The last dSLRs with CCD sensors

The first generations of dSLRs from Konica-Minolta-Sony, Nikon, Olympus and Pentax were all built around CCD image sensors. Then, around 2006, the camera makers started integrating CMOS sensors, and within a few years CCD sensors were history.

Today, some photographers compare the images they get from their modern cameras (all equipped with CMOS sensors offering a very broad dynamic range and reaching very high ISO sensitivities without much noise), with the images they were taking with the best cameras of the CCD era, and they like the photos taken with the old cameras better. What is so special about CCD sensors, and why have they disappeared if they were so good?

A cenote near Cozumel – Pentax *ist DS – July 2007 (6 Megapixels CCD sensor)

Why CMOS won

For all the hype surrounding CCD sensors, they had reached their peak in the 2006-2009 years – the last CCD sensors from Kodak and Sony were either unreliable or performing poorly above 800 ISO – and the technology of CMOS sensors had much more potential.

In 2006, camera makers started switching to CMOS sensors because they saw three main advantages in them:

a much lower power consumption – we now tend to forget that the CCD’s high power consumption and the related heat dissipation were major engineering issues at that time,
a much faster data acquisition,
a potential for higher ISO performance and wider dynamic range.

Live-view (composing the photo on the rear LCD of dSLRs), video capture in available light and mirrorless cameras were only made possible by the generalization of CMOS sensors, and would have been next to impossible with the CCD sensor technology.

Why this love for CCD sensors ?

In a few words, photographers tend to believe that images captured with a CCD sensor equipped camera are more “film like”.

Venice - gondoliers — The film look? – *Venice – Gondoliers in the sun set. Nikon FE2. Fujicolor 400 film*

I suffered for you and watched half a dozen Youtube videos where the authors are comparing the pictures taken with some of the best CCD equipped dSLRs with images taken with the CMOS equipped cameras that immediately followed. The conclusion is that if you make a serious apples to apples comparison on RAW files (same brand of camera, same lens, same resolution), there may be a difference, but really minimal. Images taken with a CCD may have a bit more punch, a bit more contrast, and the transition between colors may be more abrupt than on images captured with a CMOS. But again, the differences are marginal, only visible to pixel peepers.

So, if the RAW files are to a large extend similar, where is the perception coming from, that CCD sensors deliver more natural images than CMOS sensors? Could it be that the supporters of CCD sensors are only shooting JPEGs?

CCD and CMOS are different technologies, and their noise characteristics are not the same. They also behave differently in presence of strong highlights (the tone curve of images captured with a CMOS sensor is linear, as opposed to film and, to a lesser extent, CCD, which have a more S shaped tone curve). At the beginning of the transition from CCDs to CMOS sensors, camera vendors had more experience dealing with the noise patterns and tone curve characteristics of the images coming from CCDs than from CMOS sensors, and as a consequence their JPEG rendering algorithms were giving more “natural” (understand crowd pleasing) results when starting from the raw data of CCDs.

The CCD bias of the JPEG Rendering engines did not last. Camera manufacturers learned how to take advantage of the larger dynamic range and the lower level of noise of CMOS sensors to deliver images that mimic film behavior more closely than CCD sensors ever did.

The generalization of CMOS also allowed a raise in the pixel density of the sensors, and with it the end of the need for an “anti-aliasing” filter (the Nikon d800e launched in 2012 was the first dSLR deprived of an AA filter). By 2014, the “new normal” was a camera with a 16 to 24 Megapixel sensor and no anti-liaising filter, capable of a much higher real-life resolution than a 6 or 10 Mpix CCD operating behind an anti-liaising filter. No wonder a photographer upgrading from an early dSLR was a bit surprised by the “surgical” nature of the JPEGs.

*Venice, on Dec 25th 2010 – Shot with a Nikon D80 and a Sigma 18-125 lens.* (10 Megapixel CCD Sensor)

So…

The “CCD look” was a JPEG thing.
the “film like” look of images captured with CCDs was the result of lower resolution sensors, thick anti-liaising filters, and above all a product of the JPEG image processing algorithms used at that time.
With modern cameras, “film like” behavior can be emulated to a much higher degree than what the JPEG engines of the cameras of 2005 could do. Film emulation (or Picture Styles or whatever the camera manufacturer calls its brand of JPEG rendering recipe) is not only good at mimicking the tonal response and the colors of film, but also its grain.
Now that every camera maker is proposing some form of “Picture Control” or film simulation to customize the output of their JPEG rendering engine, it’s remarkable that nobody is proposing “CCD emulation”. Maybe it was not so much of an issue after all?
CCD equipped cameras are still available on the second hand market, are generally very cheap, and will give your images the full CCD look if it’s what you’re after.

CCD equipped compact cameras

The compact (point and shoot) cameras of the early days of the digital migration are the ones delivering images closer to the film look, probably because of the low resolution of their image sensor and the very consumer oriented tuning of their JPEG rendering engine. I’m still impressed by the “Barbie at the beach” look of the JPEGs of my old Canon S400 Powershot (Digital Elph or Ixus).

Compact cameras switched from CCD to CMOS sensors later than dSLRs – the last models being launched around 2011.

*Miami Beach in 2004 – Canon Powershot S400* (4 Megapixel CCD Sensor)

CCD sensor equipped dSLRs

With the exception of sensors manufactured by Kodak for the Leica M9 (which had very significant long term reliability issues), there is no Full Frame CCD sensor, and only one APS-C sensor with a resolution higher than 10 Megapixel (a 14 Mpix APS-C sensor only used by Sony on the Alpha 280/380 series, which had a reputation of being no good above 800 ISO).

Because of the technical characteristics of CCDs, there never was a CCD equipped mirrorless camera, or a CCD equipped dSLR offering real Live-View capabilities (the Sony Alpha 350/380/390 used a second, dedicated sensor in its viewfinder to offer Live-View). The last dSLRs equipped with CCD sensors were launched around 2010 (Nikon D3000, Sony Alpha 290 and 390).

Let’s focus on the 10 megapixel cameras from Nikon, Olympus, Pentax and Sony:

Nikon D200, D80, D40X, D60, D3000 – they all share a 10 Megapixel CCD sensor of the same family. The D200 is often considered the best CCD equipped dSLR ever, but it’s a big and heavy camera designed for pros. There is little difference between the D40X, the D60 and the D3000 – all three are entry level dSLRs designed for beginners and amateurs. The D80 sits in-between. A Nikon D80 was my main camera for years, and I’m still impressed by the quality of the pictures I took with it (I love the D80’s JPEGs).
Olympus was the first camera maker to take advantage of CMOS sensors to offer Live View in a limited fashion (on the E330 in 2006). The e400 of the same year is their last dSLR with a CCD sensor (a 10 Megapixel sourced from Kodak). Like the Nikon D200, the e400 has a legion of enthusiastic fans and is comparatively expensive second hand.
Pentax K10D, K200D, K-M, K-2000 – the K10D is the big semi-pro camera, the other models are smaller and more amateur oriented. The 10 Megapixel Pentax dSLRs are generally appreciated for their beautiful RAW files, but reviewers complain about their comparatively poor JPEGs, which may not be great if you’re after the CCD look.
Sony a100, a200 and a300 series – all are the successors of Konica-Minolta 5D. The 100 and 200 series are very conventional amateur oriented models, the models of the 300 series offer Live-View capabilities thanks to a second dedicated image sensor.

Canon is absent from that list. For their line of dSLRs, they made a very early bet on CMOS – I believe that the EOS-1d of 2001 is their only CCD-equipped dSLR. Note that they kept on integrating CCD sensors in their line of digital point and shoot cameras until 2011.

Venice - Nikon FE2 - Fujicolor 400 — *Venice – Nikon FE2 – Fujicolor 400 – Dec. 2010*

The value of cameras on the second hand market tends to be driven primarily by the sensor resolution – and 10 megapixels is considered so low that all the cameras of this list can be bought for less than $150 (the Nikon D200 is the most expensive, the oldest “amateur” models being the cheapest at $50.00 to $70.00). Interestingly, 10 Mpix CCD compact cameras like the Canon G12 or the Nikon P7100 currently sell for more than the best 10 Megapixels dSLRs. Nikon D200 included.

Venice, Dec 2008 – Nikon D80 (CCD Sensor)

Atlanta Aquarium – Canon Powershot S400 (CCD Sensor)

Pentax KP – Quirky grip design – great camera (Part Two)

The Pentax KP – an APS-C Digital SLR competing in the same category as the Nikon D7500 and the Canon 90D – was presented in a recent blog entry. It was sold between 2017 and 2021, and was spec’d to slot between the “amateur” oriented Pentax K-70/KF, and the very expensive Pentax K-3 Mk III.

The K-70/KF and the K-3 have bodies which are very conventional for dSLRs (and make them easy to live with), but the design of the KP is reminiscent of the manual focus SLRs of the eighties (and of the very successful Fujifilm X series mirrorless cameras), which creates some ergonomics and battery life challenges.

Without a direct legacy in the current Pentax line-up, the KP remains a very interesting proposition for Pentax shooters – with a 24 Mpix sensor and a processing engine of recent design, it is still up to date when compared to mid level APS-C mirrorless cameras. In fact, in terms of image quality and high ISO performance, it’s only second to the much more expensive K-3 Mk III in the Pentax APS-C line-up. And contrarily to its K-3 biggest brothers, it has an articulated rear display, which makes composing the image in “Live-View” mode easier.

*High Falls State Park, GA – Pentax KP – Pentax DA 35mm f/2.8 Macro Limited*

Shooting with the KP : the optical viewfinder

Because it’s Pentax’s main differentiator, the optical viewfinder of their dSLRs is the object of the utmost care – and the truth is that – for an APS-C camera, the KP has a very good OVF. The specs sheet reads like a dream come true. The OVF’s pentaprism is made out of glass, it covers almost 100% of the captured image, with a magnification factor of 0.95x and an eye relief of 20.5mm. The focusing screen is fine and bright enough to let you set the focus “manually” with pre-autofocus era lenses.

It’s still an APS-C (meaning cropped sensor) camera, which makes some of the figures of the specs sheet misleading – the announced magnification factor of 0.95x would translate into a relatively mediocre 0.63x on a full frame dSLR (a Pentax K-1 or a Nikon D780 reach 0.7x, and the very best full frame cameras 0.76x). The viewfinder does not exactly give you the immersive view you get in the OVF of a professional full frame dSLR – but composing your pictures through the viewfinder of the KP is still a very pleasant experience – it is large and luminous enough to let you judge how the image will look like without having to double check the rear digital display all the time – it’s very significant step up over the “dark tunnel vision” experienced with the entry-level dSLRs from some other manufacturers.

There is no electronics to introduce a delay between what happens on the scene and what you see on the focusing screen, and – for whatever reason (I know, old habits and old age…), I find it easier to mentally project the final image when I compose on the focusing screen of an optical viewfinder rather than on the LCD panel of an electronic viewfinder.

Shooting with the KP: The third control wheel

Like cars, cameras are software defined those days. Everything can be configured and menus have become incredibly long and complex. The KP is not different, but Pentax has introduced one trick to make the photographer’s life easier, the “third control wheel”.

On a relatively compact camera like the KP, the real estate where to place dedicated buttons and switches is limited, and the quantity of options and settings offered in the menus can be overwhelming.

There are settings for which no dedicated physical control is available but that you may wish to change without having to dig deep into pages and pages menus. That’s where the third control wheel – the so called “smart function dial” comes into play.

The “smart function dial” is a big knob on the top plate that can take one of six positions – three pre-defined by Pentax, and three user-defined. Imagine you’re in front of a high contrast scene – you know you’re going to need to set the camera to HDR mode, but don’t know how to configure it. Place the big dial on the HDR position, and rotate the third control wheel at the far right of the top plate to select the desired HDR setting. Take the picture, review the result, then simply rotate the third control wheel left of right to select another HDR setting, and repeat until you get a picture you like.

*The “smart function dial” with its “AE-HDR-CH/CL…” markings is paired with the unmarked control wheel on its right. A very good idea, nicely implemented.*

In my experience, the real value sits with the user configurable functions, C1, C2 and C3. I’ve set C1 to change the exposure compensation value. If I’m facing a scene difficult to evaluate, I position the knob on C1, and use the third wheel to circle through the different exposure compensation values. Similarly, I configured C2 to easily switch from an ISO value to another.

The third control wheel may seem gimmicky, or redundant (I could also access the exposure compensation or the ISO settings using a dedicated key and the second control wheel or the Info page on the rear display), but it saves time if you need to change a parameter frequently or if you’re trying different options when facing a complex scene, and I ended up using it a lot.

Not so good: Battery life

Well, it’s not brilliant. Not as bad as a Fujifilm X-H1, for instance, but not great at all, and frankly disappointing for a dSLR. Because there was no room in the KP’s body for the large battery of the K-5/K-3 series, Pentax used the small 1050 mAh battery introduced in 2010 with the K-r, and typically coming with Pentax’s entry level models (it’s still being used in the KF). For reference, the K-5 and the K-3 use a 1860 mAh battery, delivering almost twice the capacity.

The KP is begging to be used in Live View Mode (why would Pentax have specified a tiltable rear screen otherwise), which increases the power consumption and makes the choice of a small battery even more puzzling. When Nikon dSLRs can easily shoot 1000 pictures on a charge, the KP is struggling to deliver more than three hundreds (it’s rated at 420 shots per charge by CIPA, which seems pretty optimistic). Be sure to have one or two charged spare batteries with you, or the battery grip attached.

The battery grip accepts one lithium battery (either the small type of the KP/KF or the large type of the K-5/K-3) and its capacity comes in addition to the battery already in place in the body of the camera, effectively doubling the total battery capacity (with the small KP/KF battery) or almost tripling it (with the large K-5/K-3 battery).

*Apart from the KP, only the full frame Pentax K-1 has a tillable rear display – it tilts forward….*

The Live View mode and macro-photography

This is not a mirrorless camera, and even though the image sensor has photosites dedicated to phase detection autofocus, they are only mobilized when shooting videos, and not when taking still images.

Therefore, when in the Live-View mode, the KP won’t have the speed and reactivity of a good mirrorless ILC (to shoot sports, wild life or other moving subjects, use the optical viewfinder, that’s what it’s here for). But on relatively static and evenly lit subjects (landscape, interior photography, macro photography), the autofocus of the Live View mode works extremely well.

On other subjects (moving objects or people, scenes with strong highlights), it struggles, and hunts vainly for focus (I’ve read it performs better with recent lenses equipped with an internal focusing motor). On earlier Pentax models, Live-View looked like a clunky afterthought. Here, it’s well implemented but only usable with a limited type of subjects.

Image Quality

I don’t know if it’s the camera, or the prime Pentax 35mm Macro “Limited” prime lens . Or the combination they form. But I’ve been really pleased and genuinely impressed with the quality of the images.

The images (RAW and JPEGs) are correctly exposed, with pleasing colors, they show an impressive dynamic range, and need very few adjustments – no need to play with the exposure, the highlights or the clarity sliders to get pictures you can be proud of. And it’s true for landscapes, for interiors, for pictures of objects, when composing through the optical viewfinder and on the rear display in Live-View mode.

You can see Pentax dSLRs as obsolete pieces of machinery, and you would have a point when it comes to their live-view or video capabilities, but as far as still image quality is concerned, they’re perfectly up to date.

*“Only time will tell” – on the trail markers of the Sweetwater Creek Park (GA), interesting messages are often written by visitors. I saw this one long after the picture was taken.*

A mirrorless killer?

No way.

The KP is a niche product. You shoot with a KP either because you’re a committed Pentax dSLR photographer and will not consider any other camera system, or because from time to time you want to enjoy to experience of composing your images through an optical viewfinder, with a camera whose user interface you can configure in depth and to your liking.

Objectively, compared to the best mirrorless ILCs, the KP’s autofocus is not as capable (it only offers face detection in live view, for instance, not when composing through the optical viewfinder), the autofocus in the live-view mode only works well with relatively static and evenly lit subjects, video capture is comparatively primitive and most surprisingly for a dSLR, battery life is sub-par (recent mirrorless cameras do better). As for the ergonomics, it’s an acquired taste – the KP is extremely compact (smaller than a Fujifilm X-T series for instance), but also heavier and not as pleasant to hold if paired with its small grip.

Image quality is extremely good and pictures have a pleasant “Pentax Touch”, but the best mirrorless cameras are no slouch either, and nowadays a lot can be accomplished with presets and filters in image editing software. Last by not least, the vendors of APS-C mirrorless cameras – Canon, Fujifilm, Nikon or Sony – all have a significant market presence and a clear product roadmap, which can’t be said for Pentax.

So, what’s left? The thing that mirrorless cameras can’t offer: the direct, immediate view of the scene through an optical viewfinder. That, and the fact that the user interface is so rich in buttons, knobs and control wheels that the camera can be configured to work exactly like you feel it should. The KP is a genuine pleasure to shoot with and naturally pushes the photographer to explore and experiment.

Except to pay between $550.00 and $750.00 for a used KP located in the US. Pentax cameras used to have a much stronger following in Japan than in America, and most of the used KPs are located there. They will be subject to tariffs and fees if imported into the US. Tariffs and fees may (or may not) be included in the announced shipping costs. It’s a point to validate before placing the order.

More about the KP:

DPReview: https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/pentax-kp-review
Pentaxforums: https://www.pentaxforums.com/reviews/pentax-kp-review/introduction.html
PentaxUser: https://www.pentaxuser.com/review/pentax-kp-dslr-review-1038
Kobie MC on Youtube: https://youtu.be/N5fAc45_UdE?si=iMBC23n53vBdcwA9

For a similar budget, should you buy a used K-3 Mk II or a used KP?

The KP is a more modern but somehow quirky evolution of the K-3 Mk II. Its image sensor is more recent, its image processing engine more elaborate, and it will deliver marginally nicer pictures, particularly at high ISOs. The third control wheel is also unique to the KP, and more useful than I thought.

The tiltable rear screen is in my opinion the main reason to prefer a KP over a K-3 II. It makes the camera easier to use for macro photography, when shooting with a wide angle lens or from the hip in the street, all situations where the live-view option can be put to better use with a tiltable LCD. Alternatively, its more conventional design is the main reason to prefer a K-3 Mk II, in particular if you shoot with long and heavy lenses, and believe that the tiltable rear screen is going to make the KP too fragile in the long run.

K-3 Mk II or KP, it’s up to you – but be warned: it may whet your appetite for an even more modern take on the classic Pentax optical viewfinder camera theme, the K-3 Mk III.

Pentax KP – Quirky grip design – great camera (Part One)

Only Canon, Nikon and Pentax still have dSLRs in their product catalogs, but although they’re still on the shelves of the retailers, I don’t know if any of those dSLRs is still being manufactured.

Pentax is committed to the dSLR architecture, and with the full frame K-1 Mk II, and no less than three cropped sensor models, the KF, the K-3 Mk III and the K-3 Monochrome, they have the youngest dSLR model range of the remaining big three (all four Pentax models were launched between 2018 and 2023).

Between the predecessor of the current KF (the K-70) and a then to come K-3 Mk III, Pentax thought there was room for an intermediate model, the KP, a technical evolution of the K-3 Mk II, but with a totally different design.

*Pentax KP (left) and K-5 (right).* *A very different ergonomic study* *(this KP is shown with the “small” removable grip).*

Launched in 2017 and retired in 2021, the KP begged to be different – from its Pentax siblings and from Canon & Nikon’ remaining dSLRs.

The KP was designed as a sort of mini K-1, with the aim of looking physically smaller than the K-3, but be more configurable and more solidly built than the entry level K-70. Its styling was reminiscent of the manual focus, non motorized cameras of the nineteen seventies, with a slim body and a shutter release button placed in the middle of the top plate.

Equipped with a newer generation 24 Mpix sensor, the KP retained the autofocus module of the “pro” K-3 Mk II. Like it, it could be fitted with an optional battery grip. It inherited the image processing engine of the K-1, and improved on its full frame brother with a more flexible configuration for its third control wheel.

Beyond the style, the KP’s main differentiation point with the K-70 and the K-3 Mk II was the ability for the photographer to choose between 3 sizes of hand grips.

The design of those interchangeable hand grips is somehow controversial. Professional reviewers like Chris Nichols of DPReview and Petapixel fame positively hated it. Among the Pentax photographers, some like it, some shoot with a KP in spite of it, and some remained true to the K-3 Mk II because of it.

*Trying to hold the KP firmly with one hand – a rather uncomfortable way to use this camera*

The small grip was supposed to be mounted on the KP when the photographer was shooting with small (and light) primes, the large grip (and the battery grip) when shooting with a long and heavy tele-lens or tele-zoom, and the medium one the rest of time.

In the American market, the camera was packaged with the three hand grips initially, but after a while Pentax only included the small grip in the base configuration, the large one being part of an extra cost bundle also including a battery grip, and the medium sized one being sold separately for $49.99. None of those grips is available now, and my KP will be stuck with its small grip for the time being.

*Pentax KP next to a Fujifilm X-T4 – counter-intuitively, the mirrorless camera is larger than the dSLR, and offers a significantly longer battery life.*

The Pentax KP is not the only camera with a retro-inspired, small grip design – look no further than the very successful Fujifilm X series, but what works very well on a X-100 or a X-T4 does not click on the KP.

First impressions – is the grip worth the buzz?

Pentax APS-C cameras tend to be small, and the KP looks even smaller than its siblings. But it’s not its compact size that strikes you the most when you bring the viewfinder of the camera to your eye for the first time, it’s its weight. It’s not really heavier than a Pentax K-5 or K-3 (all tip the scales at approximately 700 g), but its compact design and its small grip make its weight much more noticeable.

*Pentax K-5 – you can hold it with one hand with confidence*, *and even adjust some settings with the rear control wheel.*

On a K-5 or a K-3 (and on other dSLRs of more conventional design), the camera can be held firmly with the palm of the right hand and the three lower fingers, leaving the thumb and the index free to move and reach the different control wheels and commands. You can be confident that you won’t drop the camera while you’re moving around your subject, looking for the right angle.

If you try and hold the KP with one hand, you have to pinch the right side of the camera between your thumb and three of your remaining fingers (no room for the pinky). Even with a prime lens or a light zoom, we’re talking about two pounds of glass and metal here, that you will be afraid to drop if your fingers start releasing their grip (it’s not a coincidence that the previous owner of this camera had included a wrist strap in the package I received).

*How the KP has to be operated if equipped with the small grip – held firmly in the palm in the left hand, right hand thumb and index on the controls.*

With the small grip in place, the KP definitely requires a two-hand operation.

Solutions to the hand grip challenge

The design, the ergonomics and the small grip of the KP may work for you. Personally I would have liked the camera to be more conducive to one hand operations, and I believe that the slim design of the KP would have worked better if the camera had been one or two hundred grams lighter and its body just a bit taller.

The simplest way for me to address my “grip problem” would be to buy the OEM large grip (Pentax reference O-GP1672). Based on the input of other KP users, it should make “one hand operations” easier. If only I could locate one.

Pentax KP with the Battery Grip – the battery grip is designed to be paired with the large hand grip – but even with the small hand grip still in place, it makes the camera much more comfortable to hold.

The camera I bought came with the optional Pentax D-BG7 battery grip (but without the large hand grip, unfortunately). I’m not a fan of battery grips in general because they make the camera bulkier and often require to remove the battery door, but in the case of the KP, the battery door (and the OEM battery) remain in place, and the grip addresses two of the KP’s glaring issues – the battery life and the ergonomics, without much of a weight penalty (300g approx).

With the battery grip in place, the battery capacity of the camera almost triples: the 1050 mAh battery remains in the body of the camera, and only starts being drained when the battery located in the grip is depleted (the grip accepts the same 1050 mAh battery as the camera does, or the larger 1860 mAh battery of the Pentax K-5/K-3 series).

As for the ergonomics, the battery grip is a huge improvement. It’s supposed to help with vertical composition, but even when composing an horizontal image it makes the camera much easier to hold and control : I’m not afraid to grab it with one hand anymore, and although the front control wheel remains difficult to access, the one at the back of the body is easily reached.

A last option is to do for the KP what I did for my other “slim bodied” cameras (the Fujifilm X series and Sony HX-60): I ordered a Leather Half Case from a non specified Chinese vendor on AliExpress. Those half cases add almost a centimeter of leather under the bottom plate, they also make the front of the camera’s body a bit thicker and increase the surface presented to the fingers, making the camera much easier to hold.

*One of the many online stores selling KP half cases.*

I picked the black one (it’s also available in fancier colors). This half case is well finished, and makes the KP much more comfortable to hold. A few millimeters here and there can do a lot. I can even reach the rear control wheel while holding the camera firmly in the palm of my right hand. A definitive improvement, and a permanent fixture on my camera now.

*The leather half case makes the KP much easier to work with.*

Shooting with the Pentax KP

Now that I’ve described in length my two major gripes with the KP, it’s time to discuss the positives. Optical viewfinder, abundance of physical controls, configurability, and of course, image quality. It’s a very pleasant camera to use, that begs to be taken to a photo stroll, and will reward you with great pictures. More about the Pentax KP in the next blog post, in two weeks.

More recent content in CamerAgX

Georgia pictures from my Flickr Album

*Cartersville, GA – home of the first Coca-Cola wall advertisement (1894). Restored in 1989. Pentax KP – Pentax DA Limited 35mm f/2.8 macro*

*Cartersville, GA – Pentax KP – Pentax DA Limited 35mm f/2.8 macro*

*Cartersville, GA – one of the many restaurants painted in Coca-Cola colors. Pentax KP. Pentax DA Limited 35mm F/2.8*

*Cartersville, GA – another Coca-Cola Red restaurant. Still standing. Pentax KP. Pentax DA Limited 35mm F/2.8* macro.

*Cartersville, GA – the 4 Way Lunch restaurant – Detail – Pentax KP – Pentax DA Limited 35mm F/2.8*

The Blue Ocean, or how Pentax’s positioning of the K-3 III affects second hand camera prices

If you’ve spent time on Pentax dedicated forums, you may have read that Pentax and Ricoh (the owner of the Pentax brand) follow a “blue ocean strategy” and want Pentax dSLRs to become “the Leica M of the dSLRs”.

I don’t know if those statements are coming directly from Ricoh or are just an invention of creative bloggers. But it aligns very well with what Ricoh have been doing with the GR series, and Pentax with the K-3 Mk III.

“Blue Ocean” means that instead of competing with sharks in an area rich in preys – so rich it’s tainted red by the blood of the victims, you retreat to a zone with fewer fish, but also fewer competing predators, and no blood. The Blue Ocean. As for becoming a Leica M equivalent, it obviously relates to a strategy where – by sticking to a technology that everybody else has abandoned, you build a niche for yourself and serve a small group of highly motivated (and wealthy) users with products which are without an equivalent anywhere else.

*Pentax K-5 II – Sigma 8-16mm lens – bench in Atlanta, GA*

You can see the Blue Ocean strategy at play in the way Ricoh declines its ultra compact GR camera into a series of extremely specialized products (GR IIIX with 40mm lens, GR IV monochrome, GR IV High Diffusion Filter, …). As for being the Leica M of dSLRs, consider the case of the Pentax K-3 Mk III: the last and arguably most elaborate APS-C dSLR launched by any camera manufacturer, it was proposed at a comparatively very high price, and was followed by an even more expensive variant equipped with a monochrome sensor – that’s taken directly from the Leica marketing playbook.

You can argue that Pentax did not have much success as an innovator in the recent years (the Q series and the K-01 did not meet their public), and that until recently they were selling cameras primarily on value.

*Pentax K-5 II – Pentax DA 18-55 lens – porch in Marietta, GA*

The K-7, K-5 and the K-3 Mk I and Mk II are a good example: not rated as highly as Canon or Nikon’s best cameras when it came to autofocus or video performance (for instance), they produced images of high quality, and offered advantages unique in their category (in body image stabilization, full weather sealing) at a price point lower than their competition.

The pricing strategy started changing with the launch of the Pentax KP in 2017 and became obvious with the release of the K-3 Mk III – which clearly tried to be the best dSLR with an APS-C sensor – ever – but was at the same time more expensive than Canon and Nikon’s offerings.

As of today, you still have to spend almost $1800 for a new K-3 Mk III (that’s the 2025 Holiday promotion, it still lists officially at $2000) and up to $2200 for a K-3 Mk III Monochrome, which is much higher than Canon’s 90D at $1200, and Nikon’s only remaining new APS-C dSLR, the d7500 currently selling for $700.

It percolates on the cost of older Pentax dSLRs on the second hand market – the K-5 and the first two K-3 models could still be considered bargain buys not so long ago, but the K-3 Mk III has pulled the prices upwards. Being the most recent predecessors of the K-3 Mk III, the K-3 Mk II and the KP are logically the most impacted.

The introduction of tariffs on second hand cameras coming from Japan has made the matter worse by cutting the main source for cheap Pentax cameras: imported second hand Pentax dSLRs are subject to tariffs, factor that if you buy from a Japanese retailer.

*Pentax K-5 II – Pentax DA 18-55 lens – Hood decoration (Chevrolet)*

More about Pentax cameras in CamerAgX

The recent Pentax cropped sensor dSLRs line up today: from the K-5 to the KP in a few words

The Pentax K-5, K-5 II and K-5 IIs: Available new between 2010 and 2013, the K-5 remains a very good value proposition – with a solid build, a long battery life, great ergonomics and a very good 16 MPIX sensor delivering very good images. Some details are dated: there is no WiFi, and live view and video capabilities are very limited, but it’s still a very good camera if you’re shooting exclusively still images. Nice copies of the K-5 can still be found between $200.00 and $250.00. The K-5 IIs is approx. $100 more expensive.

The Pentax K-3 and K-3 II: – Sold between 2013 and 2017, the K-3 and the K-3 II are essentially a K-5 IIs with a 24 Mpix sensor. The K3 II gets a better autofocus system and an integrated GPS but the K-3 and the K-3 II keep the same fundamental qualities and limitations as the K-5. And they make you pay dearly for their 24 Mpix sensor (up to $650 for a K-3 Mk II).

The Pentax K-70 and KF – launched respectively in 2017 and 2022 – are more or less the same camera under a different name – they are the remote successors of cameras like the K-r tested last year in those pages, the last two representents of a long line of the mid-level Pentax dSLRs. They benefit from some “pro” features like weather sealing and in body image stabilization, they have the same 100% viewfinder and the same 24 Mpix sensor as the K-3 or the KP and offer WiFi and Bluetooth connectivity. The LCD display at the back is fully articulated. But their autofocus module is dated and limited, they’re not as solidly built as a K-3 or the KP (polycarbonate instead of a magnesium alloy), they are deprived of the K-5 and K-3’s top plate display and only have one SD card slot and a smaller battery.

Note that the entry-level or mid level Pentax dSLRs (starting with the K-30 up to the K-70s built before 2021) may all suffer from issues with the solenoid controlling the aperture – the most recent K-70s and the KF are using a different component and will be OK. The KF is still available new for approximately $650.00 in the US, and a nice second hand K-70 can be had for $400.

*Pentax K-r – “SR” is for “Shake Reduction”. It’s a important differentiator – no other brand offers in body image stabilization (IBIS) on digital reflex cameras*.

The Pentax KP was launched in 2017 as a replacement of the K-3 II, and discontinued in 2021. It introduced a new slim, retro-inspired body design with user replaceable hand grips – esthetically pleasant but with controversial ergonomics. It benefited from a new and improved image processing engine and from a tiltable rear display. It combined characteristics inherited from the K-3 II (24 mpix sensor, all metal construction, 27 point autofocus system) with characteristics typically seen on entry level cameras (only one SD card slot, small battery, no top plate LCD display). If you can live with those limitations and its ergonomics, it’s the closest you’ll get to the image quality of the K-3 Mk III, at a fraction of the price.

Like the K-3 Mk II, the KP has become expensive – the typical second hand price being in the $600 to $750 range.

*The KP’s differentiator – a tillable rear display*

I only know the Pentax K-3 Mk III from its specs sheet, and reviews I’ve read or watched here and there. Under a body that looks similar to the previous K-3s, it’s a very different camera, and now that the Nikon D500 has been discontinued, a credible candidate to the title of most elaborate APS-C dSLR.

With a new 26 MPIX BSI sensor, a new autofocus system, a top plate LCD display, a third control wheel, a touch screen and a joystick to select from 41 autofocus points – it’s a very significant step above the K-3 II and the KP. It has almost everything expected from a top of the line dSLR, and its specs sheet compares favorably with the best APS-C mirrorless cameras. The only glaring omission is the lack of an articulated or tiltable rear screen, which can be an issue when shooting with wide angle lenses or for macro-photography. Still available new from retailers, it can not be found second hand for less than $1300, more than twice as much as a more abundant Nikon D500.

*Pentax KP – Pentax DA 35mm f/2.8 macro lens. Sweetwater Creek, GA*

My surprising… image of the year

A few weeks ago I was writing that at least on Flickr, the make and model of the camera had very little influence on how an image was received.

Case in point.

Just before Thanksgiving, I posted a picture taken a few years ago in Atlanta’s Little Five Points neighborhood with a Pentax P3, a film camera that suffered a terminal failure a few rolls of film later (an issue with the film advance mechanism like most of the P3s, of course). The lens – the Pentax A 35-70 f/3.5-4.5 – was so bad I got rid of it (my copy was faulty – the lens has a decent reputation otherwise). The image was not that great either but was made more interesting in post-processing with Lightroom, and in a few weeks, it has become my most appreciated image of the year in Flickr.

I even received a request to use it from a pro-bicycle user group…. Go figure.

I’ve been traveling recently, and will be on the road again during the holiday season. I’m not forgetting this blog, in fact I’m harvesting more images for later use, but it’s very likely that this post will be the last one before Christmas.

Happy Holidays to you and to your families.

*Atlanta Little Five Points. Pentax P3/P30 – Pentax A 35-70mm f/3.5-4.5* – *the wall has been repainted since, and is far less interesting…*

*Trying to save a compromised image in Lightroom.*

More of the same series….Same camera, same lens, same roll of film.

*Another image from the same roll of film – Atlanta, Inman Park.*

*Ford Bronco II – Inman Park Neighborhood, Atlanta.*

More recent content in CamerAgX

Shooting with a 6Mpix Pentax *ist DS – when old gear is really too old

The price of a digital camera on the second hand market is more or less proportional to the number of pixels of its image sensor – interchangeable lens cameras (dSLRs and mirrorless) with anything between 24 and 50 Megapixel (Mpix) sensors are considered current and command big bucks, while models with less than 10 Mpix are deemed virtually worthless.

Case in point – I bought a Pentax *ist DS (a 6 Mpix dSLR from 2004), a bit scruffy but in working order, for less then $35.00.

So, it’s cheap, but is it still usable?

*Pentax *ist DS – Pentax kit lens 18-55* – Vinings Jubilee (Atlanta) – Sept 2025

For comparison – same lens, same ISO settings, same hour of the day – Pentax K-5 – minor adjustments in Lightroom. Click on the image to see it at full resolution – you will see the difference.

Why the Pentax *ist DS back then?

At the turn of the century, the photography market was different from what it was to become a few years later – there were only four companies in the world selling digital SLRs (Canon, Fuji, Kodak and Nikon). And those cameras were very expensive, and primarily bought by news agencies and well heeled pros.

2002 saw a first wave of more affordable digital SLRs reach the market (Canon, Fuji and Nikon all launched models in the $2000 price range). Pentax and Olympus joined the fray in 2003 with the *ist D and the E-1. At the end of 2003 Canon made digital SLRs affordable for amateurs with the Rebel 300D, the first dSLR to sell for less than $1000.00.

Nikon and Pentax followed rapidly with two models priced around $1000, the D70 and the *ist DS. Like millions of amateurs, I was looking for my first digital SLR in those days, and the *ist DS was my pick. Its specs were not that different from the D70 or the Rebel. What made the difference for me was its small size, its large viewfinder, and the good reviews of its kit lens.

Of course, I sold it after a few years to upgrade to a 10 Mpix camera, which itself was sold a few years later to fund the next upgrade, and so on.

*Family Reunion* – *the *ist DS (left) looks serious in black, the K-r (right) was available in fancy colors.*

Why a *ist DS now?

A few months ago, I bought a colorful Pentax K-r (a 12 Mpix camera from 2010) and was surprised by the quality of the RAW files it delivered. You pay a bit more for the colored body of a K-r, but all white and all black models can be found for less than $100.00. In my recollections, the *ist DS was a good little camera, and I was wondering what it would be like to shoot with a 6 MPIX dSLR now. I started checking the usual auction sites, and $34.00 made me the proud new owner of another Pentax camera.

*Pentax *ist DS – Pentax 18-55 Kit Lens – Vinings Jubilee (Atlanta) – adjusted to taste in Lightroom*

First impressions

I had shot a few thousand of pictures with my *ist DS in the early 2000s, so this “new” *ist DS is not really a total unknown for me.

What struck me immediately when I received my $35.00 *ist DS is how similar it looked to the K-r; as if Pentax had kept the same moulds over the 7 years that separate the two cameras. The *ist DS is smaller than Nikon’s mid-range APS-C of the same vintage, but the general organization of the commands is strikingly similar to what current Pentax and Nikon APS-C dSLRs look like – to a large extent the dSLR camera had already found its final form in 2004.

*Pentax *ist DS (left) and Pentax K-5 (right) – the layout of the commands is very similar – the most striking difference is the rear LCD display – a huge progress in the space of a few years*.

Visually, the biggest difference is the rear LCD display – the DS’ is very small (2in diagonal, some smart-watches have larger displays), and its dynamic range very limited.

*Pentax *ist DS – this picture was in the performance envelope of the camera.*

My $34.00 camera is old, and definitely not in tip-top shape (the mode selector is stuck in the Auto-Pict position, the integrated pop-up flash seems to be dead), but it still works well enough to get an opinion about this generation of 6 Mpix cameras.

Back in 2005, DPReview was very happy with the responsiveness of the camera, but concerned with the quality of its JPEGs. Today, the standards are different, but the responsiveness is still OKay-ish – when there is enough light for the autofocus to operate – otherwise it hunts desperately.

As for the image quality, even in RAW, it’s often disappointing.

*Pentax *ist DS – even in Lightroom and starting from RAW, I could not get the sky, the church and flower bed to be exposed correctly at the same time.*

*Pentax *ist DS – another image (taken at around 11am) where the limited dynamic range of the sensor is clearly visible.*

*For comparison – same lens, same ISO settings, same hour of the day – Pentax K-5 – minor adjustments in Lightroom. The difference is striking.*

The camera is twenty years old, may have been treated badly by some of its owners, and may not perform as well as when it was new, but, in any case,

the dynamic range of the sensor is limited (DXO evaluates it at 10 EVs, as opposed to 14 EVs for the sensor of a more recent Pentax K-5 for instance). If the scene is lit evenly, the results are correct, but even Lightroom can’t save RAW images like the picture of this old church or that plant on my deck.
I’ve been used to shooting with cameras and lenses equipped with image stabilization mechanisms, which this *ist DS is deprived of. Images which would have been technically good with a camera from the 2010s are blurry because of camera shake,
the autofocus is a hit or miss – it works fine on static scenes, not so well if the subject is moving or the scene too dark.

*Pentax *ist DS (left) and Pentax K-r (right) – even an entry level model like the K-r has a much better rear LCD display (and a Live View button). And it will perform much better*.

Conclusion

Obviously, this camera works, and in ideal circumstances, will deliver usable images. But even if the images are saved as RAW files, the highlights are often desperately burnt, and the shadows too dark. The autofocus struggles with moving subjects, in particular if they’re not perfectly centered, and because this model is deprived from image stabilization, images will be blurry if the photographer does not pay close attention to the shutter speed. Very clearly, there is a huge image quality and usability gap between this *ist DS and cameras launched six to seven years later.

In the days of $5.00 Starbucks Lattes and $10.00 McDonalds Value Meals, $34.00 is not a huge sum to spend on a digital camera. But if you put the equivalent of six more Value Meals on the table, you’ll get a much more usable Pentax K-r (or any equivalent 12 Mpix dSLR from the early 2010s). Add another five will get you a really nice 16 Mpix dSLR like a Pentax K-5, or an already modern mirrorless camera such as the Panasonic G2 (12 Mpix) or the Sony Nex 3 (14 Mpix).

*Pentax K-r – Centennial Park – Atlanta – the K-r only has a 12 Mpix sensor but behaves like a modern camera.*

I’m not necessarily attracted to the latest and greatest features of the newest cameras (I also shoot film with cameras from the 1980s…), and will be happy to shoot with a digital camera deprived of movie mode or of wifi/bluetooth connectivity, if it still delivers images of good quality, most of the time.

But if the performance of a camera (by modern standards) is so limited that I start missing too many potentially good pictures, the quest for minimalism goes too far to my taste.

*Pentax *ist DS – still powered by conventional AA batteries* – *no need for a charger (and the battery life is surprisingly good)*

It is true that when cameras like the Pentax *ist DS (and its Canon, Konica-Minolta or Nikon 6 Mpix competitors) were launched in 2004, we were impressed by the huge step they represented over the digital point and shoot digicams we’d been using for a few years, and even today, we’re still proud to share the best images we got from those early dSLRs. If I set it up carefully, and use it within the limits of its performance envelope, I’m sure that even my scruffy *ist DS will get me decent pictures.

But today, I see the Pentax *ist DS more as an interesting curiosity, than as a camera I could use day to day. In the six years that separate a Pentax *ist DS from a Pentax K-5 (or a Nikon D70 from a D7000), there has been a huge step forward in reactivity, resolution, dynamic range and low light image quality, a step so large, that if I had to chose, I would spend a bit more on a dSLR or a mirrorless camera of the early 2010s, and forget about the *ist DS.

More about Pentax cameras in CamerAgX

Pictures from my first *ist DS, shot between 2005 and 2007

*Pinup, French Bulldog – shot in Jan. 2005 with my first Pentax *ist DS.*

*Maui, Hawaii – at the top of the Haleakala – Pentax *ist DS*

*Charleston, SC – April 2005 – Pentax *ist DS*

*Fort Myers, Florida – Pentax *ist DS – Xmas 2005.*

*A cenote near Cancun, Mexico – Pentax *ist DS – July 2007*

A Pentax K-5 today: a compact, still highly capable dSLR for $150

Digital single-lens reflex (dSLR) cameras still have unique qualities. Even though modern mirrorless cameras outperform them in many situations, using the optical viewfinder on a good digital SLR is a real pleasure. I’ve used almost exclusively SLRs in my formative years, and it probably conditioned my eyes and my brain to be more comfortable and creative when I see a scene through an optical viewfinder. That’s why I finally decided to add another dSLR to my kit in complement to my mirrorless equipment.

I was not willing to spend too much money on this nostalgia trip – I had set a limit of about $150 but I still wanted the camera to have a great viewfinder, a lot of directly accessible commands, and a sensor capable of delivering technically satisfying pictures. The colorful Pentax K-r I reviewed recently was a good introduction to Pentax’s dSLRs family, but certainly not the “advanced”, “semi-pro” APS-C dSLR I was looking for.

My $150 budget consigned me to “advanced” or “prosumer” APS-C cameras from the early 2010s, with an image sensor in the 15 to 20 megapixel range. In that category, Pentax has always had a strong offering, with compact, well built cameras benefiting from a great optical viewfinder. Between the K-7, the K-5 and the K-3, which one was going to be my pick?

*Pentax K-5 Mk II – a typical “modal” user interface – most of the settings have their own dedicated key.*

Which Pentax K camera to choose?

Over the years, Pentax have introduced three generations of their “advanced” APS-C model line (the K-7, the K-5, the K-3), and have derived Mark II variants of the K-5 and K-3. The current K-3 Mark III launched in 2021 is not as directly related to the K-7 as its predecessors. It’s a very significant upgrade over the K-3 Mark II (it could have been named K-1 if there was not already a K-1 camera in Pentax’s line-up) and part of its appeal is that it’s also available with a monochrome sensor (as the K-3 Mark III Monochrome, of course).

The family saga started in 2009 with the K-7, equipped with a 14 mpix sensor manufactured by Samsung. The camera was so good it was used as the basis of the subsequent K-5 and K-3 models proposed by Pentax, up to the K-3 Mark II. The sensor, on the other hand, could have been better. It yielded good results up to 800 ISO, but gave up at higher sensitivities, producing images with significantly more noise than the competition. Even the K-7’s little brother, the Pentax K-r, equipped with a 12 Mpix Sony sensor, delivered better results in those situations.

*Pentax K-5 Mk II – this iteration of the camera has gained an “air gapless LCD screen”*

Not surprisingly, the Samsung sensor was replaced by a very good 16 Megapixel sensor in the follow up model, the K-5, launched only one year later. This sensor belonged to a family of high performance chips developed by Sony, which were also used to great results in Fujifilm, Nikon and Sony’s own cameras.

In 2012, the K-5 was replaced by two models, the K-5 II (or K-5 Mark II) – more or less the same camera but with an improved autofocus system, and the K-5 IIs (or Mark II ‘S’) – equipped with a sensor deprived of an anti-liaising filter, and offering a higher resolution of fine details as a result.

The K-3 of 2014 adopted a new 24 MPIX sensor, and was followed by a K-3 Mk II variant equipped with a GPS chip in 2015. As mentioned above, the current Mark III came seven years later with a more modern 26 Megapixel BSI sensor, a vastly improved autofocus system, an extra control wheel, a joystick to select the focus point, and new menus. It is the most “advanced” of all Pentax APS-C cameras, and, with the now discontinued Nikon D500, one of the two most elaborate APS-C dSLRs, ever.

*The Pentax K Mount is 50 years old – note the metal bayonet and the red gasket on the 18-55 DA AL WR zoom.*

Let’s talk money

Very often the price of a camera on the second hand market is not an exact reflection of its technical capabilities: the K-7 and the first generation K-5 can be found at the same price (between $150 and $200.00), when there is a real performance gap between the two models. The K-5 IIs is often $100.00 more expensive than a K-5, because of the higher resolution of fine details promised by its 16 Megapixel sensor, deprived of an anti-liaising filter.

The K-3 is much more expensive than any variant of the K-5 on the second hand market: with a 24 or 26 Megapixel sensor and no anti-liaising filter, its image quality is on par with the best in the current crop of mid level APS-C cameras, and its price is often established in reference to the hefty sum that Pentax is charging for a new K-3 Mark III. A used first generation K-3 can not easily be found for less than $450.00, and a second-hand K-3 Mark III will cross the $1,000 barrier.

For my needs the K-5 (the non “s” model) represented the best deal in the K-7-5-3 family. I found a very nice K-5 Mark II in the price range I was targeting, and it’s the model we’re going to review today.

*Colonial Homes – Blue Symmetry – Pentax K-5 / Pentax lens 18-55 f/3.5-5.6 AL WR*

First impressions

Yes, the camera is remarkably compact for a dSLR (in general), and for a model targeting enthusiasts, in particular. It’s not really larger than entry level dSLRs such as the Pentax K-r or the Nikon D3100, and it’s smaller than film era SLRs like a Nikon F90 or a Canon EOS 620. And next to a full frame digital dSLR like a Nikon D800 or a Canon 5d, it’s a dwarf.

*Two “advanced” dSLRs – Full frame on the left, APS-C sensor on the right. The difference in size and weight is striking.*

In comparison to a K-r or a D3100, it’s almost twice as heavy, though, because it’s built out of metal instead of plastic. It’s very substantial and seems very well built – and really feels like a tool a “pro” would use.

Another reason it’s heavier than a K-r or a D3100 is its viewfinder, which provides a significantly larger and brighter image. It’s visibly not as large or luminous as what you would find on a “pro” full frame camera (film or digital), but when you start considering the size and weight of the combo formed by a full frame body and its trans-standard zoom, then the K-5 looks like a very interesting compromise for action or travel photography.

Lastly, if you’ve been used to the modal interface of autofocus SLRs and dSLRs of any brand, you’ll feel right at home. The most current settings can be changed by pressing a dedicated touch, and then adjusting the value with the control wheel – and there are two of them, as it should be. If you trust Pentax’s default settings, you’ll be ready to shoot in no time.

*Pentax K-5 – note the lock on the battery door – Pentax takes “weather proofing” very seriously.*

Not everything is perfect, though, and in some areas it shows its age.

The menus look dated (big, low res fonts, plenty of tabs) and not inviting. The large LCD display at the back is fixed, and is not touch enabled. Of course there is no joystick to select the active autofocus area, and no way to upload wirelessly the images to a smartphone or a tablet. And I will not mention “live view” or video capabilities – the K-5 can’t compete with a mirrorless camera on the former, and not even with a recent smartphone on the latter.

In the gallery above – shot from the exact same distance from the rear lens of the viewfinder and not cropped in any way- what you see from the viewfinder of a Pentax K-r, a Pentax K-5, and a very good “pro-level” film camera: the Canon T90. The K-5’s viewfinder is not as large as a the viewfinder of a “full-frame” camera, but it’s actually pretty good for an APS-C. The difference with a K-r is very visible.

Shooting with the K-5

Shooting with the K-5 is a pleasant experience The combination of small size, impressive build quality and great ergonomics with a good viewfinder makes for a pretty unique experience.

With the K-5, most commands fall naturally under the fingers while shooting, and after a few minutes you’re totally comfortable with the camera.

You would have to move up to full frame dSLRs to find a larger viewfinder, but I’m not sure the improvement is significant enough to justify the weight and heft penalty, at least when you need to be mobile or operate discreetly.

Image quality was considered among the best for an APS-C camera in 2010 – its 16 Megapixel was praised by testers and users, but obviously 15 years later, the best in class APS-C mirrorless cameras will outclass it when it comes to fine detail resolution and control of noise.

Another area where camera makers have made significant progress since the K-5 was launched is the quality of the JPEG images out of camera – they can be uploaded to a phone wirelessly and from there shared on social media without any post-processing. But since the K-5 does not offer any form of wireless connectivity and can not interact with Ricoh’s iOS and Android app (it’s only supported on cameras launched after 2014), you will need to connect an SD card reader to a computer to upload the images anyway, and you might as well shoot RAW and post-process your images quickly in Lightroom Mobile or Classic while you’re at it.

*Atlanta – Bobby Jones Golf Course – Pentax K-5 / Pentax lens 18-55 f/3.5-5.6 AL WR*

A characteristic unique to Pentax dSLRs is the brand’s “Shake Reduction” system (the SR logo has been on their cameras since 2006). The image sensor is mounted on a platina that moves to counteract camera shake, allowing photographers to capture sharp hand-held images at shutter speeds 2.5 to 4 stops slower than would otherwise be possible – you won’t be afraid of shooting at 1/20sec with a short tele anymore.

Other dSLRs have to rely on an image stabilization system implemented in their lenses (which increases the lenses’ size and their cost) – but Pentax’s SR system works with any lens mounted on the camera (old and recent) because it’s implemented in the camera’s body.

We know that Pentax has been using the same physical “K” lens mount since 1975. Of course the current “KAF4” variant of the lens mount has more electrical contacts and all the autofocus gear needed to support the features specific to today’s cameras, but the K-5 is compatible to various degrees with any Pentax lens made since the mid seventies.

*The top plate display – very few APS-C cameras still have one.*

As a conclusion

A K-5 can be had for $150, with patience and a bit of luck. It was launched fifteen years ago, and it’s futile to compare its capabilities and performance to what its younger Pentax brother the K-3 Mark III or a Nikon D500 can deliver. And I won’t even start comparing the K-5 with current top of line APS-C mirrorless cameras from Canon, Fujifilm or Nikon.

But dollar for dollar, the K-5 offers a tremendous value: as an introduction to high quality cameras (for photographers upgrading from a smartphone or a digital point and shoot camera), it’s difficult to beat and it’s definitely worth every cent.

For the nostalgics of the optical viewfinder, shooting with a K-5 is also a way to indulge without breaking the bank. Used for what it’s good at, the camera is a pleasure to use and delivers high quality results. As far I could find, it’s also reliable, without any of the issues experienced with Pentax’s more amateur oriented cameras (like the K-30/K-50).

A modern mirrorless camera will do better in more situations and I don’t expect any mirrorless user to sell all their equipment to go back to a K-5, but as a complement to a good mirrorless kit, the K-5 also makes a lot of sense. Enjoy!

*Tortoise lost on the golf course – Atlanta – Pentax K-5 / Pentax lens 18-55 f/3.5-5.6 AL WR*

Do cameras and megapixels really matter?

Concerned about working with a “small” 16 megapixel sensor?

I have posted approximately 500 pictures on Flickr since the beginning of the year. The four images with the highest all time views were shot (recently) with a seventeen year old 12 Megapixel dSLR.

Even if high end PCs and laptops can support resolutions up to 8K (that would be 33 million points), most web sites and apps recommend not to upload images larger than 1920×1080 – (roughly 2 million points), and the most popular social network will down scale your images so that they fit in a square no larger than 2048x 2048 (4 million points).

What about prints?

As long as you don’t crop at all, a 10 Megapixel sensor has enough resolution for a high quality print in A4 or Letter format (assuming 300dpi), without any form of interpolation or over-sampling.

A 12 Megapixel sensor will give you more headroom, but you’ll need at least 16 Megapixels for a 11×14 inch high quality print (20 Megapixels would be better), and 24 Megapixels for a high quality 30×45 print (that’s centimeters- roughly 11x17in).

Obviously printing at a marginally lower resolution (250 dpi, for instance) will raise the maximum print size proportionately.

More megapixels and a large sensor may be needed in some circumstances, but ultimately, the old saying “f8 and be there” still rules. Be there. With a camera you’re comfortable with. Nothing else really counts.

More about Pentax cameras in CamerAgX

*Atlanta skyline from the reservoir in the Shirley Franklin Park – Pentax K-5 / Pentax lens 18-55 f/3.5-5.6 AL WR*

*Atlanta – Colonial Homes – Pentax K-5 / Pentax lens 18-55 f/3.5-5.6 AL WR*

Selling your mirrorless kit and going back to a digital SLR?

I’ve bought a few old Pentax cameras recently, film and digital, and out of curiosity I’ve started following what’s happening in the world of Pentax aficionados.

There was a passionate discussion recently on Pentaxforums.com, started by a photographer who was disappointed by his recent mirrorless camera system, and was considering selling everything to go back to a Pentax dSLR (he was balancing between a K-1 Mark II and a K-3 Mark III).

I am not going to pronounce him right or wrong – what he likes to shoot with or how he spends his money is his business, not mine. But not that many photographers are still interested in new dSLRs.

The fact is that digital single lens reflex cameras (dSLRs) form a rapidly receding niche, and that in the battle for the dollars of photographers (enthusiast amateurs, influencers, vloggers and pros alike), mirrorless cameras have won. A few data points to illustrate it.

*Panasonic G2 and Nikon D700 – mirrorless cameras can be made small*

When were the last dSLRs launched?

Olympus stopped selling dSLRs in 2013, and Sony officially discontinued their SLR and dSLR “A” Mount in 2021 (their last dSLR was launched in 2016). Canon’s most recent dSLR is the Rebel 8 from 2020, Nikon’s latest is the d780 from 2020, and Pentax’s is the K-3 Mark III, introduced in 2021. A variant of the K-3 with a monochrome image sensor was introduced in 2023, so that would make the K-3 III Monochrome the most recent of them all.

Canon and Nikon have not shared any plan to launch a new dSLR in the future (it’s likely they won’t), but since the launch of the Rebel 8 and d780, they have launched 14 and 11 mirrorless interchangeable lens cameras, respectively.

*A very compact APS-C setup – Egypt – Abu Simbel – Fujifilm X-T1 – Fujifilm 15-45mm lens.*

Who is still manufacturing dSLRs?

It’s difficult to know for sure what is still being manufactured – what we see on the shelves of the retailers may be New Old Stock or the output of small, infrequent production batches. Some models (like the Nikon D6 or the Pentax K-3 Mark III) have been withdrawn from some markets already, and other models – while not officially discontinued – may not be manufactured “at the moment”.

I checked the Web site of B&H, and here’s what’s still available new in the United States (with the official warranty of the manufacturer).

Canon still have six dSlRs on their US catalog, ranging from the Rebel to the 1Dx (three APS-C cameras, three full frame)

Nikon are proposing four models: the APS-C d7500, and three full frame models: the d780, d850, and D6,

As for Pentax, they are still proposing three cameras with an APS-C sensor, the KF, the K-3 Mark III and the K-3 Mark III Monochrome, and a full frame camera, the K-1 Mark II.

*Shooting with a old APS-C dSLR last week – Atlanta – Bobby Jones Golf Course. Pentax K-5 Mk II – Pentax lens 18-55 f/3.5-5.6 AL WR*

Why did mirrorless win in the first place?

The Nikon D90 from 2008 was the first SLR capable of recording videos. But the architecture of a single lens reflex camera (with a flipping reflex mirror and an autofocus module located under the mirror) forced Nikon to design a camera that operated differently when shooting stills and videos.

For stills, the D90 worked like any other dSLR ( with a through the lens optical viewfinder and phase detection AF). When shooting videos, the reflex mirror was up, and the viewfinder could not be used. The operator had to compose the scene on the rear LCD of the camera. The phase detection autofocus system was also inoperant. A second system, based on contrast detection, had to be implemented, and could only be used before the videographer started filming.

The obvious next step was to replace the flipping mirror and the optical viewfinder with an electronic viewfinder fed directly by the image sensor of the camera, and to improve the contrast detection autofocus to make it as reactive as a phase detection system, and available during the video shoot. Panasonic was the first to do it with the Lumix G2 in 2010. Almost everybody else would soon follow.

The obvious advantage of a mirrorless ILC is that it can shoot indifferently photos and videos – the camera works exactly the same way. It’s a big plus for all the pros and content creators who have to deliver a full set of images (stills and videos) when they film weddings or corporate events.

Mirrorless cameras, being deprived of the mirror box and of the optical viewfinder of a SLR can be made smaller, lighter, and probably cheaper because they are simpler mechanically.

The absence of a mirror box also reduces the lens flange distance, and lenses can be made shorter. Because there is no need for aperture pre-selection and full aperture transmission mechanisms, lens mount adapters are extremely simple to design and manufacture. Practically, almost any lens designed for an SLR or a dSLR can be physically mounted on a mirrorless camera.

*Leica Summicron C (*40mm f/2) mounted on Sony NEX 3 with Metabones adapter. Mirrorless cameras are more flexible.

Early mirrorless were handicapped by relatively poor electronic viewfinders (lacking definition, reactivity and dynamic range) and a limited battery life. Over time, mirrorless ILCs have made a lot of progress in those two areas – recent prosumer and pro ILCs have really impressive electronic viewfinders.

Electronic viewfinders show the image exactly as the image sensor is “seeing” it. If the viewfinder is good enough, it’s even possible to evaluate in real time the exposure of a scene – and play with the exposure compensation dial to adjust it: what you see is really what you’re going to get.

*Pentax K-5 Mk II – very few APS-C mirrorless cameras have a top plate LCD and that many dedicated keys.*

Advantages of recent dSLRs

The most recent dSLRs were launched between 2020 and 2021, and their capabilities are at best in line with what was the state of the art four to five years ago.

Those dSLRs offer bluetooth and Wifi, and are as easy to connect to a mobile device as modern ILCs.

They keep the traditional advantages of dSLRs: an optical viewfinder, and longer battery life, but as a consequence remain larger and heavier than ILCs.

The native support of lenses designed for the brand’s SLRs and DSLRs over the past decades looks like an advantage, but older lenses may only be partially compatible, and they may lack the resolution required to take advantage of recent image sensors.

As for newer lenses – they’re increasingly difficult to find now that the industry leaders have redirected their R&D and manufacturing efforts towards ILCs.

*Bringing a Nikon D700 to a race – because the only tele lens I had was an old Tamron in F Mount. US Formula One Grand Prix – Austin TX*

Switching back to a dSLR?

I wrote earlier I would not be judgmental, but I’m still struggling to understand why somebody would take a significant financial hit to move from a very recent, top of the line mirrorless camera system to a dSLR released eight years ago.

Even though I like shooting with dSLRs and older film cameras (they can be more pleasant to use than some mirrorless ILCs) I believe that using a recent mirrorless camera will increase my odds of capturing a technically good image (the artistic value is a totally different story).

Mirrorless cameras are more flexible and will be within their performance envelope in more situations. If the shooting opportunity is unique and I need to deliver – if only for my pride as an amateur photographer – I’ll bring my mirrorless kit with me.

*The Nikon D700 remains a fantastic camera. If only it was not so heavy and so big.*

As a lover of old gear – even digital – I’d like to offer a suggestion: very nice “prosumer” 16 or 20 Megapixel APS-C reflex cameras from the early 2010s can be found for $150; a “classic” like the Nikon d700 from 2008 (12 Megapixel, full frame) is more expensive, but not by that much if you pick a camera that has been used by professional photographers and has shot hundreds of thousands of pictures.

So, if you feel the dSLR hitch from time to time, my recommendation would be to keep your mirrorless system, and simply augment it with an old dSLR for the days when the call of nostalgia is too strong to resist.

More in CamerAgx about mirrorless and reflex digital cameras

Panasonic G1, G2 and G3 – how good were early mirrorless cameras

When a recent mirrorless camera shines….

*Casa Mila – Barcelona – Fujifilm X-T4-Fujifilm 10-24mm lens*

*Hand held, 1/25sec, 3200 ISO. Modern cameras are fantastic. Casa Mila – Barcelona – Fujifilm X-T4-Fujifilm 10-24mm lens*

Pentax Program Plus – you can still get a good film camera for $20.00

With a good wide angle lens included in the set…

I’ve been lucky with ShopGoodwill.com lately — I recently won a Pentax Program Plus with a 28mm Vivitar lens, all for the princely sum of $21.

Let’s clarify one thing to begin with: like most Japanese camera companies, Pentax was selling its cameras under different models names in different geographies – the camera sold as the Super-Program in North America was sold as the Super-A in the rest of the world, and the Program-Plus was simply known as the Program-A outside of North America [*].

I had been looking for a Program Plus at a good price for a while – it’s the last of the ME family of cameras, a marginally simplified version of the Super Program, that I hoped would strike the perfect balance between too little features (the Pentax ME) and a bit too much (the Super-Program).

*Pentax Program Plus – Program Mode (shutter speed and aperture determined by the camera).*

Pentax launched the Program Plus one year after the Super Program, and did not remove much: the maximum shutter speed is limited to 1/1000 instead of 1/2000, and the camera only offers two auto exposure modes (program and aperture priority) instead of three on the Super Program.

But the right side of the top plate is a bit less cramped (it does not have a tiny LCD screen showing the selected shutter speed forced between the mode selector and the film advance lever) and the mode selector has been redesigned to be a little bit easier to set as a result.

Vivitar

I had not paid much attention to the lens that came with the camera. I had assumed it was one of those horrible third party lenses that you generally find on cameras donated to Goodwill. Not this time. It was a Vivitar lens – but not any Vivitar lens – it was the highly regarded 28mm F/2.8 Close Focus MC “RL Edition” manufactured by Komine.

You can still find Vivitar entry level digital cameras at Walmart nowadays, but today’s Vivitar is a shadow of what the brand was in the seventies. They used to be a major distributor of very good lenses and electronic flashes, a credible alternative to the leading camera companies. Some historical context, then.

*Vivitar 28mm f/2.8 Close Focus MC RL Edition*

When the Japanese camera industry started its expansion in the years following WW2, it was still for the most part a cottage industry – even the largest players were relatively small and highly specialized companies (in the early fifties, Nikon was only manufacturing lenses, and Canon only camera bodies, and some of Canon’s cameras came equipped with Nikkor lenses).

Only very few of those companies grew enough to find the financial strength to establish their own distribution networks outside of their country of origin.

*Atlanta – Centennial Park – Pentax Program-Plus – Vivitar 28mm – Ilford FP4 Plus – a pretty good lens.*

An American company named Ponder & Best saw an opportunity, and started distributing under its own “Vivitar” label the lenses and accessories that it procured from a myriad of small Japanese workshops. Most of those products were probably average, but a few were very good.

Vivitar never disclosed who their suppliers were, but the urban legend attributes the best of the Vivitar lenses to a Japanese company named Komine. Vivitar lenses benefitted from a 5 year warranty, but on the “RL Edition” models made by Komine it was extended to a total of seven years. So, this 28mm from Komine is supposed to be Vivitar’s very best.

Shooting with the Program Plus

I’ve burnt a few rolls of film with almost each representant of the Pentax ME family recently, and the Program-Plus is the one I prefer. The ME only works in Aperture Priority auto exposure mode, and the Super-Program is borderline too complicated. Even if there is not a huge difference in the organization of the commands on the right of the top plate, it’s a bit less cramped on the Program-Plus and easier to live with.

*Pentax Program Plus – Semi Auto mode -here the operator has selected a shutter speed of 1/125sec, and the metering system determines that the image will be under exposed by 2 stops.*

For an amateur interested in the technique of photography, the Program Plus is a very nice little camera. It’s among the smallest and lightest film SLRs of the eighties, but its compacity does not come at the cost of the user experience – the viewfinder remains very good – wide, bright and informative. The “programmed auto exposure mode” in particular is very well implemented – it lets the photographer know (on two LCD displays in the viewfinder) the aperture and shutter speed selected by the camera’s program. And in semi-auto mode, it displays the selected shutter speed on the left display, and the level of over or under exposure (in EVs) on the right one. Pretty unique in this class of camera in 1983.

Of course, nothing is perfect: the LCDs are back-lit through a large window cut at the front of the prism cover, and become very difficult to read in the dark. The Super Program is equipped with a little lamp that the photographer can activate at the push of a button, but I found it totally useless and I don’t miss it here (one of the things that were removed from the Program Plus).

Pentax Program Plus – three exposure determination modes (named M, A & P on a modern camera) are present and selected by playing with the Aperture ring (A or an aperture value) and the mode selector (Auto or Manual) – for instance, P is obtained by setting the aperture ring and the model selector on A/Auto.

For the rest, it’s one of the good Pentax cameras – no horror stories when it comes to reliability, and because it was designed for the “KA” version of the Pentax lens mount, it operates with a very wide range of lenses – anything from Pentax K lenses of 1976 up to some of the most recent D FA models.

While not as nicely finished as an ME or a Super Program, it’s still a well build and solid camera – nothing to be compared with the plastic-fantastic cameras of the following decade that look so cheap today.

Like all the cameras of the ME series, it simply needs two easy to find and (relatively) cheap SR44 1.5 batteries, that it does not seem to tax too rapidly.

As a conclusion

Eight years separate the Pentax ME from the Program-Plus. Being based on a similar platform, they’re not that different of course, but the Program-Plus is definitely a better camera for an amateur who is interested in photography – in addition to the Aperture priority mode of the ME, there is a very useful Program Auto Exposure mode, and a real semi auto mode to use when the exposure is too tricky to trust the automatism. The focusing screen is probably a bit finer as well, and the fragile mechanical selfie timer has been replaced by an electronic one that should be more durable.

*Pentax Program-Plus (top) and Super-Program – some cost cutting is visible on the Plus, but the commands are not as cramped.*

At $21.00 (good lens included), my copy is probably on the cheap side (I admit I was lucky on this one), but even from a reputable seller, you should not pay more than $50.00 for a nice one.

The Program-Plus sits with a few other cameras of the same vintage (the Nikon FE2, the Olympus OM-2 and the Canon AT-1) at the top of my very personal list of preferred manual focus film cameras. And it’s definitely one of my keepers.

[*] I don’t know why the Japanese camera makers were using different names for models sold in the US – “to reflect the local preferences” is often mentioned as an explanation (for instance, naming a model “Rebel” would be perceived positively in the US but would not in other parts of the world). I suspect there are other reasons as well – like protecting the US distributors from grey imports, or (maybe), helping the Japanese revenue service make the difference between cameras destined for local consumption (and subject to sales tax), and cameras destined ultimately to be taken out of the country and sold to tourists or Army personnel in the duty free shops or in the PX.

More about Pentax film cameras in CamerAgX

*Pentax Super-Program – a very compact camera.*

*Nikon EM and Pentax ME – ultra light SLRs for beginners*

*Atlanta – Centennial Park – Pentax Program-Plus – Ilford FP4 Plus*

*Atlanta – Centennial Park – Pentax Program-Plus – Ilford FP4 Plus – May, 4th, 2025 – May the Fourth be with him.*

*Atlanta – Centennial Park – Pentax Program-Plus – Ilford FP4 Plus. Centennial Park – all 4 photos developed with the Lomo Daylight Developing Tank and digitized with the JJC adapter.*

Pentax ME – a deeper look at a very likable film camera

I rediscovered the Pentax ME and its close family of derivatives recently, after having been disappointed by the Pentax P3 (also know as the P30).

I would have loved to like the Pentax P3. When it works, it’s a great camera. But I bought three copies of them (a P3, a P3n, a P3t) at different times, and they all failed me. Always an issue with the film advance. But if I could not rely on a P3, what about shooting with the Pentax cameras of the following or previous generations?

*Pentax ZX-M: the bayonet mount is in polycarbonate, like almost everything else in this camera*

I’ve burned a few rolls of film with a plastic-fantastic ZX-M (also sold as the MZ-M), a motorized entry-level autofocus camera that Pentax had deprived of its autofocus system to make it a “learner’s camera”. Launched in 1997 to replace at the same time the venerable K1000 and the P3, the ZX-M was one of the last film SLRs released by a major vendor before the amateur photographers switched to digital, and for that reason it did not sell in large quantities.

It works well, but it’s plasticky, it’s loud, the exposure metering is a bit too primitive, and its pentamirror viewfinder is dark and narrow. People shooting with film nowadays do it at least partially for the gratifying experience of interacting with a nice piece of conventional machinery – and it’s definitely something that the MZ-M can’t provide.

At the other end of the timescale, pre-dating the K1000 and the P3, the Pentax ME and all its derivatives – ME Super, MV, MG, Super Program, Program-A – were a sales success, and are still abundant on the second hand market. They are all built on the same very compact platform. So compact there was no room for a conventional shutter speed selector. That’s the series we’re going to explore today.

The ME generation

In 1975, Pentax finally abandoned the 42mm screw mount for the “K” bayonet, and launched a new line of K cameras (KM, KX, K2) which were – to a large extent – similar to their screw mount predecessors, except for the bayonet mount, of course. The K1000 was not part of the initial launch – its turn came a few years later – essentially a KM with a few minor features removed.

*A Spotmatic F from 1973. From this angle it looks almost identical to a KM. The K1000 is a slightly decontented KM.*

One year after the KM-KX-K2 cameras, Pentax launched two completely new models, the semi-auto MX, and the Aperture Priority Auto Exposure ME. Both were technically advanced, and really represented the state of the art in the heart of the market. Except for their small size, the two cameras had little in common (their winders and motor drives were physically different and not inter-compatible, for instance).

*Pentax MX and ME – from the sales brochure (1976) – Courtsey of Pacific Rim Cameras*

The Pentax MX is what an Olympus OM-1 Mark II could have been if Olympus had bothered updating the technology content of their camera. The MX is a super compact, semi auto SLR, with a huge viewfinder. It was my main camera in my younger days. Its electronics ultimately failed, otherwise I’d probably still be shooting film with it. But while it worked (a good 15 years) it was a great little camera.

The MX remained unchanged until Pentax sent it into retirement in 1985, with no direct successor. In the meantime, the buying public had shown it was more interested in cameras offering auto exposure modes, and it was the ME and its derivatives that brought the money to Pentax’s coffers.

When it was launched, the Pentax ME had a singular characteristic: contrarily to almost every single lens reflex before it, it did not have a shutter speed selector – just a rather difficult to move four position switch (off, auto, synchro flash and B). It could only operate in auto exposure mode (you set the aperture, the camera picks the shutter speed), and in totally manual mode at 1/100sec (no meter indication to guide the photographer).

*A new category of SLRs without a shutter speed selector rapidly followed the formula inaugurated by the Pentax ME (Nikon EM, Olympus OM-10, Canon AV-1, for instance).*

A simplified MV model was launched at a lower price point in 1979, followed one year later by the ME-Super, which offered the ability to select the shutter speed by pushing two small buttons on the top plate. Then came the MG (spec’d like the original ME), then the Super-Program and the Program-Plus [*], with the same tiny shutter speed push buttons already seen on the ME Super, and more automatic modes (Program mode for the Program-Plus, Program and Shutter priority modes for the Super-Program). All models were developed on the same technical platform, and could share accessories like winders and motor drives.

* [Like most Japanese camera companies, Pentax was selling its cameras under different models names in different geographies – the camera sold as the Super-Program in North America was sold as the Super-A in the rest of the world, and the Program-Plus was simply known as the Program-A outside of North America]

Shooting with the ME

Shooting with a Pentax camera such as the ME is a pleasure. The camera is small, light, reactive, and provided you control from time to time that the shutter speed (determined automatically by the camera) is still the desired range, you’ll be fine. The viewfinder is extremely large, but I was surprised by how difficult it was to set the focus though – I know I’m getting older (aren’t we all) but I found the glass plane rather dark and the micro-prism telemeter difficult to use. I was shooting with a not very luminous zoom (and not very good if I judge by the results) Pentax A 35-70 f/3.5-4.5 zoom, on a camera that was originally designed and sold for more luminous prime lenses such as the 50mm f/1.7, so it could explain some of that.

A Pentax Program-Plus I was testing in parallel fared better in that regard – in the viewfinder the ring of micro-prisms offered more contrast and focusing was significantly easier.

The absence of a depth of field preview is not a problem for me (I seldom use it when a camera offers the option), and not having a conventional shutter speed knob at my disposal was not really a hindrance. But when the lighting of the scene becomes complex, and without an exposure memorization button and no semi-auto exposure mode, you have to play with the ISO settings dial for exposure compensation, which I’ve always found very difficult (I never know if I need to set the dial to +2 or -2). If only for that reason, I would not bring a ME with me if I knew in advance that the lighting conditions would be tricky.

*Viewfinder of the Pentax ME – a shutter speed scale on the left, split image and microprism focusing aids at the center. The 0.97 magnification ratio was exceptional .*

The camera is nicely finished with a few Pentax touches (red markers on the top plate, little indicator on the back of the camera to show that the film is correctly attached to the film spool). The film spool itself follows an original Pentax design (they called it “Magic Needles”) that makes loading film easier than with most contemporary competitors.

What about the reliability?

The ME and its derivatives are 40 to 45 year old, and as with any other camera of the same vintage, there are quite a few things that can go wrong: their electronics (in general), their exposure metering and their film advance mechanism to name the most obvious.

*Pentax ME – the receiving spool is composed of white “Magic Needles” that make film loading very easy.*

By very empirical means (counting the hits on Google for a question about film advance reliability) – I came to the conclusion that the ME Super definitely had an issue with the film advance as well. I’m on the fence for the ME, the MV and the Super-Program – there seem to be far fewer Google hits about reliability issues with those cameras, but they sold in smaller numbers than the ME Super. In any case, it’s highly preferable to buy a vintage Pentax SLR from a photographer who has actually used it to shoot film, as those film advance issues are often impossible to detect without having put a roll of film in the camera.

How much?

Film cameras are getting more expensive these days – but you can still find a nice ME for $50.00 on eBay, and probably for a bit less on various auction sites if you’re patient.

Of all major camera vendors, Pentax is the one that has maintained the inter-compatibility between new and old bodies and lenses for the longest time – anything – manual focus, autofocus – sold by Pentax until they launched their first digital SLRs in 2004 will work with the ME.

*Pentax Super Program and ME – the former benefits from an electronic self timer, a depth of field preview, and a removable grip.*

Pentax has been catering to amateurs more than pros, and it will be difficult to find on the second hand market the specialty lenses (ultra-wide angle, f/2.8 constant aperture zooms) that are relatively abundant in Nikon F or Canon EOS mounts. But as long as you look for lenses typically purchased by amateurs, the offer is plentiful and the prices reasonable.

As a conclusion

The Pentax ME was launched in 1976, at the beginning of a ten year period which saw a whole new generation of amateurs come to “serious” photography and buy their first SLR. Ultra compact, reactive, nicely finished, with a good (for the time) viewfinder and a simplified set of commands, the ME was the right camera at the right time, and sold in the millions.

But this new breed of photographers was demanding more convenience, program mode auto-exposure and zoom lenses, and as result the SLRs launched towards the end of the period of manual focus SLR supremacy (1983, 1984) are simpler to use and have more luminous viewfinders.

Prices on the second hand market do not necessarily follow a perfect logic – and cameras or lenses of the same family (in this case the ME, ME Super, Super Program and the Program Plus) can be had for roughly the same price – irrespective of the performance hierarchy between the different models.

So… the ME is a nice little camera, eminently likable, but if for the same $50.00 price you can find a Super Program or a Program Plus, I would recommend you pick the “Program” over the ME.

More about Pentax Manual Focus SLRs in CamerAgX:

Spotmatic F – the last model before the K mount

The Super Program – the most elaborate camera of the ME family

Pentax ZX-M. Plastic fantastic but great results

A few shots taken during the Inman Park festival a few weeks ago. The Pentax ME behaved – it’s very nice to use as a street photography camera, but the Pentax SMC A 35-70 lens disappointed me, again.

The film was developed in a Lomography Daylight Developing tank with Ilford Simplicity chemicals, and digitized on an APS-C camera using a JJC adapter.

CamerAgX – a new life for old gear

Pentax Cameras

The last dSLRs with CCD sensors

Pentax KP – Quirky grip design – great camera (Part Two)

Pentax KP – Quirky grip design – great camera (Part One)

The Blue Ocean, or how Pentax’s positioning of the K-3 III affects second hand camera prices

Shooting with a 6Mpix Pentax *ist DS – when old gear is really too old

A Pentax K-5 today: a compact, still highly capable dSLR for $150

Selling your mirrorless kit and going back to a digital SLR?

Pentax Program Plus – you can still get a good film camera for $20.00

Pentax ME – a deeper look at a very likable film camera