[SelrahCharleS]

For what it's worth with the lenses you have I would say go with a K1 since you have some pretty great wide A series primes. If you watch for deals you can find a K1 under $1000 (I paid around $975 about a year ago). I've been really enjoying adapting old lenses since I got the K1, while many of them felt like odd focal lengths on APS-C previously.

I would also get a Canon S-type screen for manual focusing. I bought one from focusingscreen.com, but I believe you can also buy the screens from Canon for less and get them to fit with a small amount of cutting. Either way it helped manual focusing compared to the stock screen.

Otherwise before the K1 I had a K5IIs and you can't really go wrong with any of the flagship cameras that are K5II(s) or newer. I believe all of the APS-C flagships have interchangeable focusing screens as well.

[estost]

For what it's worth with the lenses you have I would say go with a K1 since you have some pretty great wide A series primes. If you watch for deals you can find a K1 under $1000 (I paid around $975 about a year ago). I've been really enjoying adapting old lenses since I got the K1, while many of them felt like odd focal lengths on APS-C previously.

I would also get a Canon S-type screen for manual focusing. I bought one from focusingscreen.com, but I believe you can also buy the screens from Canon for less and get them to fit with a small amount of cutting. Either way it helped manual focusing compared to the stock screen.

Otherwise before the K1 I had a K5IIs and you can't really go wrong with any of the flagship cameras that are K5II(s) or newer. I believe all of the APS-C flagships have interchangeable focusing screens as well.

Yes, the Ec-S screen is cheap enough to just give it a try, readily available at any Canon service store and you just have to cut off that protruding nose with the S-letter on it:
Canon Focusing Screen Ec-S | Canon Online Store|Canon Online Store
Just don't forget to take out that copper spacer frame located above the way thinner original Pentax screen.

[Hepcat]

Well, wow . Quite a bit of advice -- all appreciated. But complicated

I'm also making the assumption that Pentax will be the best overall experience for shooting Pentax lenses.

i think that once upon a time, your assumption may have been accurate. No longer. I have a Lumix S1 mirrorless in Leica L mount. I have Konica Hexanon lenses in AR mount, Yashinon-DX lenses in M42, Leica R lenses, Mamiya 645 lenses, and a phalanx of Pentacon-Six mount lenses, and they ALL adapt to the L mount like they were made for it.

I'm not pushing the L mount; Sony full-frame, Nikon Z full-frame, and any other full-frame mirrorless will allow you to use your lenses.

Yes, I understand your limitations for cash right now, but allow me to suggest that you don't limit your options.

[mroeder75]

We do have a lens club thread with photos posted from Pentax M lenses taken with various cameras with > 600 pages if that helps. The M Club! - Page 601 - PentaxForums.com

[Finntax]

i think that once upon a time, your assumption may have been accurate. No longer. I have a Lumix S1 mirrorless in Leica L mount. I have Konica Hexanon lenses in AR mount, Yashinon-DX lenses in M42, Leica R lenses, Mamiya 645 lenses, and a phalanx of Pentacon-Six mount lenses, and they ALL adapt to the L mount like they were made for it.

I'm not pushing the L mount; Sony full-frame, Nikon Z full-frame, and any other full-frame mirrorless will allow you to use your lenses.

Yes, I understand your limitations for cash right now, but allow me to suggest that you don't limit your options.

I agree with Hepcat.

I used to use my Pentax legacy lenses with K-1, but sold it 2 years ago and now use Lumix S1R. To me it's the same type rugged high res camera than K-1, mainly made for still shooting. Just with better manual focus aids (like most mirrorless) and the possibility easily to adapt whatever legacy class you want. I have adapters for Olympus OM, Nikon F, Canon FD, Pentax K, Leica R, Contax C/Y, M42, M39 and all work perfectly.

If you know (I used to "know" ) that you'll only use Pentax glass, then go with K-1. If you have a slightest doubt that you might get interested in legacy glass in general, then find yourself a mirrorless ff body.

-Ville-

[dionhouston]

I agree with Hepcat.

I used to use my Pentax legacy lenses with K-1, but sold it 2 years ago and now use Lumix S1R. To me it's the same type rugged high res camera than K-1, mainly made for still shooting. Just with better manual focus aids (like most mirrorless) and the possibility easily to adapt whatever legacy class you want. I have adapters for Olympus OM, Nikon F, Canon FD, Pentax K, Leica R, Contax C/Y, M42, M39 and all work perfectly.

If you know (I used to "know" ) that you'll only use Pentax glass, then go with K-1. If you have a slightest doubt that you might get interested in legacy glass in general, then find yourself a mirrorless ff body.

-Ville-

Good morning all,

Thanks for the passionate responses . As an Olympus user for a good number of years now, I absolutely couldn't agree more on DSLRs vs. Mirrorless. The manual assist features help a lot. I found out yesterday my only Pentax Zoom - the 70-210mm f4 also acts as a macro. And I had fun taking this picture last night.

Without a doubt, if Pentax had a full-frame mirrorless, that would change this discussion a lot!

I will also look at the full-frame mirrorless bodies when I get to that point. What gives me pause, besides what I've already mentioned, is whatever body I get will _not_ be a replacement for my Olympus stuff. I have (x2 for full-frame equivalency):

Zooms (all Pro): 12-40mm f/2.8; 40-150mm f/2.8 (also 2x teleconverter); 40-150mm f/4
Primes (non-Pro): 10mm f/2; 17mm f/1.8; 45mm f/1.8

As many of you know, M43 takes very good pictures, and important to me very light. I just purchased the 40-150mm f/4 Pro because the f/2.8 is a beast that rarely leaves my house. What attracts me to the Pentax (besides my Dad giving me a bunch of stuff), is these lenses are mostly primes, decently fast, and small.

I read a story recently that Ricoh is purposely not in the megapixel fight, I think the article said that's not something they can win, because the company is comparatively smaller. But (he said) Pentax is about the experience... Not having one, I'm not really sure what that means. Whatever I end up with, I'm looking to complement my M43 stuff -- conventional wisdom is full-frame is better for dynamic range, low light performance, etc.

[Hepcat]

Good morning all,

Without a doubt, if Pentax had a full-frame mirrorless, that would change this discussion a lot!

I will also look at the full-frame mirrorless bodies when I get to that point. What gives me pause, besides what I've already mentioned, is whatever body I get will _not_ be a replacement for my Olympus stuff. I have (x2 for full-frame equivalency):

Whatever I end up with, I'm looking to complement my M43 stuff -- conventional wisdom is full-frame is better for dynamic range, low light performance, etc.

I shot Leica M cameras nearly continuously for 45 years with a break for commercial use of Canon EOS in the '90s and Olympus 4/3 digital cameras for nearly ten years with the E1 through the E-5, only selling them to return to Leica when Olympus quit making DSLRs for m4/3 mirrorless. Finally in about 2016 I realized my eyesight had gotten to the point I couldn't see the rangefinder patch on my Leica M9P well enough to critically focus, so I sold all my Leica gear and went with a Nikon Df, an FM2n and a bunch of the large-aperture, AI and AI-s glass. I never really was attached to them, but I've shot them for several years now. Last month I had a Leicaflex SL/Leica R6.2 film setup with a half-dozen Leitz 2-cam lenses fall into my lap, cheaply enough that I jumped on it. I will keep just a couple of my Nikkors (like the AI-converted 105 macro) for use on the Lumix S1, but I'm selling off the rest of that gear to transition completly to the Leica SLRs.

With the film SLR Leica gear, it feels like I've "come home," but that caused me a big problem for digital as Leica R glass doesn't adapt to Nikon well (without changing the lens' mount to Nikon) and took the Nikon Df out of play. The solution, of course, (not wanting to keep two entire systems) was a Leica SL-2... until I saw the price tag of $8k new and $6k used. So I looked at the Leica SL which is, essentially, a Panasonic Lumix S1... and the S1 has IBIS which the original SL did not. I was able to find a lightly-used S1 WITH an AF Sigma 24-105 OIS lens for $1400 shipped, so it doesn't HAVE to cost an arm and a leg if you shop.

I say all that to preface that the Lumix S1 is also a successor to the 4/3s Consortium's techology developments and uses many of the Olympus 4/3rds accessories. I found, for example, a like-new, full-featured TTL Olympus FL-50R flash for $65 that I use off-camera on an Olympus FL-BK01 flash bracket with a CB02 cord, that works seamlessly with the Lumix S1's TTL flash capabilities. 4/3 lenses, of course, won't adapt because of the circle of coverage and flange distance, but any full frame lenses you would adapt to the Lumix would also adapt to your 4/3 or m4/3 bodies.

There ARE good options out there.

---------- Post added 04-09-22 at 06:10 AM ----------

I read a story recently that Ricoh is purposely not in the megapixel fight, I think the article said that's not something they can win, because the company is comparatively smaller. But (he said) Pentax is about the experience... Not having one, I'm not really sure what that means. Whatever I end up with, I'm looking to complement my M43 stuff -- conventional wisdom is full-frame is better for dynamic range, low light performance, etc.

Many years ago, computer speed was measured in a standard called "Millions of Instructions per Second" and abbreviated "MIPS." As computer technology advanced, it was mocked as "Meaningless Indicator of Performance Speed." We are now at that same place with "megapixels."

When the ability of the sensors to record outperforms the ability of the lens to resolve, the "size" of the sensor in MP is meaningless. Phase One has 150mp sensors in their backs now. I have a Credo 40 on my Phase One. At 1200x1600 px on a laptop screen (where most photos are displayed) is there really a difference? Phase One designed $5,000 lenses (each) with sufficient resolution to make the 150mp back viable. They are amazing. I'll never own one. Don't get me wrong, I'm a Phase One owner and user and I really appreciate them... but the fact is that the market of consumers who can actually use that kind of resolution to good effect (and has the bankroll to afford it) is relatively small.

Looking at the Leica SL-2/Lumix S1H Nikon Z9/ Sony whatever-the-latest is... who really NEEDS a 50mp 35mm sensor? And it's interesting that most of those are now aimed more at the cine market than the still photographer market.

There are, at least in MY world, signficantly more important real-world concerns than just the size of the sensor in MP: are the files manageable? Do I have enough storage space without buying a server farm? Does my processor have enough juice to work with them. How easy are the RAW files to work with? How does the sensor handle dynamic range? What is the ISO range and how does it handle low light? Presuming that, for MOST photographers 12mp is sufficient for anything up to 24x36" printing and completely adequate for posting online, all those other factors become more important than size in MP.

SO... any company that can prioritize the performance of their sensors in those areas over strictly advertising sensor density will do fine among those who recognize what's really important. Much of the public still believes, however, in MP/MIPS as THE benchmark. And it just ain't so.

[dionhouston]

Well, today I went out to a pretty town on the coast of Sicily with the Pentax, my E-M1.2 and two lenses. I tried the 20mm and the 135mm both f/2.8.

First thing -- I didn't realize my camera did automatic aperture and shutter speed. To be honest, I'm really excited to see how well those work. Since ISO is fixed, that minimally just makes it about focusing. That's not bad at all for a film camera

I am quite impressed with both lenses. WIth both, I shot comparison shots with the Olympus at the focal length / 2. I shot as close as I could to the film ISO (one roll was 400, the other 160 - my Olympus doesn't do 160 so I did 200). Just visually, the field of view was the same which was expected. However, the colors appeared more natural on the film camera. The 20mm was more or less what I expected, as I regularly shoot my 10mm.

But the 135mm is quite a gem! Generally, when I switch from my 12-40mm to my 40-150mm it's very task-oriented - e.g. I'm birding and my focal length is what I need to get the bird. I don't know that I've ever purposely shot in the 68mm range. What I really like about it, is it's telephoto enough to take out your immediate surroundings but still covers a decent area. I took some nice pictures of Mount Etna with it.

So comparison to come. Of course, being film, I'll need to bring it in to be developed. I'll do so tomorrow -- but I'm excited to see the results . One fault I had... apparently the film caught when I was rewinding it, and it jammed - so probably lost a few pictures...

@hepcat - wow! I don't have time to do your response justice, but I agree substantially with what you said. Definitely, my interest in _something_ isn't so related to megapixels. I would actually add to what you say that you run into physics pretty seriously when you make them too small, and that's why I'm fine with the 20mpx I get with my E-M1.2. In fact, that's why I haven't upgraded my 2016 camera so far. Obviously, especially with primes, I frequently need to crop, and having actual pixels helps with that

That said, even with a film camera, I've had more fun with photography today than I have lately, so I look forward to whatever my final solution is -- either a K1 or something mirrorless I can easily adapt to. No doubt these are very nice lenses...

[Jaroslav]

My experience with digital started in a similar way. A bunch of SMC-M lenses (from 24mm to 200mm) kept from intensive use of LX in late 1990s - early 2000s. Then I've got K10D to use all these lenses and not initially intending of buying AF ones. The feelings were mixed. First, the crop factor of 1.5x, then pics were not always in focus (I couldn't achieve good hitting rate with confirmation in VF). Then I tried mirrorless with Panasonic GX7 basic kit lens and adapting SMC-M ones and all other lens I've own (L39, M39, etc). It was fun if you do slow work, but somehow limited in speed of shooting, esp. for tourism. After a while one can be tired of ergonomic compromises of this way.

My personal conclusion for myself is to use native lenses from on each system. I use a set of m43 lenses (mostly budget ones) on m43 (compact size, silent focusing and aperture), DA, F and FA on AF bodies K30 and K-01 (for bokeh and rendering, esp. 50mm f1.7, Tamron 90mm f2.5) and SMC-M for film (MX, ME, LX).

Film protocol: MF camera with SMC-M lenses on Ilford FP4, HP5 (a favourite), Fomapan-100, Kodak 100 T-Max. Up to 2010 I used to print from enlarger, that's very exciting, but needs very careful cleaning of both negs and pressure glass plates. Lately: Scanning with Minolta Dual Scan-II 2800dpi (old scanner from 2000 but still good) as colour slides, then working with negs in LightZone and Polaroid Dust and scratch removal software.

Good luck with the way you find the best to use your lenses!

[Eyewanders]

...I have Konica Hexanon lenses in AR mount, Yashinon-DX lenses in M42, Leica R lenses, Mamiya 645 lenses, and a phalanx of Pentacon-Six mount lenses, and they ALL adapt to the L mount like they were made for it.

I'm not pushing the L mount; Sony full-frame, Nikon Z full-frame, and any other full-frame mirrorless will allow you to use your lenses...

I agree with Hepcat.

I used to use my Pentax legacy lenses with K-1, but sold it 2 years ago and now use Lumix S1R. To me it's the same type rugged high res camera than K-1, mainly made for still shooting....

-Ville-

Oddly, I wound up in a similar place. For many years (like many) I dreamt of a Pentax full-frame, but returning to film the past decade led me to other systems and it's been Hexanon glass (which cannot be adapted to any other SLR make due to the flange distance being the shortest of any) specifically that just three days ago finally led me to purchase a Nikon Z7 to which I can adapt any and all glass I have. I never actually picked up a K-1 (much to my own surprise) but likely will one day. But my tendencies are toward light-n-fast first, balanced with FF IQ, and as much as I admire the Pentax designs after roughly 16 or 17 years, I'm returning to Nikon , 22 years later, for digital work.

[straton]

For scanning 35mm film I use the Konica Minolta Scan Elite II, which you can find on ebay for about $400, using VueScan software. I checked the real resolution, and it is just slightly less than the stated resolution of 5400 dpi (far better than the real resolution of about 2300 dpi for Epson V800 flatbed I also have (rated at 6400 dpi) <https://www.filmscanner.info/en/EpsonPerfectionV800Photo.html>). What this high resolution means is that your film camera is a ~32 megapixel marvel for films like Kodak's E100G that have grain size of about 8 microns RMS, just slightly less than a K-1 will deliver. (To forestall a rehash of the film vs. digital wars, let me say that after I bought a K-1 ii, side-by side comparisons with scanned E100G gave a modest nod to the K-1 ii.). I am someone who prints 16x24" images for galleries and one needs either 35mm or full frame digital to pull this off at 300 dpi, so for me going for the K-1 ii was the way to go. (I can stretch this to 20x30 in a pinch.)

Just to throw a huge monkey wrench into your cogitation, I just noticed the advent of a full-frame Olympus OM-1 <https://robertscamera.com/om-system-om-1-body-only> that claims 80MP images for "only" $2,200. Would one of you with money please buy one and let me know if I should really be tempted?

[Hepcat]

Just to throw a huge monkey wrench into your cogitation, I just noticed the advent of a full-frame Olympus OM-1 <https://robertscamera.com/om-system-om-1-body-only> that claims 80MP images for "only" $2,200. Would one of you with money please buy one and let me know if I should really be tempted?

Thanks for that link. It's a 4/3ds sensor, not a "full-frame." And the front page says it's an 80mp sensor, but the specs on the second page say its a 20mp sensor. I'm confused, and I'm not sure I know what the market is for that camera. It'll be interesting to see how it does.

I'll stick with my Lumix S1, thanks.

[dionhouston]

So this is something I can answer, since that's the community I live in!

The OM Systems OM-1 camera (Olympus is to commemorate the 50th anniversary of the original Olympus OM-1) is the new "wow" camera that just recently came out. It is indeed M43, so not full-frame, 2x crop. The "high res" mode for 80megapixels uses the image stabilization feature of the camera with a tripod, to generate four pictures that are then merged into one.

It's legitimately a nice camera, and I perfectly expect that it will be my next M43 camera - just not now. My E-M1 Mark II might be older, but it does what I need it to do.

[Hepcat]

So this is something I can answer, since that's the community I live in!

The OM Systems OM-1 camera (Olympus is to commemorate the 50th anniversary of the original Olympus OM-1) is the new "wow" camera that just recently came out. It is indeed M43, so not full-frame, 2x crop. The "high res" mode for 80megapixels uses the image stabilization feature of the camera with a tripod, to generate four pictures that are then merged into one.

It's legitimately a nice camera, and I perfectly expect that it will be my next M43 camera - just not now. My E-M1 Mark II might be older, but it does what I need it to do.

You know you're getting old when they announce a 50th anniversary of something that you sold in your store when it was new. Geez...

[dionhouston]

You know you're getting old when they announce a 50th anniversary of something that you sold in your store when it was new. Geez...

Yeah, I'm 52, so not old enough for that quite yet, but old enough that most of the people I work with think the music I grew up with is "Classic Rock."