[Doundounba]

A comment regarding lenses... You definitely want a macro for flat field imaging of art pieces, but which one depends very much on the size of your artwork and the room you have to set-up your pictures. If your artwork is large and you work in a cramped space, using a 90mm-plus macro might not work very well. Also, if that lens is only used for your artwork photos (ie you don't want to also do outdoor, bugs-y macro shots), then you really don't need a $700, weather-sealed lens like the D-FA 100mm WR. An $80, manual focus Pentax-M 50mm F/4 is a mightily fine piece of glass and will give great, sharp results. +1 on the tripod recommendation too.

[lukulele]

A very informative and well written thread on all parts. Two sleeper lenses that I've had great luck with(K-3, K-5, K-01) that are frequently available are the F35-70 and the manual A 35-105. The ranges are covered, both have a limited "macro" and color renditions can be excellent. I paid $50 for each. Good Luck in whatever you decide.

[Rlftbol]

A very informative and well written thread on all parts. Two sleeper lenses that I've had great luck with(K-3, K-5, K-01) that are frequently available are the F35-70 and the manual A 35-105. The ranges are covered, both have a limited "macro" and color renditions can be excellent. I paid $50 for each. Good Luck in whatever you decide.

Informative indeed. I love the recommendations - lots of info and extremely wise advice to budget and creative conscious ideas.
Shooting art work will be a regular occurrence... in conjunction with moving to Minnesota and the proximity to The Boundary Waters (as a born & raised Californian city guy), exploring a new environment which will prove to be rugged & weathered is going to be so tempting.
I will definitely be out and about trying to combat my fear of large mosquitos in the summer and bone crunching cold in the winter. Being behind the camera will help ease those gentle California bones of mine!
Thanks again to everyone for taking the time to share your feedback. Priceless information here and has certainly helped me avoid any major financial mistakes!
Gratsi

[normhead]

Not to belabour the point.... but two images, tell me which is the twelve bit? Lots of subtle changes in the rock face. So that's my example for how I can't tell the difference. I'm still waiting for an example to tell me it does. To me the differences in these two pictures are the different angles, not the 12 or 14 bit processing.

When there's a choice between theoretical and empirical, alway choose the empirical, the theoretical can only be substantiated by the empirical. And there's a good reason for that. With empirical data you can take the theoretical construct at face value, but conclude it makes no practical difference. Most raw images are reduced to jpegs for viewing, which are 8 bit. SO throwing out 4 bits or throwing out 6 bits... I suppose it could make a difference. But as I said, I'm not buying it until I see it. You certainly don't see it in 8 bit images, and you have way more information than you probably need going 12 to 8 bit.

I understand the theory of why 14 bit is better. It's just one of those things I've never seen demonstrated in the real world. So I remain sceptical.

Which is which?

[cheekygeek]

I've seen a scientific paper suggesting there is no advantage 14 bit over 12 bit on APS-c sensors.i

Besides being unsubstantiated by a link, so that we could evaluate the source and the date of the "scientific paper" the problem with this summary statement is that it "paints with a broad brush". For example, does it take into account the different types of sensors available today? The Sony Exmor, used in Pentax cameras, the X-Trans used in Fuji cameras are just two significant changes in sensor technology.

Also, there is a huge difference between "no advantage' and "an advantage seen in only certain situations... such as scenes of a certain dynamic range and photographed using suitably low ISO."

I would agree that these are not concerns that a "newbie" should be worried about. They have a lot to learn before such things are a factor. But neither should they be swept under the rug or summarized in such a way as if they should be unimportant to everyone.

In reply to the OP, I would like to assure you that either the K-5II or K-5IIs are cameras that you could grow with for a very very long time. The same is true of the K-3, if you can afford it, it is a camera that would satisfy a "pro". Its main benefits (besides the obvious megapixel difference) is an improved AF mode, 2 card slots, FluCard compatability, switchable (and bracketable) AA filter (a DSLR *first*). This comes at the "price" of a bit more noise at high ISOs (when compared to its 16MP brethren) and, according to DXOMARK testing, about 1/2 EV of reduced dynamic range.

Frankly, I'm sure that you would be amazed with any of the choices, particulary the "bang-for-the-buck" over comparable Nikon & Canon models (though these are unquestionably more "popular" among the unwashed masses.) The best things about Pentax are:
in-body image stabilization - meaning you get it even if you put a 40 year old lens on the front of your camera; and the fact that you can EASILY use a whole host of manual focus legacy glass out there in K-mount and screwmount (thanks to Pentax's built-in backwards compatability*) including the superb screwmount Takumars.

*screwmount lenses require a relatively inexpensive screwmount to K adapter.

[normhead]

Also, there is a huge difference between "no advantage' and "an advantage seen in only certain situations... such as scenes of a certain dynamic range and photographed using suitably low ISO."

I'd like to see any photos demonstrating any advantage, anytime , anywhere, any DR, I don't care. If folks are going to say things like that, surely they should support them, I'm saying I haven't seen a difference, that's an absolute fact. I'm waiting for someone to show me the difference, something that contradicts my own shooting...

And yes it's pretty much irrelevant to the OP, so why did someone bring it up? The way fallacies get started on the internet is folks making unsupported statements in random conversations, which then get repeated as fact. As far as I can tell this is one of them.

To the OP, I'd say, a bargain K-30 will be just as good as any 14 bit engine, in any circumstance I've seen, and if you can save a few hundred more dollars for a tamron 90 or Sigma 70, whatever. If you can't find a bargain K-30 look at a K-5IIs.

Get a lens that's pretty much distortion free for reproducing your art. Something good edge to edge. EG the 35 2.8 macro has .4% distortion, the 35 2.4 .8% distortion, the Sigma 70 macro, .116% distortion, the Tamron 90 macro .161.

The distortion of both of the longer lenses is negligible. For reproducing anything, I'd go for the 70 macro, and buy the best body I could buy for it with the funds I have. The lens will make more difference than the camera body as long as you're buying K-30 though K-5Iis, the K-3 adds a level of sharpness you can't match with a 16 Mp camera, but that sensor used ion the K5- K-30, K-50, K-01, K5II. K-5IIs is no slouch. Get the lens you need, buy the camera that goes with it, the best you can afford, but of the 16mp cameras... the lens will make more difference than the camera body.

Incidently, also love what the Sigma 70 does as a portrait lens and a macro lens, although something like a 35 2.4. to go with it (the FA 50 1.4 is .35%, better than the 35s but not in 70-100 range) would be a good investment as well as an 18-135 for walking around.