[normhead]

"I'm not against buying new gear - not at all. If the product exists, someone knows why they're buying it (which could just be "because I want one" - that's perfectly valid), has a good idea of what to expect, already has - or intends to acquire - the skills and ability to utilise it and realise the predicted gains, and can afford the investment in money and personal time required, fantastic "

Looking at my gear, k-5 10 years ago, k-3 8 years ago, K-1 5 years ago. I'm pretty sure I'm back in pre-digital mode. I'll buy a new camera when the ones I have break, and I won't be interested in much else until they do. With the Addition of DenoiseAI and SharpenAI, most of the issue with my current gear are taken care of.

So cool with digital, instead of a camera that handles noise better, $99 keeps my gear up to date.

[StiffLegged]

…From what I can ascertain ….. he's stuck in a purgatory formed of regret and analysis paralysis...

Not the best place to be.

[c.a.m]

Rather than start a new thread on making the best use of one's current gear, of which there are plenty already, I'll just comment here.

Yesterday, my camera club held a judged image competition with the topic of Nature, to which I had submitted several images.

Two of the images received 'Honorable Mentions' and complimentary remarks from the judges. I had reached far into my image library to find these two -- they were both taken with my K-5 about ten years ago. One lens was the Pentax-M 100/2.8, which I happened to have in my pocket at the time, and the other was an old Pentacon 50mm f/1.8, which I probably purchased for something like $10 and have used only a few times.

The subjects weren't particularly challenging in terms of action -- a deer and some wildflowers, but the compositions were key IMO. One judge remarked specifically about the "well-handled' and pleasing background, the one from the Pentacon.

Go figure.

I mentioned to my wife that the images were taken with a couple of old lenses. I'll leave it to you to guess the response (it wasn't "Gee, honey, you should get those new Pentax lenses you keep mentioning while we're doing the washing-up.")

- Craig

[vector]

I am still in a place where I feel extremely fortunate that I own a K-1 and some of the nicest lenses available like the DFA*50, FA77, and DA*300. My photography has improved a lot since I got my K-5 in 2012 and most of the real progress came in the past 5 years with the K-1. Not that the K-1 made me better but rather that I felt I needed to push myself to justify owning such an incredible camera. I still feel like it is more camera than my skills warrant. First world problems I guess, too much camera

[BigMackCam]

Looking at my gear, k-5 10 years ago, k-3 8 years ago, K-1 5 years ago. I'm pretty sure I'm back in pre-digital mode. I'll buy a new camera when the ones I have break, and I won't be interested in much else until they do.

That's pretty much where I'm at too, Norm. It's not that I wouldn't enjoy a K-3III or a K-1II (or its eventual replacement) - of course I would... but I don't actually need any more than I already have (heck, I don't really need what I have... I could get by with much less), and much of the time I actually enjoy shooting the older gear in my cupboard... at least when it suits that day's particular use-cases. Even at my most demanding, my K-3 and K-3II (the most recent Pentax bodies I own) do everything I need and more for general photography, and I've enough glass that I like and understand to cover all my use-cases admirably.

With the Addition of DenoiseAI and SharpenAI, most of the issue with my current gear are taken care of.

So cool with digital, instead of a camera that handles noise better, $99 keeps my gear up to date.

Despite my early negative feelings towards AI optimisation where photography's concerned - and my not-too-encouraging first steps with a trial copy of Gigapixel AI - I'm warming to the possibilities. I can always use better noise reduction since relatively little of my digital photography is at base ISO. From what @biz-engineer tells me, SharpenAI is very capable for enlarging (he prefers it to Gigapixel AI)... and whilst I don't do much of that at present, I plan on printing a few of my photos for wall-mounting this year, and some of them are at lower resolutions such as 10 or even 6MP. I surely could use a better up-scaling approach than GIMP and its various algorithms...

[MossyRocks]

Improved skills - at least for those not already quite advanced in most aspects of photography - would likely grant a greater overall improvement in results than equipment alone could.

Even if one is fairly experienced investing the time to improve ones skills is always a benefit and it is really hard to argue against it. When I do photography merit badge with the scouts it always happens that one scout complains that they can't take a good picture because of the camera they are using. I will then offer to let them use mine and pick what ever lens they want to use and pick a subject and they will take a picture with my camera and lens of choice and I will use the camera they are using. We then both shoot the same subject and I let the scouts decide what picture is better and they always pick the one I shot with what ever camera I used. I use this as a good part of the merit badge to talk about how composition matters more to the final picture than the camera used. Granted most of the scout cameras I have are old Canon PowerShot G2 with the rest being other bridge cameras maybe a couple years newer which aren't very good compared to modern cameras but for teaching about how various settings affect the final picture they work perfectly well.

I've found that gear matters when you are after that last 1 or 2% or if you are doing some type of photography at the extreme edge of things. For me that extreme edge is astrophotography where a super fast lens that is super sharp very close to wide open makes a huge difference and having a better sensor with better efficiency, lower noise, and more dynamic range also makes a big difference. The one night I've been able to play with astrotracer type 3 I was very pleased with the results as I was able to double my exposure time per shot over the original GPS based astrotracer (type 1). So being able to get great 40s exposures with my 400mm instead of 20s exposures is one of those gains that will make a difference. I was also shocked at how much better the K-3iii RAW images looked when compared to what I would see from my K-3.

I'm not against buying new gear - not at all. If the product exists, someone knows why they're buying it (which could just be "because I want one" - that's perfectly valid),

I'm not either but the belief that new gear or better gear will magically make it so your final pictures are better is really a false belief. Better gear will result in final pictures of the same quality but have a higher quantitative image quality as they may be slightly sharper, have more dynamic range, less noise, more pixels, etc. but they will still suffer from poor lighting and composition issues. If you gave a regular person one of the new Hasselblads that will produce 400MP super resolution images they will end up with a 400MP bad picture. I do agree that getting new gear because you want it is a perfectly valid reason. It is fun, it is exciting, it is a new toy so nothing wrong. Then there are the people who worship at the alter of gear and brag about it. There is one guy in the area around me who is like that and has stated that some of my astro images are fakes and that there is no way I could have accomplished that with what I have and where I am.

[BigMackCam]

I've found that gear matters when you are after that last 1 or 2% or if you are doing some type of photography at the extreme edge of things. For me that extreme edge is astrophotography where a super fast lens that is super sharp very close to wide open makes a huge difference and having a better sensor with better efficiency, lower noise, and more dynamic range also makes a big difference. The one night I've been able to play with astrotracer type 3 I was very pleased with the results as I was able to double my exposure time per shot over the original GPS based astrotracer (type 1). So being able to get great 40s exposures with my 400mm instead of 20s exposures is one of those gains that will make a difference. I was also shocked at how much better the K-3iii RAW images looked when compared to what I would see from my K-3.

That makes a lot of sense.

The only real way I push my gear is with higher ISO (and dynamic range at those higher settings). Whilst I'd undoubtedly benefit from better high ISO performance, I have to consider whether the cost of upgrade is justifiable (especially in current circumstances) given how infrequently I'd benefit, and the possible advantages of putting that money to work in other areas - both photography-related and in general. Thus far, I've not been able to justify upgrading from my K-3 and K-3II. When I can, I might

I'm not either but the belief that new gear or better gear will magically make it so your final pictures are better is really a false belief. Better gear will result in final pictures of the same quality but have a higher quantitative image quality as they may be slightly sharper, have more dynamic range, less noise, more pixels, etc. but they will still suffer from poor lighting and composition issues. If you gave a regular person one of the new Hasselblads that will produce 400MP super resolution images they will end up with a 400MP bad picture. I do agree that getting new gear because you want it is a perfectly valid reason. It is fun, it is exciting, it is a new toy so nothing wrong. Then there are the people who worship at the alter of gear and brag about it. There is one guy in the area around me who is like that and has stated that some of my astro images are fakes and that there is no way I could have accomplished that with what I have and where I am.

I have a theory (and that's all it is) that many folks are simply starved of free time or exhausted from their daily grind, and it's easier / more exciting / less demanding - even, in some ways, fleetingly more satisfying - to buy new gear if they can afford it than it is to do the hard yards in learning and/or optimising skills and getting the most from existing gear with practise and creative thinking. I've been there, years ago... Like many of us, I know how it feels to have maybe a couple of hours free every other weekend to do some actual photography, with my only other involvement being surfing the web and reading reviews whilst stuck in the office late at night waiting for one of my teams to finish some piece of urgent development or testing so we can roll out an emergency software patch for a trading desk due in at 6am

As you say, though, gear will typically provide a quantitive improvement in image quality (resolution, noise, dynamic range etc.) and/or performance (continuous frame rate and the like), not a qualitative improvement of the image itself...

[photoptimist]

I have a theory (and that's all it is) that many folks are simply starved of free time or exhausted from their daily grind, and it's easier / more exciting / less demanding - even, in some ways, fleetingly more satisfying - to buy new gear if they can afford it than it is to do the hard yards in learning and/or optimising skills and getting the most from existing gear with practise and creative thinking. I've been there, years ago... Like many of us, I know how it feels to have maybe a couple of hours free every other weekend to do some actual photography, with my only other involvement being surfing the web and reading reviews whilst stuck in the office late at night waiting for one of my teams to finish some piece of urgent development or testing so we can roll out an emergency software patch for a trading desk due in at 6am

I think your theory is spot-on. It is basically a variant of "retail therapy" as a reward or a salve for the surviving the onslaughts of modernity.

Buying a shiny new lens, camera or tripod provides a much more immediate and tangible self-gift than does the hard slog up the learning curve of better photography.

In the long-run, LBA is probably cheaper and certainly healthier than spending every night in the pub so maybe it's not such a bad vice after all.

[normhead]

Buying a shiny new lens, camera or tripod provides a much more immediate and tangible self-gift than does the hard slog up the learning curve of better photography.

But if that was part of your process, should you really be giving advice to others, who may not be in the same position? Does having an emotional need to buy something mean you make good decisions?

People who are interested in photography get enjoyment get pleasure from their photos, not the buying part. If you don't get enjoyment from photos, just from buying, how good can your advice be?

It's easy to tell people about the technical aspects of gear, but the ones who are buying for some kind of emotional satisfaction are evaluating in terms that no one else can understand. It's all about "what makes you feel good." And that is not consistent person to person.

I think it would be a lot easier for the photographers here if those involved in emotional purchasing (consumerism) understood how personal (and irrelevant to anyone else) their comments are.

I've made this into a dichotomy for clarity, but in real life it's not. We all enjoy our pictures, we all probably get some emotional satisfaction buying new gear. But it will be tough because in every post we have to decipher, how much is photography? How much is emotional attachment unsupported by much of anything but emotional brand enthusiasm?

For me my emotional purchase would be Fuji GFX100s. But the simple fact is, given what I do with my photography, it makes no sense photographically. It sure would be a buzz though. What we need for a buzz is as personal as what we need for our photography. Every camera since the K-5 is a buzz purchase (for me), small differences to the end product, given my current practices, but big on hype and unused capacity. They didn't improve my photography, but it sure was fun.

[Wheatfield]

Honestly if you are unhappy with your Pentax gear why not just move on?

Some people are just really trollish about the process.

[biz-engineer]

Honestly if you are unhappy with your Pentax gear why not just move on?

Because I don't find any other brand offering Pentax like ergonomics and Sony A7RIV specifications, and I'm not fully convinced by Fuji MF (GFX100) system because the glass is either super expensive, no available or affordable with less quality than Pentax glass. I'd like Ricoh to fit A7RIV sensor into a Pentax K1 so I can extract more out of my current set of Pentax lenses, without breaking the bank.

[normhead]

Because I don't find any other brand offering Pentax like ergonomics and Sony A7RIV specifications, and I'm not fully convinced by Fuji MF (GFX100) system because the glass is either super expensive, no available or affordable with less quality than Pentax glass. I'd like Ricoh to fit A7RIV sensor into a Pentax K1 so I can extract more out of my current set of Pentax lenses, without breaking the bank.

Maybe the K-1iii. I'm certainly not buying another camera before I see what it's specs are.

[vector]

Because I don't find any other brand offering Pentax like ergonomics and Sony A7RIV specifications, and I'm not fully convinced by Fuji MF (GFX100) system because the glass is either super expensive, no available or affordable with less quality than Pentax glass. I'd like Ricoh to fit A7RIV sensor into a Pentax K1 so I can extract more out of my current set of Pentax lenses, without breaking the bank.

Why not the A7RIV with the recently released Monster LA-KE1 adapter? I haven't used one but it sounds like with the V2 firmware update the DC/SDM motors are now supported. If anyone who has one could comment that might be helpful.

[biz-engineer]

Why not the A7RIV with the recently released Monster LA-KE1 adapter?

I hate Sony camera body design and user interface, especially for the price they charge, I think it's a shame. The whole camera industry misses the mark, they are wrong on so many aspects that I'm not surprise that the camera market is in free fall, and it's not going to stop falling. The way I see it, maybe only Canon and Nikon are close to making good camera products both in terms of electronic performance and usability, but they only offer 3:2 mostly FF format, so that's also wrong. Pentax is one of the few companies that puts efforts into camera design, handling and ease of use, but the inner electronic guts are, most of the time, five years or more behind the curve.

---------- Post added 18-03-22 at 06:55 ----------

Maybe the K-1iii. I'm certainly not buying another camera before I see what it's specs are.

I'm not buying any other Pentax lens until I see the specs of a new K1 iii released and I have the assurance that it's not having a major design flaw.

[vector]

Is resolution the primary thing you are after but you're not willing to sacrifice handling for the "spartan" experience offered by a 100mp Fujifilm GFX 100? Just trying to understand. I kind of agree that I would only be looking at Nikon and Canon if I were investing into another system. Sony doesn't appeal to me. Medium format is really only offering higher resolution in a single exposure. Everything else it does can be matched by other systems and stitching for resolution in static scenes really isn't that bad to do. Seems though that you know you want something that doesn't exist. In that case your only option is to work around the limitations either within one system or by investing in multiple systems and using each where they fill the need best. But you know this already it's just that it's expensive. Sorry, that sucks. Good luck figuring it out. I'm going to go take some pics with my clunky dated old K-1 whose image quality still isn't bested in any significant way by any new FF camera released since 2016.