[clackers]

I think f2.8 is fine for what they are. And I don't have experience with focus by wire but if one doesn't mind AF only, they should be fine, right?

I hear the NEX-7 has issues in the sensor corners with these lenses, that were solved in the A6000, is that something you noticed?

And how do you think these Sigmas compare to the Pentax primes you have? Sorry to derail jut a bit, but inquiring minds need to know

No sensor corner issue in any of the pics I've taken with any of the three lenses.


They with the NEX-7 are my 24Mps APS-C walkaround kit (My reason for 'Why I Will Not Own a K-3' ). See below for a shot with the 30mm.


The DN lenses are cheap, sharp, not fast, and have quite soul-less rendering.


The pics aren't as nice as if I carry around in the same bag o' primes a K-S1 with 15Ltd, 21 Ltd, DA35, DA50 and 70 Ltd, but they do have metal barrels and didn't cost as much.

[BigMackCam]

...Yes, the shutter is noisy, relatively speaking. If you want quiet, the K-3 is much better.

It's a while since I've handled a 35mm film camera, other than the Cosina C1s I bought recently (and that's all plastic, so it has a loud and echoing shutter / mirror mechanism ), so I'd be interested to know if any of the Pentax DSLRs are noticeably worse than, for instance, the old Pentax film cameras?

[RKKS08]

so I'd be interested to know if any of the Pentax DSLRs are noticeably worse than, for instance, the old Pentax film cameras?

Oh Yes.
Specially compared with Pentax SLRs with a cloth or Titanium shutter (MX, LX).
But also the shutters of the ME SUper and the Super A were very silent, compared with any of the Pentax DSLRs.

[BigMackCam]

Oh Yes.
Specially compared with Pentax SLRs with a cloth or Titanium shutter (MX, LX).
But also the shutters of the ME SUper and the Super A were very silent, compared with any of the Pentax DSLRs.

Interesting, I had no idea. Thanks for that

[Sandy Hancock]

My LX and PZ-1 are both pretty noisy (the latter being the louder, and then there's the addition of the film advance). The K-S2 is definitely quieter than either, and the K-3 is much quieter again.

[Scintilla]

You might also consider picking up a used K-01 mirrorless which goes for about $200 on eBay. This would give you a nice large display with focus peaking which might be easier for manual focusing than the viewfinder on a K-50.

But the K-50 also has that exact same display with focus peaking...?

[bertwert]

But the K-50 also has that exact same display with focus peaking...?

Yes.

Get the K-50 over K-01 it's a lot nicer camera!

[monochrome]

The K-50 / K-30 is essentially the same electronics as a K-01 with a Prism, VF and mirror included and a shutter that only cycles once per release. The body shape makes using the LCD for live view a different ergonomic experience.

I have a K-3 and a K-01 and I use principally MF lenses on both. Catch-in-focus is a useful feature of the K-3. If that is available on the K-50 it can make using the VF easier in some applications.

[Scintilla]

I have a K-3 and a K-01 and I use principally MF lenses on both. Catch-in-focus is a useful feature of the K-3. If that is available on the K-50 it can make using the VF easier in some applications.

It's on my K-30, though personally I don't use it anymore since discovering it wasn't compatible with back button focus on the K-30. Usually I just rely on the focus confirmation light or use magnified LV (sometimes with peaking).

[TheOneAndOnlyJH]

But the K-50 also has that exact same display with focus peaking...?

Yes, but if you prefer to always use Live View with old manual focus lenses there really isn't a need for an SLR and a mirrorless might be a better fit.
Nilss mentiones "These mirrorless cameras have EVFs which is great with manual lenses." so I figured this might apply to him.

Even with my speedy K-3 live view involves a few extra audible clicks and delays. First the mirror flips up and the shutter opens when you activate live view, then when you take a picture the shutter closes, then re-opens and closes for the exposure. Next there is about a 1 second delay before shutter re-opens and live view becomes active again, even with instant review turned off. Not only is the delay annoying, the multiple clicks are more distracting in quiet environments. I find this rather annoying, so if I were to only use live view I would prefer a mirrorless camera where the shutter is timed to click all at once rather than two separate thunks for each exposure. My wife likes to use live view, and she actually prefers a 12MP Panasonic GF-3 over the K-3 due to this behavior. The GF-3 also shows the live view quicker and for longer periods of time in a burst where with the K-3 it doesn't show the live view until a second after your burst is over unless you have instant preview on, and then it's a delayed view, not live view.

Mirrorless is made for live view but live view on a DSLR is secondary, so if Nilss is planning to use live view with his manual lenses and not use the viewfinder the K-01 may actually be a better choice. I don't own one myself since I have the K-3, but I'm keeping an eye on eBay and I would like to pick one up if I see a good deal. I think it would go great as a second body to use with my old manual focus primes or for situations where the K-3 might seem intimidating to people.

---

The K-50 / K-30 is essentially the same electronics as a K-01 with a Prism, VF and mirror included and a shutter that only cycles once per release. The body shape makes using the LCD for live view a different ergonomic experience. I have a K-3 and a K-01 and I use principally MF lenses on both. Catch-in-focus is a useful feature of the K-3. If that is available on the K-50 it can make using the VF easier in some applications.

I just noticed you have both.the K-3 and K-01. How would you compare live view use between the two? Is there a similar delay on the K-01 or does it have a more responsive live view?

With regards to Catch-in-Focus, I've found that if I don't go slow my K-3 takes the shot just AFTER the point of sharpest focus, so I tend to get get better results with live view and focus peaking when using manual lenses for faster subjects .

[Nilss]

Hi all,

So much time has passed since this post and a lot of things changed in my life. One thing is that I became a freelance business consultant, but I also registered as a freelance professional photographer. Because consultancy is going very well, I can afford to spend time and money to develop myself as a photographer. I have a modest goal of selling 5 prints per year as fine art (no intention just yet to go into events or products). This means that firstly, I have a bigger and tax-deductible budget. Secondly, in my choices I need to have a clear upgrade path. Thirdly, even though I still see film as an amazing medium to shoot and print, I need to create a digital workflow. I found it impossible to print from film without passing a digital stage (nobody has enlargers anymore). And what’s the point then of shooting film?

For these reasons, even though I still doubted to buy a Sony A6000, I decided to give Pentax a fair shot. Pentax has a clear upgrade path and a vast amount of good lenses. They have professional-grade cameras as well. And unless I start doing photography full-time, I do not intend to work with a lot of flashes or tethering, traditionally the strong points of other brands. In my personal time I still want to do astrophotography, Pentax cameras being exceptionally well suited.

Notwithstanding a bigger budget, I bought a second-hand K-30 with kit lens just to start experimenting. Do I want zoom lenses or do I prefer primes? How often do I use the viewfinder and how often live view? Do I need weather sealing? Do I miss a flip screen? On basis of these experiences, giving it a year or so, I will decide my next camera, Pentax or not, and lenses.

I had the camera for two days now so it’s really much too early to draw conclusions, but some things I already want to share with you guys. Some things I may get “used to” and not remember afterwards.

• Viewfinder: after comparing a film SLR and a DSLR viewfinder and using the same lens, I found that the film viewfinder shows colder colors than reality, whereas the K-30 viewfinder shows warmer colors. This is really odd. I would expect both of them to show true colors. Nobody ever seems to discuss this. Worse is that the viewfinder of the K-30 is smaller. Because of the crop factor, I expected that everything in the viewfinder would look bigger, more zoomed in. On the contrary, the 50mm on the K-30 shows everything the same size, but there is literally a crop. This was actually to be expected considering optics, but never occurred to me. Using the 50mm lens now feels a bit weird, because my brain learned how to see with it. Using it on the K-30 makes me feel handicapped, as if I’m looking through a box. Using the film SLR, I felt really part of the scene, connected. The DSLR viewfinder disconnects me from the subject. This is an often-heard remark against electronic viewfinders, but the OVF already does this too, I find.
• Metering and white-balance: even in dimmed artificial lights of different colour temperatures, both were accurate. The green button to set the shutter speed on manual lenses works fine, too. I would like to configure it to set ISO, but I can work around it easily. Unfortunately, the slight “click” you hear makes people think you already took the picture.
• Live view: surprisingly bad, coming from a point-and-shoot. The focus peaking is handy and accurate, granted. But otherwise, even in manual the live view doesn’t really allow you to judge exposure. Also, because of the mirror mechanism, it takes a huge amount of “click-clacks” before the picture is taken. Same for green button. Luckily for landscape and a lot of fine art this is not really an issue, focus peaking is a big plus still.
• Focusing manually: I have very limited experience with the K-30, but it is rather positive. With the naked eye I could focus the lens through the viewfinder faster and more accurately than the camera. In limited light, the green diamond appears about one second after I focused. Focus peaking always confirmed my earlier focusing through the viewfinder, too. I did not try AF yet, didn’t bother.
• High ISO performance: I took a picture of my cat at ISO6400 so I could do some pixel-peeping on the little hairs of the furry beast. The hairs were detailed, even a bit more blurry then they would have been in good light. Apart from the hairs, the photo, even the jpeg, showed little noise. A modest-sized print would be completely fine. There is a lot of fuss on the internet about iso performance, but it’s probably fine for all APS-C sized sensors of recent production.

Thanks for all the help, guys! I will continue posting my experiences, as it may help some others in their decisions. Also, because I’m just starting with a digital workflow, I will be assessing Lightroom, Capture One, DxO Optics, and Affinity too. I'll probably write about it afterwards.

Cheers

[Scintilla]

• Live view: surprisingly bad, coming from a point-and-shoot. The focus peaking is handy and accurate, granted. But otherwise, even in manual the live view doesn’t really allow you to judge exposure.

Even if you hold the DoF preview button and/or have the live histogram on the screen?

[ChristianRock]

Nilss, thanks for sharing, it was interesting to see your views on the viewfinders for example.

If you have the budget - and from what you say you might, now - my suggestion is that you should probably just get a K-1 because it will truly let you see the world like you do with your film cameras. Why get used to something else that is not quite up to the same standard, just to come back later? Some forum members like normhead have been writing about how much a K-1 with just a 50mm is like "coming home" after a 50mm was all they used for decades early on in their lives. You already have the lenses, and can add more if needed, with time. Think of the K-1 as a "digital back" for the way you are used to do things now