the small camera kit..er kits

I like my camera gear to be small. Cheap and incredibly talented is nice too.. but let's not get greedy. Well one can be greedy.. with the right gear.

My K-5 with the 18-50re is really compact for aps.c, and now the compact 50-200wr has arrived. That's a nice 27-300mm∙e kit that can go out in the rain and shoot quietly from 27-75mm∙e.

Maybe I meant the GX1 kit? With 14/2.5, 30/2.8 and 45-150mm zoom it stays small & does many things well. The 4:3 sensor does not show off to K-5 level but it's a fine 16Mpxl sensor. Its video specs definitely outperform the Pentax; it was hacked to produce 36MB/sec video with better audio too.  It could be set higher still, but then the camera cannot play back the video :(

Hm, how were these two small-kit pictures taken? That was done with the YI.M1. Yes it's also my small kit: with 12-40mm XiaoYi and 45-150 Lumix it can manage 24-300mme. It can go to 4k with its video specs and has a nice 20Mpx sensor. It does not 'do' stabilization with my current lenses but is still a talented little camera!


Any of these kits can be made larger with current lenses  (e.g. Lumix 12-60 or K-mount 100-300 or fast primes) but for small gear I'm in a good place.. and when more is better I'm good there too!

P.S. it should be noted that my wife's GF2 plus 12-32mm Lumix out-smalls all my kits!
It uses older tech but raw images are very nice and for size it is hard to beat.

just saved a bunch of money..

And it has nothing to do with car insurance :^|

My plan was to pick up a gap lens between the 18-50 and 100-300 zooms. The clear choice would be a DA70/2.4, which would be $200 (used, black) at best. Silver would be nice.. oh that's $375 if I am a lucky bidder. Well, no hurry.

No hurry became no need, as I found a bargain DA∙L 50-200wr lens. Now weather seals extend from 18 to 200mm, no gaps and about $150 less spent than on the Limited 70. Sure I'd still love to have one.. but that is for another day.

I've used numerous copies of the 50-200 - in fact I believe my first copy came as a swap for my first copy of the 55-300mm lens. I've tried both DA and DA∙L copies, both WR - and strangely enough the L version (composite mount, no quick-shift focus) has provided consistently preferable images! In any case I have preferred the overall results from the 50-200 over the 55-300, whose slower focus and less-consistent bokeh are drawbacks. OK I also admit to greatly preferring the shorter lens' bulk.

The image here is with an early copy of the DA 50-200wr on a K-7. I dropped the exposure deliberately, because it's my photo and I can do what I choose with it.

plus 3

using center-point autofocus

That seems to be a good bias for the K-5 autofocus system with my recently-(re)acquired Sigma 100-300 'slowpoke' tele-zoom.

A reasonable color match!

Yes I own one of those again - but this time in silver to match the K-5 Special. A few quick tests and application of +3 AF adjustment for this lens only, and results look better than before. Yay!

Speaking of Sigma - today they announced their first L-mount body. It's tiny, cubic and using a Bayer RGB filter array (i.e. Not Foveon) so it's an unusual Sigma camera in many respects. We shall see how it fares once price and performance are fully set.

the DA∙L 18-50 RE∙tractable

The weather-sealed K-5 demands at least one WR lens for foul weather. On a kit-lens budget that has always meant an 18-55 or 50-200mm as a staple; later the 55-300mm caught up with a HD/WR version. All of them have performed well for me at one time or another.

In the last couple of years the higher-grade 20-40 Limited and 18-50 RE have also been introduced. I owned and liked the 20-40mm, but its price is not available to me right now. The 18-50RE replaced the 18-55 as the basic wide-to-normal kit lens. and retracts almost to Limited-prime size. While I was seeking a deal on the 18-55 I stumbled upon an "as-is" copy of the 18-50RE at an excellent price. Wow: why not?

Initial gear reviewers emphasized the flimsiness of the RE design. Too much 'plastic', wobble in the front-element extension, and so on. Just the sort of things that can go wrong with an "as-is" lens? As it traveled toward me here on the wrong coast I chose to look at user reviews ..and I was surprised by its rating, which was on average comfortably higher than the 18-55. People really do like this version - users not reviewers - and my hopes went up that my incoming copy would be better than 'as-is'.

Well it's here - and it's great!

That 'as-is' disclaimer was quite pessimistic; I expected issues with AF, zoom/retraction mechanism or ..well, something. I have found no issues that limit its full capabilities. Hooray!

So I have a silent-focus WR lens that fits snugly against an equally-WR body. Nice! That saves me plenty of concern about the short end of the focal range (no 17-50 or 17-70 types need apply). It does make the 70 Limited more useful than a DA21, and beyond that the smc-M 100mm and 200mm can take over when the slowpoke Sigma 100-300 isn't the right choice. Sure the 18-50 is pretty slow in the aperture dept. but if that's its only 'issue' I can live with it.

Too bad it doesn't come in silver..

the danger of looking back

Aside from becoming a pillar of salt..

I was reviewing some older images (Pentax, of course) and to my horror it got me to thinking. The enjoyment of photography and the benefits of 24x18 sensors is valuable to me!

I've commented before on the distinct difference between dSLR imaging and modern mirrorless cameras. Here are some of them /the short version/.

• The EVF has benefits, but it is yet another screen to look at along with phone tablet computer and TV. I've had numerous issues this past week with all kinds of screens so I'm more vulnerable right now.
• The auto corrections for lenses is nice.. but having better lenses is my preference. When µ43 lenses are reviewed without corrections one sees just how hard the camera is working to reprocess images; the outer 1/3 of shots is reworked pretty hard.
• While µ43 depth of field is decent enough, it's not as impressive as aps-C shots.
• The GX1 is nearly as well known to me now as the K-5 was in the past; that's a good thing yet apparently makes subsequent bodies harder to enjoy. Yes, the complexity thing, again.
• Sensor specs, in-camera effects, yada yada²...

So off I went again, for the last time. Sure.

My first stop was shopgoodwill, where several Minolta A-mount deals were within reach for absurd prices. I bid on a Sony A100 and Maxxi 35-70/4 and 50/1.8 - for a total of about $50. Those were outbid, though amazingly not by much.

In the meantime I looked over various Pentax listings for a decent K-5, K-5ii or similar. I found a K200d in silver - I had no idea that they were made in silver!! - but it wasn't cheap compared to the black bodies. A seller had a K-5 available (black of course) and I sent along a note, which sat without response for a few days.

Then 'disaster' struck: a K-5 Silver Special edition for $220. Bingo! 

Now of course I need a silver lens. Maybe two.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Oh yeah - this means the GX85 is leaving to fund this.. perhaps the 12-60 as well. Heck the 14-42 could also go if a 19mm Sigma shows up..

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Update: re-integrating the K-5 into my shooting

I'm surprised at what I remember, and what I don't. I used a K-50 most recently so it will take a bit of muscle retraining to get the buttons right again. At first blush I miss the touch-screen, love the optical view, and cannot tell the grip is different*. I do believe the shutter sound is slightly quieter than my non-Special K-5 bodies; it's a well-muffled click. Cool.

* and now I know why. According to PentaxForums the Silver Special was released twice: one with altered grip, and the next year with a silver DA40 xs lens (and apparently the standard grip). My grip is on the right here so not the super-special Special camera! I'm OK with this, but it's nice to know that a good reason exists for my not being able to tell the difference from my previous K-5 bodies.
Hm, I also just noticed my Silver body has the red/silver SR label not silver on black. Interesting!

for the last time II

As noted recently, I've struggled with the choice of kit lens for my GX85. I love the features of the 12-60 Lumix, but it's a bit bulky on the smaller body. That drives me toward the tiny 14-42ii, which is nearly 12-32 small but has a focus ring + 10mm at the long end. And what about the XiaoYi 12-40?

Taken with GX85 and SMC-A 50/1.7. A nice combination

Today's thinking is that the 14-42 is the better option. The ii has dual-IS for improved stabilization (the 12-60 also has this), and its size and similar feel to the 45-150 is quite nice. I'll admit that cash is another reason, as the 12-60 has better resale value.. sad but true.

Update II - I read in the comments section at a forum site about the YI 12-40mm 'retractable' kit zoom. The writer noted that, with the M1's minimal reprocessing of data, their lenses cannot make use of Pana/Oly's inbuilt corrections of distortion and vignetting and must therefore do more themselves.

Sad but true: the big names use internal post-processing tricks to render an acceptable image (one of my peeves about the μ43 system). One can use alternate software to look at raw images, and many Zuiko/Lumix lenses have seriously silly distortion characteristics.

The point that I left behind is that the 12-40mm xiaoYi zoom does not have those dismal specs to wash away in the camera's after-shot routine - so the lens is built with better corrections to limit those distortions. It may not appear to do as good of a job but in fact it's a better standalone optical setup than even some of the high-grade gear from the Others.

 Hadn't thought of that.. and glad it's still here!

fresh doses of sanity

Even professional imagers feel the pull of gear - Kirk puts it quite eloquently, as usual. He changes massive amounts of kit in a hurry at times; perhaps as a percentage of income it's similar to my meager dealings, we'll never know of course.

His work is consistently great in any case, and like he says in the linked article the many factors that make an image is only rarely due to the gear. Certainly if one has the wrong focal length the outcome may be less ideal.. yet a great image can come even at those moments.

Good stuff, and a reminder that time spent browsing camera forums and gear sites could be spent taking photos (or organizing and removing many of them from my hard drive).

I'm writing this after an awful work day followed by a sleep-deprived night. I was up by 4:30 and read Kirk's article.

But I did get to see a beautiful sunrise!

I took several cool sunrise-and-fog images with the GX85 and 12-60mm - and later learned that two big dust specks were evident in the sky on several shots. Bummer. They were all shot in jpeg only, so solid fixes will likely show some compression artifacts.

I then took out the GX1 and 14-42 while the GX85 was occupied with downloading. The sun-beams were even more pronounced at this point and images on screen looked very nice. The light was also striking our hummingbird feeder so I tried to incorporate its ruby glow into the shot with 16:9 wide shots. Now where is that cable for downloading, the microUSB cord won't work! Ah yes, the usb reader will do.

While seeking the cable I decided to grab the YI M1 and its 12-40 kit lens. This was also shot in raw +jpeg and looked wonderful on the small screen. Here is one of the jpeg shots from the 20-mpx YI - looks good from here!


As Kirk said - timing and light are the key elements; the camera need only function to capture a great image.

for the last time..

The choice of standard zoom remains for me to select a winner. Lumix 14-42ii or 12-60? Miniature bulk or maximum versatility? What would I use more /miss less among the features?

Both these zooms receive generally good marks in online reviews. The larger lens has more range, weather seals and has not reached f/5.6 at 40mm so is a bit faster at the 14-42's long end. Adding hoods make them look similar in overall size but it's definitely not so - the 14-42 takes 46mm filters compared to 58mm on the 12-60. Weight isn't quite 2:1 but it's fairly close to that ratio. I like having 12mm but I can stitch two shots at 14mm when wide is a big deal.

So each has its values and drawbacks - no surprise there.

Here's the most valuable point of separation for me: close focus ability. Both get to nearly the same distance from an object but a 60mm closeup will out-scale a 42mm closeup every time in that circumstance. This is something I can see clearly, and that I will often use when I don't have my 10mm extension tube handy. I really don't need 1:1 closeup for my typical use (the 4Thirds 35/3.5 is for slide duplication more than general use) so flower shots and the occasional bug will do fine with the 12-60.

The last-body-ever hunt ended when a GX85 body was found for only slightly more than I expected to pay for a healthy GX7, so that's that. Complexity wins (as does updated shutter and better/dual IS!).

So here's where the kit stands now:
Body - GX85 (still holding GX1 and YI M1 w/kit lenses)
General-use lens: Lumix 12-60
Tiny telephoto: Lumix 45-150
Wide prime: Lumix 14/2.5
Bonus 4Thirds lenses:  ZD 35 macro & 70-300 tele

I'd love to spend a bit on more primes some day, and maybe the 35-100/2.8. Some day will not be any time soon, barring a massive financial windfall. Not much chance of that.