The GetDPI Photography Forum

Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!

The successor to my E-1 is...

Jorgen Udvang

Subscriber Member
I've been looking at the specs of those lenses - they're all really small and light, I'm impressed.
Just for fun, I did some mathematics in the morning (calculations include one battery):

K-7 + 21/3.2 + 40/2.8 + 70/2.4 (all pancake Limiteds) = 1,114g

The 21mm is the weakest of these, the other two are very, very sharp and the 70 even have a nice bokeh, and they are tiny.

K-7 + 15/4.0 + 35/2.8 macro + 70/2.4 (all Limiteds) = 1,311g

This is a very nice package, and should cover most bases for light travelling.

K-7 + 15/4 + 31/1.8 + 77/1.8 (all Limiteds, 31 and 77 are full frame) = 1,581g

The 31 and 77 are some of the best lenses made by anyone, the 31 as a general purpose lens and the 77 for portraits.

All the lenses listed are metal and have very smooth manual focusing. They are more expensive than your average plastic-fantastic at $325 (40/2.8) to 900 (31/1.8), but cheaper than Zeiss and much cheaper than Leica. The only Limited lens not mentioned here, is the full frame, 155g 43mm f/1.9. I believe that was the first one launched, but I would prefer the 40/2.8 which is smaller, or the 35/2.8 which is a macro.

None of these lenses are weather sealed, unfortunately, but the new 55mm f/1.4 is, and it's not that heavy either, at 375g. It's bigger though (The lens shown on the camera in the first posting).

Now, do the same calculation for any other camera. Only top quality primes allowed :D
 
Last edited:

Jonathon Delacour

Subscriber Member
Now, do the same calculation for any other camera. Only top quality primes allowed :D
OK, I'll play! Like your K-7 numbers, the camera weight includes a battery.

Nikon D90 + Voigtlander SL II lenses

D90 + 20/3.5 + 40/2 + 58/1.4 = 1,428g

K-7 + 21/3.2 + 40/2.8 + 55/1.4 = 1,355g

I'd suggest that these systems are roughly comparable: with the Voigtlander 20mm outclassing the Pentax 20mm and the K-7 clearly superior to the D90. However, not only does the Pentax combo weigh slightly less, the Pentax primes are auto-focus whereas the Voigtlander lenses focus manually. Even the fact that I already own the 40mm and 58mm SL II lenses doesn't diminish the appeal of the K-7.

As nei1 said, the K-7 looks like a digital OM-1. Assuming the actual camera matches the specifications, it sure looks like a game-changer.
 

Jorgen Udvang

Subscriber Member
OK, I'll play! Like your K-7 numbers, the camera weight includes a battery.

Nikon D90 + Voigtlander SL II lenses

D90 + 20/3.5 + 40/2 + 58/1.4 = 1,428g

K-7 + 21/3.2 + 40/2.8 + 55/1.4 = 1,355g

I'd suggest that these systems are roughly comparable: with the Voigtlander 20mm outclassing the Pentax 20mm and the K-7 clearly superior to the D90. However, not only does the Pentax combo weigh slightly less, the Pentax primes are auto-focus whereas the Voigtlander lenses focus manually. Even the fact that I already own the 40mm and 58mm SL II lenses doesn't diminish the appeal of the K-7.

As nei1 said, the K-7 looks like a digital OM-1. Assuming the actual camera matches the specifications, it sure looks like a game-changer.
You also have to add the fact that neither Nikon, nor anybody else, have anything that matches the 70/2.4 and/or the 77/1.8 (except Leica, but that's manual focus and a "somewhat" different price). The combination of size, build quality and optical quality of those two lenses have tempted me many times to buy a Pentax. Now, finally, they have a body that seems to match the optics :p

Edit: the Voigtländers, and the Zeiss lenses, are also available in KA-mount, which ads image stabilization to them as well :)

After doing some reading, also the 60-250 seems to be an outstanding lens. The only one that seems to match it for size, quality and reach seems to be the Zuiko 50-200. It's still early days for that lens though, so I would like to see some more photos.
 
Last edited:

jonoslack

Active member
All interesting stuff, and I'd forgotten that the Zeiss and Voigtlander lenses come with Pentax mount (and chipped as well):clap::clap:

I find it all terribly attractive, but for me there are three issues:

1. when I'm travelling I like to use good small zooms, because I'm not usually alone, and getting people to hang around when changing lenses isn't that great (it adds a tension which affects the picture I think)
2. I do already have those expensive Leica lenses and an M8 for a small light kit if I'm willing to use primes
3. If I want the very best IQ, then I'll take the A900 with the Zeiss lenses (no longer small and light, but I think I'd bet on the IQ over the Pentax - of course, I could be proved wrong).

As far as the zooms go, for travel purposes my favorite is still the Zuiko 12-60, and I still think that the 'back to the beginning' approach has, for Olympus, produced a number of excellent lenses without the sort compromises found with everyone else.

The big mystery is why Olympus don't produce a very small weathersealed, pro-quality body. We know they can, because the gubbins inside the E620 would do the job perfectly . . . in a different box.

The other mystery is how Pentax can make fab viewfinders without a huge prism on the top? Very clever.

So, for me, I want the new Pentax and those lovely primes, but it doesn't really make much sense unless I sell the Leica gear first . . . . .
 

Jonathon Delacour

Subscriber Member
The big mystery is why Olympus don't produce a very small weathersealed, pro-quality body. We know they can, because the gubbins inside the E620 would do the job perfectly . . . in a different box.

The other mystery is how Pentax can make fab viewfinders without a huge prism on the top? Very clever.

So, for me, I want the new Pentax and those lovely primes, but it doesn't really make much sense unless I sell the Leica gear first . . . . .
Jono, when I was writing my last post I was about to ask the same question. Why haven't Olympus, who created the classic "tiny SLR" in the OM series, attempted to do the same thing in digital? The only reason I could come up with is that telecentricity precluded it so I didn't ask the question. But, on reflection, that doesn't make any sense at all. Even with telecentric lenses, it should still have been possible for them to design a much smaller E-3. And, in any case, what's with the Olympus obsession with zoom lenses? Or, why have they so resolutely neglected primes?

When I was trying to decide upon my first DSLR, the choices were the Nikon D300, the Pentax K-20, and the Olympus E-3. I eliminated the E-3 because it was the same size as the D300, with inferior autofocus, a smaller sensor, and no path to full-frame. The magnificent Olympus zooms were of no interest to me since I don't care for zoom lenses. I eliminated the K-20 because, despite the availabilty of the Zeiss and Voigtlander primes in ZK mount, again the Pentax auto-focus was inferior to Nikon's and I was concerned about the long-term viability of the Pentax brand. Now it seems ironic that I placed so much importance on auto-focus given that I mostly use manual-focus lenses.

How can Pentax make fab viewfinders without a huge prism on the top? I've wondered about this ever since I handled a friend's *ist DS2. I'd only ever looked through the tunnel-like pentamirror viewfinders of the Canikon equivalents and it amazed me that Pentax could offer such a marvelous pentaprism viewfinder at a comparable price.

And, as much as you "want the new Pentax and those lovely primes", surely it doesn't make any sense at all to sell the Leica gear. Wouldn't you be better off selling the Olympus kit?;) Sorry! I momentarily forgot you were a zoom guy.

To be honest, until recently I'd always assumed that I could do everything I needed with a single (Nikon) system. But suddenly I seem to have succumbed to the GetDPI "multiple systems are fine (if not essential)" Zeitgeist. Now I just need to convince myself that a K-7 + 31/1.8 + 77/1.8 kit will suffice.
 

jonoslack

Active member
And, as much as you "want the new Pentax and those lovely primes", surely it doesn't make any sense at all to sell the Leica gear. Wouldn't you be better off selling the Olympus kit?;) Sorry! I momentarily forgot you were a zoom guy.

To be honest, until recently I'd always assumed that I could do everything I needed with a single (Nikon) system. But suddenly I seem to have succumbed to the GetDPI "multiple systems are fine (if not essential)" Zeitgeist. Now I just need to convince myself that a K-7 + 31/1.8 + 77/1.8 kit will suffice.
Hi Jonathon
Well - there are still things I like about the Olympus gear apart from the zooms:
1. I can go out when it's going to rain without a bag
2. I really do like the colour

but the truth is that it's the good small zooms, which, IMHO nobody else makes. I'm not JUST a zoom guy - hence the leica kit and some primes with the A900. But if I'm travelling I don't like to change lenses. (as I said).

I don't really believe 'good small zooms' and 'full frame' will ever be spoken together, so that inevitably means two systems.

To be honest, my big hope for a light travel kit is the Olympus m4/3 camera - I can use my Leica lenses for low light (I know that works after having a G1) and I've got the nice Olympus zooms to go with it.

But I still want that pentax kit:ROTFL:
I just can't see what I'd use it for!
 

Jorgen Udvang

Subscriber Member
All interesting stuff, and I'd forgotten that the Zeiss and Voigtlander lenses come with Pentax mount (and chipped as well):clap::clap:

I find it all terribly attractive, but for me there are three issues:

1. when I'm travelling I like to use good small zooms, because I'm not usually alone, and getting people to hang around when changing lenses isn't that great (it adds a tension which affects the picture I think)
2. I do already have those expensive Leica lenses and an M8 for a small light kit if I'm willing to use primes
3. If I want the very best IQ, then I'll take the A900 with the Zeiss lenses (no longer small and light, but I think I'd bet on the IQ over the Pentax - of course, I could be proved wrong).

As far as the zooms go, for travel purposes my favorite is still the Zuiko 12-60, and I still think that the 'back to the beginning' approach has, for Olympus, produced a number of excellent lenses without the sort compromises found with everyone else.

The big mystery is why Olympus don't produce a very small weathersealed, pro-quality body. We know they can, because the gubbins inside the E620 would do the job perfectly . . . in a different box.

The other mystery is how Pentax can make fab viewfinders without a huge prism on the top? Very clever.

So, for me, I want the new Pentax and those lovely primes, but it doesn't really make much sense unless I sell the Leica gear first . . . . .
Hi Jono,
Interesting points, and I agree, but my situation is different from yours:

1. I mostly prefer primes when I travel, but then I mostly travel alone. If I travel with someone, I use a wide angle lens, to get people as well as location in the frame. Any of the kits that I mention above will do it for me.

2. I don't own a Leica, and probably never will, except: see no. 3

3. I don't own a Sony either, but sooner or later, I'll probably buy a Sony or Nikon full frame camera, for when I need the ultimate quality, unless somebody dumps a pile of money on my doorstep. Then I'll buy an S2 :p

I guess we're all puzzled by Olympus. As good as their cameras are, they should easily have been able to make something like the K-7, as well as some stellar primes. They've had a 100mm macro on their road-map for years, a lens that should be easy for them to make, Just look at the OM Zuiko 90mm f/2.0, one of their best lenses ever. Why on earth hasn't the 4/3 version been launched?

The 11-22mm alone, a lens that I own, is probably reason enough for me to buy another Olympus, but as a complete compact system, Pentax has the upper hand right now, at least for me. The only really weak point I can see is their "normal" zoom, so I should have an E-620 with the 11-22 for that, right? :D
 

Lili

New member
Hi Jonathon
Well - there are still things I like about the Olympus gear apart from the zooms:
1. I can go out when it's going to rain without a bag
2. I really do like the colour

but the truth is that it's the good small zooms, which, IMHO nobody else makes. I'm not JUST a zoom guy - hence the leica kit and some primes with the A900. But if I'm travelling I don't like to change lenses. (as I said).

I don't really believe 'good small zooms' and 'full frame' will ever be spoken together, so that inevitably means two systems.

To be honest, my big hope for a light travel kit is the Olympus m4/3 camera - I can use my Leica lenses for low light (I know that works after having a G1) and I've got the nice Olympus zooms to go with it.

But I still want that pentax kit:ROTFL:
I just can't see what I'd use it for!
Jono, the color and the tiny, excellent zooms are a big reason I adore (and will be keeping) my Oly's. Even the kit lenses are far far better than anyone else's counterparts. In the case of my e410 and e510, the bodies are as small as or smaller than the K7 so they make truly excellent travel carry rigs when maximum verstatility is a concern. If max IQ in the tiniest package is a worry, my 25mm Pancake ZUike basically lives on my tiny e410 (far smaller than the K7).
However, I already have two Pentax DSLR's (K100D and K100D Super) plus several primes. So multiple systems is not such a shock to me. This also means I can afford to wait and see until the dust (and prices) settle a bit.
None of my systems have all the features of the K7 nor do they have that 100% ovf, but they are all still very useable.
But, I want the K7 ;)
 

johnastovall

Deceased, but remembered fondly here...
You would be hard press to find a Pimms in Hico, Texas, Koffee Kup Cafe. I'm not sure you could find one in all of Bosque county....

I just realize I post this all in the wrong thread...
 
Top