[séamuis]

I think I am in agreement here with frogfish, going with your stated current kit, and desires for making such a switch. also, in regards to leica M lenses, I would say that unless you already have a stable of M mount lenses to use, the very idea of utilizing M mount would be absurd. the price of all M mount lenses have gone up dramatically high in the last few years with both the popularity of their use on cameras such as m4/3 and the NEX, as well as the hugh surge in popularity of the Leica M digitals. you would never be able to affordably replicate a quality prime lens lineup in M mount as you could with Kmount without spending a fortune. even the older lenses (that despite being ‘Leica’) won’t be near as good optically as an Kmount prime, epecially DA or FA limiteds and wil still cost more than they are really worth. you could go with the cheaper cosina/voigtlander M lenses, but even then I wouldn’t see much incentive in both price and optical performance vs quality Kmount lenses.

the size and weight difference with these smaller mirrorless bodies do not really offer much advantage when you consider the cost of lenses and adapters needed. also, Leica M lenses are godawful heavy.(at least the older ones) very solid and heavy.

if your K20 and grip are too much, you might consider 1: loosing the grip or 2: using a smaller and lighter Pentax, such as the k-7/k-5 or even a K-r.

[bimjo]

Well, you've again given me even more to think about. The burning smell is my brain frying in its own juices. Thanks for the input, you guys are great.

[nickthetasmaniac]

the size and weight difference with these smaller mirrorless bodies do not really offer much advantage when you consider the cost of lenses and adapters needed.

It does if you get the right native lenses. A G3 for instance with the Lumix 14/f2.5, Lumix 20/f1.7 and m.Zuiko 45/f1.8 is an insanely compact, fast and high-quality three-prime kit that simply cannot be replicated with a dSLR.

But yes, if you're adapting (especially dSLR lenses) that advantage rapidly disappears as you just can't avoid how far the lens mount needs to be from the sensor...

[séamuis]

It does if you get the right native lenses. A G3 for instance with the Lumix 14/f2.5, Lumix 20/f1.7 and m.Zuiko 45/f1.8 is an insanely compact, fast and high-quality three-prime kit that simply cannot be replicated with a dSLR.

But yes, if you're adapting (especially dSLR lenses) that advantage rapidly disappears as you just can't avoid how far the lens mount needs to be from the sensor...

no argument from me, in fact I was going to mention just this fact, but I kind of had the feeling that the OP was looking to find something to replace his body but still have the option to use some of his existing lenses. and thats where the benefits start to diminish. if the OP feels he can replace his lens lineup with the approprite lenses such as you have mentioned then such a switch may well be worth it, if some of the other trade-offs are acceptable i.e.: smaller sensor, increased dof, not as capable low light performance, etc. but considering he already has Kmount lenses, he will no doubt be interested in using them. I just think its necessary to make it clear that the benefits of these smaller bodies don’t always outweigh the negative aspects, especially with adapted lenses.

the simple fact is, that at least in terms of size and weight, we aren’t going to get much better than what we have now, unless a huge shift takes place in photography, and then it may not be the photography we now by that point. everyone wants smaller and lighter, but there isn’t really much difference between the smallest and light SLR’s and the most capable mirrorless bodies. one won’t be gaining as much as they think, if this is their primary reason for switching.

[kenafein]

He said he was going to sell most of his kit. I think you can have small and light with mirrorless, when you want it. Throw on a native prime pancake. I could be very happy with such a setup for a lot of situations. That is why the x100 is so popular. When you want to use a non pancake, then you're back to big honking camera, but mirrorless gives you options. One great thing would to not gave my wife roll her eyes at me when I strap on the dslr.

[Frogfish]

It does if you get the right native lenses. A G3 for instance with the Lumix 14/f2.5, Lumix 20/f1.7 and m.Zuiko 45/f1.8 is an insanely compact, fast and high-quality three-prime kit that simply cannot be replicated with a dSLR.

But yes, if you're adapting (especially dSLR lenses) that advantage rapidly disappears as you just can't avoid how far the lens mount needs to be from the sensor...

Nick - but you are bumping up against the same issues I mentioned above with the 5N.

G3 : 115 mm x 84 mm x 47 mm (4.54 x 3.29 x 1.84 in) and Approx. 544 g (19.2 oz) inc. battery.
Lenses : Lumix 14/f2.5 (insanely light - 55g), Lumix 20/f1.7 (100g) and m.Zuiko 45/f1.8 (116g).

vs

Kr : 125mm x 97mm x 68mm (4.8 x 3.6 x 2.7 in). With D-LI109 battery: 598g (20.5 oz).
Lenses : 21/3.2 (5.5 oz./155g) with hood, 35/2.4 (124g/4.4 oz.), 40/2.8 3.2 oz. (90g),

So the G3 has a 1cm x 1cm x 2 cm & 50g saving over a Kr. The G3 with lenses give you savings of 154g / 78g / 80g over a Kr with primes.

What's the point of dropping the IQ and superb high ISO of Pentax primes and a Kr for that ?

[nickthetasmaniac]

Nick - but you are bumping up against the same issues I mentioned above with the 5N.

G3 : 115 mm x 84 mm x 47 mm (4.54 x 3.29 x 1.84 in) and Approx. 544 g (19.2 oz) inc. battery.
Lenses : Lumix 14/f2.5 (insanely light - 55g), Lumix 20/f1.7 (100g) and m.Zuiko 45/f1.8 (116g).

vs

Kr : 125mm x 97mm x 68mm (4.8 x 3.6 x 2.7 in). With D-LI109 battery: 598g (20.5 oz).
Lenses : 21/3.2 (5.5 oz./155g) with hood, 35/2.4 (124g/4.4 oz.), 40/2.8 3.2 oz. (90g),

So the G3 has a 1cm x 1cm x 2 cm & 50g saving over a Kr. The G3 with lenses give you savings of 154g / 78g / 80g over a Kr with primes.

What's the point of dropping the IQ and superb high ISO of Pentax primes and a Kr for that ?

First, the G3 (inc. battery) weighs 336g. I have no idea where you got the 544g figure? So for the kit you're actually looking at 607g v. 967g...

Second, the MFT primes are all about a stop faster than the Pentax's.

Third, having used both, the Lumix 20mm and m.ZD 45mm are certainly comparable to the IQ of the Limiteds (all being excellent).

[kenafein]

Second, the MFT primes are all about a stop faster than the Pentax's.

Well the Lumix at 20/1.7 is effectively a 40/3.4. So to be competitive the Panny has to be faster. It's just a hair faster than the DA35/2.4 (Effectively 52.5/3.6).

[nickthetasmaniac]

Well the Lumix at 20/1.7 is effectively a 40/3.4. So to be competitive the Panny has to be faster. It's just a hair faster than the DA35/2.4 (Effectively 52.5/3.6).

Sigh...

The 20mm f1.7 is a 20mm f1.7 and acts like a 20mm f1.7. In terms of gathering light, it is and always will be an f1.7

I think what you meant to say is that it gives the equivalent field of view and depth of field of what a 40mm f3.4 would give on a 135 format sensor.

[kenafein]

Sigh...

The 20mm f1.7 is a 20mm f1.7 and acts like a 20mm f1.7. In terms of gathering light, it is and always will be an f1.7

I think what you meant to say is that it gives the equivalent field of view and depth of field of what a 40mm f3.4 would give on a 135 format sensor.

No need for the sigh. I read an explanation the other way. Looked it up and I see people arguing about it over the internets, but haven't found a legitimate write up. So you maybe right. I'll keep looking. It would be good to know for sure.

[nickthetasmaniac]

No need for the sigh. I read an explanation the other way. Looked it up and I see people arguing about it over the internets, but haven't found a legitimate write up. So you maybe right. I'll keep looking. It would be good to know for sure.

If you have cameras from two different formats (say a p&s and a dSLR) it's pretty easy to check.

Just set the cameras up on a tripod (or just handhold if you're not fussy).

Put them in 'M' and set identical ISO, aperture and shutter speed, then shoot the same scene.

You'll get near identical (accepting that different manufacturers tend to rate ISO slightly differently) exposures with both. This would be the case with a phone, P&S, MFT, APS, full-frame or medium format.

(apologies for the sigh - it's an incorrect assumption that gets flogged by the MFT haters...)

[kenafein]

If you have cameras from two different formats (say a p&s and a dSLR) it's pretty easy to check.

Just set the cameras up on a tripod (or just handhold if you're not fussy).

Put them in 'M' and set identical ISO, aperture and shutter speed, then shoot the same scene.

You'll get near identical (accepting that different manufacturers tend to rate ISO slightly differently) exposures with both. This would be the case with a phone, P&S, MFT, APS, full-frame or medium format.

(apologies for the sigh - it's an incorrect assumption that gets flogged by the MFT haters...)

I am no MFT hater, I thought APS-C was similarly handicapped. I just figured that's why the lenses were so fast. It is very intriguing to hear that they're just fast.

[nickthetasmaniac]

Nope For instance, my SMC 50/f1.2 gives identical exposures on my GH2 and my dad's K-7...

[stanleyk]

I've been using a GXR for a few months. The image quality is as good as the K5. Here's Steve Huff's latest review of the Nex 7 vs GXR with the M mount module. He also mentions the 5N

Sony NEX-7 with wide angle Leica lenses – A quick test and Ricoh GXR A12 Comparison! | STEVE HUFF PHOTOS

The only major drawback to the GXR besides the cost is the shutter speed limitation at the widest aperture which can be easily overcome with a neutral density filter. Still they should have done what Fuji did with the X100 and had it built in the modules.

The NEX 5N will be cheaper and has a better EVF. The GXR is easy to customize with the various Function buttons. I think you have to use the touchscreen on the 5N for a lot of the controls.

I would also say hands down the build quality on the GXR is better than the 5N.

I would definitely try out a GXR before getting it. It's one of those cameras like the X100 or the SIgma DP's. You'll either love it or hate it.

I'm a huge GXR fan, but I'd still say try it out first. I feel in love with it, but it suits me. For some reason, I think most DSLR users will prefer the 5N. The GXR like the Fuji and the SIgma's reminds me more of a film camera. It is hands down the best camera I have for B/W conversions.

Oh yeah, if you are into video definitely get the 5N.

[kenafein]

Did they fix the clicking sound in the 5N? I know you can buy the hotshoe external mic.