Klaus,
Whether size, small or big, is a benefit or not is highly subjective. Small is not a virtue by itself. Mirrorless doesn't need to be small. If the lenses have to be big so be it.
The bigger point is CDAF which is far more accurate. Even bigger point is the convinience of seeing the final shot even before it is shot.
That is the beauty of mirrorless, and that is available in a bigger format now, for whoever is interested in that look.
Whilst everybody is recommending mirroless M4/3rds etc, (with too much depth of field) and electronic viewfinders maybe the classic style of the "Pentax K3" should be considered, with it's largest in class 100% viewfinder and top 24Mps AA less image quality in one of the most robust and weatherproofed magnesium bodies and a range of limited edition "very compact" fixed focal lenses and zooms. It is also very well adapted to older manual lenses (focus peaking).
It is a relatively compact (although not the lightest) APSc DSLR for those who are not enamored by composing with an electronic viewfinder. I also like the look of the new Fujis!
Pentax K3? It is a heavy camera (800 grams), heavier than my full frame Canon EOS 6D. Not sure how it would be so much preferable over the Nikon D600 then.
The Pentax K3 weighs about twice what the Canon 100D/SL1 weighs. Size wise, the difference is also considerable:
http://camerasize.com/compare/#485,448
Then lenses: while Pentax has many compact lenses, only a few are of interest. Some don't render nicely, and there is a lot of overlap. One can put together a smaller, lighter package around the 100D. Pentax 21mm f3.2 - Voigtlander 20mm f3.5. Pentax 31mm f1.8 - Sigma 30mm f1.4 Art. Pentax 40mm f2.8 - Canon 40mm f2.8. Pentax 77mm - Canon 85mm f1.8/Tamron 60mm f2.
The Canon 100D would also have a much better and bigger UWA selection (including the Canon 10-22mm and the Sigma 8-16mm).
I know with which APS-C DSLR I would rather travel with... The compact, light SL1/100D.
But, would I recommend it over the mirrorless Fuji/MFT options to the original poster? Probably not.
On "AA-less IQ".... I don't find the squareness of the pixels resulting in aliasing, false sharpness/details and moire patterns "better IQ". Just a false sense of sharpness one can also get by badly sharpening an image, if one desires it.
Quote:Klaus,
Whether size, small or big, is a benefit or not is highly subjective. Small is not a virtue by itself. Mirrorless doesn't need to be small. If the lenses have to be big so be it.
The bigger point is CDAF which is far more accurate. Even bigger point is the convinience of seeing the final shot even before it is shot.
That is the beauty of mirrorless, and that is available in a bigger format now, for whoever is interested in that look.
"That look" of FF can only be shallower DOF. For the rest, the look of images is mostly dictated by the character of the lens used.
Quote:Pentax K3? It is a heavy camera (800 grams), heavier than my full frame Canon EOS 6D. Not sure how it would be so much preferable over the Nikon D600 then.
The Pentax K3 weighs about twice what the Canon 100D/SL1 weighs. Size wise, the difference is also considerable:
http://camerasize.com/compare/#485,448
Then lenses: while Pentax has many compact lenses, only a few are of interest. Some don't render nicely, and there is a lot of overlap. One can put together a smaller, lighter package around the 100D. Pentax 21mm f3.2 - Voigtlander 20mm f3.5. Pentax 31mm f1.8 - Sigma 30mm f1.4 Art. Pentax 40mm f2.8 - Canon 40mm f2.8. Pentax 77mm - Canon 85mm f1.8/Tamron 60mm f2.
The Canon 100D would also have a much better and bigger UWA selection (including the Canon 10-22mm and the Sigma 8-16mm).
I know with which APS-C DSLR I would rather travel with... The compact, light SL1/100D.
But, would I recommend it over the mirrorless Fuji/MFT options to the original poster? Probably not.
On "AA-less IQ".... I don't find the squareness of the pixels resulting in aliasing, false sharpness/details and moire patterns "better IQ". Just a false sense of sharpness one can also get by badly sharpening an image, if one desires it.
The Canon 100D is more like the Pentax Kr in features, and therefore closer in size:
http://camerasize.com/compare/#210,448
Or you can compare to the K-01, which is smaller but a bit heavier:
http://camerasize.com/compare/#285,448
Or you can compare the K-3 to an appropriate analog in the larger, heavier Canon 70D:
http://camerasize.com/compare/#485,469
I also disagree with your statement that 'only a few [lenses] are of interest'. You forgot to add "to me" to the end.
As for performance/interest, I'll quote the PZ reviews:
15mm f/4: "The SMC-DA 15mm f/4 AL ED Limited is a another desirable pancake lens by Pentax. The lens is capable of producing very sharp and contrasty images at medium aperture settings."
21mm f/3.2: "The Pentax SMC-DA 21mm f/3.2 AL Limited is a very good lens but it is not as special as its longer cousins (specifically the Pentax FA 31mm f/1.8 Limited) nor is this really possible because of the increasing design problems when pushing things towards wide and ultra-wide angles."
40mm f/2.8: "The Pentax SMC DA 40mm f/2.8 exhibits a quite harmonious optical performance combined with excellent build quality."
70mm f/2.4: "The Pentax SMC DA 70mm f/2.4 Limited is an great lens with no significant technical weakness."
If I were an APS-C shooter interested in compact/light lenses, those four Pentax pancakes to me have no peer for any other brand. Throw in the Pentax 17-70 f/4, according to PZ: "All-in-all a very harmonious package selling for a very fair price of around 480€/US$."
Quote:The Canon 100D is more like the Pentax Kr in features, and therefore closer in size:
http://camerasize.com/compare/#210,448
Or you can compare to the K-01, which is smaller but a bit heavier:
http://camerasize.com/compare/#285,448
That is one awful silly camera. None of the benefits of a DSLR (OVF, PD AF, ergonomics) and none of the perks of mirrorless cameras.
Quote:Or you can compare the K-3 to an appropriate analog in the larger, heavier Canon 70D:
http://camerasize.com/compare/#485,469
Yes. And would you recommend this to someone who is looking for a light replacement to a D610/600?
Quote:I also disagree with your statement that 'only a few [lenses] are of interest'. You forgot to add "to me" to the end.
As for performance/interest, I'll quote the PZ reviews:
15mm f/4: "The SMC-DA 15mm f/4 AL ED Limited is a another desirable pancake lens by Pentax. The lens is capable of producing very sharp and contrasty images at medium aperture settings."
21mm f/3.2: "The Pentax SMC-DA 21mm f/3.2 AL Limited is a very good lens but it is not as special as its longer cousins (specifically the Pentax FA 31mm f/1.8 Limited) nor is this really possible because of the increasing design problems when pushing things towards wide and ultra-wide angles."
40mm f/2.8: "The Pentax SMC DA 40mm f/2.8 exhibits a quite harmonious optical performance combined with excellent build quality."
It has so-so bokeh. The Canon 40mm is a nicer lens.
Quote:70mm f/2.4: "The Pentax SMC DA 70mm f/2.4 Limited is an great lens with no significant technical weakness."
It is a small aperture lens, not really of interest. The 77mm f1.8 is altogether a more interesting lens. I did mention overlap in the range.
Quote:If I were an APS-C shooter interested in compact/light lenses, those four Pentax pancakes to me have no peer for any other brand. Throw in the Pentax 17-70 f/4, according to PZ: "All-in-all a very harmonious package selling for a very fair price of around 480€/US$."
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.
Quote: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.
I do love people with an open mind, especially when I'm looking at the images out of my K01!
03-07-2014, 10:02 AM
(This post was last modified: 03-07-2014, 10:09 AM by Brightcolours.)
Quote:I do love people with an open mind, especially when I'm looking at the images out of my K01!
And in which way do those images differ from any APS-C DSLR? (besides the sloooow AF so no action images)? It is just a DSLR with the mirror stolen. Not particularly compact (due to DSLR lenses and mirror box without mirror).
It is a nothing camera, with the fatness of a DSLR and lack of PD AF for no good reason. It says "Pentax" on it, and that is why you bought it... Open mind? hmmm.
Care to share some images you made which then show its special prowess?
Quote: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.
BC,
You said:"That look" of FF can only be shallower DOF. For the rest, the look of images is mostly dictated by the character of the lens used.
I say:
Shallow DOF is not just that. It translates to the smooth tonal transitions.
You can say even medium format is not different from Micro Four Thirds because medium format just has shallower DOF ! The fact that M43 has a typical small sensor look, the harsh tonal transitions...its all because of that subtle play, and it really is a big deal for rhose who want it. And let me add that shallow dof doesn't just mean that creamy background against a sharp subject. It also means relative and subtle OOF differences between objects in the frame...all this giving a unique sense of deapth.
Suffice to say that you cant compare formats like this. FF is unique and so is MFT for those who want that look.
|
