to pull out a great low light sensor with more resolution, when it would possibly be of benefit... who wouldn't want that?

[Mikesul]

Very tempting to bring along as a landscape alternative for squeezing the absolute max out of a great scene. I'd still use my K-3 for every day... but being able to pull out a great low light sensor with more resolution, when it would possibly be of benefit... who wouldn't want that?

I may be an optimist (hard to do at 70) but I think we will have that in a month or two.

EDIT: of course, those with spare money already have it in the 645z

[philbaum]

For those that haven't used Sony style focus peaking/magnification, you won't understand how good it works until you try a camera with a good implementation. Personally, i don't think the Pentax implementation, judging from the K3 and K5, is as good as the way Sony does it. Don't know how Samsung's focus peaking compares but its supposed to have been improved in this area somehow.

But if i'm shooting theater rehearsal pictures, i need AF - no two ways about it. For my landscape pictures that i try to sell, MF is all i need.

But what stops me from buying an A7 or a D810 for that matter is the shutter noise. I can not, will not tolerate loud shutter noise like that. Why is it that FF cameras do that - does the larger sensor mean that the shutter has to be noiser? The A7s has an electronic shutter and is totally silent - i think i could get used to that A friend has both the A7S and the A7R. Says the A7S is the only one he uses for still shooting.

Irritates the heck out of me that we can't get an official announcement from Pentax on what date they are working towards an FF, or if its still on the track. I don't think thats fair to their customer base.

[rawr]

an A7 or a D810 for that matter is the shutter noise.

Yes, the shutter noise is a persistent problem. In many shooting locations with poor light, shutter noise effectively neutralises the low-light advantage of FF, since you can't use your loud FF there.

It's surprising that the many fine engineers in FF camera companies never seem to have given the issue much attention. Forcing photographers - like one Nikon Df user I was reading about recently - to do stuff like wrap their cameras in heavy cloth when shooting theatre or ballet, or use cumbersome blimps.

I hope any Pentax FF maintains the quietness of the K-5/K-3.

[normhead]

For those that haven't used Sony style focus peaking/magnification, you won't understand how good it works until you try a camera with a good implementation. Personally, i don't think the Pentax implementation, judging from the K3 and K5, is as good as the way Sony does it. Don't know how Samsung's focus peaking compares but its supposed to have been improved in this area somehow.

But if i'm shooting theater rehearsal pictures, i need AF - no two ways about it. For my landscape pictures that i try to sell, MF is all i need.

But what stops me from buying an A7 or a D810 for that matter is the shutter noise. I can not, will not tolerate loud shutter noise like that. Why is it that FF cameras do that - does the larger sensor mean that the shutter has to be noiser? The A7s has an electronic shutter and is totally silent - i think i could get used to that A friend has both the A7S and the A7R. Says the A7S is the only one he uses for still shooting.

Irritates the heck out of me that we can't get an official announcement from Pentax on what date they are working towards an FF, or if its still on the track. I don't think thats fair to their customer base.

The A7s for still shooting... did you mean quiet? As opposed to "not moving."

[philbaum]

The A7s for still shooting... did you mean quiet? As opposed to "not moving."

No, i meant for still photographs versus video.

---------- Post added 11-27-14 at 01:24 PM ----------

Yes, the shutter noise is a persistent problem. In many shooting locations with poor light, shutter noise effectively neutralises the low-light advantage of FF, since you can't use your loud FF there.

It's surprising that the many fine engineers in FF camera companies never seem to have given the issue much attention. Forcing photographers - like one Nikon Df user I was reading about recently - to do stuff like wrap their cameras in heavy cloth when shooting theatre or ballet, or use cumbersome blimps.

I hope any Pentax FF maintains the quietness of the K-5/K-3.

The friend i had along normally shoots a D7000. Both she and Don were a bit surprised when i held down the Pentax shutter in High speed mode, and you could barely hear the shutter in this cafe. Yea for Pentax :-)

[Sliver-Surfer]

I have A7 k5 and kx. A7 makes manual focusing with any lens and adapter effortless. If AF is your flavour and you already have pentax AF lens collection stick with Pentax