[biz-engineer]

To go from A to B, there are cars at $5 000 and $100 000 . Both do the job. The one @ $100 000 is better.

[Lowell Goudge]

To go from A to B, there are cars at $5 000 and $100 000 . Both do the job. The one @ $100 000 is better.

better how, i imagine it a) uses more fuel, b) costs more per mile to maintain, c) costs more annually to insure, and d) within any large city, with bad roads is probably less comfortable than the $5000 car. So exactly what is better?

style? Image?? EGO???

[pinholecam]

Good points to the OP.

Check out Bill Gekas.
Bill Gekas Photography | The Gallery

Mostly on a K20 and DA16-45.

Goes to show that a lot can be achieved with skill.


Regarding the point about too much.
Very often we don't have a choice and gets dragged along.
A newer model is all that there is to buy when upgrading.
But IMO, we have reached a point where gains between older and new models are v very little for most needs

[jimr-pdx]

I have many excellent images taken with Pentax gear starting in 2010. I have printed zero - my largest wall shot is a 12x18 taken with the sony A200 just before moving to Pentax. I've just picked up one of the CRIS leftover K-r bodies for under $30, with fifty clicks on the shutter. I have six primes and a few zooms - and for what I do it's enough. No doubt with the A50/2.8 Macro I can get too many details on a portrait too.. good thing I don't do many portraits

Love Bill Gekas' work, his child is so photogenic (and probably very patient as he sets up shots). I especially recall the shot of her playing chess with Bugs Bunny, he used K-7 16-45 and maybe two strobes? Amazing shots technically, and great artistic style too.

[monochrome]

To go from A to B, there are cars at $5 000 and $100 000 . Both do the job. The one @ $100 000 is better.

An Accord V-6 EX-L and a Cadillac CTS-V both carry 5 passengers in comfort @ 70mph all day long. The Caddy just gets to 70 three seconds faster.

But (I'm told) that -3 seconds is a lot more fun.

[Bruce Clark]

Good points to the OP.

Check out Bill Gekas.
Bill Gekas Photography | The Gallery

Mostly on a K20 and DA16-45.

Goes to show that a lot can be achieved with skill.

Thanks for that link. They are beautiful images, superbly lit. Certainly something to aspire to. No camera alone could do that. Camera + light + skill to use both.

[biz-engineer]

style? Image?? EGO???

When I go out with my K-3, I show off against Canon; hey look, it's a Pentax, mine's got SR , not yours ! The thing is I kind of lose face when they see the Ricoh logo at the back of the camera. For Canon, Pentax was still to be taken seriously, but Ricoh as a camera company, not so much.

[TaoMaas]

For Canon, Pentax was still to be taken seriously, but Ricoh as a camera company, not so much.

That is true for old-timers. Ricoh was a second-level company...good, but not great. At least that's what the perception was. I think Ricoh knows this and is a big reason why they bought Pentax. Otherwise, why waste the money? Just bring great products out under your own name! I mean...if we had a choice between a Takumar and a Riconar at the same price, which would most of us choose?

[emalvick]

better how, i imagine it a) uses more fuel, b) costs more per mile to maintain, c) costs more annually to insure, and d) within any large city, with bad roads is probably less comfortable than the $5000 car. So exactly what is better?

style? Image?? EGO???

But, if you're going to get into a car race and you're taking your $5000 honda civic vs. someone else's $100000 Corvette, and you are going to race for a living, which car do you want to be in?

Arguments can be made for any case and situation, so while it may cost more to make it run, maintain, insure, etc... one might make more money off the more expensive equipment because it performs better or its up to the task.

Does that mean the driver of the lesser car is by definition bad or worse? Of course not. And of course owning the expensive car doesn't automatically mean you're going to win a race. You have to have skills too. It's the case in almost everything competitive. Equipment can matter, but it doesn't magically make everyone a pro (or even anyone).

---------- Post added 04-22-2015 at 09:25 AM ----------

I'm not trying to suggest anything negative about Pentax by the above either. It's just a comment that I think some people (probably few people) have valid reasons for buying more expensive equipment.

I even look at it that way within brands. Just think about the arguments about why a person might buy a APS-C camera vs. a FF camera vs. a Medium Format Camera. Here soon that is a potential question people will be asking themselves when buying Pentax. And, its ultimately going to be a question of value to the user over what's important, what you gain. It's another matter whether that gain is real, and that depends on the photographer's skill and ability to work with the camera.

[condor27596]

You can always lose detail in a pic in post-processing, but it's hard to put it back in if it's not in the original file. So you can never have "enough". That said, your sister is shooting for an entirely different market than you are. Sounds like her images have to meet the highest publication standards while you're just looking to get an great 8X10 or 16X20 of your kids. I think you spent wisely for your needs. You bought equipment that is more than capable of documenting your family and producing great results. No need to get into a "sword-fight".

Oh for sure it is not a sword fight. Just the numbers are staggering to me.

[Stavri]

Oh for sure it is not a sword fight. Just the numbers are staggering to me.

The are pentaxians who have reached the $35,000 mark too you know, I myself am probably in the 6000-7000 range...

[condor27596]

I will check out that child photography site. I love my k-5. I have no desire to upgrade to medium or FF. Besides , I'm slowing saving up for the Patek Philip sky moon. It's been on sale lately ( considering two actually one to wear every day and one for special occasions). At my present rate of savings I should be able to get the first one in 9,999 years. 😄

As a side note. My daughter had no interest in photos on the computer. I got her a little photo album and started printing 4x6 and she went crazy.

You guys are great and I appreciate all the input !

[Stavri]

The Pentax brand is getting expensive as well. The D-Fa 70-200mm f2.8 will cost $2290, the 150-450 $2500, then there's the new d-FA 24-70 f2.8, Ultra-wide angle 15-30ish, the full frame camera coming up, that's probably close to 8000-10,000 total (not to mention new d-FA limiteds, and the confirmed 3-6 primes that are going to be released in 2016) Pentax is producing some high quality premium gear, and pricing them accordingly (similar to the other big boy in the game)

On a side note, the most expensive lenses of most brands are in the super telephoto category, Pentax has the Da 560 which is not cheap. There's a rumored 300mm f2.8 which might make an appearance in a year or two. In 5-8years when the Pentax map is complete we'll look back in wonder at our inexpensive setups with M and A lenses.

[nomadkng]

The are pentaxians who have reached the $35,000 mark too you know, I myself am probably in the 6000-7000 range...

my last insurance estimated submitted for coverage had me at $10,200 (2 bodies and 10 lenses)

when the 3k full frame comes out I'm sure i'll quickly get to 15k when you add the 150-450 as well.

I can't afford the "Z" so I won't get to 35k just yet

[Lowell Goudge]

When I go out with my K-3, I show off against Canon; hey look, it's a Pentax, mine's got SR , not yours ! The thing is I kind of lose face when they see the Ricoh logo at the back of the camera. For Canon, Pentax was still to be taken seriously, but Ricoh as a camera company, not so much.

but why is it important to "show off" the gear. for me, it is more important to show off your images