[jsherman999]

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.

I get it, I know how LBA works, believe me. That new-lens smell. But it's also nice to find a deal on a used copy of something and then see it 'out of delivery' when you check the UPS site! Stay away from most consumer/variable-aperture zooms and FF is pretty sweet with most lenses, especially primes.

[Rondec]

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.

I don't know, Jay. I have spent more than 10K on gear from Pentax -- quite a bit more. There was no 2000 dollar bill for any one lens and I never spent more than 1000 for a body, but it is awfully easy to get to 10,000, particularly if you are starting fresh. I have most of the primes I want/need for full frame (just need a 20-ish mm wide angle), but the zooms are not going to come cheaply.

Anyway, some people probably have more restraint than I do, but over time, I had to try (and buy) a lot of lenses. Most of the DA limiteds I eventually sold and bought FA limiteds. In the end, my recommendation is just to save and buy the gear you really want. Buying cheaper lenses and then flipping them when you still have to have the more expensive lens in the long run doesn't save any money and maybe costs you some.

But everybody isn't me and there are probably folks who stay in budgets better and don't see awesome photos from a lens on the forum and have to have it.

(By the way, I haven't bought a new lens in 2 years, so maybe my LBA Anonymous meetings are working)...

[normhead]

I don't know, Jay. I have spent more than 10K on gear from Pentax -- quite a bit more.

The other day I said to Tess, we should add up how much we've spent on gear." She rolled her eyes and said "Please don't."

In the past 6 years, we've probably spent over 5K just on bodies. 2 K5s a K20D, A K100D, 2 K-x bodies, and a K-01. There are two shooters but still... that's not even discussing lenses.

[Qwntm]

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.

Or another approach:


D810: $2995 (Paid $2795 last month, so catch a sale.)
Nikon 16-35mm F4 VR: $1099
Tamron 24-70 VC: $1099
Tamron 70-200 VC: $1399


Total USD: $6600


But you really need to be rich or be making money from this stuff to justify it. If I had not restarted my Wedding business, I wouldn't have gone there, nor would I have needed to. You can save another $1K by going with the D750, or D610, but the ultimate landscape do everything camera is the D810, no question. Other than the price, the only complaint I have about the D810 is that the back info screen can't be set to stay on. You have to push a button to see it. That's it. Other than that I wouldn't change a thing.

[Fenwoodian]

It's too early to compare Nikon FF to Pentax FF because we don't have the Pentax FF specs or price yet.

But "IF" the Pentax FF sensor uses the latest generation 42mp sensor with pixel shift then from a maximum IQ standpoint, the Pentax full frame's IQ should easily better the Nikon D810's IQ.

For me (as a photographer who prints and sells giant prints) a camera's IQ is it's most important characteristic. To me, IQ trumps ergonomics, weight, auto-focus performance, and even price (to a degree).

[falconeye]

But "IF" the Pentax FF sensor uses the latest generation 42mp sensor with pixel shift then from a maximum IQ standpoint, the Pentax full frame's IQ should easily better the Nikon D810's IQ.

D810 IQ is extremely difficult to beat.

For one, it has an extreme full well capacity (a measured base iso of true 50), giving its images a medium format look like what you get from the 645Z.

Second, there are a few excellent AF lenses which make this camera shine, like the 200/2 for portraiture.

But I congratulate Pentax for having accepted the challenge. I do not request them to beat the current class leader from the very start.

[cali92rs]

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.)

+1...
One of the advantages of Nikon is that there are MUCH more avenues to get excellent condition used glass, both OEM and 3rd party. I buy bodies new...but I have only bought a few lenses new, and that was before I knew any better.

[TomE]

I went with Nikon a while ago for some wedding work, kept my Pentax gear for other things, but have not upgraded either Nikon or Pentax for quite a while.

The Pentax FF will be the deciding factor as to which way I will go, but no more money invested in Pentax until it at least comes up to the quality of my older Nikon FF!