[no694terry]

^^ I try and tell my wife the same thing when i buy used gear but i bought this camera new this time. I just try and take pictures she likes, like of our kids, to help justify the purchase

[lesmore49]

A few months ago I found myself selling my camera to pay some bills. It was a sad day but a nice young enthusiast got my entire K5/18-135 kit and more for a good price and i got to keep my lights on. Times are getting better and I'm looking into cameras again. I started with a K1000, then a K20D then the K5. I bought and resold a lot of lenses because they werent what i expected. So this time I want to buy a good camera and great lenses. For Pentax its the K3 and a bag full of primes i guess. I wanted the K3 since it came out but couldnt afford it and soon i'll be able to but I keep finding myself looking at full frame cameras like the Nikon D610. Its not much more expense, has countless lenses and is FULL FRAME. If i were to stay in the APS-C market then it would be the K3 no question but, for low light and general qulaity its hard to pass up a full frame camera when they are getting more competitive in price.

I just read that you bought a K-3. Good camera, think you will be happy with it.

[Big Dave]

Bigger offers more, negligible or not depending on sensor size, but the trade-off between expense and gear bulk/weight was never mentioned--even if $ was no object. The truth is there are fewer lenses available for, say, the Pentax line of cameras if a FF existed. Then there's the matter of packing it around. Would your back/neck stand up to it? For a street/news photographer, the APS-C format has a lot to offer and won't cause disk dislocation. It's been said the BEST camera is the one you have with you. How often would you have an 8x10 with you?...or even an FF? APS-C is about as big as you want to go if you want to remain optimally mobile. FF lenses are bigger, heavier, more expensive. Bigger sensors take a LOT more computer processing for editing and digital storage space. Maybe the landscape photographer can justly lust after an 8x10 camera, but for us mere mortals where human faces are our canvas...not so much.

My A7II is much smaller then my K5II and it is FF. It isn't about sensor size, it is about camera size. Mirror less is the answer for mobility. Anything with a mirror is going to be bigger and heavier.

[philbaum]

For anyone else reading this thread, I'd like to add that its not a level playing field between different brands. Some good examples:
A. Fuji ISO ratings are over-inflated reportedly. The exposure increases are not as sufficient as the increases in ISO would indicate.
B. Sony claims that their A7 cameras are WR, but they dropped that claim after the problem with light leakage was reported. Someone reported they have some WR seals but lack them in some key areas like battery or card doors - forget the details. There's a reason that Pentax details the exact number of seals they install on a Pentax camera, they are proud of it. The situation is not nearly as clear with most other brands.
C. Sony claims 14 bit RAW files. But on the Nex series, their RAW is 12bit, and on the A7 series, its either 13 bit, 12 bit or 11 bit with lossy compression, depending on which mode and which reviewer you read. In any case, Sony's crediblity with regard to their Raw files is lacking. Some fans say it doesn't matter, other fans are unhappy about the lossy RAW files, because it didn't exist on the A mount and Nikon gives one the choice between lossy RAW, or non-lossy RAW. Not so with Sony.

By the way, i'm a Sony mirrorless fan but it dismays me that their crediblity is not as good as Pentax Don't know as much about other brands.

Finally the K3 and K5 are awesome cameras.

[Homo_erectus]

I recently sold most of my pentax gear and bought a D750. I use the D750 for paid work but I kept the K5iis, AW TC and 60-250 for pleasure shooting.

In my experience the main difference between the two brands is the speed and accuracy of Nikons autofocus system. It often seems like magic and regularly surprises me by perfectly focusing shots that I expected it to miss.

The shape and size of the D750 feels great in the hand too. My hands are large and the K5iis didn't feel comfortable until I added a grip. The D750 does not need a grip and feels more comfortable. I've held and tested the D600 and it's body shape was not as comfortable to me as either the K5iis + grip or the D750.

Over all I find the ergonomics of the D750 are not as good as the K5iis but are close.

Nikons lenses are very good and good quality lenses can be had for reasonable prices, especially primes. It seems that all of their lenses use their silent wave focusing system and so are basically silent in operation.

Full frame is nice if you shoot wide a lot but if you work at the tele end more it can be more expensive to get the same angle of view and similar quality of lenses.

I find the files produced by the K5iis and D750 to be of similar quality over all but with different strengths and weaknesses.

Bottom line, go to a store and hold the camera in your hand before you buy it. Only you can really decide if the body feels good in your hand and if the button placement will work for you.

[Lauke_101]

I also recently switched to Nikon full frame, by means of a used D700. Ergonomically, it's a toss up for me between that and my K-5, but performance wise it's a different story. The Nikon is a MACHINE, with awesome focusing speed and accuracy. Their selection of 1.8 primes is now expanding rapidly and there are some gems to be found. In general the selection and availability of parts, accessories and lenses is much better, which I like.

I will keep my K-5 with a few primes, as well as all the analog Pentax gear (Nikon film gear is expensive!) for when I want something lightweight, small and unobtrusive. The combo of K-5 plus DA 40 is unsurpassed in that department. Heck, I might even still buy the 77.

As far as the files go, I'm happy with either. The Nikon does have the edge in having that full frame look of course. By the way, I did underestimate how different the RAW output was going to be. I'm still in the process of adjusting my workflow to the Nikon.

[btnapa]

I recently sold most of my pentax gear and bought a D750. I use the D750 for paid work but I kept the K5iis, AW TC and 60-250 for pleasure shooting.

In my experience the main difference between the two brands is the speed and accuracy of Nikons autofocus system. It often seems like magic and regularly surprises me by perfectly focusing shots that I expected it to miss.

The shape and size of the D750 feels great in the hand too. My hands are large and the K5iis didn't feel comfortable until I added a grip. The D750 does not need a grip and feels more comfortable. I've held and tested the D600 and it's body shape was not as comfortable to me as either the K5iis + grip or the D750.

Over all I find the ergonomics of the D750 are not as good as the K5iis but are close.

Nikons lenses are very good and good quality lenses can be had for reasonable prices, especially primes. It seems that all of their lenses use their silent wave focusing system and so are basically silent in operation.

Full frame is nice if you shoot wide a lot but if you work at the tele end more it can be more expensive to get the same angle of view and similar quality of lenses.

I find the files produced by the K5iis and D750 to be of similar quality over all but with different strengths and weaknesses.

Bottom line, go to a store and hold the camera in your hand before you buy it. Only you can really decide if the body feels good in your hand and if the button placement will work for you.

I shoot lots of studio products. My K3, the three amigos and my Pentax macros shine in that department.

However, I had a chance to photograph my nieces at a skating rink. The K3 and the FA77 struggled a lot to keep focus. I had a lot of missed shots. Lighting was fairly good so it was not a complete low light situation. If I had to shoot pro-paid assignments that involved action work, I too would probably look at Nikon.

I am a former Canon guy and their mid-range cameras had the same issue as my Pentax K3 and the K5IIs. I envy my Nikon buddies anytime we get together and compare cameras. I like the Nikon speed but never liked their ergonomics nor their menu system. I prefer Pentax and Canon ergo and menu over Nikon any day. I guess it is a personal thing and something you can learn to live with over time.

[philbaum]

My A7II is much smaller then my K5II and it is FF. It isn't about sensor size, it is about camera size. Mirror less is the answer for mobility. Anything with a mirror is going to be bigger and heavier.

The A7 series has taken some hits because of things its not suited for. But in hindsight, Sony had a mobility goal in mind for the A7's and achieved it. I've had an A7r and an A7s next to my K3, and its shocking to see a full frame camera smaller and lighter than my K3. I'd much rather carry around an A7 for travel and walk arounds than any other FF camera. And certainly Sony has benefited from the fuss over each new A7 model. Notoriety has value

[wtlwdwgn]

I also recently switched to Nikon full frame, by means of a used D700. Ergonomically, it's a toss up for me between that and my K-5, but performance wise it's a different story. The Nikon is a MACHINE, with awesome focusing speed and accuracy. Their selection of 1.8 primes is now expanding rapidly and there are some gems to be found. In general the selection and availability of parts, accessories and lenses is much better, which I like.

I will keep my K-5 with a few primes, as well as all the analog Pentax gear (Nikon film gear is expensive!) for when I want something lightweight, small and unobtrusive. The combo of K-5 plus DA 40 is unsurpassed in that department. Heck, I might even still buy the 77.

As far as the files go, I'm happy with either. The Nikon does have the edge in having that full frame look of course. By the way, I did underestimate how different the RAW output was going to be. I'm still in the process of adjusting my workflow to the Nikon.

Yep, I have the D700 too. I think the ergonomics and menus of the K-3 are more user friendly but the images from the D700 are marvelous.....as long as you don't crop them. Cropping D700 images to APS-C results in only 5 MP files. That's where APS-C beats FF. Even a D810's 36 MP are only 15 MP when cropped to APS-C. I think we have to adjust our thinking about proper composition in the viewfinder/live view with FF and making sure to use the full frame. Just my $0.02.

[Lauke_101]

Yep, I have the D700 too. I think the ergonomics and menus of the K-3 are more user friendly but the images from the D700 are marvelous.....as long as you don't crop them. Cropping D700 images to APS-C results in only 5 MP files. That's where APS-C beats FF. Even a D810's 36 MP are only 15 MP when cropped to APS-C. I think we have to adjust our thinking about proper composition in the viewfinder/live view with FF and making sure to use the full frame. Just my $0.02.

I wholeheartedly agree! I don't dare to do any more than minor cropping with the D700 when I know I might print it. For web work (where most of my paid assignments end up) it's less critical. I try to stick to the 'crop in camera' rule

Speaking of the viewfinder, that is the only thing so far on the D700 that bugs me. The K-5's 100% coverage is something that spoiled me a lot, haha.

[philbaum]

Yep, I have the D700 too. I think the ergonomics and menus of the K-3 are more user friendly but the images from the D700 are marvelous.....as long as you don't crop them. Cropping D700 images to APS-C results in only 5 MP files. That's where APS-C beats FF. Even a D810's 36 MP are only 15 MP when cropped to APS-C. I think we have to adjust our thinking about proper composition in the viewfinder/live view with FF and making sure to use the full frame. Just my $0.02.

Thats interesting, the A7S has "only" 12mp as well. I remember the K20. I thought 12mp was marvelous. But weights are different between these cameras:

D700 1070gms
D750 750 gms
K3 800 gms
A7's 500 to 600gms

In defense of pixels, they are not only useful for cropping, they also act as a sort of teleconverter when one has too wide of lenses. Provided one gets the focus nailed. But for properly framed pics, i agree, 12mp will do the trick.

Anyway enjoyed the comments on the D700. A friend has one she's been doing weddings with for years.

[no694terry]

Been loving my K3, glad i stayed. I'm ready to add a nice zoom i think. Was thinking about another 55-300 but wasn't all that impressed with my last one. Or perhaps sell off my 18-135wr and buy another tamron 17-50 and a nice zoom. Any zoom recomendations in the 500-750 range?

[ChristianRock]

What was it about the 55-300 that you didn't like?

By all accounts, you can't go wrong with the DA*50-135 and that one is in the price range you mention, and would be a good addition to a 17-50. Unless you really need that 200+mm. It just depends on what you want to shoot.

[no694terry]

I'm looking at the DA*60-250 or That Sigma 100-300F4

My old 18-135 cropped down seem to have better sharpness than my old 55-300, hand held anyway. I'd just like something faster in the 250 range for birds, kids from a distance and things. I like shooting candid from a distance at family events

[Homo_erectus]

The 60-250 is my favorite Pentax lens and works fantastically with the AW TC.