The K-S1 and the 18-135 lens

Ptitboul wrote:

Historicity wrote:

I am 82 years old and so apt to twist something from time to time. On the other hand I am one of those fellows who has lifted weights all his life and is in good physical condition. And on the other other hand as a retired high-priced engineer from Boeing I have a very good pension and no money worries; so, even though I did feel a twinge of guilt when I read your note, I'm still looking forward to playing with the K-S2 when I get it. Mea culpa.

Then I would recommend buying a K-1 rather than a K-S2 (if your need is WiFi and articulated screen), or another K-3 (if your need is a backup camera).

The K-S2 is certainly a fine camera, but its button layout is not the same as the K-3, its AF and light metering are the same as the K-5 II, its RAW have only 12-bit depth, and it does not use the same type of batteries as the K-7, K-5, K-3 and K-1 series.

The K-1 does not have the same button layout as the K-3 either, but is it closer, and it has many useful ergonomic tricks (third wheel, lighting of mount and buttons, ...). Its main drawbacks compared to the K-S2 are its weight and its price, which don't seem to be a concern.

I've already purchased the K-S2; so I'm not in the phase where I am considering either this one or that.  I purchased the K-S1 initially as a possible replacement for my EPN2 when I want to go light.  While the K-S1 is a slight improvement it does not let me shoot quite the way I am used to with the K3 and so I wouldn't be inclined to just grab it and a lens and go.  I'm hoping the K-S2 will be more useful in that regard.

As to the K-1, I already have two systems and their lenses, the Pentax APSC and the Olympus 4/3 DSLR.  I gave some thought to the K-1 when it was introduced but decided that if I eventually bought into a third system it would probably be the Olympus Mirrorless. From the standpoint of physics it strikes me that the likelihood of breakthrough performance is more likely at the small-end rather than the large.   I don't count my little PEN inasmuch as I never went beyond the kit lenses with that.  (From what I've read the EM1 Mark ii while better than its predecessors still doesn't surpass the K-3, D7200 etc).  When considering a camera to take on hikes it isn't just the weight (my Olympus E-5 weighs 935 grams which is not that far from the 1010 grams of the K-1), but it is also the cumbersomeness of the gear.  I carry a knapsack with perhaps 20 pounds of gear plus a few things attached to my belt, plus a hiking stick.  After an hour or so I stop to take a drink of water and give some to the dogs so I typically put my camera in a bag if the camera/lens setup plus hood isn't too awkward for me to put it in my bag one handed, but if it is I set my hat on the ground and put the camera in that.  I've taken the K3 plus the 60-250 lens on hikes and much prefer the convenience of the 16-85 lens (or primes) for day in and day out hiking.

As to the K-S2 using 12-bit depth raw, that is what the Olympus E5 used as well and the shots from the E5 were, many of them, noisier than shots from the K5 etc using decent lenses in both cases and as looked at in Lightroom.  I used to spend time with a noise reducer when editing Olympus shots.   In looking at test shots from the K-S1 I didn't see any noise.  (I was using Lightroom 6 as looked at on a good 27-inch monitor).  The K-3 with its 14-bit depth is still my favorite camera, but Pentax has done something interesting with the K-S1 and K-S2 such that I am very pleased with what I see when editing.

Lawrence