[Guest]

That is one awful silly camera. None of the benefits of a DSLR (OVF, PD AF, ergonomics) and none of the perks of mirrorless cameras.

Yes. And would you recommend this to someone who is looking for a light replacement to a D610/600?

It has so-so bokeh. The Canon 40mm is a nicer lens.

It is a small aperture lens, not really of interest. The 77mm f1.8 is altogether a more interesting lens. I did mention overlap in the range.

I did point out the peers. The Pentax 17-70mm has a better peer in the Sigma 17-70mm Art. And the Sigma 17-50mm f2.8 OS is altogether a more interesting lens too.

 

I do not feel the OP is best served with the dying Pentax lineup as "light" replacement for his heavy Nikkor 24-70mm f2.8 + D6X0.

 

Someone who is migrating systems from a D600 is obviously willing to change systems every 2 years, so I don't see any system as a risk or 'dying' in that time frame. I tend to agree with you that Pentax wasn't successful with the K-01 mainly because they needed to make it much lighter. (Design preferences aside.)

 

Yes, I would recommend Pentax to someone looking for a smaller, lighter kit, depending.

 

For someone into mountain climbing/hiking like me who cares about an additional 300g of weight, probably no - I think the Sony NEX and Fuji X kits are better choices in APS-C.

 

For someone who isn't as extreme but just wants something lighter and a bit smaller, the pancake lenses I pointed out to are the real differentiators over other systems, which is why I said they have no analogue. I understand that you like the 77/1.8 better, but the 70/2.4 is smaller and lighter and IMO worth the trade-off.

 

In fact I started hiking with my D3 and the 24-70/2.8, and quickly downsized. I borrowed a K5 + 15mm f/4 lens for one week of hiking and it was a much better option than the Nikon kit for what I wanted.