[falconeye]

This math is not looking good for me staying on the Pentax platform even though I love my K-3 and hate switching but sometimes finances take precedence over loyalty

I bought into the Nikon system and it cost me closer to 10k$. Your math is lacking experience what you pay once in the Nikon camp.

Nikon has some fine glass, including a few missing in the Pentax lineup, but it comes at a price. Sure, Pentax will have some expensive glass in the future too. Nikon has more 3rd party options but that may change once the Pentax FF is out.

As for the body, I guess Pentax will try to match the D750 price as it is its direct peer. Maybe not at launch day, but soon enough after. Cf. K-3/II and D7200 pricing.

I would never ever consider switching systems in order to save cost. Never works out in real life. Remember the LBA acronym? With Nikon, meet it again

[clackers]

I would never ever consider switching systems in order to save cost. Never works out in real life. Remember the LBA acronym?

Good advice, Falconeye. :-)

[RobA_Oz]

It's a variation on the old carnival theme: get them in the tent cheap, and then charge higher for everything you can convince them they need to see or consume...

Falconeye is dead right. Once you realise that there's a better option in glass, you'll want it.

[normhead]

It's a variation on the old carnival theme: get them in the tent cheap, and then charge higher for everything you can convince them they need to see or consume...

Falconeye is dead right. Once you realise that there's a better option in glass, you'll want it.

Hell, I don't even own any Nikon gear, and I already want it. I hang out with way too many Nikon shooters. The difference for me is I wouldn't give up my K-3, it would have to be my Pentax gear, and a D810 with the Trinity, and then i wouldn't be able to carry all that stuff.

[RobA_Oz]

I hang out with way too many Nikon shooters.

Is that what's known as "noblesse oblige"?
(on your part, I hasten to say...)

[rawr]

a D810 with the Trinity

Ouch (B&H prices, USD):

D810: $2996 [980g w. battery]
Nikon 14-24 f2.8 $1996 [1000g]
Nikon 24-70 f2.8: $1886 [900g]
Nikon 70-200 VRII f2.8: $2397 [1500g]

Totals: USD $9275 [4.4kg]

All great gear, of course.

Hopefully Ricoh isn't planning to totally emulate Nikon here with their FF lineup pricing. But I suspect they will probably stick very close to it.

[normhead]

Is that what's known as "noblesse oblige"?
(on your part, I hasten to say...)

Naw... some of them pay me, others just turn up and shoot what i shoot, after i spend days figuring out how to get the best images. They either pay me or owe me, one way or the other.

[Winder]

Ouch (B&H prices, USD):

D810: $2996 [980g w. battery]
Nikon 14-24 f2.8 $1996 [1000g]
Nikon 24-70 f2.8: $1886 [900g]
Nikon 70-200 VRII f2.8: $2397 [1500g]

Totals: USD $9275 [4.4kg]

All great gear, of course.

Hopefully Ricoh isn't planning to totally emulate Nikon here with their FF lineup pricing. But I suspect they will probably stick very close to it.

Not totally. The Pentax 70-200mm isn't OIS, but yeah, they will look about the same in every other way. There's not cheap/light way to make fast FF glass.

These really aren't lenses for the typical enthusiast. We're talking about glass for the working man. Nobody carries around 4Kg of glass and body for an 8 hour wedding day unless you are getting paid.

I'm way more interested in the D-FA* Limited primes that I hope to see next year.

[SteveM]

I own both the K3 and FF Nikon and I'm just curious....what type of photography do you do and perhaps you can borrow a friends for a few days to see how it compares. I find I have to carry both around because I use each for different types of photography. Given the majority of photography I do, if I had to sell one, I would stick with the Pentax.

[RollsUp]

"Problably" you should wait to see the prize for the Pentax FF that you are estimating at 2200! And the tamron 70-200 for Pentax mount should not cost 2200 as you say!!! You are mixing brands here!!!

I'm pretty sure he meant the new Pentax D FA* 70-200 lens and not the Tamron

[Kunzite]

Yes, but he included the Tamron for the Nikon kit instead of the similarly (to Pentax) expensive Nikkor 70-200.
In order to be an apples-to-apples comparison, we should either have OEM, or 3rd-party for both.

[Cynog Ap Brychan]

And I'm worried it might be too cheap* - although except for me and Barry, I'm not sure if there's anyone else here thinking the same.

You can add me to that list. I've gone on record by saying that I hoped that Pentax could be a high-end alternative to the Canon and Nikon systems.

In response to the OP, I am currently running two systems, Nikon for FF (D810 and Df) and Pentax for APS-C (K-3 and K-5 IIs) (I also have a m43 system, but that's something I don't talk about....). APS-C and FF have their own particular advantages and advantages, as has been pointed out already on this thread, but there is a large area of overlap where either system will give great results. To go to the expense of FF, I think one has to be certain that the specific advantages are what one truly needs (slightly shallower depth of field at any given aperture, slightly better noise characteristics at high ISO) or because the Nikon system has particular lenses you need, or other things, like the superb flash system.

For my part, when the Pentax FF comes out, if it is at least 36 MPx and its autofocus can match my D810, I will be happy to run just the Pentax system which will give me FF and APS-C options with the same set of lenses (for the most part - I'm not giving up my 15mm Limited).

[ElJamoquio]

The Tamron 70-200 for Pentax is the older screw drive model whereas the version for Nikon is the newer model, which is supposedly better than the Nikon 70-200 VRII at 1/2 the price. I have a Tamron 24-70 that I use on my D810 and it's very nice indeed, definitely a better lens than the Nikon 24-70.

I think on sharpness, it's splitting hairs between the Tamron 24-70 and the Nikon 24-70. In Bokeh I think the Nikon trumps the Tamron.

If someone was handing out lenses that I was required to use, I'd pick the Nikon without hesitating.

---------- Post added 05-24-15 at 05:07 PM ----------

Yes, but he included the Tamron for the Nikon kit instead of the similarly (to Pentax) expensive Nikkor 70-200.
In order to be an apples-to-apples comparison, we should either have OEM, or 3rd-party for both.

The newer Tamron and the older Tamron are quite different.

I have the old one and love it but, even though they're both 70-200's, they're really two very different lenses. I doubt the Pentax will compete with the old Tamron. The Nikon competes with the new Tamron.

---------- Post added 05-24-15 at 05:11 PM ----------

Ouch (B&H prices, USD):

D810: $2996 [980g w. battery]
Nikon 14-24 f2.8 $1996 [1000g]
Nikon 24-70 f2.8: $1886 [900g]
Nikon 70-200 VRII f2.8: $2397 [1500g]

Totals: USD $9275 [4.4kg]

All great gear, of course.

Hopefully Ricoh isn't planning to totally emulate Nikon here with their FF lineup pricing. But I suspect they will probably stick very close to it.

If you go F/4 you save a bunch of weight and cost.

Also, you can find the 14-24 F/2.8 at $1500 occasionally. There's also plenty of used copies of the lenses floating around.

[jsherman999]

There's also plenty of used copies of the lenses floating around.

Unless someone really requires a multi-year warranty, there's no reason *not* to go used, or at least consider it. You can save so much money and get glass that performs as well as new - maybe even better, if you buy from a reputable seller who's guaranteeing a 'good' copy (which I always do.)

And you certainly can buy into FF for much less than $10K. I bought a new (non-discounted) D800 + 5 lenses (Tamron 28-75 2.8, Nikon 300 f4, Nikon 180 2.8, Nikon 50 1.8, Nikon 20 2.8) for about $4700.

You can get in for much less than that even if you want Pentax FF and you already have some of the lenses you intend to shoot.

But Nikon FF does not have an entry-point of $10K. It's only that way if you buy a $3000 body + something like the holy trinity, new.... which is a nice option for a kit, to be sure, but not required especially for a hobbyist.

[normhead]

Unless someone really requires a multi-year warranty, there's no reason *not* to go used, or at least consider it. You can save so much money and get glass that performs as well as new - maybe even better, if you buy from a reputable seller who's guaranteeing a 'good' copy (which I always do.)

And you certainly can buy into FF for much less than $10K. I bought a new (non-discounted) D800 + 5 lenses (Tamron 28-75 2.8, Nikon 300 f4, Nikon 180 2.8, Nikon 50 1.8, Nikon 20 2.8) for about $4700.

You can get in for much less than that even if you want Pentax FF and you already have some of the lenses you intend to shoot.

But Nikon FF does not have an entry-point of $10K. It's only that way if you buy a $3000 body + something like the holy trinity, new.... which is a nice option for a kit, to be sure, but not required especially for a hobbyist.

What you can do and what you want to do are often different. When it comes down to it, at the moment you're going to get into any system, you sit down and do a reality check, and find a way to get what you need for the money you've got. But until that day, I have to have the trinity, new, un-opened box, with a sherpa to carry it all.