[mikesbike]

The K-70 certainly does feature live view for stills. So does the extra-small, lightweight K-S2 for that matter. Forget LV with the K-5 series or K-30. But again, I caution about buying used cameras that are not flagship models, other than the KP. They are simply not as durable, though the more recent ones by Pentax are better built than similar priced models of other brands. Other than used flagship, that leaves a new K-70, the best features and performance at a budget price. For being extra small, yet quite full-featured, I do like my K-S2, but I got a very good deal on a new one, with a super-compact 18-50 WR DC kit lens.

[Francisco Carneiro]

A 18 135 zoom is interesting. It fulfills your general requirements, giving you time to acquire the suitable primes for your demands. How is the quality of this bigger zoom?

[grispie]

Retro look?? Excuse me, it is not retro look for me.

imo, it isn't meant to be retro. some people just call it retro in lack of a better word.
pentax has never been too worried to design out of the box. take K01 for instance..

for me, the kp is rather meant to be the perfect companion of the limited series.

[Francisco Carneiro]

I was amazed by it's size, when a saw a video where it stands side by side with fuji mirrorless cameras and others alike. Actually it has the same size.

---------- Post added 12-13-18 at 04:01 AM ----------

I bought a Takumar 35mm 3.5f for 12 euros and the seller offered me three tubes Sunagor with pentax mount. First Taky for my Oly!
And for my future Pentax body. Eh eh...

---

Last edited by Francisco Carneiro; 12-13-2018 at 04:02 AM.

[phoebus]

I've been informed the new DFA* 50mm f/1.4 will AF fine with a K-5 series camera. It has a DC motor, not PLM.

As to the K-30, it would likewise work with the new 50mm lens, but I do not recommend buying used other than flagship models, except for the likewise premium-built unique KP. If the lesser camera is proven to be very lightly used, that might be ok.

Oops, I was thinking of the DA* 11-18mm f/2.8 lens being compatible. perhaps the new 50mm is not. I don't think that is a concern here, however, since both are very expensive. The only one possibly of concern might be the DA 55-300mm PLM. But then the previous DA 55-30mm WR is still available and is a good alternative.

The K-70 has no issue at all regarding these lenses.

It may focus fine, but only at f1.4... ...it is not the focus motor that is the issue. Both 55-300 PLM and DFA50 have electronic aperture control that older bodies cannot control. It is the aperture control that makes a lens mount KAF4. And the DFA 50 has ring SDM, not DC motor.

[reh321]

A 18 135 zoom is interesting. It fulfills your general requirements, giving you time to acquire the suitable primes for your demands. How is the quality of this bigger zoom?

My K-30 was kitted with a 18-55 lens. Immediately I purchased a 18-135, because it has an in-lens AF motor, and it has been my primary lens ever since. When I purchased a KP a few weeks ago, the 18-135 immediately moved to my KP bag. I don't see any of the usual problems with "3X+" zooms with it.

[reh321]

Retro look?? Excuse me, it is not retro look for me.
I'll take it in my hand next saturday and may be all my ideas will change about it.

imo, it isn't meant to be retro. some people just call it retro in lack of a better word.

The day my new 'silver' KP arrived {rightmost camera in my signature photo}, my wife said "I thought your new camera was coming today", to which I responded "It's right there on the dining room table". She had thought the camera on the dining room table was my old Pentax Super Program {leftmost camera in my signature photo}. That is why I call it 'retro' - it does evoke memories of the camera body design SLR's used until everyone followed the example set by Canon's T90.

[Francisco Carneiro]

The day my new 'silver' KP arrived {rightmost camera in my signature photo}, my wife said "I thought your new camera was coming today", to which I responded "It's right there on the dining room table". She had thought the camera on the dining room table was my old Pentax Super Program {leftmost camera in my signature photo}. That is why I call it 'retro' - it does evoke memories of the camera body design SLR's used until everyone followed the example set by Canon's T90.

What are the second and third cameras in your signature photos?
Those in the middle...
They are Kute.

[reh321]

What are the second and third cameras in your signature photos?
Those in the middle...
They are Kute.

The yellow one is a Q-7.
The blue one is a K-30.
I was using Canon cameras between retiring the Super Program in 1995 and purchasing those two cameras in 2014/15.

[Francisco Carneiro]

OK....
I think th K30 is a good camera, it had a lot of success in France, I can read in the reviews.
Will check the Q-7

[reh321]

OK....
I think th K30 is a good camera, it had a lot of success in France, I can read in the reviews.
Will check the Q-7

To be totally honest

1. Mechanism which allows the body to control lens aperture was weak on the K-30 and K-50; there is no way to be certain what the failure rate was (*), but failure rate seems to have been much higher the "normal", leaving you with a camera that will work only with lenses that have an aperture ring. I would have a hard time recommending K-30 for any use other than as a camera to be used only with manual lenses.

2. Q-7 doesn't have a viewfinder - only a back LCD - and a limited number of lenses; it's sensor is smaller than most cameras have, so it has a more limited ISO range, but that hasn't turned out to be an issue for me. I did use it as my primary camera when my Canon Rebel died {before I got the K-30} and on a trip {when I had to pack light}.


(*) Mine did eventually fail after three years, which is why it has an old Pentax-FA lens in the photo

[Richjac]

It probably just proves that any modern camera can perform adequately for my needs, but when I review my Lightroom catalog, I like many of the images that I took several years ago with the K-30 and K-5ii better than those taken more recently with my Fuji cams, up to and including the X-T2. I found the Pentax 18-135 zoom to be really sharp, whereas the Fuji 18-135 is merely good. The Fuji primes are really good, but so are Pentax. Last year I chose Fuji over the Pentax KP, but honesty I think I'd be happy with either.

[Francisco Carneiro]

It probably just proves that any modern camera can perform adequately for my needs, but when I review my Lightroom catalog, I like many of the images that I took several years ago with the K-30 and K-5ii better than those taken more recently with my Fuji cams, up to and including the X-T2. I found the Pentax 18-135 zoom to be really sharp, whereas the Fuji 18-135 is merely good. The Fuji primes are really good, but so are Pentax. Last year I chose Fuji over the Pentax KP, but honesty I think I'd be happy with either.

Hi!
I understand you.
The hesitation in making choices, for me and for a lot of people, is not image quality.
I am happy with Fuji image quality. And I know that OLY M5 with 14 42 zom is downgrading a litle.


It's a chance that one can by an used camera, not very old and with very modern techs and performance, with very litle money.
What I am trying to say is that now I can put a feet in Olympus, and it costed me not much.
The two main reasons are stabilization and viewfinder. There are others, but these come after.
That said, My XE1 and XM1 are for sale. (I am not trying to sell them here!).

Why not keep one 16/50 zoom and the XF23mm? Then buy a XT2.
I 'd be more than happy with the xt2. Even with the XT1, but the XT2 begins to be very affordable in second hand.

When I read your comment, I think about what I feel when I see Fuji photos in the web, and some from me, and I like the signature.
I can grow with Oly this way. I have the zoom, just convenient, but it works, it's decent and I have some vintage lenses.
This is good, will give me fun.
I still have my Fujis, I use them and when they'll be sold, a XT2 comes.

Time by time I can buy a prime either for Fuji or Oly, and a OMD1 markII.
I realised, now that I made a research for Oly/Pana/Leica primes that they are not cheap!
I mean, there are a lot that are cheap, but if you want very good ones, they are as expensive as Fujis.

The problem is that many of us want everything fast. It takes time. I can not afford those things as I could in the past.


So I can stay with Fuji and Oly, and will have no regrets later.
I could change to Pentax, it is may be better than Fuji, it's questionable, but that is not the point.
There is no important reason to give up all fuji and take Pentax - for me.
...and I like the form and size of Fuji.

I did not see Pentax cams today in Paris because I couldn't go to Paris. I'll do that later...

[Richjac]

I don't think you can go wrong with any of your choices - assuming that you are shooting for pleasure, as I am. The slight image quality advantage of APS-C over m4/3 really is insignificant for most of us. The issue I have with Olympus is they seem to be putting all their effort into very expensive pro lenses and bodies, but then there are already plenty of inexpensive lenses available.

The lack of Pentax dealers is a problem - there's no way to handle the cameras unless you live in a major city. Of course this is somewhat true of Oly and Fuji as well. Most shops only seem to carry Canon, Nikon, and Sony.

[Francisco Carneiro]

Well, see the XT2 prices and Oly OMD1 prices. The same. See pro lenses from Oly and Fuji. Same, or almost. You can find everything in Paris, but Pentax only in a few stores. Fuji all over, but there is internet too.


Canon, Nikon and Sony, even in the comercial center of an obscur small village. Their 3400 and 5600 series are extremely accessible and they are good.