[ElJamoquio]

Staff note: This post may contain affiliate links, which means Pentax Forums may earn a small commission if a visitor clicks through and makes a purchase. If you would like to support the forum directly, you may also make a donation here.

---

$3000? Ignoring the cameras, easily.

I think most of the people here (enthusiasts, obviously) have. I never add up the costs of all my lenses but it's high. I could easily sell them for more than I would 'need' in a Nikon system and have more than enough left over for the camera.

[monochrome]

If I were going to spend $3,250 TODAY for a camera and lenses I would call B&H and buy a K5IIs and all 5 DA Limiteds. $3,250 is a legitimate price for that kit, a mere 15% discount from the web prices (often available by phone). I consider that more versatile and superior to your proposed D600, a zoom and two lesser bulild quality primes (sharp though they are claimed to be).

[ElJamoquio]

If I were going to spend $3,250 TODAY for a camera and lenses I would call B&H and buy a K5IIs and all 5 DA Limiteds. $3,250 is a legitimate price for that kit. I consider that more versatile and superior to your proposed D600, a zoom and two lesser primes (sharp though they are claimed to be).

The pentax system would be more fun to use but the D600 with a zoom and three primes would be clearly more versatile (except for the lack of macro).

Your kit would be $4400.

[tuco]

If I were going to spend $3,250 TODAY for a camera and lenses I would call B&H and buy a K5IIs and all 5 DA Limiteds. $3,250 is a legitimate price for that kit. I consider that more versatile and superior to your proposed D600, a zoom and two lesser primes (sharp though they are claimed to be).

I did a cursory check on keh.com and only saw one DA Limited for sale. Perhaps I didn't look close enough.

[monochrome]

The pentax system would be more fun to use but the D600 with a zoom and three primes would be clearly more versatile (except for the lack of macro).

Your kit would be $4400.

According to the pricing I just did in my standing Wish List, my kit is priced currently at $3,800 with instant discounts. Calling and asking for a 15% discount from that Minimum Advertised Price is a standard practice. That brings the kit to just under $3,250

If that isn't an acceptable argument against your case (a legitimate claim, I suppose), you can omit the DA40/2.8 Limited at $469, which makes my kit $3,331 and substitute the regular K5II which knocks off another hundred dollars = $3,231. Still more competent than a D600.

15 is a rough 24 equivalent (for the zoom)
21 is the 28 equivalent
35 is the 50 equivalent
70 is the compromise of sorts since there isn't a 58 in there, but it covers the long end of the zoom.

But this is just me. I wouldn't buy a 600. If I had to have a full frame camera (I don't) I wouldn't settle for less than a D800.

I mean, who needs a cheaply outfitted Mercedes when you can have a fully optioned Acura for the same money?

[Rondec]

Of course. That's the primary reason why I mentioned it.

$1600 for a 600mm lens in Nikon
Nikon Nikkor IF ED 600 mm F 5.6 IF ED Lens | eBay

About the same for 400mm f/3.5
Nikon Nikkor 400mm F 3 5 AI s Ed If Lens Flawless Glass Sharp Focus | eBay

But what do you want to do? If your requirements are a 400mm lens where you're OK with APS-C image quality but require image stabilization, then Pentax is a great answer. Personally I don't accept the PF of most of the A-series lenses, but other people just don't take pictures in those situations.

I think most people are more inclined to desire AF than stabilization in that realm though, but it depends on your requirements.

Heck, if you really don't care about IQ then bridge cameras do far more than than a single 400mm lens, and they do it for $250.

Well, honestly, I don't use telephotos very much. My DA *200 is quite long enough for most situations I need and I am not looking for a 500mm lens, so all these lenses, even the cheap ones, sound quite expensive to me.

Honestly, for all of the talk, Pentax gear is plenty good in focal lengths below 300mm and above that, all of the glass is expensive.

[normhead]

3250 will go quite a way in the Pentax universe. Who knows what the newest camera will hold with regard to auto focus? My experience with the K5 II is that it is spot on and a significant improvement over the original K5.

Anyway, Norm's 400mm wouldn't benefit much from auto focus capability on any system, as it is a manual focus only lens.

Of course. That's the primary reason why I mentioned it.

$1600 for a 600mm lens in Nikon
Nikon Nikkor IF ED 600 mm F 5.6 IF ED Lens | eBay

About the same for 400mm f/3.5
Nikon Nikkor 400mm F 3 5 AI s Ed If Lens Flawless Glass Sharp Focus | eBay

But what do you want to do? If your requirements are a 400mm lens where you're OK with APS-C image quality but require image stabilization, then Pentax is a great answer. Personally I don't accept the PF of most of the A-series lenses, but other people just don't take pictures in those situations.

I think most people are more inclined to desire AF than stabilization in that realm though, but it depends on your requirements.

Heck, if you really don't care about IQ then bridge cameras do far more than than a single 400mm lens, and they do it for $250.

If you look at the numbers, a D7100 will give you better IQ (in terms of lw/ph ) for the size of the crop sensor, than either a D800 or D600. So for wildlife with a 400 mm (Which I selected because it's portable, I can carry it and use it on a $200 fairly light weight tripod.) Compared to a D600 or D800 for what I do a lot of the time, a Pentax 24 Mp system would be cheaper, lighter, more lw/ph, so more resolution and than any FF system of any equivalence. Compared to a D600, a K-5 is already better. Remember, if I can't carry it, it's no use to me. Cheap has nothing to do with it. I have enough in the account to purchase a Nikon system outright. You've got this all wrong. For many of us, a Pentax system, all things considered, is simply better.

Clearly some folks are Pentax shooters just because they can't afford better. Assuming all of us are in that boat is a mistake.

---

Last edited by normhead; 09-30-2013 at 02:19 PM.

[ElJamoquio]

According to the pricing I just did in my standing Wish List, my kit is priced currently at $3,800 with instant discounts. Calling and asking for a 15% discount from that Minimum Advertised Price is a standard practice. That brings the kit to just under $3,250

Fair enough, you can keep the 40mm. I disagree that it is a more competent kit, and I own everything you listed there (and two 15mm, and two 35mm's) except the 21mm.

You say that you cover the long end of the zoom, but I don't agree that the 70mm covers it. I think the the 20% longer length is better, even considering higher pixel density of the K-5.
The Nikon kit would be a stop and a half faster at the long end (85mm cropped to cover the same image at 70mm on APS-C)
The Nikon kit would be three stops faster at 28mm (compared to the 21mm, as you do).
You have no WR in your lenses. I do a lot of beach landscapes and I'm reluctant to (potentially) ruin a $700 prime at the beach.

The bottom line for me is that the Pentax is a lot more fun to use but the Nikon is more versatile and produces better pictures for a lower price. I'm going to try out the Pentax FF as it might be cheap enough to make the 'luxury' of having a camera that's fun-to-use worth it to me. If it isn't, Pentax lens prices have made it easy to leave.

[monochrome]

Fair enough, you can keep the 40mm.

Well, I did write, "If I was going to spend $3,250 on cameras today . . . . "

[Rondec]

Fair enough, you can keep the 40mm. I disagree that it is a more competent kit, and I own everything you listed there (and two 15mm, and two 35mm's) except the 21mm.

You say that you cover the long end of the zoom, but I don't agree that the 70mm covers it. I think the the 20% longer length is better, even considering higher pixel density of the K-5.
The Nikon kit would be a stop and a half faster at the long end (85mm cropped to cover the same image at 70mm on APS-C)
The Nikon kit would be three stops faster at 28mm (compared to the 21mm, as you do).
You have no WR in your lenses. I do a lot of beach landscapes and I'm reluctant to (potentially) ruin a $700 prime at the beach.

The bottom line for me is that the Pentax is a lot more fun to use but the Nikon is more versatile and produces better pictures for a lower price. I'm going to try out the Pentax FF as it might be cheap enough to make the 'luxury' of having a camera that's fun-to-use worth it to me. If it isn't, Pentax lens prices have made it easy to leave.

Is your D600 sealed? Not sure how sealed Nikon's lenses are either, just not that familiar with their line up.

[traderdrew]

Is your D600 sealed? Not sure how sealed Nikon's lenses are either, just not that familiar with their line up.

The D600 is weather resistant and so is their 500mm F/4. I know a guy who does really well with his Nikon FF cameras and his 500mm. We both stood side by side in low light photographing a bobcat at ISO 4,000 with our 500mm lenses. I would say our images look the same after post processing.

I think the K-5 can make images look just as good if not better than other APS-C cameras on the market as long as you have a similar lens to the competition. I don't see anyone from Pentax making any promises on the net but, this new camera looks promising and autofocus improvements would be a dream. If Pentax delivers then I am going to be taking more great photos and will post them on the net.

[Portland Pete]

A questions for everyone so anxious to have FF: Aren't the DA* lenses optimized for APS-C? What will happen if they are paired with a FF sensor?

Yes, they are. Many, though not all, will cause circular vignetting on a larger sensor (Dark Corners). Nikon built a feature into its FX lineup that recognizes when a DX (DA) lens is mounted and automatically crops the sensor. My yen for a FF Pentax is in large part to a substantial selection of older glass. Granted, I can use my Super-Tak's on my K-5, they are optimal on a larger sensor. Especially for depth of field and use of FF super-wide's for their unique perspective.

[Portland Pete]

Yeah the color from K200D is different from others.

I still doubt about new FF because of FA lens system, there are not many FA lenses so how Pentaxians can use them with FF. But even K3 is APS-C with those rumors is still interesting , however, I am still waiting for FF !

Granted, there are not many FA lenses in current production. Last I checked the D-FA 50 and 100 Macro's, the 31, 43, and 77 Limiteds, and the 50/1.4. However, there are still a ton of older production A, F, and FA lenses out there that will work just fine. Hell, with an adapter, there are a bunch of Super-Tak's you can use with limitations. Further, I don't think it would be all that difficult to re-vamp the tooling for the FA lens formulas and update the coatings.

[Portland Pete]

but canon dont have SR system in the sensor, that need extra coverage for moving the sensor

That's only a consideration for having SR in the body the way we do with the APS-C cameras. It would be a huge PITA to develop a whole new lens line for one feature. The easier answer is to start incorporating it into new lenses the way the others have been doing for years. Besides, those sub-F/2 primes us older guys dig will get you that other stop or two over the f/4-plus consumer zooms.

[lytrytyr]

That's only a consideration for having SR in the body the way we do with the APS-C cameras. It would be a huge PITA to develop a whole new lens line for one feature. The easier answer is to start incorporating it into new lenses the way the others have been doing for years.

Pentax itself already does that right now with the HD Pentax-D FA 645 90mm F2.8 ED AW SR Macro.