[08amczb]

I will switch to FF next year too and I'am considering sony (and Nikon) aside the Pentax K-1II.

Why Penax:
-I have many AF primes for the system inclooding FA*24, FA31 Ltd, FA43 Ltd, (DA*55), FA77 Ltd and DFA100. The size of the FA Ltds are keeping me here, because the image quality is near to the giant sigma art lenses while I can attach one to my camera and two to my belt and I can leave home without a camera bag. Plus I have The PZ-1p as camera.
-The WR is so much better then sony's solution. I trust my camera in any condition.
-SR system works with my primes
-Creative SR fuctions, like automatic level, composition adjustment, pixelshift
-Good optical viewfinder

Why not Pentax:
-The KP has much better AF then the K-30/K50, but still not on the level of Sony/Nikon
-I could use my lenses with a shift adapter on a sony too
-Faster burst rates with bigger buffer
-More liquid second hand market
-Minimum shutter speed setting (I have this on the KP, but will not on the K-1)

I've searched for lenses and I found the Nikon alternatives are not so good, or very very expensive. The 50G/1.8 is good, but F1.8, the 58G/1.4 is 3x the price of the DA*55, the 50G/1.4 is not so good. The Sigma 50 Art is good, has the price of the DA*55, but very big and heavy.
It's a hard decision. I suggest to get a used K-3II/KP and try the AF first, it's cheaper, then switching and then missing the features.

[surfar]

And brands like Tamron and Sigma are making everything

As well as Tokina and Rokinon/Samyang are doing FE mount AF glass.Throw in the AF adapters for EF mount and theres lots of lenses to choose from for $$$$$$$$$$$ONY(because thats what their goodish glass costs).

As far as leaving Pentax,not a good idea.K-1 leads in its specific strong points.I would suggest ADDing the A7iii,then cherry picking the glass you need.With the combined features of both systems theres not a lot that you miss out on.Especially in bad weather,Sony doesnt cut it.

[steve_k]

I think the thing you’ll be missing most if you go with Sony is cash. Ihave had the same thoughts as you and it always comes down to value. None of the other systems did enough for me to justify their costs. If you have money to burn go ahead. Personally I am going to stay with the best value until they shut the factory doors. Maybe I might add a bridge camera by another vendor but that’s about it.

[donpjt]

i feel your sentiment about jumping ship. Sony is spending a lot of money on advertising and that's part of the reason I feel they are trending now. But if you already have a pentax full frame and are considering shifting to sony, it does not make much sense. If you are starting new, then it makes good sense to go with sony. But if you are changing systems, unless you badly want video, even then you could have much cheaper option with Panasonic. The sony AF will seem good in paper and in specs, however in normal usage, you will not notice any difference in using a pentax vs sony 90% of the time. Again sony's AF is much better for video shooters as it maintains continuous focus very well, so for people shooting motion videos sony's AF will make a big difference, but for photographers, no so much. As for sharpness, it always depends on the copy of the lens you get, you could end up with a very sharp Pentax and bad sony or vice versa. So for the above stated reasons, changing systems (not just because its from pentax) doesn't make much sense to me. But if you are not highly invested in pentax and are looking to buy a new camera, I'd say, sony A7III is an all around better performer than the K-1 II. If you are primarily a landscape photographer, then the K-1 II or A7RIII will be better.

[jlstrawman]

it always comes down to value

Exactly correct. Value for money. The fact is that I am tight with my money. The term expensive probably does not mean the same thing to everyone. My view is that it does not have to be "expensive" to buy another brand, either as your only equipment, or as part of a dual system. I buy used equipment.

The key to buying well-priced used equipment is to be patient. A better deal will always come along. Another key to successfully buying used is to ask lots of questions about the equipment. Be knowledgeable about the equipment you want to buy. It is also in your favor to avoid buying 20 - $25 lenses, when you could have saved the $500 and bought the better lens you really wanted. Patience, patience.

Buy a generation or two behind the bleeding edge is another way to get value for money. Make the most out of the equipment you do buy. Has your skill really exceeded the capabilities of your current equipment? I sadly let go of my K-1 because of arthritis in my thumbs and hands. My Sony a7II and Sony FE24-70 F/4 cost less, used, than I sold the K-1 for. The K-1 and Sony a7II are like apples and oranges, not equal but different, both capable of creating most satisfactory images.

I realize not everyone would be happy buying used. There are good deals out there if you are patient. Case in point. Yesterday.... received a lens I have been lusting after for years....
the Pentax K50 f/1.2. My copy is excellent to mint, few signs of use. Glass is clear, and functions are smooth. Usual used price: mostly $325-400. My price, $208 + shipping. I was patient, looking for the better part of a year.

As always, YMMV. Sure, I miss the K-1. Do I regret using Sony? No way. Do I enjoy the vast selection of Sony, Pentax, Minolta, Konica, Canon, and Olympus lenses.You bet! If you lust after Sony, Nikon, Canon, or Pentax, it doesn't have to be expensive. My point is that there are choices.









.

[donpjt]

Exactly correct. Value for money. The fact is that I am tight with my money. The term expensive probably does not mean the same thing to everyone. My view is that it does not have to be "expensive" to buy another brand, either as your only equipment, or as part of a dual system. I buy used equipment.

The key to buying well-priced used equipment is to be patient. A better deal will always come along. Another key to successfully buying used is to ask lots of questions about the equipment. Be knowledgeable about the equipment you want to buy. It is also in your favor to avoid buying 20 - $25 lenses, when you could have saved the $500 and bought the better lens you really wanted. Patience, patience.

Buy a generation or two behind the bleeding edge is another way to get value for money. Make the most out of the equipment you do buy. Has your skill really exceeded the capabilities of your current equipment? I sadly let go of my K-1 because of arthritis in my thumbs and hands. My Sony a7II and Sony FE24-70 F/4 cost less, used, than I sold the K-1 for. The K-1 and Sony a7II are like apples and oranges, not equal but different, both capable of creating most satisfactory images.

I realize not everyone would be happy buying used. There are good deals out there if you are patient. Case in point. Yesterday.... received a lens I have been lusting after for years....
the Pentax K50 f/1.2. My copy is excellent to mint, few signs of use. Glass is clear, and functions are smooth. Usual used price: mostly $325-400. My price, $208 + shipping. I was patient, looking for the better part of a year.

As always, YMMV. Sure, I miss the K-1. Do I regret using Sony? No way. Do I enjoy the vast selection of Sony, Pentax, Minolta, Konica, Canon, and Olympus lenses.You bet! If you lust after Sony, Nikon, Canon, or Pentax, it doesn't have to be expensive. My point is that there are choices.


.

Great thoughts. I almost always buy used, unless you get the new one cheaper than used ones with some extreme deals/ bundles, which you can sell the free items and reduce the overall price. I also cycle my equipment almost every 2 years, so selling used items almost always gets you a good price. Buying a previous generation is always a good idea, after all the companies makes the upgrades seem like a big deal until you realize that they generally don't add much value to your type of usage. I got a Nikon D600 last month, I was considering full frame and considered the A7II , but the lenses I badly needed were 50mm and 85mm on full frame, which i could get combined everything in a Nikon for the price of a used A7ii and the 50mm and 85mm in sony cost so much even used, The nikon is 7 years old, but 24 MP and upto ISO 25800, but has good dynamic range and good iso almost at par with the A7 unless you start pixel peeping at high ISOs. Now if I'm a professional, I cannot justify buying a 7 year old camera, but for the casual shooter, the latest technologies don't matter 90% of the time.

[Wheatfield]

Have you looked at the latest review of the DFA* 50mm f/1.4??
DFA*50/1.4 first review - PentaxForums.com

Exactly what more do you want to get from that lens???

The DFA 50/1.4 is poised to be a category killer. My understanding from talking to the rep (who also flogs Sigma) is that it stands to be a better lens than the Sigma ART lens by a significant margin. High praise indeed.

---------- Post added 06-08-18 at 09:19 AM ----------

Stay with Pentax if the lenses you need are available, you prefer an optical viewfinder rather than EVF, you like the way the equipment operates, and want a user-driven support network unlike any other (PentaxForums).

This bears repeating. This particular forum is unique to the internet in a good way.

[normhead]

Pentax is really slowing down in their AF and video aspects, Eye AF is a must for me plus those extra FPS. Plus, the body of the Pentax is heavy.

Just go for it. Pentax is never going to be your brand.

I know that a new 50mm is coming but it doesn´t seem to have improvements in sharpness overall.

Well that's your opinion, which is not held by those who looked at the images posted yesterday. Those people are wondering how it compares with Zeiss lenses.

Eye AF is a must for me plus those extra FPS.

Then get the heck out of here.

There is absolutley nothing coming from Pentax to meet your "musts", and even if there was, it would be years before it matched what others have done already. You used the word "must". This is an absolute case of you didn't do your research before you bought into the brand. The reasons people buy Pentax are in other areas than those.

My Pentax musts, are absolute top quality images for landscape, flowers and wildlife, available lenses in a variety of prices (more than half my lenses would be called "legacy glass, many of them cost me under $100) , IQ and build qualities, portability. Ruggedness. Water Resistance. PixelSHift to maximize IQ on static subjects, and the ability to compete with he best pros, with the best gear, at value prices and have to ability to come out ahead of the pack from time to time. Those are all "musts" for the average Pentax user.

Call it weird, but nothing gives me more pleasure than posting the best of bunch when I see the facebook posts of all the Canon, Sony and Nikon shooters using gear that cost 10 times what mine did. Sure they get some shots I don't, but I get some they don't for a fraction the cost.

Pentax is just a different sensibility than fastest AF, fastest FPS. It's for those who appreciate Pentax' values. Not the "I gotta have the latest best everything" folks. And with their focus on IQ over gimmicks, they keep a lot of us happy.

Canon, Sony and Nikon users brag about their cameras. I brag about my pictures.

[solitudebound]

KevinMoss. I would also suggest you factor in the Sony lens cost. The fact of the matter is that the A7iii to get what it promises you need the more costly Gmaster lenes and not all are good either. I rented my A7iii and it's a good camera for some things like the AF but it's not good for long distance subject even with telephoto lenses and landscapes are very flat compared to Pentax or Nikon. If i were offered to trade in it would go for a Nikon D750 instead but since i already have two. There just wasn't enough offered as being over all better with the A7iii except a little better noise control.

Pentax cameras have more realistic output. Asking people in general their opinions on photos they preferred the K-1 over the Nikon D850. It's why my D850 went back.

When you tell a Pentax camera what to do it does it, the exception being the AF but every one knows that. However i MF fine tune so i don't see a problem.

Lastly where you are in the world will make a difference. For most of Canada there is no Sony support and it's costly to own a Sony camera except for their camcorders. As they like to claim on youtube Sony's ecosystem is very market size dependent.

I would hang onto Pentax for a while longer and if you want to switch You might want to look at either Nikon or Fuji if the "support system" is of any value to you. Which also includes access to more new and used lenses.

Oh yes Sony a7iii is not an all weather camera particularly when it comes to the cold.

To me at least compared to my K-1 and Nikon D750 the Sony A7iii sacrifices too much including their odd idea of using a single (horizontal) plane AA filter. Perhaps they were betting on a 50/50 chance of making things worse.

[Rondec]

If you need full frame, eye auto focus, and fast frame rate then you've answered your question already. You need Sony. Pentax offers very nice cameras and lenses (I'm happy with them), but they don't offer those things currently (and not for awhile in the future, either).

[disconnekt]

If the Sony fits your needs go for it, but it all depends if you're willing to pay the money for those needs. Comparing name-brand lenses here: just for Sony's Gmaster 70-200mm f2.8 ($2,598) you can get both Pentax's 24-70mm & 70-200mm for ~$96 bucks more.

[DeadJohn]

So, I´m thinking very seriously to switch to the dark side (Sony )

Why should I stay with Pentax? I know that a new 50mm is coming but it doesn´t seem to have improvements in sharpness overall. And brands like Tamron and Sigma are making everything to win Sony´s market.
I like that the Sony A7iii is as versatile as it can get, nice photos, lenses, video, AF, fps and much more. The only downside that I´m concerned about is the the lenses are very pricey
The K-1ii is a beast when it comes to Pixel shift and weather sealed bodies, but the lack of new lenses and poor feedback is making me question everything.

Pentax is really slowing down in their AF and video aspects, Eye AF is a must for me plus those extra FPS. Plus, the body of the Pentax is heavy.

Pleaseee, somebody give me reasons to not switch to Sony and stay with Pentax

It depends on your type of photography and personal preferences. Both are great cameras. K-1 is better for landscapes while A7ii excels at action and video. General photography and portraits are a tie.

Commenting on some specific things you wrote:

• If Eye AF and 10 FPS are a must, I assume you are photographing action. Sony. Problem solved.
• The existing Pentax 43/1.9, 50/1.4, and 55/1.4 are already sharp, especially in the center of the frame, so there's not much room for better sharpness. I expect the new 50/1.4 will improve corner sharpness and show fewer aberrations. Photos already exceed monitor resolution so your downscaling technique can be more important than sharpness. Are you printing at very large sizes?
• You've missed a downside of the Sony vs Pentax: K-1 is 36mp while Sony is only 24mp. It doesn't matter how sharp a lens is if you don't have enough sensor resolution to capture it.
• Please explain "poor feedback". If you mean sloppily written reviews or internet whining, I can find many nitpicks about the A7iii, too (low-resolution EVF has been mentioned in reviews). If you are concerned about K-1ii noise reduction being too aggressive, get the original K-1 which is essentially the same camera.

[LensBeginner]

The DFA 50/1.4 is poised to be a category killer. My understanding from talking to the rep (who also flogs Sigma) is that it stands to be a better lens than the Sigma ART lens by a significant margin. High praise indeed.

Wow... are you serious? that is excellent news

Regarding the forum, I wholeheartedly agree.

[StiffLegged]

Watch this:–

You Tube

You Tube

Have you a spare kidney you don't need?

[SirTomster]

I was in your boat up until April.

K-1 Mark II
A7III
D750

I was going in circles. I only had about 2.5K to spend so that helped me stay with Pentax as I already have some lenses. Switching systems would be expensive.

I also looked at what I like to shoot. Nightscapes, Landscapes, some wildlife. I am not a video shooter. I do not shoot sports. My interests are pretty narrow.

So for me, the K1 Mark II met my needs. My out of pocket today would be less than switching systems, plus the camera is strong in the items I care about. Yes I would miss out on some things, but since I did care for them, I would not miss them.

So I would look into the same things. How much can you spend? What do I want the camera for? Do I need those features the others have?

That can help you decide where you want to go. For me, I stayed with Pentax. For you, maybe it will lead you to another platform.