[luftfluss]

I have the KP and K1 and also find both of those great with my vintage lenses (the fastest being a Revuenon 55mm 1.2).
Now ... I have *glaucoma in both eyes and macular degeneration in my (also the worst affected by glaucoma) right eye so I am a left eye shooter but have no problem getting these lenses in focus.
I keep reading on this Pentax forum how great the Fujis (and other mirrorless) are with these vintage manual lenses and I keep thinking I should get one BUT then I think this would start to make my KP redundant because it would be virtually the same size sensor.

Please tell me what is so amazing about Fuji's etc. and film-vintage lenses that makes them better than my Pentax?

*Let this be a lesson to get your eyes checked no matter what your age (I am in my 50s and "young" to have developed this) /end of my public health announcement

Ugh, I'm sorry to read about your eye troubles. My wife was diagnosed earlier this year with glaucoma, and she is also young for the affliction. So far, drops and then laser treatments have proven effective.

Anyway, I shot manual-focus lenses for years on Pentax - really dedicated myself to it - and felt that I became reasonably proficient at it. Earlier this year I bought a Panasonic G9, which has a large EVF - larger than any OVF Pentax offers in a DSLR - and figured that with all the nifty focusing aids EVF provides my manual focusing acumen would get even better.

It turned out not to be the case. I find that I am no more accurate, and a bit less comfortable, with using an EVF than OVF, even with focus peaking and zooming and all. Remember that scene near the end of Star Wars, where Luke is struggling to fire the torpedoes into the vent of the Death Star, then he hears Obi-Wan's voice telling him to "Use the Force"? It's kinda like that.

Ugh, I'm sorry to read about your eye troubles. My wife was diagnosed earlier this year with glaucoma, and she is also young for the affliction. So far, drops and then laser treatments have proven effective.

Anyway, I shot manual-focus lenses for years on Pentax - really dedicated myself to it - and felt that I became reasonably proficient at it. Earlier this year I bought a Panasonic G9, which has a large EVF - larger than any OVF Pentax offers in a DSLR - and figured that with all the nifty focusing aids EVF provides my manual focusing acumen would get even better.

It turned out not to be the case. I find that I am no more accurate, and a bit less comfortable, with using an EVF than OVF, even with focus peaking and zooming and all. Remember that scene near the end of Star Wars, where Luke is struggling to fire the torpedoes into the vent of the Death Star, then he hears Obi-Wan's voice telling him to "Use the Force"? It's kinda like that.

Thanks and yep, lots of drug-drops per day!

That's interesting - I really do need to stop watching the gear YT videos and just concentrate on the photography channels to avoid this feeling of what I already have not being good enough for what I want to do when it clearly is.

Anyway, back to alan_smithee_photos (love that cinema reference) and your new XT-5!

[alan_smithee_photos]

You can always rely on this forum for some thoughtful discussion.

I shot almost exclusively MF lenses on my K1 and my hit rate was pretty good. But I did find myself lusting after a modern AF system and some of the other bells and whistles.

I'd also echo the comments on the beautiful JPEGs and film simulations in the Fuji. I had a little X70 several years ago and got some great images from it (Classic Chrome is just <swoon>). So that's nice.

And like I said, I do really like the ergonomics. I'm also an old guy and I definitely prefer dedicated dials vs a PASM dial plus front/back wheels. I've often said that my dream DSLR would essentially be a K1000 with a FF sensor and other modern internals. (And yes, I still love my K1000. I've sold two LXs over the years but never gave up my $35 craigslist K1000.)

I'll let y'all know how it shoots this weekend!

[jlstrawman]

two advantages that I can think of with Fuji (or any mirrorless, really) are the focus-peaking in the EVF (I rarely use the back-LCD to shoot with) and the mirrorless' mount adaptability - this is a rabbit hole of sorts for me, as I am now using (about) 10 different lens mounts with my Fuji bodies and love the fact that on any day I can range from M42 to Pen-F to Prakticar B mount lenses...

the third thing that I have found with Fuji bodies is the jpeg engine built into them - I am not a RAW shooter - and the film simulations plus the malleability of the jpegs are just amazing...

I agree completely, with all of the above. I sold my K-1 within a year after it was initially released. I have no Pentax body, only vintage Pentax lenses. I shoot Sony FF and Fuji ASP-C. I use this equipment for one reason........because I enjoy it. I did not enjoy using the K-1.

As someone kind of on the outside, looking in, it seems to me Pentaxians should spend more time contributing to the forum than worrying about what equipment others use. They should upload photos to the forum , do a write-up on how a certain photo was achieved, review equipment, etc. Pentaxians should worry less what others think about Pentax equipment. I know I don't care why someoneone would spend $60K on a pickup to drive to church and the grocery store.

That is my opinion, and I hope Pentaxians continue to enjoy their equipment. Don't worry, be happy.

[pres589]

I've had an X-H1 for a few months now and I rather like it. Only native lens I have is the Tamron 17-70 f2.8 which is quite good and everything I had hoped for. One of my complaints about the camera is the battery life isn't great and nothing like my K-5 II.

I really wanted that top deck LCD display but find that I look a lot at the display in the EVF when using the camera. It's nice with heavier glass to have the pronounced hand grip though so I'm still thinking this was the best taste test of the Fuji X system. I like seeing a system with a lot of buzz and 3rd party glass options both new and old/adapted.

I agree completely, with all of the above. I sold my K-1 within a year after it was initially released. I have no Pentax body, only vintage Pentax lenses. I shoot Sony FF and Fuji ASP-C. I use this equipment for one reason........because I enjoy it. I did not enjoy using the K-1.

As someone kind of on the outside, looking in, it seems to me Pentaxians should spend more time contributing to the forum than worrying about what equipment others use. They should upload photos to the forum , do a write-up on how a certain photo was achieved, review equipment, etc. Pentaxians should worry less what others think about Pentax equipment. I know I don't care why someoneone would spend $60K on a pickup to drive to church and the grocery store.

That is my opinion, and I hope Pentaxians continue to enjoy their equipment. Don't worry, be happy.

Oh I do enjoy my Pentax cameras - I was just interested in finding out what others felt the advantages are when it comes to using vintage Pentax lenses on these other cameras.

[Driline]

Please tell me what is so amazing about Fuji's etc. and film-vintage lenses that makes them better than my Pentax?

Why I switched to Fuji in 2017. I had a K-3 with Pentax's renowned FA31mm. I purchased a Fuji X-T1 on a whim because I wanted to check out what an electronic viewfinder could do. My X-T1 had the Fuji El cheapo 27mm 2.8 pancake lens. When I compared Fuji's JPG images from this El Cheapo lens to Pentax's best lens ever, the FA 31mm....I was sold. The Fuji had much better color rendition, sharper and just rendered better overall.

Fast forward a few years later....I was looking for an inexpensive solution for a long lens for my Fuji that would not break the bank. I found the Pentax mount Tokina 100-300mm F4 and the Pentax A 400mm f5.6 fit the bill quite nicely and so I use those lenses exclusively for my birding needs. I also have about 5 or 6 Pentax vintage manual lenses like the A 100mm F4 macro that I find quite nice to use as well. The EVF is just sublime to use. I prefer it over an optical viewfinder. AND the best part is no freaking dust in the viewfinder!

Why I switched to Fuji in 2017. I had a K-3 with Pentax's renowned FA31mm. I purchased a Fuji X-T1 on a whim because I wanted to check out what an electronic viewfinder could do. My X-T1 had the Fuji El cheapo 27mm 2.8 pancake lens. When I compared Fuji's JPG images from this El Cheapo lens to Pentax's best lens ever, the FA 31mm....I was sold. The Fuji had much better color rendition, sharper and just rendered better overall.

Fast forward a few years later....I was looking for an inexpensive solution for a long lens for my Fuji that would not break the bank. I found the Pentax mount Tokina 100-300mm F4 and the Pentax A 400mm f5.6 fit the bill quite nicely and so I use those lenses exclusively for my birding needs. I also have about 5 or 6 Pentax vintage manual lenses like the A 100mm F4 macro that I find quite nice to use as well. The EVF is just sublime to use. I prefer it over an optical viewfinder. AND the best part is no freaking dust in the viewfinder!

Ahhh...thank you.
Are you still using the X-T1?

[normhead]

I'm always moved by the excitement level of people with new toys. Thanks for sharing the high.
It's like Christmas in the middle of the week.

Personally I assume I would make any camera system I bought work. The first question I'd like answered would be couple images showing why one camera was different than another, and why the finished image from one camera is preferred. If that's not there, I'm not really interested. I do the same comparisons with lenses. If you've shot view cameras, or film MF, you've already proved you can work through a camera's lack of whatever technical "advantage" and just get through to the important part.

[Jonathan Mac]

just to point out that focus checking only works on a tripod (otherwise user movements render it pointless)

Not true at all. I almost never use a tripod and I use manual lenses all the time on both an X-T20 and an S5 and I get great results focusing manually. I just don't do it while dancing a jig.

[pres589]

What got me into the Fuji system was the Tamron 17-70 f2.8 + my general disinterest in Sony APS-C cameras. It was very much a choice based on the glass I wanted to have in my kit. Being able to adapt my Pentax glass to fill in any holes makes this much more doable. Without that I don't know if I would have made the change and probably would have purchased a K-3 III.

[BruceBanner]

I'm always moved by the excitement level of people with new toys. Thanks for sharing the high.
It's like Christmas in the middle of the week.

Personally I assume I would make any camera system I bought work. The first question I'd like answered would be couple images showing why one camera was different than another, and why the finished image from one camera is preferred. If that's not there, I'm not really interested. I do the same comparisons with lenses. If you've shot view cameras, or film MF, you've already proved you can work through a camera's lack of whatever technical "advantage" and just get through to the important part.

That for me was answered easily within the first 2hrs of owning an XT4. I placed the Viltrox 56/1.4 (85/2 ff equivalent) upon the XT4, grabbed my 10yr old daughter and asked her to run up and down the garden as fast as she could whilst I use Face/Eye detection in AF.C mode at the widest aperture. Holding the camera in portrait orientation I burst fired as she ran towards me. Upon review I saw the vast majority of shots have her face in focus, body slightly out of focus (as intended), with very few shots overall out of focus. And this was a test, without understanding the camera properly or engaging features that might have enabled an even higher amount of keepers (I also did not have UHS-II cards at this time).

The results of this test can be seen here; https://www.flickr.com/gp/95230640@N04/Sg402dA80W

Anyway, I tried for a millennia with Pentax cameras over the years, different bodies, lenses, AF combos and nothing even remotely got me close to the success of these type of (test) shots.

So I think the 'important part' here is not always in the IQ, or the colours, dynamic range or whatever, its in the actual performance and what it could manage to capture, with ease, replicable and not fluky, but reliable and repeatable. And this is the major reason I use Fuji for paid work over Pentax, I get a far superior keeper rate, moments captured in time. No point having an excellent high dynamic range sharp file to work with if the people are slightly oof, or caught at a moment where their eyes are closed. Give me a lower IQ, lower dynamic range file to work with where the moment caught is gold any day of the week. I can work around IQ and dynamic range, I cannot work around a garbage capture.

[luftfluss]

I'm always moved by the excitement level of people with new toys. Thanks for sharing the high.
It's like Christmas in the middle of the week.

Personally I assume I would make any camera system I bought work. The first question I'd like answered would be couple images showing why one camera was different than another, and why the finished image from one camera is preferred. If that's not there, I'm not really interested. I do the same comparisons with lenses. If you've shot view cameras, or film MF, you've already proved you can work through a camera's lack of whatever technical "advantage" and just get through to the important part.

Well, here's an instance where if I used a camera without an EVF, I wouldn't have been able to get the shot. Not that it's a great photo, but I don't often see coyotes so even a poor opportunity is precious.

Settings: 180mm, f/2.5, 1/50s, ISO 12800 then pushed a stop in PP. I could just barely make out any detail at all with my bare eyes, let alone looking through an OVF. However, the large, bright EVF of my Panasonic G9 permitted me to see the coyote clearly, albeit with a heavy grain. I've stated on several occasions that for most shooting I prefer an OVF, but this was a case where the EVF saved the day evening.

[pres589]

Well, here's an instance where if I used a camera without an EVF, I wouldn't have been able to get the shot. Not that it's a great photo, but I don't often see coyotes so even a poor opportunity is precious.

Settings: 180mm, f/2.5, 1/50s, ISO 12800 then pushed a stop in PP. I could just barely make out any detail at all with my bare eyes, let alone looking through an OVF. However, the large, bright EVF of my Panasonic G9 permitted me to see the coyote clearly, albeit with a heavy grain. I've stated on several occasions that for most shooting I prefer an OVF, but this was a case where the EVF saved the day evening.

What lens was that taken with? Nice photo. I agree that an EVF's definitely have their pros and cons, sometimes changing columns depending on the situation.

[normhead]

Well, here's an instance where if I used a camera without an EVF, I wouldn't have been able to get the shot. Not that it's a great photo, but I don't often see coyotes so even a poor opportunity is precious.

Settings: 180mm, f/2.5, 1/50s, ISO 12800 then pushed a stop in PP. I could just barely make out any detail at all with my bare eyes, let alone looking through an OVF. However, the large, bright EVF of my Panasonic G9 permitted me to see the coyote clearly, albeit with a heavy grain. I've stated on several occasions that for most shooting I prefer an OVF, but this was a case where the EVF saved the day evening.

Did you try with an OVF or are you making assumptions?
Do your eyes not adjust to less light? What's the effect of looking through that bright viewfinder then waiting for your eyes to adjust to the real world again?

I once took an image of a black bear raiding my garbage at 2am without flash with a similar ISO. Much older camera so not as good result in low light and high ISO, but "impossible"... hardly.

It's always a risk telling people what they can't do on here. Invariably, someone else has done it.