two things, k3 prestige value, and compact travel options

johnha · 10-09-2018, 11:33 AM

For me it depends on the aim of the trip, the other luggage I need to take and the method I want to work in. Most APS-C DSLRs (and probably most mirrorless) take up similar amounts of space in any given bag (the shape of the partitions in many bags precludes saving small amounts of space). Lenses are different, many are now huge, heavy or unbalance the camera when over your shoulder. As for method, I sometimes throw a durable body oner my shoulder with a small prime or shortish zoom instead of carrying a bag, or I'll carry a small bag with space for other bits 'n pieces (sun cream, water, binos and small primes). Sometimes I take a few more small lenses but only carry some of them with me at one time (small bag is important).

Lens wise I prefer a wide-ish zoom (28-xx) but as small as possible, a 50 and something like a small 135 prime (the M135/3.5 is compact, light and has a built-in hood) - I like small, light lenses that don't over balance the camera (the DA17-70 is a great all-in-one lens but it shouts 'tourist' if hanging it off a K-5). On film I'd use FA20-35/4, FA50/1,4 and the M135/3.5 and be done - with the K-5, the 20-35 is only just wide enough but works and I'd drop the 50.

If it's just a holiday, I'll take only my GR (for the wide stuff) and an MX-1 (for everything else). The GR is equivalent to a K-5 with a 28mm lens equivalent but much much smaller and compact (shirt pocket compact at a pinch).

normhead · 10-09-2018, 11:34 AM

I was looking at one. It has the Accelerator chip and doesn't seem to have the issues some claim the K-1ii has with it. It has a tilting back screen which I'd absolutely love.

There are some reports of aperture block failure with the K-70, but as far as I know, less than 10. Still it could be an issue down the road.

lesmore49 · 10-09-2018, 11:55 AM

About a year ago my wife and I took a trip to Newfoundland. We wanted to downsize as much as possible on the trip. I wanted to take pics both indoors and outdoors. I had just got a new K1, battery grip, etc.

But I didn't take it. Instead I took my K5 body, but left the body grip at home. I took the extra battery so I'd have two, plus my charger. I didn't take my flash, because the K5 has a built in flash, which sufficed. I took two lenses, my 18-135 which is an excellent walk around and indoor lens and my 55-300...for nature shots. That was it, nothing more and I fit it all into one of my smaller LowePro bags, which was carried on.

I don't know how a K5 compares to a K3 body for body...size wise, but I'm betting there's not much difference if any.

As Norm says and I agree..." You have to carry a pile of lenses to match the K-3 with the Da 18-135..." and that is spot on, IMO.

I have a 21mm Ltd. 40 Ltd., 70 Ltd...all excellent and small jewel like lenses...but in this case my 18-135 more than covered their focal lengths and was just one lens. Then my other zoom on the trip.... the 55-300.

I'm an older guy and notice weight and carrying around equipment while touring, but it is in my opinion, really hard to beat, taking a K5 body, sans battery grip, and two lenses that cover from 18-300 mm well, and no flash...just use the built in flash.

In fact I could of carried less stuff, by leaving my spare battery at home, after all, I did have my charger tucked away in my suitcase.

**c.a.m** · 10-09-2018, 01:25 PM

Originally posted by lesmore49

As Norm says and I agree..." You have to carry a pile of lenses to match the K-3 with the Da 18-135..."

This is a perennial question: When traveling, should I take a multi-purpose zoom lens (DA 18-135), which produces pretty good images, or take several better lenses at the expense of weight and bulk?

I have the DA 18-135, and use it in some situations. While I'm generally satisfied with the images it gives me, several of my other lenses give me consistently higher satisfaction. As others have mentioned in many PF threads, the 18-135 (and the DA 16-85) can produce perfectly good results, especially in the 20-60mm range and it offers WR and a relatively small footprint. For our Newfoundland trip, however, I opted to shoulder the extra weight, especially since I knew I would want a very good telephoto capability out to 135mm. The optical quality of the 18-135 starts to drop at about 70mm, I'd say. Had I taken it and a prime lens (say, DA 35mm Ltd), the size of my my pack would still have been driven by the DA* 300mm but I would have shaved maybe 700-800 g (say 1.5 pounds) from the load.

- Craig

normhead · 10-09-2018, 01:36 PM

I take my 18-135, DA(60-250 and 100 macro. Problem solved. Where the 18-135 is weak at the edges, and for many images it doesn't matter, the 60-250 is stellar. There are a lot fo times the 60-250 never gets on the camera. But the ideal lens for that is probably the 55-300 PLM. Lightweight, reasonably sharp and very fast AF.

**TER-OR** · 10-09-2018, 01:59 PM

The Q with -01 is compact. Not quite a pocket-sized except for your jacket pockets.

If you want to save space with a K-mount, just get the pancakes!

That said, I usually travel with the 18-135. If I know I'll do a lot of indoor work with people I'll have the 21mm.

**pres589** · 10-09-2018, 02:15 PM

K-5 II and 18-135 for me along with my DA 15 and a table-top mini-tripod and an extra battery. That's my digital travel kit.

lesmore49 · 10-09-2018, 02:15 PM

Originally posted by TER-OR

The Q with -01 is compact. Not quite a pocket-sized except for your jacket pockets.

If you want to save space with a K-mount, just get the pancakes!

That said, I usually travel with the 18-135. If I know I'll do a lot of indoor work with people I'll have the 21mm.

I have the 40mm Ltd., 70mm Ltd. and the 21mm Ltd. and they are small lenses...pancake describes them very well. We just got back from a driving trip to Alberta and I took my K1, 28-105 and tucked my 40 and 70 in the bag. I used the 40 and 70 on my K1 for low light, no flash interior, portrait shots and even though they are ASP-C lenses...I just keep the K1 on Full Frame, not crop mode and I'm very pleased with their performance on the K1. I'm using F 2.4 on the 70 and F 2.8 on the 40 a lot, not always, but the results are fine...in my opinion. They seem to do the job. Could be my standards aren't as high as others...but I don't know.

I also use my 50 'normal' F 1.4, usually at around F 2 and my 50 Macro, usually around F 2.8 and these lenses also do the trick quite well. They're not 'pancakes' but they still take up little room in the bag, particularly when traveling in the car vs the plane. Bigger bag in the car.

Also stuff my 35 year old Minolta mini tripod ...copy of the old Leitz Table Top...in the back of my bag...quite stable little tripod. Just read pres589 post and reminded me of my TT tripod I carry around.

**pres589** · 10-09-2018, 02:36 PM

I got a Manfrotto mini job for not much money at all. It's decent. Probably moving over to a Platypus plate and a ball head to save more space in the bag which does take up less volume but probably costs 2.5x what the Manfrotto ran.

R. Wethereyet · 10-09-2018, 03:05 PM

Originally posted by wibbly

secondly, if i decide to move away from the k3, do you think the k3 prestige carries more value than a regular k3 these days?

I recently bought a K-3 (moving from a K-5). Just after I bought my K-3 (no-grip) for about $475 USD ($600 CAD), I noticed a Prestige version on sale for around $600 USD ($800 CAD) with grip. I was very tempted to pick it up and sell the black K-3 ... but I didn't. With a used K-3 grip worth about $100 USD , you can see there isn't much of a premium on the Prestige coloring and limited (2,000) production. They do look pretty cool though!! ;-D

I have taken my K-5 on a variety of vacations and found it to be no problem. On a trip to Mexico I took a Sigma 28-300mm lens so I only had one lens to worry about. Definitely leave the grip at home just take the extra batteries and keep them handy if you are doing a lot of shooting. That will make a big weight difference.

You might want to consider picking up something like a used Sony A5000 for about $300 USD and adding a metabones (or similar) adaptor for the Pentax lenses that you want to bring along. This would be a nice compact kit for traveling.

Good luck and happy travels!

Sandy Hancock · 10-09-2018, 03:06 PM

The KP definitely packs and feels smaller than the K-3; it has much less volume even though the absolute dimensions are almost identical. It is now my only crop body, having sold my K-3. Yes, the K-70 is smaller again, and the swivel screen would be cool, but the aperture block issue would concern me having experienced it with my K-S1.

With all that said, I'd suggest you stick with what you have and just accept the weight of the K-3. Mind you, if you're looking for an excuse to spend on some new kit that's totally fine too

normhead · 10-09-2018, 03:22 PM

Originally posted by Sandy Hancock

With all that said, I'd suggest you stick with what you have and just accept the weight of the K-3. Mind you, if you're looking for an excuse to spend on some new kit that's totally fine too

That's always the issue isn't it. Is this guy looking for a solution to a real problem, or is this a guy with some cash to burn looking for new toys?

wibbly · 10-09-2018, 03:41 PM - **1 Like**

Oh trust me I have no cash to burn. But I'm also an equipment junky.

I really lust after a two lens compact kit that will do everything I want. But it's made by Nikon and costs about 10 grand.

I do like the Pentax for what you get for your money, which is why I asked here.

Maybe I'll sell my 16-50 and grab an 18-135

**pres589** · 10-10-2018, 07:28 AM

I've never owned a 16-50 so take this with a grain of salt. That's a very useful focal length range. f2.8 max aperture and pictures reasonably sharp in center is useful. Weather resistance is very useful. A rainy weekend in a real city with a 16-50 on a weather resistant crop body would be lots of fun for street shooting. The 18-135 is many things but I can't regard it as 'fast'. I think a case could be made for owning both as they're just different.

I will say, as an 18-135 owner, I'm really not that tempted to offload this lens for a 16-50. The lens I would consider owning along side of it that covers the same focal lengths is the Tamron 28-75 f2.8 full-frame lens. f2.8 fast, good image quality across the cropped frame, could in a pinch be used on my film camera (although I doubt that would be a thing I'd ever do), not overly costly or large x heavy. Really versatile and good for portraits.

What I would like the most is a fast prime with weather resistance in the mid-20's for street carry with a crop body. Basically a modern equivalent of the 35mm f2's. But that's just an idle wish on my part.

**TER-OR** · 10-11-2018, 06:00 AM

Originally posted by pres589

What I would like the most is a fast prime with weather resistance in the mid-20's for street carry with a crop body. Basically a modern equivalent of the 35mm f2's. But that's just an idle wish on my part.

I wouldn't disagree with this. The DA21mm is so useful on ASPC. Typically I don't have a problem with light, so it's nice to have a tiny lens which performs so well.
Weather resistance is always welcome, too. Something like the 12-24 with WR would be great. Presumably we'll get that with the 11-18.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
TOP 10 compact DSLR. So what according to you are the TOP 10 compact APS-C and FF?	SunnyG.	Pentax DSLR Discussion	16	06-26-2017 12:02 PM
Photokina 2014: Pentax K3 Prestige / K-S1 - Is that it for K-mount news?	Gray	Pentax News and Rumors	207	09-26-2014 01:01 PM
Landscape two big things - two little things	nickthetasmaniac	Post Your Photos!	1	11-05-2011 07:51 AM

10-09-2018, 11:33 AM	#16
johnha Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2012 Location: Lancashire, UK Photos: Albums Posts: 1,155	For me it depends on the aim of the trip, the other luggage I need to take and the method I want to work in. Most APS-C DSLRs (and probably most mirrorless) take up similar amounts of space in any given bag (the shape of the partitions in many bags precludes saving small amounts of space). Lenses are different, many are now huge, heavy or unbalance the camera when over your shoulder. As for method, I sometimes throw a durable body oner my shoulder with a small prime or shortish zoom instead of carrying a bag, or I'll carry a small bag with space for other bits 'n pieces (sun cream, water, binos and small primes). Sometimes I take a few more small lenses but only carry some of them with me at one time (small bag is important). Lens wise I prefer a wide-ish zoom (28-xx) but as small as possible, a 50 and something like a small 135 prime (the M135/3.5 is compact, light and has a built-in hood) - I like small, light lenses that don't over balance the camera (the DA17-70 is a great all-in-one lens but it shouts 'tourist' if hanging it off a K-5). On film I'd use FA20-35/4, FA50/1,4 and the M135/3.5 and be done - with the K-5, the 20-35 is only just wide enough but works and I'd drop the 50. If it's just a holiday, I'll take only my GR (for the wide stuff) and an MX-1 (for everything else). The GR is equivalent to a K-5 with a 28mm lens equivalent but much much smaller and compact (shirt pocket compact at a pinch).

10-09-2018, 11:34 AM	#17
normhead Pentaxian Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Near Algonquin Park Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 40,451	I was looking at one. It has the Accelerator chip and doesn't seem to have the issues some claim the K-1ii has with it. It has a tilting back screen which I'd absolutely love. There are some reports of aperture block failure with the K-70, but as far as I know, less than 10. Still it could be an issue down the road.

10-09-2018, 11:55 AM	#18
lesmore49 Pentaxian Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: Western Canada Posts: 12,349	About a year ago my wife and I took a trip to Newfoundland. We wanted to downsize as much as possible on the trip. I wanted to take pics both indoors and outdoors. I had just got a new K1, battery grip, etc. But I didn't take it. Instead I took my K5 body, but left the body grip at home. I took the extra battery so I'd have two, plus my charger. I didn't take my flash, because the K5 has a built in flash, which sufficed. I took two lenses, my 18-135 which is an excellent walk around and indoor lens and my 55-300...for nature shots. That was it, nothing more and I fit it all into one of my smaller LowePro bags, which was carried on. I don't know how a K5 compares to a K3 body for body...size wise, but I'm betting there's not much difference if any. As Norm says and I agree..." You have to carry a pile of lenses to match the K-3 with the Da 18-135..." and that is spot on, IMO. I have a 21mm Ltd. 40 Ltd., 70 Ltd...all excellent and small jewel like lenses...but in this case my 18-135 more than covered their focal lengths and was just one lens. Then my other zoom on the trip.... the 55-300. I'm an older guy and notice weight and carrying around equipment while touring, but it is in my opinion, really hard to beat, taking a K5 body, sans battery grip, and two lenses that cover from 18-300 mm well, and no flash...just use the built in flash. In fact I could of carried less stuff, by leaving my spare battery at home, after all, I did have my charger tucked away in my suitcase.

10-09-2018, 01:25 PM	#19
c.a.m Site Supporter Join Date: Jan 2013 Location: Ottawa, Canada Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 4,193	Originally posted by lesmore49 As Norm says and I agree..." You have to carry a pile of lenses to match the K-3 with the Da 18-135..." This is a perennial question: When traveling, should I take a multi-purpose zoom lens (DA 18-135), which produces pretty good images, or take several better lenses at the expense of weight and bulk? I have the DA 18-135, and use it in some situations. While I'm generally satisfied with the images it gives me, several of my other lenses give me consistently higher satisfaction. As others have mentioned in many PF threads, the 18-135 (and the DA 16-85) can produce perfectly good results, especially in the 20-60mm range and it offers WR and a relatively small footprint. For our Newfoundland trip, however, I opted to shoulder the extra weight, especially since I knew I would want a very good telephoto capability out to 135mm. The optical quality of the 18-135 starts to drop at about 70mm, I'd say. Had I taken it and a prime lens (say, DA 35mm Ltd), the size of my my pack would still have been driven by the DA* 300mm but I would have shaved maybe 700-800 g (say 1.5 pounds) from the load. - Craig

10-09-2018, 01:36 PM	#20
normhead Pentaxian Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Near Algonquin Park Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 40,451	I take my 18-135, DA(60-250 and 100 macro. Problem solved. Where the 18-135 is weak at the edges, and for many images it doesn't matter, the 60-250 is stellar. There are a lot fo times the 60-250 never gets on the camera. But the ideal lens for that is probably the 55-300 PLM. Lightweight, reasonably sharp and very fast AF.

10-09-2018, 01:59 PM	#21
TER-OR Site Supporter Join Date: Apr 2009 Location: Dundee, IL Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 6,699	The Q with -01 is compact. Not quite a pocket-sized except for your jacket pockets. If you want to save space with a K-mount, just get the pancakes! That said, I usually travel with the 18-135. If I know I'll do a lot of indoor work with people I'll have the 21mm.

10-09-2018, 02:15 PM	#22
pres589 Site Supporter Join Date: Jan 2014 Location: Wichita, KS Photos: Albums Posts: 4,533	K-5 II and 18-135 for me along with my DA 15 and a table-top mini-tripod and an extra battery. That's my digital travel kit.

10-09-2018, 02:15 PM	#23
lesmore49 Pentaxian Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: Western Canada Posts: 12,349	Originally posted by TER-OR The Q with -01 is compact. Not quite a pocket-sized except for your jacket pockets. If you want to save space with a K-mount, just get the pancakes! That said, I usually travel with the 18-135. If I know I'll do a lot of indoor work with people I'll have the 21mm. I have the 40mm Ltd., 70mm Ltd. and the 21mm Ltd. and they are small lenses...pancake describes them very well. We just got back from a driving trip to Alberta and I took my K1, 28-105 and tucked my 40 and 70 in the bag. I used the 40 and 70 on my K1 for low light, no flash interior, portrait shots and even though they are ASP-C lenses...I just keep the K1 on Full Frame, not crop mode and I'm very pleased with their performance on the K1. I'm using F 2.4 on the 70 and F 2.8 on the 40 a lot, not always, but the results are fine...in my opinion. They seem to do the job. Could be my standards aren't as high as others...but I don't know. I also use my 50 'normal' F 1.4, usually at around F 2 and my 50 Macro, usually around F 2.8 and these lenses also do the trick quite well. They're not 'pancakes' but they still take up little room in the bag, particularly when traveling in the car vs the plane. Bigger bag in the car. Also stuff my 35 year old Minolta mini tripod ...copy of the old Leitz Table Top...in the back of my bag...quite stable little tripod. Just read pres589 post and reminded me of my TT tripod I carry around.

10-09-2018, 02:36 PM	#24
pres589 Site Supporter Join Date: Jan 2014 Location: Wichita, KS Photos: Albums Posts: 4,533	I got a Manfrotto mini job for not much money at all. It's decent. Probably moving over to a Platypus plate and a ball head to save more space in the bag which does take up less volume but probably costs 2.5x what the Manfrotto ran.

10-09-2018, 03:05 PM	#25
R. Wethereyet Senior Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: Alberta, Canada Photos: Gallery Posts: 126	Originally posted by wibbly secondly, if i decide to move away from the k3, do you think the k3 prestige carries more value than a regular k3 these days? I recently bought a K-3 (moving from a K-5). Just after I bought my K-3 (no-grip) for about $475 USD ($600 CAD), I noticed a Prestige version on sale for around $600 USD ($800 CAD) with grip. I was very tempted to pick it up and sell the black K-3 ... but I didn't. With a used K-3 grip worth about $100 USD , you can see there isn't much of a premium on the Prestige coloring and limited (2,000) production. They do look pretty cool though!! ;-D I have taken my K-5 on a variety of vacations and found it to be no problem. On a trip to Mexico I took a Sigma 28-300mm lens so I only had one lens to worry about. Definitely leave the grip at home just take the extra batteries and keep them handy if you are doing a lot of shooting. That will make a big weight difference. You might want to consider picking up something like a used Sony A5000 for about $300 USD and adding a metabones (or similar) adaptor for the Pentax lenses that you want to bring along. This would be a nice compact kit for traveling. Good luck and happy travels!

10-09-2018, 03:06 PM	#26
Sandy Hancock Moderator Site Supporter Join Date: Feb 2012 Location: Adelaide Hills, South Australia Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 11,275	The KP definitely packs and feels smaller than the K-3; it has much less volume even though the absolute dimensions are almost identical. It is now my only crop body, having sold my K-3. Yes, the K-70 is smaller again, and the swivel screen would be cool, but the aperture block issue would concern me having experienced it with my K-S1. With all that said, I'd suggest you stick with what you have and just accept the weight of the K-3. Mind you, if you're looking for an excuse to spend on some new kit that's totally fine too

10-09-2018, 03:22 PM	#27
normhead Pentaxian Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Near Algonquin Park Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 40,451	Originally posted by Sandy Hancock With all that said, I'd suggest you stick with what you have and just accept the weight of the K-3. Mind you, if you're looking for an excuse to spend on some new kit that's totally fine too That's always the issue isn't it. Is this guy looking for a solution to a real problem, or is this a guy with some cash to burn looking for new toys?

10-09-2018, 03:41 PM - 1 Like	#28
wibbly Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2014 Location: Edmonton Posts: 600 Original Poster	Oh trust me I have no cash to burn. But I'm also an equipment junky. I really lust after a two lens compact kit that will do everything I want. But it's made by Nikon and costs about 10 grand. I do like the Pentax for what you get for your money, which is why I asked here. Maybe I'll sell my 16-50 and grab an 18-135

10-10-2018, 07:28 AM	#29
pres589 Site Supporter Join Date: Jan 2014 Location: Wichita, KS Photos: Albums Posts: 4,533	I've never owned a 16-50 so take this with a grain of salt. That's a very useful focal length range. f2.8 max aperture and pictures reasonably sharp in center is useful. Weather resistance is very useful. A rainy weekend in a real city with a 16-50 on a weather resistant crop body would be lots of fun for street shooting. The 18-135 is many things but I can't regard it as 'fast'. I think a case could be made for owning both as they're just different. I will say, as an 18-135 owner, I'm really not that tempted to offload this lens for a 16-50. The lens I would consider owning along side of it that covers the same focal lengths is the Tamron 28-75 f2.8 full-frame lens. f2.8 fast, good image quality across the cropped frame, could in a pinch be used on my film camera (although I doubt that would be a thing I'd ever do), not overly costly or large x heavy. Really versatile and good for portraits. What I would like the most is a fast prime with weather resistance in the mid-20's for street carry with a crop body. Basically a modern equivalent of the 35mm f2's. But that's just an idle wish on my part.

10-11-2018, 06:00 AM	#30
TER-OR Site Supporter Join Date: Apr 2009 Location: Dundee, IL Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 6,699	Originally posted by pres589 What I would like the most is a fast prime with weather resistance in the mid-20's for street carry with a crop body. Basically a modern equivalent of the 35mm f2's. But that's just an idle wish on my part. I wouldn't disagree with this. The DA21mm is so useful on ASPC. Typically I don't have a problem with light, so it's nice to have a tiny lens which performs so well. Weather resistance is always welcome, too. Something like the 12-24 with WR would be great. Presumably we'll get that with the 11-18.