[Madaboutpix]

The Fuji bodies are rather power hungry for the size of battery they have, and I also have some issues with the electronic viewfinders. They give me a headache fairly quickly so my shooting strategy with the XT-1 (I might just pick up an XT-4 at some point) is to set the viewfinder to turn on when the camera is at eye level and set my shot up very quickly. I rarely have the camera to my eye for longer than 5 seconds.

Now, both factors don't sound exactly enticing to me, I must say. While the battery issue could be mitigated by carrying more spares, the mere thought of using a camera whose EVF would give me headaches if I dared to compose for a few seconds too long through it would be an absolute no-go to me. Of course, if you are happy with your "workaround", then go for it by all means.

---

Last edited by Madaboutpix; 06-05-2022 at 03:52 PM. Reason: Nuance

[Wheatfield]

Now, both factors don't sound exactly enticing to me, I must say. While the battery issue could be mitigated by carrying more spares, the mere thought of using a camera whose EVF would give me headaches if I dared to compose for a few seconds too long through it would be an absolute no-go to me. Of course, if you are happy with your "workaround", then go for it by all means.

I'm one of a small but significant percentage of users who are bothered by electronic viewfinders. If everyone was bothered by them, no-one would buy the things.
They are getting better, my old X-Pro1 was atrocious, the X-T1 in high performance mode is very usable to me, but that mode sucks the life out of the battery even faster.

This is the be careful of what you ask for warning for people wishing Pentax would make a very small ILC. If it's an SLR, it shouldn't be too bad, but if it's an EVF style camera, it's going to have the same battery issue as the Fuji cameras. A small body can only physically carry so much battery, so battery life is compromised.
As with the EVF thing, people must be OK with it, Fuji sells cameras like hotcakes.

[Digitalis]

I'm not as enamored with the classic Limiteds as others are. They are good lenses, but I don't think they deserve the cult status that they have.

There isn't anything out there on the market that is anything quite like them. Of all the lenses I have worked with over the decades, among modern lens designs the FA limited lenses are unique.



Pentax K10D SMCP-FA77mm f/1.8 Limited @ f/1.8

The Fuji lenses that I have are every bit as good if not better than the Pentax glass meant for APS-C. To be fair, I only have the 14/2.8, 23/1.4, 35/1.4, 56/1.4 and 60 macro.

I was thinking of putting together a set of primes: 14mm f/2.8 23mm f/2 35mm f/2 50mm f/2 90mm f/2 - you know, the classics. I can adapt my faster Leica lenses to Fuji X. But lenses wider than 21mm do exist but are still pretty uncommon in Leica M.

he Fuji bodies are rather power hungry for the size of battery they have, and I also have some issues with the electronic viewfinders. They give me a headache fairly quickly so my shooting strategy with the XT-1 (I might just pick up an XT-4 at some point) is to set the viewfinder to turn on when the camera is at eye level and set my shot up very quickly. I rarely have the camera to my eye for longer than 5 seconds.

I have a few colleagues who cannot stand flickering light of any kind, Kino-Flo or HMI lights with a dodgy ballast can set such reactions off in short order. I have fortunately never had such a response, my earliest encounter with EVF was a old Fuji S7000z from the early 2000's without issue. In more recent years I have since worked with the Leica SL - A camera that thoroughly perplexes me as the existence of Leica S and M cameras makes it somewhat superfluous. And also the New Nikon Z9 - which has a few notable quirks surrounding the EVF that are bothersome.

What is your concern with focus by wire? I know we still have mechanical manual focus with Pentax lenses, but AF has always been some form of focus by wire.

Focus by wire bothers me because it drastically reduces the tactile qualities of manual focusing - which, I admit I use manual focus quite a bit. As much as I appreciate the advancements of AF in current Pentax cameras the reason why I have so few issues with Pentax AF is because I hardly ever use it!

I know about the issue with wormy foliage but I have been fortunate to have not noticed it in my own work, and I am using Adobe software. Overall I'm satisfied with the raw conversions I get from Fuji.

Unfortunately for the kind of landscapes I do, it would likely present a significant issue: hence my hesitation to commit to a system that has such a systemic flaw*.


Pentax K-1 SMCP-FA 31mm f/1.8 Limited

* Also perusing the image samples on other forums upon close inspection colour information on X-trans sensors appears to be curiously smeared. To my eye there is sometimes a lack of definition at the borders of sharp transitions with certain colours on X-trans. Bayer sensors sensors do not have this rather unsettling trait even though moire is problematic, it isn't an insurmountable problem.

[Thwyllo]

I'm one of a small but significant percentage of users who are bothered by electronic viewfinders. If everyone was bothered by them, no-one would buy the things.
They are getting better, my old X-Pro1 was atrocious, the X-T1 in high performance mode is very usable to me, but that mode sucks the life out of the battery even faster.

This is the be careful of what you ask for warning for people wishing Pentax would make a very small ILC. If it's an SLR, it shouldn't be too bad, but if it's an EVF style camera, it's going to have the same battery issue as the Fuji cameras. A small body can only physically carry so much battery, so battery life is compromised.
As with the EVF thing, people must be OK with it, Fuji sells cameras like hotcakes.

I hate EVFs with a passion. There's no substitute for a decent optical TTL viewfinder. None.

[Wheatfield]

I hate EVFs with a passion. There's no substitute for a decent optical TTL viewfinder. None.

It's the only think I don't like about the Fuji X-T cameras. I like the size, I like the ergonomics, I just can't quite like the EVF. I haven't tried an X-T4 yet, so I'm willing to have my mind changed. My only real complaint is that the EVFs cause me some discomfort, something that gets worse if I spend too much time looking at them. Possibly something more modern than the X-T1 will be better. I know the X-T1 is way better for me than the EVF in the X-Pro1, which was fine with the rangefinder.

[miguelfenoglio]

I’ve actually given this quite a bit of thought and did some preliminary research some time ago. I own a K1000, a K2 and an LX (apart from the K1 and a bunch of other brands) and love taking the manual cameras on outings. I too found myself wishing I didn’t have to use film though. I like developing it and everything but I’d really like the experience of an analogue camera with digital images as result. The key thing for me though was that I did not want to use batteries. That’s one thing I like about my vintage cameras, you throw a small button battery into it and you are done for a year or two. In my ideal design, the camera would have no processing and just use as little energy as possible. Energy would come from the “load the next shot” lever (whatever it is actually called). Even if you had to give or 2 or 3 goes, that would still do it for me, as long as I didn’t need some Lithium pack in it.

Needless to say, I found I was asking for too much and it would never be a commercially viable product. That said, I’m sure the technology to make this happen is out there. In essence, I’m talking about a mechanical digital camera that could even run without batteries. Now that’d be progress and not more megapixels.

[katyusha]

If I want to shoot with a vintage looking camera, I will go out with my KX and load it with B&W film.

Maybe even push some 400 ISO to 1600 or 3200 and just walk around at night with my K50/1.4 wide open.

MIT as well get the whole retro experience….

I honestly don’t see the point of doing a retro look modern camera.

But to be honest if Pentax gives out an full-frame, digital camera with lower price and vintage design, they may redefine the vintage camera market just like how they did when they comes out with Asahiflex ii……I mean……how can you called a APS-C format digital camera "vintage" especially when it have got no mirror??

---------- Post added 06-07-22 at 09:01 PM ----------

i hate evfs with a passion. There's no substitute for a decent optical ttl viewfinder. None.

fully agree！！！！！

---------- Post added 06-07-22 at 09:06 PM ----------

I’ve actually given this quite a bit of thought and did some preliminary research some time ago. I own a K1000, a K2 and an LX (apart from the K1 and a bunch of other brands) and love taking the manual cameras on outings. I too found myself wishing I didn’t have to use film though. I like developing it and everything but I’d really like the experience of an analogue camera with digital images as result. The key thing for me though was that I did not want to use batteries. That’s one thing I like about my vintage cameras, you throw a small button battery into it and you are done for a year or two. In my ideal design, the camera would have no processing and just use as little energy as possible. Energy would come from the “load the next shot” lever (whatever it is actually called). Even if you had to give or 2 or 3 goes, that would still do it for me, as long as I didn’t need some Lithium pack in it.

Needless to say, I found I was asking for too much and it would never be a commercially viable product. That said, I’m sure the technology to make this happen is out there. In essence, I’m talking about a mechanical digital camera that could even run without batteries. Now that’d be progress and not more megapixels.

thats interesting though!

[surfar]

especially when it have got no mirror??

Vintage cameras came before the mirror was introduced.

[Lowell Goudge]

But to be honest if Pentax gives out an full-frame, digital camera with lower price and vintage design, they may redefine the vintage camera market just like how they did when they comes out with Asahiflex ii……I mean……how can you called a APS-C format digital camera "vintage" especially when it have got no mirror??

I’m confused

Except for one body, every APSC body Pentax made is a reflex body

[EssJayEff]

how can you called a APS-C format digital camera "vintage"

I’m confused

One of the difficulties in reading this thread is that people are using the word "vintage" with different personal understandings of its meaning. One dictionary definition of the word is "a period of origin or manufacture." With that meaning, any camera not currently being manufactured can be described as vintage. Thus, the K-3 I and II are vintage because their "period of manufacture" has passed. That is how I think of the word, and why I used quotation marks around the word vintage in my initial reply; the K-1 II technically isn't vintage because it is still being manufactured (or at least it is still available for purchase as new). I was characterizing the K-1 II as "vintage" because it has not been upgraded for several years, and thus it is a bit dated.

Similar confusion surrounds discussions about "vintage" photographs . . . prints made close to the time a photographer exposed the negative or digital file, versus those prints made somewhat later.

[Lowell Goudge]

One of the difficulties in reading this thread is that people are using the word "vintage" with different personal understandings of its meaning. One dictionary definition of the word is "a period of origin or manufacture." With that meaning, any camera not currently being manufactured can be described as vintage. Thus, the K-3 I and II are vintage because their "period of manufacture" has passed. That is how I think of the word, and why I used quotation marks around the word vintage in my initial reply; the K-1 II technically isn't vintage because it is still being manufactured (or at least it is still available for purchase as new). I was characterizing the K-1 II as "vintage" because it has not been upgraded for several years, and thus it is a bit dated.

Similar confusion surrounds discussions about "vintage" photographs . . . prints made close to the time a photographer exposed the negative or digital file, versus those prints made somewhat later.

I think under this definition you still missed the point of my question.

APSC reflex cameras are NOT vintage because Pentax is still making them, therefore as a class of cameras they are not vintage.

[zapp]

What a great and happy world some of us live in. Leica almost went bankrupt on the M8 which is not at all considered vintage, but an evolution of the M series. Nobody would buy a vintage LX next to the K1 or a Sony A, … vintage also means great gear of the 80/90s for low bucks. New vintage means current technology for current pricing. Pentax just got around to become „current“ for dslrs, just at the time dslrs are a dying species. Just because old Pentax gear is cheap and easy to get, does not mean that new gear is anywhere close to that. Price driven discussion, mixed with happy dreams.
Pentax is already working on a second life with Rich. This is based on competitive current camera and lens gear. Don’t look back, Pentax does not make money with used gear.
Amend btw, it is not possible to keep ME super formfactor and add a digital sensor for just for fun in a sellable package.

[Digitalis]

To administer digitalis in a dosage sufficient to achieve the maximum therapeutic effect without producing toxic symptoms.2. To digitize.

Many things I have been called over the years, "therapeutic" is not among them.

[EssJayEff]

APSC reflex cameras are NOT vintage because Pentax is still making them, therefore as a class of cameras they are not vintage.

So, therefore, . . . internal combustion engine automobiles (as opposed to electric automobiles) are NOT vintage because auto makers are still making them, therefore as a class of automobiles they are not [i.e., cannot be] vintage?

Sorry, but in good spirits I disagree with the premise of your statement.

I honestly don’t see the point of doing a retro look modern camera.

I completely agree with you on this!

[reh321]

Another main feature is that the KMEs don’t need to have autofocus functions and such a high-quality screen. The original memo box at the back of the ME super model will be replaced with a color ink screen to indicate some image　settings. With adding of Bluetooth or Wi-Fi modules, KMEs allow the customers to change those basic camera settings which once it set it hardly will make any changes through the APPs in their phone. And auto focus functions won’t be added into the KMEs, but an Indicator for whether the object is on focus will be added and placed at the bottom right part in fig.2

Why change the user experience more than absolutely necessary?
The manual focus cameras never had an "in focus" indicator.
Why not have the user use the 'split image' which, honesty, was always a better indication of "in-focus"?