Originally posted by johnmflores What make the Fuji pro and the Pentax K-3ii not?
Originally posted by btnapa Although Pentax lacks in the full frame lens department, they perhaps have the most complete APSc lens line up. As far as APSc bodies, Pentax is just as good as any of the big boys.
I too would like to know what makes the K-3/II a non-pro camera? Is it cost, alone? Is it the mere fact that it's not FF? ???
Back in 2012, I had $5000 to spend on a new DSLR camera system. That could've even meant only one [zoom] lens with a body. I was going for low-light and best image quality. I can't remember if FF was priced within that bracket at that time, but I looked at many brands of cameras - certainly Canon and Nikons were included in that 'research'.
In 2012 that camera system ended up being the Pentax K-30 (I wanted the newer technology, over the K-5). At least to my eyes, that camera produced the best quality images out of all of the competition I looked at within that spending bracket. And to boot, it was cheap enough that I could even get several lenses with that $5000 spending bracket! I would've spent $4000+/- on a camera body and $1000+/- for one lens if I had to, for the best image quality. Yet that turned out to be Pentax. Again, that's at least
to my eyes.
Now although I didn't consider the K-30 to be a 'pro' camera - in large part at least, because it didn't have separate AE-L and AF-L buttons -- the K-3
DOES have separate buttons for those functions, and more. So why would the Pentax K-3/II not be considered a pro level camera? Where is that specific line in the sand?