[Doundounba]

Staff note: This post may contain affiliate links, which means Pentax Forums may earn a small commission if a visitor clicks through and makes a purchase. If you would like to support the forum directly, you may also make a donation here.

---

So I'd like to get input from forum members who have experience with other systems...

I'm looking at the possibility of getting something new to carry with me while bicycle touring. My requirements are:

1) the system should be light;
2) I need a decent ultra-wide (less or much less than 24mm FF-equiv) lens, and would prefer a zoom;
3) I don't want to spend a ton of money (and don't mind buying used);
4) I need a 1:1 native macro lens (or at least to have adapted auto-diaphragm);
5) for macro, I need decent burst capability (like at least 15 frames at 4-6fps);
6) also for macro, I need a hotshoe.

I'm currently lugging a K-3 with Sigma 10-20mm F/4-5.6 (and/or Sigma 17-70mm Contemporary) and a D-FA 100mm F/2.8 WR Macro, and I wonder if I could save significant weight without loosing too much functionality and without spending too much...

Right now, I see these main options:

1) Canon EOS M3 + Canon 11-22mm + EF-M Adapter + Tamron 90mm 272E (or similar);
2) Fuji X-A1 + Samyang 12mm F/2 + Fuji 18mm + soon-announced Fuji 80mm macro (but this lens might/will be expensive!).

There are good promotions for the M3 in Canada right now. I can get a brand new M3 body, EF-M adapter and 11-22mm lens for $CDN800. Then I could get a used Tamron 90mm for a decent price, I think, or maybe a Sigma 105mm. That's around $1k for the whole system. And it also opens the door to getting the MP-E 65mm down the road. The Sony a6000 seems like another decent possibility, also with the Samyang 12mm I guess (as the Sony 10-18mm is expensive). But I'm not a huge Sony fan. And maybe there will be deals on the Olympus OM-D E-M10ii now that the iii is coming out...?

In Pentax, there's Q7 + 08 ultra-wide + official K-Q adapter + DA 35mm. This would be super light, but it's still expensive for what you're getting, sensor-wise. Or I could get a DA15, let it control my mind and soldier on with the K3. But the K-3 plus DA15 is about 1kg, vrs less than 600g for the M3+11-22mm, which also gives me the flexibility of the zoom... I thought of going K-01 plus DA15 - I love my K-01! - but the complete lack of buffer on the K-01 just kills me for macro.

Any thoughts? What would you choose?

---

Last edited by Doundounba; 08-30-2017 at 02:33 PM.

[jatrax]

The Canon m series is an intriguing system with a surprising number of lenses available. I will be curious to see if you get any response from folks who have actually used it. With adapters you can also use your Pentax glass as well as the entire Canon line up.

[bertwert]

If you wouldn't mind the weight of the K-3 and only one lens, the 10-17 FE does reasonably good macro.

Here's an example:

"Light, Wide, Macro & Cheap"

Pick one.
You have conflicting goals. The only thing close to meeting your four parameters is a Q7 system with the 02 24mm equivalent. Use a Pentax 110 18mm for macros, they were sold in a kit with closeup lenses that work well and get you pretty close. You will need a dumb adapter. You can usually get the whole kit for under $100. There is one on eBay right now. Nothing else will come close to that for wide and light and cheap and macro, if you don't mind working at a constant (optimum) aperture.

This system with spare batteries, should be well under $400 ($600 if you get the 08)

"4) I need a 1:1 native macro lens (or at least to have adapted auto-diaphragm);
What field of view do you need? 1:1 means different things to different formats
5) for macro, I need decent burst capability (like at least 15 frames at 4-6fps);
The Q can only do 5 frames @ 5 fps (or a bunch @ 1.5fps.)
6) also for macro, I need a hotshoe."
That rules out the Nikon 1 series.

Those are pretty intense requirements, I think you might have to spend a bundle to get those.
The Olympus line looks as if it has the best lens choice, but a used body, a superwide and amacro will run you well over $1000

The other option is the Sony RX 10m III point and shoot. I don't know them very well, but they focus close, have great IQ, but also cost over $1000


All the other options you list will be heavier and much more expensive.

Make a list of the size, weight and price of each system under consideration.

Don't fudge on the size and weight, it really is a top priority in bike touring.

You choice should quickly become clear.

---

Last edited by Unregistered User; 09-01-2017 at 03:02 PM. Reason: more info.

[Doundounba]

Thanks for the responses folks!

The Canon m series is an intriguing system with a surprising number of lenses available. I will be curious to see if you get any response from folks who have actually used it. With adapters you can also use your Pentax glass as well as the entire Canon line up.

Apparently, there are not many people around here who shoot the EOS-M bodies...! The fact that you get a free EF-M adapter (currently with an M3 body in Canada at some stores) is a big plus for me, since it's what allows the purchase of an inexpensive (used) 1:1 macro lens.

If you wouldn't mind the weight of the K-3 and only one lens, the 10-17 FE does reasonably good macro.

Well, I do kind of mind the weight of the K-3, but might be willing to resolve myself to haul it around if I can't replace it for a reasonable price. That would be the option of getting a DA15, then having my kit consist of K-3, DA15 & D-FA100WR (plus other mandatory bits like flash & Raynox).

The thing I didn't mention, but that is important, is that my main type of photography is macro. Have a look at my Flickr stream... I do have the 10-17mm already, and I bought it precisely with the intention of exploring wide-angle near-macro. But there's just no way it can actually replace a true macro lens for me. The 10-17 is kind of a specialty item. For someone else, you're right that combining one's wide and macro lenses into a single lens might save weight. But for me, that doesn't work. I'm quite willing to lug around a longish macro, a Raynox DCR-250, a flash and a diffuser in order to be able to shoot good macros, no matter which system I'm carrying. Though, of course, all other things being equal, I'd rather my long macro lens be reasonably light - as the D-FA 100mm WR definitely is.

So what's really left to save weight on is the body and the wide/ultra-wide lens. Which is what's leading me to EOS M3 + 11-22mm. There's also Fuji X-A1 plus Samyang 12mm, but then finding a cheap 1:1 macro is a problem. There's even possibly a m4/3 body plus the Olympus 9-18mm but again, the Olympus 60mm macro is moderately expensive, and even the 9-18mm UWA isn't exactly cheap, so it seems like I'm looking at something more like $1.5k for m4/3...

You have conflicting goals.

Well, the idea is not to maximize all the parameters for a perfect system. I know that that doesn't exist. The question is which system does best overall on all of them? My current K-3 setup does wide, macro & (reasonably) cheap very very well. But it's certainly not light...

The only thing close to meeting your four parameters is a Q7 system with the 02 24mm equivalent. Use a Pentax 110 18mm for macros, they were sold in a kit with closeup lenses that work well and get you pretty close. You will need a dumb adapter.

My understanding is that with dumb adapters, one has to use electronic shutter and flash sync is limited to something like 1/13th of second shutter. That means ambient light can be a real problem... Is that not the case?

I see the best Q system to meet my parameters as being: Q7 + 08 ultra-wide + official K-Q adapter + k-mount macro lens. This is pretty much unbeatable for weight, and I already have the k-mount macro(s). But it's expensive for what you get! I can get a brand new Canon EOS-M3, EF-M adapter and 11-22mm for the same price as Q7 + 08 + official K-Q adapter... It's tough to justify spending that amount for such a small sensor. And the buffer on the Q7 is pitiful. Still, I am moderately tempted because the Q7 + 08 is lighter than the EOS M3 body by itself.

All the other options you list will be heavier and much more expensive.

I don't mind something heavier than a Q7 system if it's still significantly lighter than my K-3 setup. But I won't spend $1.5k to save 100 grams either. I think both the EOS M3 system and the Q7 system would be about the same price, modulo the fact that I'd need a new macro lens for the Canon.

I just wonder if there's anything else out there that might also come close?

I'm surprised that no one has attempted to convince me to go m4/3...

[Clarkey]

I only recently saw this thread. If you don't mind using an adapter, and no EVF, there are a few options.

Canon:
The M3 sensor is not that good, based on viewing of a friends RAW files. Honestly. But if you are shooting at ISO <800 it probably won't matter. The Canon system is (IMO) only two lenses away from being decent - it needs a longer macro, and a portrait lens. The short EF-M 28mm macro that is there is apparently quite good and has LED lights embedded (haven't used it). The wide 11-22mm is good - seen that one in action. The camera is light, and has decent battery life. As you say, with the EF-M adapter, you can buy a cheap Tamron 90mm and be set with AF. Not sure about flash system.

Fuji:
I use and own Fuji. I had the 60mm lens for a while (1:2), and it is decent, but slow to focus, and 1:2. I still have my 1:2 SMC Macro Takumar 50mm F4, and love using this with cheap M42 adaptors. However, MF, and limited flash (1/180 sync, limited off-camera, although I have used triggers on mine). Great gear, but at a cost. I have handled the X-A series, and they do great with light lenses, but are not comfortable with heavier stuff on. Bayer sensor is good (either the X-A1/2 =16mp, or X-A3 =24mp)
Edit: I have the 14mm 2.8 as a wide - not cheap.

Panasonic or Oly:
Would be my next pick - a basic G6, or E-M10 would be all you need - these are cheap and full featured cameras (that also do good video), downside is battery life and 16MP. EVF is pretty good. The Oly 60mm, and 45mm Panny are supposed to be good (rated so), but haven't used them. Used my Tak with good results above.
Edit: I would class the Panny 12-32mm as good enough - these can be quite cheap. I travel with my GM1 or 5, and 12-32 and Oly 45mm if on a business trip and get good flexibility.

Finally, why not get one of he 1" models such as the RX10, or Nikon 1 (J5)? I had the V1 for a while, and you also have the adaptor for std nikon lenses? The ISO on these suck (IMO) about ISO 400, but if you are going to use flash, shouldn't be an issue.
Edit: I used the V1, 10-30mm, and 30-110mm when I had it.

Re Doundounba's response:

Yep, the Q dumb adapters are limited to 1/13th for flash, I just threw the Pentax 110 18mm option up there because it is extremely light (28 grams!) and compact and cheap. Not a good choice for flash use, although I have seen some good results with the Q and adapters with a diffuser over the built-in flash. Its shortcomings are mitigated somewhat by its fantastic depth of field, I looked at your Flicker stream and the Q with adapter can approach those results at f4, hand held available light, or flash. Look at The Macro Q Club postings for what you can do with the Q.

Small sensor photography is a whole 'nother thing, you really have to work at it, it is not for every taste. The Q stuff is quite a bit cheaper than the alternatives in M4/3 or Nikon 1. No true macro in the Nikon 1 system.

I've looked at M4/3 systems in the past and the lenses seem to me to be overpriced for what you get, but the Oly 60mm f2.8 macro (currently at $350 and probably the best M4/3 macro lens) is a great deal. You should be able to find a good deal on a used body; M4/3 users always seem to be searching for the latest and the greatest.

Like I said before, make a chart of all your options, including price is no object. It should then become clear, or at least whittle it down to one or two.

I've done bike touring in the past and I would have loved to have an option like the Q system.

---

Last edited by Unregistered User; 09-04-2017 at 12:47 PM.

[clackers]

That 100mm Macro of yours is great and is smaller than the rivals' f2.8 long macros, and I also have that Siggy 10-20, which is really good for what it is. You could just get a K-S2 to go with them.

I have a Sony NEX-7, but once I carry the 10-18 native zoom, and Tamron 90mm f2.8 Macro and adapter it isn't too different in size and volume in my backpack/panniers.

I quite a bit of my photography from a bike, BTW!

[surfar]

1) Canon EOS M3 + Canon 11-22mm + EF-M Adapter + Tamron 90mm 272E (or similar);
2) Fuji X-A1 + Samyang 12mm F/2 + Fuji 18mm + soon-announced Fuji 80mm macro (but this lens might/will be expensive!).

A friend has an M3, i handled it and took a few shots...feels good, images are fine....he had a few hundred of his trip to Bali and philippines.

Steer clear of the 18mm Fuji, hasnt got a good reputation....the 16-50mm is fine but not fast.I use mine on a XE-1(US150used, but can be had new for 300)That little zoom is a plastic mount so is a budget construction....it produces above budget images.

For ultra light....Pentax Q7/QS1 or Panasonic gm1/5....the GM5 is a slightly better camera with a EVF...As Clarkey says the Pano 12-32 is a retractible lens.ITS GREAT in good light.

The Q stuff is quite a bit cheaper than the alternatives in M4/3

Kind of...but ive put both systems together for around the same cost....my Q system has faster lenses and the M43 has more reach,they actually compliment each other and both are compact.
The major advantage of M43 is the amount of glass available

Kind of...but ive put both systems together for around the same cost....my Q system has faster lenses and the M43 has more reach,they actually compliment each other and both are compact. The major advantage of M43 is the amount of glass available.

I was thinking of Q prices when I bought them in 2015 and 2016, but as supplies dry up I see that they are getting more expensive, so you are right. The Nikon 1 J5 kits are now generally cheaper than the Q7/Q-S1 kits! It still looks to me like M4/3 stuff is about twice the cost of the Qs.

[BrianR]

Finally, why not get one of he 1" models such as the RX10, or Nikon 1 (J5)? I had the V1 for a while, and you also have the adaptor for std nikon lenses? The ISO on these suck (IMO) about ISO 400, but if you are going to use flash, shouldn't be an issue.
Edit: I used the V1, 10-30mm, and 30-110mm when I had it.

No dedicated macro as mentioned by Cipher, and the flash system also doesn't play well with others. The J's have no hotshoe or sync port and the built in flash does not have a manual power option (which would make optical triggering easier). The V's have a strange non-standard adapter thing to add a proprietary flash (a 3rd party adaptor does exist). For all the praise Nikon gets for their flashes, the flash system on the 1 series doesn't seem well thought out.

Still, I have a J1 and a dumb Pentax K adapter on the way. I'll be trying it out with my DFA100mm soon enough. I'm doubting it will work well handheld unless shooting nearly wide open, and I'm expecting syncing with flashes will be a pita (it does seem to work OK with the built in slave of an SB-80DX), but I have other uses for it.

[Doundounba]

Thats for all the input folks! Been mulling things over, but I wanted to mention that Fuji just took themselves out of the running by announcing a 750g behemoth of a macro lens and asking a whopping $USD1200 for it... (It's probably an internal focus design, and I'm sure it will have very fast AF, neither of which are things that are important to me.) You could carry two copies of the D-FA 100mm WR (340g each) and still be carrying less weight than that thing! And you'd have spent less to purchase the both of them!

In other news, the more I think about it, the more the EOS M3's 4fps burst speed bugs me. (I currently use the K-3's 8fps to shoot - or attempt to shoot, but sometimes it works - handheld focus stacks.) Finally for now, this size comparison has me leaning towards just getting a DA15:



(Note that camerasize don't have the DA15, so that's why the K-01 has a DA35, which is pretty close in size.)

Combo weights are: 1270g // 586g // 545g // 750g. Yeah, I know, it's comparing a prime to zooms... Nevertheless, I've ordered a fast(er) SD card for my K-01, to see if I can duplicate Imaging Resource's result of 9 frames at 6fps with the K-01. Right now my K-01 comes nowhere near close to that, but if it did, that might just be barely enough...

More soon.

[cowlitzJim]

With my micro43 gear I use a 10mm extension tube and Sigma 19mm. Maybe not 1:1 but mighty close! Small light cheap on a GX1 (I bought 10+16mm generic x-tubes and sold the 16).

[Doundounba]

Soooo... After some further thought... things are still muddy. Canon (m5/m6) is still in the running, but the currently leading option is not one that was even in my initial post: Panasonic G85 + 12-60mm kit lens + Oly 9-18mm + Oly 60mm macro or an adapted macro lens (maybe 4/3s). This all would be a considerable expense, and would mean a complete system switch, I think, rather than having a second system. BTW, after some thought, I don't know if the DA15 would work for me - there's a really big difference between bottoming out at 10-12mm vrs 15mm. Also, on the other side of the fence, there are lighter/cheaper body options than the G85, but it seems like the most appealing m4/3s body to me right now, and the bundle with the well-reviewed 12-60mm kit lens makes for a nice, flexible, weather-sealed combo. But I'm in no hurry - no cycling until the spring. So I can wait for now...

BTW, here are some weight comparisons:

K-mount:
- K-3: 800g
- Sigma 10-20mm F/4-5.6: 470g
- Pentax 16-85mm WR (*): 488g
- Pentax D-FA 100mm WR: 340g

TOTAL: 2098g

BTW, (*) means I don't have this item right now.

M4/3s (all of which I would need to acquire, obviously):
- Pana G85: 505g
- Oly 9-18mm: 155g
- Pana 12-60mm: 210g
- Oly 60mm Macro: 185g

TOTAL: 1055g

Comment: really impressive weight difference on these two fairly equivalent combos. 1kg less on every hill climb is a pretty significant difference (even though I should probably lose at least twice that in body mass while we tour ). The main thing I would lose with the m4/3 kit is that putting a Raynox diopter on a 60mm macro won't give me nearly as much of a magnification gain as when putting it in front of the Pentax 100mm (since diopters have a larger effect on longer lenses).

Some realistic (for me) variations...

K-mount "minimalist":
- K-70 (*): 688g
- DA 15mm (*): 190g
- DA 35mm F/2.4: 125g
- Pentax D-FA 100mm WR: 340g

TOTAL: 1343g

Comment: going with all primes and a K-70 gets me within striking distance of the first m4/3 kit, weight-wise, though still a bit heavier. (I'm not a big fan of 40mm as an APS-C focal length, BTW.) But this kit leaves me without the flexibility of zooms, with two non-WR primes as my main daily lenses, and bottoming out at 15mm. In fact, just the K-70 plus D-FA 100mm weighs about the same as the entire m4/3 kit above (1028g vrs 1055g) - a kit which fully covers 12-80mm APS-C equivalent focal lengths. I guess I could also try just the K-70, 12-24mm & 100mm, for a total of ~1458g with a different set of constraints...

Of course, it's also possible to make a much heavier m4/3 kit.

M4/3s "maximalist":
- Pana G85: 505g
- Pana 8-18mm: 315g
- Pana 12-60mm: 210g
- 4/3->m4/3 adapter: ~45g
- Sigma 105mm 4/3s: 450g

TOTAL: 1525g

This now weighs more than the "minimalist" K-70 kit above, though it's still a good 500g lighter than the K-3 kit. You could go even heavier with F/2.8 zooms, but I don't see the need for those. On the other hand, having a weather sealed ultra-wide (the Panasonic 8-18mm) and a 105mm macro does have quite a bit of appeal for me... But the main drawback of all these m4/3 options is price. If I sell all my Pentax stuff, maybe it's not so bad, but I feel pretty reluctant to do that - and I just bought a PF t-shirt!

Anyway, I'll update this thread in the spring, I think.

[Doundounba]

Bumping this old thread to see if anyone else has anything to add...

For myself, we're leaving soon for a long-ish tour of Scotland by bike and I've decided to... not shoot macro on a bike tour (for now)! I've ordered a (used) Panasonix LX10 and will move from carrying 2kg+ of photo gear to under 500g, at least for the next trip, which will be our first extended bike touring adventure. I'm also giving up (for now) any kind of weather sealing and having easy access to a FoV wider than 24mm, though the LX10 has in-body panorama, so maybe that last one won't be a problem...

I might come back to this issue if we go through with a plan for a 3-month long tour next year.

I was put off by the need to invest around $2k no matter which system I choose to get back to where I am now in K-mount, except lighter. I also feel like I don't want to leave K-mount, but would need to sell all/most of my K-mount equipment to justify spending that much money on a new system. I don't think I'd regret switching eventually, but there's an emotional attachment to the k-mount, for whatever reason, and I can't justify having two entire systems...


FWIW, in the end the main contenders were:

• Canon M5 or M50 // Canon 11-22mm // EF-EOS M Adapter + Tokina 100mm Macro (or similar):
  A very nice combo, with the possibility to add the MP-E when not cycling, and the possibility to expand into the Canon EF line in the future. But nothing is WR here. And with an M5 mark II rumored to be coming at Photokina, it seems like the wrong time to invest into this ecosystem. If Canon does bring out this new body (and it's competitive) plus the rumored fast APS-C prime, maybe I will make a system switch to Canon...
• Panasonic G85 or Olympus E-M10iii // Olympus 9-18mm // Olympus 60mm Macro:
  Again, very nice combo. I did find the G85 to be a tad expensive for a 16MP body, the M10iii is not weather sealed. The 12-60mm Panasonic is a real nice kit lens, and sealed, for $100. Could possibly live with just that and a macro... The 9-18mm seems very expensive for what it is, though there are sales and you might find a good deal used. And if you want to get the 20MP m4/3 sensor, you need to go up from the G85 to the GX9, and you give up weather sealing and battery capacity. And the G9/M1ii are waaaay too expensive and large. Give me a G85 with 20MP sensor, and I might make a system switch to m4/3s...

I guess I'll re-evaluate again in the fall, after Photokina and our trip to Scotland. For now, soldiering on with the K-3 when not traveling, and cycling with the 1"-sensored LX10 is what it will be...