[steppenfuchs]

Brand new future Pentax user hailing from Vancouver, BC.

Up until a couple of days ago I was set on starting at the top and getting the K-5 IIs and a couple of lenses, but after reading left and right I'm not so sure anymore. Taking into consideration a budget of roughly 2000 bux, what way should I go:

- K-5 IIs and a couple of lenses
- one of the last deals for the K-5 bundles
- K-30 and more lenses than I actually need...WR, primes, 2.8 zoom of some kind

For some reason, I really like the looks of the K-30. I also like shooting at night, so the new and improved AF of the K-5 II might come in handy... How big is this difference hands-on, in real life?

I'm set on Pentax no matter what, I need WR (it rains a lot in here), I like the idea of using all the k-mounts there are on the same body, and last and not least I'm probably a hipster and go for the underdogs by default.

Thanks.

[calculator01]

Camera bodies come and go, lenses last forever. With that in mind, new technology is cool. I would do the K-30 and pick up the 18-135 + some good primes.
K5IIs would be awesome, but that would put you down an extra lens, or 2
If Henry's still has the K5's on clearance, that might be the way to go though...

[Ash]

The K30 and K-5 II both work on similar AF systems and so I doubt you will be disappointed with the performance of either. Bear in mind that the K-5 is a significantly more advanced tool than the K30 merely for the more advanced user needing a higher level of customisation. There is a lot more room to grow into the K-5, but I doubt the K30 will leave you wanting for years to come.

The decision is yours.
Have a feel of both cameras and decide that way if possible.

[abmj]

You don't say what your experience level is prior to Pentax but if you really are a newbie, I think the K-30 with a nice lens suite and other accessories (good flash, good tripod + ballhead, etc.) would be the better way to go. The K-5, as posted above, has some advanced features for the advanced user who knows what he needs. For learning, a somewhat simpler but almost equally as capable camera would facilitate figuring out what advanced features you need and want while taking great images. Once you have the good lenses and knowledge, you can think about whether or not you need those additional features.

[geomez]

I was faced with a similar dilemma when I decided to upgrade from the K100D. I was originally thinking of the K-30, but one of my reasons for upgrading was that I wanted more body based controls (i.e. not hidden in menus), and the K-5 delivered that more so than the K-30. Also, upgrading from one of the older Pentax beginner dslrs which all had top mounted lcds, I was disinclined to go with the K-30, which doesn't have one. I had a similar budget and ended up going with the K-5 IIs, which I got for a steal. I also got some lenses but not all that I originally wanted. I'm in no way disappointed with my decision, and am just going to have to save up for the lenses I really want.

[Gerbermiester]

As a fellow Vancouverite I'll tell ya, weather sealing is the ticket. And, lucky you, Vancouver has a large Pentax community with an equally large selection of used Pentax gear on craigslist.

If you've got $2000 to spend, I'd go a bit of a different route. If you are truly a newbie to the dSLR world, I'd pick up a used K30 or a used K-5 off craigslist.
Why?
1) Awesome weather-sealing
2) A K-5 can be had for $600 total a K30 goes for $450. This leaves you a lot more room for buying lenses! And, hey, no HST.
3) If you figure out that dSLR photography isn't your thing, you can resell it for what you paid for it.

So, a used K30 and a used 18-135mm goes for $850. That leaves you with another $1150.
Pick up a used Tamron 70-200mm f/2.8 ($650) that's like half the new price in Canada. And, since it's Pentax, you're looking at a stabilized 70-200mm!
Well, you now have an awesome kit. Oh, and you still have $500 to spend on camera gear. Pick up a 50mm autofocus prime (Used Fa 50mm f/1.4 = $250) and you're golden.

With that last $250 you've got in the bank, get yourself a nice camera strap, a nice camera bag, and a nice bullhorn to shout at your Canikon friends about the deals you got.

haha, just my thoughts

[steppenfuchs]

I'm a newb but not a noob. Always thought i'm a bridge camera guy, turns out I'm not. I own a Canon sx50, a Fuji X-S1, and a water damaged Panasonic FZ100 - and I wasn't happy with either of them. I shoot raw, I understand the basics and some more - although I don't bracket/compensate/fiddle whatever that often. I tend to shoot anything, with some kind of "I like it, I shoot it" philosophy/instant gratification.

I tend to outgrow gear pretty fast though...how fast would I outgrow a k-30 though? Actually, how fast would I outgrow APS-C and find myself in a new hole?

Sorry for the rhetorical questions and thanks for the advice.

[jatrax]

I tend to outgrow gear pretty fast though...how fast would I outgrow a k-30 though? Actually, how fast would I outgrow APS-C and find myself in a new hole?

I bought into Pentax with a k-x, my first DSLR coming from bridge cameras for many years. Used to shoot film but retired all that when I went digital. Anyway, the k-x took me about 2 years of shooting, nearly every day to outgrow. Mostly because I wanted two control wheels and weather sealing and more megapixels. So my guess is the k-30 would suit you for a good while. The k-5 series does have a few extras but if you are not 'fiddling' with things then I don't see you needing most of them. Most of the extras are things you won't need unless you really get into this.

As to outgrowing APS-C? Lots of professionals making a living using APS-C cameras. For lots of things the full frame alternative just does not work as well. Unless you are doing landscapes for a living, APS-C will last you a very long time. I'm sure the FF enthusiasts will come after me with tar and feathers but for most of us there just is no need for it. What camera you need depends on what you do with the images. If you are shooting with an eye toward National Geographic that's one thing, for the average shooter APS-C is the best value.

[Ash]

If you're growing fast, you may be craving for a FF soon enough.
But I wouldn't say you'd outgrow the K-5 too quickly.

I'd also add in a tripod for those longer exposures you might want to capture.

[Gerbermiester]

Well, you won't find anything that equals Pentax's weather-sealing standards, WR lens prices, and variety of available WR lenses anywhere else. But, if fullframe is where you think you'll end up Canon, Nikon, and Sony all make really great stuff.

Will Pentax make fullframe dSLRs any time soon? Nobody over here knows, and the engineers over in Japan aren't giving any firm dates.

Investing into a camera system is worth thinking over. Buying lenses that are fullframe compatible isn't a bad idea, and Pentax does make a bunch (the FA series, the DFA series, and most of the DA primes). Canon, Nikon, and Sony do too. Picking up a Nikon D7100 or a Canon 7D or a Sony A77 and a few fullframe compatible lenses will give you an upgrade path to fullframe that Pentax may or may not ever offer. Ultimately, you'll have to ask yourself if you're buying a camera to take pictures with today or buying a camera to take pictures with gear you might get tomorrow. It sounds simple, but when money gets involved, simple choices can get hard.

The best advice I can give is that the right tool for the job is dependant on the application. As Jatrax pointed out, APS-C and fullframe have different advantages and disadvantages. Look into these differences and perhaps your choices will become easier.

Best of luck!

[DSims]

- K-30 and more lenses than I actually need...WR, primes, 2.8 zoom of some kind

Unfortunately, for $2000 this would be fewer lenses than you actually need, but it illustrates why you should pick the K-30.


You get the K-30 or another used body. Then get the DA*50-135 (you need to get the used price or close to it). After that you get a DA*16-50, a DA17-70 ("semi-WR"), a DA18-135, or a Tamron 17-50/2.8 (not WR). But the K-30 (or previously the K-r or K-x) plus the two DA* f/2.8 zooms is the absolute best IQ you can get from any manufacturer for around $2000 (maybe slightly more today), and you get WR to boot.

A K-5 II or IIs is a waste of money until you have a substantial investment in lenses (true, I have a K-5 IIs now, but not before I bought most of my current lenses).

[Alex Zhang]

Unfortunately, for $2000 this would be fewer lenses than you actually need, but it illustrates why you should pick the K-30.


You get the K-30 or another used body. Then get the DA*50-135 (you need to get the used price or close to it). After that you get a DA*16-50, a DA17-70 ("semi-WR"), a DA18-135, or a Tamron 17-50/2.8 (not WR). But the K-30 (or previously the K-r or K-x) plus the two DA* f/2.8 zooms is the absolute best IQ you can get from any manufacturer for around $2000 (maybe slightly more today), and you get WR to boot.

A K-5 II or IIs is a waste of money until you have a substantial investment in lenses (true, I have a K-5 IIs now, but not before I bought most of my current lenses).

I own a K-5 and a K-r. I also tried a K-30 in a store recently. To me the K-5 is a lot better in terms of looks and feels. But I believe K-r or K-30 suffice for most people's real need. If you really want to get a FF eventualy, I'd get a K-30 for now. I don't recommend the K-5II because a new flagship with significant upgrade is probably coming soon. K-5 is also a good choice because it is a very solid camera at a rock bottom price.

[sterretje]

how fast would I outgrow a k-30 though?

Probably never. I have a K100D, K10D and a K5 and have outgrown neither of them. The only time I specifically grab the K5 is if I know I have to do low light shooting.

Actually, how fast would I outgrow APS-C and find myself in a new hole?

What do you see as the practical issues that will make you go for an FF instead of APSc? For my use, there are no needs for FF; I can achieve sufficient shallow DOF on APSc and I don't need ultrawide (but that's me).

I would advise to go for the K30. Having had a quick look on the BH website (I don't have any idea about prices) and a K30 +18-135 + 55-300 already puts you back $1400. Use the equipment and determine your needs for the next items to buy. Flash and tripod can be more useful that other lenses.

This was the sequence that I needed when I ventured into digital (coming from analog)
1) Bought K10D + 18-55
2) Covered focal needs by adding 55-300
3) Bought flash
4) Bought additional lenses.

[Just1MoreDave]

Actually, how fast would I outgrow APS-C and find myself in a new hole?

An APS-C camera will still be useful as a second body, I think. It's impossible to be sure because no one knows what the camera will be or when. A lot of Canon or Nikon people have both body types, using APS-C for something like birding and FF for showing off wide angle, depth of field or whatever.

[normhead]

I'd love to be able to start off all over and I'd probably go with a K-30, used if possible. The K-30 and 18-135 is a great starter kit. I'd be tempted to go with the Tamron 17-50 as a 2.8 lens. The add primes to support. The first two primes I'd get would be the 35 2.4 and Tamron 90 macro 2.8, both relatively cheap, and very useful.

The biggest difference between APS-c and FF is cost. No one has ever posted a definitive series of photos clearly demonstrating the superiority of FF over APS-c unless you're pixel peeping. DOn't get me wrong, I love pixel peeping, but it has very little to do with everyday photography. It's more of a hobby in it's own right.