[biz-engineer]

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

I'm kind of not being serious here, but there may be some truth to it.

[Lowell Goudge]

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?

depending on the course, i'll still take the civic! just look at how good the austin mini did in rallies when it came out

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.

again you talk performs better and up to the task, but this is all important, exactly what is the task????? without a proper task definition, there is no way to make a statement that one is better than another only because it is more expensive

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).

this is the all important point. while i agree equipment can matter in some cases, equipment on its own does not instantly make everyone a pro. equipment is a tool, nothing more, nothing less, and in many cases it is exploiting the specific characteristics of a tool to its limits that define somebody special from the rest of us.

---------- 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.

some do, but many , many more do not. I had to laugh one time when i was in Prague. I was taking some photos, and noticed someone following me. eventually he stopped me and asked my why my camera took better pictures than his? (He had a canon) he probably spent a lot more than my K10 and tammy 28-75 cost me, and had no idea how to even take a picture

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.

there have always been multiple formats, that has never ever changed. Just look back to the rise in popularity of the 35mm camera, you had TLRs and big format SLRs shooting 120 roll film, you had both 120 film and 4x5 speed graphics, plus view cameras shooting large sheet film.

Even lenses were somewhat interchangeable, between formats. what is different here, is that people are interpreting it as a weakness if you cant upgrade to full frame but retain your lenses. in reality although they mount, APS-C lenses in nikon and canon bodied full frame cameras run in reduced / cropped mode, at lower resolution than the APS-C bodies, so there is no value. either you blow the bank for all full frame lenses and only use them occasionally at their maximum capability, thinking some day maybe in the future, perhaps, you might, get full frame, or you get what is logical and makes sense.

For me, full frame is only of interest for ultra wide, to medium portrait, because for the long end, wildlife and nature, as I am always cropping anyway. full frame is actually a liability. i think of it as a compliment, where i could easily see shooting a mix of FF and crop sensor, to get a wider coverage of focal lengths with 2 bodies and 2 lenses

[condor27596]

I started this journey with a canon sd600 for pics and video. I'm so happy I found the *ist by accident. I'm so thankful for now a k-5 with several lenses. Pentax is miles ahead of the competition ( perhaps not in low light focusing) at 1/10 the price. I'm a pentaxian for life. I really hope Ricoh can pull out some market share.

[Stavri]

I started this journey with a canon sd600 for pics and video. I'm so happy I found the *ist by accident. I'm so thankful for now a k-5 with several lenses. Pentax is miles ahead of the competition ( perhaps not in low light focusing) at 1/10 the price. I'm a pentaxian for life. I really hope Ricoh can pull out some market share.

The K3 improved on the low light AF, it's considered one of the best across the board in fact...

[ChristianRock]

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?

I kind of disagree with your analogy. Photography is not a sport where the most technically perfect picture wins, it's art. Art conveys emotion and the technical aspect is only important when it helps achieve the artist's objective.

There's a reason pictures by Cartier Bresson are better than anything I've ever done, even though my gear technically has more possibilities than the gear he's had at the time.

It's what you do with it that counts, and whether the tools are right for the job. Everything else is measurebation (pardon my language...).

[condor27596]

Wish I had gotten the k-3 I had money last year. This year not lol

[Stavri]

Wish I had gotten the k-3 I had money last year. This year not lol

Get the K3ii available for purchase this summer, (official unveiling tomorrow)....

[condor27596]

I have to wait for the k-3IIIIIs lol

It's cool. My start point was a 72 pinto. I'm in a 2008 corvette now.

[Stavri]

I have to wait for the k-3IIIIIs lol

It's cool. My start point was a 72 pinto. I'm in a 2008 corvette now.

It seems the consensus is that the future models will carry the Mark III, Mark IV and so on nomenclature. The "S" noted lack of AA filter, many models have this feature today.

[condor27596]

My reading here said no AA filter was desired. That was the single reason I went with k-5 not k-3.

Too late now. I'm cool. I give 8x10s for presents. I do baptism photos for my church. I'm trying to beach out to do baby photos. I'm more than well enough equipped.

[emalvick]

I kind of disagree with your analogy. Photography is not a sport where the most technically perfect picture wins, it's art. Art conveys emotion and the technical aspect is only important when it helps achieve the artist's objective.

There's a reason pictures by Cartier Bresson are better than anything I've ever done, even though my gear technically has more possibilities than the gear he's had at the time.

It's what you do with it that counts, and whether the tools are right for the job. Everything else is measurebation (pardon my language...).

I wasn't concerned with the technical aspects of whether Photography is a sport, and you end up making the same point anyway. The analogy was about the equipment and someone comparing car prices. For most people, the cost of the camera isn't going to matter just like a car isn't going to matter. But in some cases it could. Of course then it may truly matter, I doubt that photographer is going to make a big deal about it. People due tend to brag, flaunt whatever it is when they are lacking somewhere else.

[hjoseph7]

Photographers are never satisfied. They want more and more resolution, the more the better. That was always the case even in the days of film. If 35mm wasn't enough, then you would jump to Medium Format, if that wasn't enough, then you would jump to Large Format. When it comes to portraits it depends a lot on the lens, because you can always set the camera to portrait mode which soften things up a little bit. Some portrait photographers use a soft-focus lens, or they use soft focus filters, or as is more common these days, they run the picture through a portrait software package. That is about the best you can do these days, because I don't think the resolution race will be ending any time soon.

[Nicolas06]

depending on the course, i'll still take the civic! just look at how good the austin mini did in rallies when it came out

I'am not sure how many buy actually their car for races, even the one buying expensive cars.

The thing is more expensive cars can be more reliable (or not) can be more comfortable (or not) can look better (or not), can consumer less fuel/energy (or not). They can be quite fast, reactives machine. They can also bring a specific image of who you are when you drive them. In some circonstances that may be very important. As a political guy you should avoid cars that show you are rich... When you need to convince others you have power having the best looking car and clothes can actually help you being taken seriously and get the contract. When we know the first impression is made in seconds from the look, the way you behave and so on and you may need to fight for hours/day to counter that first impression, that also important. Being seen going out from a corvetter or a big mercedes or a civic give 3 distinct different impression to the viewers.

In the end you may buy one for any of thoses reasons or none. You may buy a $100K car because you are rich and you don't care the price difference anyway. That can be the same for cameras/lenses. Remember also that a big truck may cost the same.

To me actually the big truck is much more like the pro camera. None of the best race car will ever approach the capacity of driving long distances everyday and manage to carry lot of goods accross the country. While many buy an expensive car for fun, pro in the transport sector buy trucks. When they need performance, they buy boat for capacity or planes for speed. No sport car.

[Rondec]

As it was said earlier in the thread, you need enough gear to get the job done.

That said, for most of us, it isn't a job and so you need enough gear to meet your current skill level and to allow room for growth. There are certain types of photography (wildlife, sports), where just to get into the building you need really expensive, top end gear, but for a lot of other things, a mid level SLR and a couple of decent lenses will have you set for a long time, with plenty of room to develop your skills.

For me, buying new gear is usually a "want" thing. A new lens or camera body comes out and folks start posting images from it on the forum and I mentally compare it to the gear I have and I want that piece of kit. If I have the money and if I rationalize enough, sometimes I end up with it, although I haven't purchased any new lenses or bodies in over a year.

[Nicolas06]

As it was said earlier in the thread, you need enough gear to get the job done.

That said, for most of us, it isn't a job and so you need enough gear to meet your current skill level and to allow room for growth. There are certain types of photography (wildlife, sports), where just to get into the building you need really expensive, top end gear, but for a lot of other things, a mid level SLR and a couple of decent lenses will have you set for a long time, with plenty of room to develop your skills.

For me, buying new gear is usually a "want" thing. A new lens or camera body comes out and folks start posting images from it on the forum and I mentally compare it to the gear I have and I want that piece of kit. If I have the money and if I rationalize enough, sometimes I end up with it, although I haven't purchased any new lenses or bodies in over a year.

Agree fully. Most of the time you don't need that much.

As for sport and entering the building in another sense, beware that actually if you are not part of autorized photographers you may not enter the venue with any gear that would allow to get a great shoot. Your are not going to go to an offical ligue soccer matche with your 150-450 !

For wildlife I also understand it really depend. If you are found of small birds, yes you need expensive gear. For hunting a bear in the forest you might need expensive gear too. But for a safari in Kenya you can often go near and the wildlife is big. My understanding is that just a 55-300 or even a 28-300 would do the trick or a bit better the innexpensive screw drive 70-200 by tamron. All would be more than enough for zoo, ducks/gulls/squirels for theses you just need to be patient and they can go near.