Quote: rparmar: I did not mean to misquote you and can't actually see how I did. You are recommending a full manual approach and I am not, based on the situation (concerts) and experience of the photographer.
I did not say, nor did I feel, you misquoted me--where do you get this from?? I simply point out there are other sentences in that post, which you you left out, which were in alignment with your suggestion to go with KA. Since you said, "Your advice is good,
but I would say........," I responded to let you know the other part of my post was inclusive for Ka choice, not exclusive.
My mention of the M 50 1.7 was just an example, to show just how inexpensively quality glass could be bought for the job at hand. My mention was not, in any way, meant to imply it was the only inexpensive solution.
Quote: rparmar Gary: Did you offend someone? Or take offense somehow? I don't see anyone quoting you so I am sorry if this thread somehow gave you that impression. It looks to me like a bunch of people debating an issue in a good-natured way.
I agree %100 with your observation here.
Quote: cabstar: Sorry for offending with my post, my point was to show what could be achieved with various lenses at various costs & how image quality improves.
I certainly was not offended here. I just felt, and still do feel, that sticking to the OPs thread is, in itself, more than enough to keep all of us busy with decent advice.
I do not think shots needed to be posted to demonstrate one can increase the likelhood of higher quality keepers with glass which is not only AF, but which is also a lot over the OPs budget--I think that is self explanatory. But this is just my opinion--yours is equally valid.
Don't you think the OP knows he can upgrade at some point in the future? I am a firm believer in catering responses to the OPs request. I think it makes the thread more concise. more valuable, and less prone to digressions. For example, in this thread with a $200 budget, we have a suggestion coming in for the OP to purchase a $1200 lens. That just happens to be the most extreme digression presented thus far, but others have followed suit.
Now, if it were a fact that high quality shots could not be done in the $200 budget, then the thread would, understandably, veer off in a new direction. However, and I think Marc made this clear, high quality shots can be obtained with lenses costing far less than $200--see Marc's pic--for example. Is it more work and skill--you bet--is it inferior to glass costing 2x, 4x, or even 10x as much? That is for another thread.
Now, I hope I have not offended you: reasonable people can reasonably disagree.
Discussion is good and I thnak you for speaking your mind--it has made me better--I learned from it--that is why I spend time in Pentax Forums--i learn here--so many great people. Best!