[Laurentiu Cristofor]

I will become better - not because of the camera itself, but because I will be exploring and doing things I wouldn’t otherwise do.

Sounds like the camera is the reason and you're trying to avoid giving it the credit.

[HenrikDK]

Sounds like the camera is the reason and you're trying to avoid giving it the credit.

Ouch - I guess you have to be careful what you say here ...

Actually I was trying to say that for all practical purposes my current K-x would be sufficient for my needs and my ability (I'm not that good). Being excited about my new camera would cause me to explore new boundaries and hopefully learn how to become better.

And no - the latest and best camera and great lenses do not a great photographer make, IMO.

It's just a tool - but what a great tool the K-5 is!!

[Winder]

Being the engineer I am I actually evalauted the cost of the K-5 bought new over time vs buying the "almost used" K-7 at Amazon ($710 today). A new k-7 is still around $900. A used K-7 seems to sell for around $650.

The K20D now fetches about $400, and started at about the same price as the K-7. So my guess is that the K-7 will sell for around the same in two years. That is a $500 drop from current new prices, and a $250 drop from used.

I am also guessing a used K-5 will sell for around $800 in two years. That is a $600 drop from what I just paid. That is a $100 higher drop than a new K-7, and a $350 higher drop than a used one. But for the $350 I get a brand new camera, and I added a two year pentax warranty for $20. Feel free to add the cost of capital!

So I am getting the better performance of the K-5, piece of mind of a 3 year warranty from Pentax, all for the ridiculous low price of $370

Isn't it amazing how we can justify our choices! You can alter these numbers as you see fit, and arrive at the conclusions you want.

And in terms of lenses as investments: While generally a lot better than bodies, the list price of the Pentax DA* 16-50mm was $1,499 and you can now buy it new for $799. Sure glad I didn't buy it when it first came out! Wish I had bought a lot more lenses before Hoya raised pentax prices, though. Maybe they will do it again...

As long as you enjoy your purchase and it makes the process of taking pictures exciting then you have done well.

I see a lot of new users (not referring to you) or upgrade users who buy the latest and greatest body without improving other aspects of their system and they wonder why their results have not improves. I spend a good bit of time on Canon forums and Pentax forums and the number of posts by new users/up-graders about the 7D or K-5 being soft is pretty high. Your original post seems to encourage these users to buy the top of the line body when most of them don't have the rest of the equipment needed to take advantage of the body.

Here is what I see:
New Photographer (Jim) : buys a new Rebel and kit lens on clearance down at Bubba's Discount Haircare, Tire, and Camera Supply store. Now we are in business and shooting our cousins wedding. Jim and his new Rebel are dealing with low-light and they need a camera with higher ISO capabilities. Instead of buying faster glass (sharper glass) Jim upgrades to the 7D and now he is getting better results, but his images are still soft. Jim goes on every Canon message board in the internet to rant about how his $1,500 camera can't take sharp pictures..... It's junk and he is sending it back.

If people find themselves needing high ISO my question is - why? When I see they are using a super zoom with f/4-5.6 I tell them they don't need a camera with better high ISO. They need a lens that will let them use a lower ISO setting and not only will they get cleaner images, they will get sharper images. If the person is using fast, high quality glass and still pushing ISO3200 then they need to upgrade their camera.

[spicy cho]

I have the K-X and am pleased enough with it. Decided to put my money into prime limiteds, but I'd definitely love a K5 for WR and the extra stops.

[HenrikDK]

Spicy -

I'm curios - which of the lenses do you use the most? In particular how do you like the 40mm? And do you ever revert back to 18-55 for convienience?

I think I would really like the DA 21, but I am stuggeling with the idea of the 40 mm. In my film days I never seemed to used my 50mm much - I always seemed to go either wider or narrower...

[Laurentiu Cristofor]

And no - the latest and best camera and great lenses do not a great photographer make, IMO.

They can't make you a great photographer, but if they make you more willing to take shots and experiment, that's already a positive influence towards becoming a better photographer. If the camera would be mediocre, you wouldn't be excited about it and you wouldn't be using it that much. And if you don't take shots, you won't become a better photographer.

I find it ironic how in a forum about equipment, people can state that equipment doesn't matter. So why all the equipment discussions then?

[spicy cho]

Henrik,

The 40 was the first one I picked up, and it's main selling point for me was its small form factor. The focal length is a bit too narrow for tight indoor shots, which led me to buying the 21. Needless to say they are both outstanding in color and IQ, and I use them both quite a lot. The 40 is great for walking around and just general shooting, I probably have used it the most to this point, with the 21 just behind since I got it. I take a lot of indoor up close photos so the 21 is my go to for that sort of thing. The 77 I use the least, though it's my best lens, mainly because I'm scared to take it places... it's expensive to replace. I just use that one for special occasions like weddings, and portraiture.

I think the 21 and 40 are both worth it, but you're probably better off going for the 21 first if that's what you think will see more use.

[legacyb4]

So in other words, life is too short to worry and to just get out and DO!

I like your way of thinking...! :-)

Three days ago I realized my problem: I was trying to justify spending the extra money in terms of the specific benefit I would get – like a business ROI (return on investment). This is an oxymoron, since I am not a professional photographer. I should buy a more expensive camera because I like it – not because I have to justify it.

[HenrikDK]

They can't make you a great photographer, but if they make you more willing to take shots and experiment, that's already a positive influence towards becoming a better photographer. If the camera would be mediocre, you wouldn't be excited about it and you wouldn't be using it that much. And if you don't take shots, you won't become a better photographer.

- I'm confused ... that was what I was saying ...

[Winder]

They can't make you a great photographer, but if they make you more willing to take shots and experiment, that's already a positive influence towards becoming a better photographer. If the camera would be mediocre, you wouldn't be excited about it and you wouldn't be using it that much. And if you don't take shots, you won't become a better photographer.

I find it ironic how in a forum about equipment, people can state that equipment doesn't matter. So why all the equipment discussions then?

I have said that equipment matters. I have said that the lens is the most important part of the system. A good lens takes good pictures on ANY camera. A bad lens takes bad pictures on ANY camera. There is a reason the old manual focus A*135mm f/1.8 sells for $2,000 used.

If it takes a new or expensive camera to excite you or motivate you to take pictures then it might not be photography that you are interested in. There are lots of gear collectors and nothing wrong with that. The best photographer I know has not bought a body or lens that I know of in the last five years. His work was amazing then, and it is amazing now. Last year I asked him when he was going to upgrade to the 5DII...... He didn't know there was a 5DII and I think he was serious. Gear is only important to a certain point.

Photography is partially a technical exercise, but it has never been about the tools. If the tools are what get you motivated and not the actual results then we have very different views of photography.

[Laurentiu Cristofor]

- I'm confused ... that was what I was saying ...

Yes, but that means the camera is a reason for your getting better. I had the impression you were saying it wasn't so. Did I misunderstood?

[Laurentiu Cristofor]

Photography is partially a technical exercise, but it has never been about the tools. If the tools are what get you motivated and not the actual results then we have very different views of photography.

It is not about tools being a motivator, but about them being an enabler.

I see a lot of people that treat photography as if it is all about "art" and nothing else. But it is not. To begin with, photography wasn't invented by "artists". It was invented by chemists and inventors that had the dream they could build a machine that would record images. It was all about the tools in the beginning. Just look at the first photos - if they look artistic, it is only by accident. It was still about tools when we moved to color film, and it still is about tools now that we've moved to digital - it is not as if artists demanded color and digital sensors. Yet people keep insisting that tools don't matter. If they really didn't matter, we would still be using collodion wet plates, or even better, a paintbrush - to give free reign to our "artistic creativity".

I get the point that an artist can make art with his bare hands, but I don't get why when they can get their hands on a tool that makes it easier for them to create their art, they refuse to give that tool any credit. If artists would be building their own tools, they could take all the credit for the results (Miroslav Tichy could do that), but the majority of them don't, so I think it is only fair to give some credit to the tools that enable them to do their work with less effort.

Equipment matters because it makes the technical aspects easier and thus moves the focus away from those technicalities and allows you to place it on your goals - and that matters. And if your goals are not artistic, it matters even more. Not all photography is about creating art.

[Winder]

It is not about tools being a motivator, but about them being an enabler.

I see a lot of people that treat photography as if it is all about "art" and nothing else. But it is not. To begin with, photography wasn't invented by "artists". It was invented by chemists and inventors that had the dream they could build a machine that would record images. It was all about the tools in the beginning. Just look at the first photos - if they look artistic, it is only by accident. It was still about tools when we moved to color film, and it still is about tools now that we've moved to digital - it is not as if artists demanded color and digital sensors. Yet people keep insisting that tools don't matter. If they really didn't matter, we would still be using collodion wet plates, or even better, a paintbrush - to give free reign to our "artistic creativity".

I get the point that an artist can make art with his bare hands, but I don't get why when they can get their hands on a tool that makes it easier for them to create their art, they refuse to give that tool any credit. If artists would be building their own tools, they could take all the credit for the results (Miroslav Tichy could do that), but the majority of them don't, so I think it is only fair to give some credit to the tools that enable them to do their work with less effort.

Equipment matters because it makes the technical aspects easier and thus moves the focus away from those technicalities and allows you to place it on your goals - and that matters. And if your goals are not artistic, it matters even more. Not all photography is about creating art.

I think you are missing my point. I'm NOT saying equipment does not matter. I AM saying that the lens is the most important part of the SYSTEM. If shinny new bodies that roll out every year are what gets you excited about photography, then that is great. It is good to get excited about photography, and it is especially good for camera companies. If you are not going to buy good glass there is no reason to spend a lot of money on a body...... unless that new body just makes you feel warm and fuzzy.

All the shinny new bodies in the world will not have as big of an impact on your photography (artistic or not) as quality glass. Actually the more technical your work is the more important quality glass is. An "artist" can use cheap glass that destroys detail and produces low contrast work and claim that is part of his "unique style".

It is not about "ART". It is about producing a quality images..... even if it is a technical photograph.

If IQ is not important then there is no reason to buy a K-5. If you spend $1,500.00 on a K-5 I assume that IQ was part of the reason.

Here is what I am trying to say......
Lenses are the most important part of your system. Good lenses and an entry level body like a K-x will get you better results than the biggest, bestest, fastest, most expensive camera body (even if it is a silver version) and a super zoom (or any other low grade lens).

If results are not important. If IQ does not matter. If being the first kid on the block with the latest and greatest new camera is really what is important and what makes you happy; then ignore everything I am saying.

If you want to take really good pictures that grabs a viewers attention; then buy the best glass you can afford for they type of photography you do.

And when I use the word "YOU" I am not talking specifically about you or any one person on this forum.

[Michaelina2]

Spicy -

I think I would really like the DA 21, but I am stuggeling with the idea of the 40 mm...

Beware... The 40 Ltd was my 'slippery slope.' It is so good (vs. 18-55 and 55-200) that it seduced me into desiring ALL of the "Ltd" primes, DA and FA. A ton of will power was needed to stop me before I became totally consumed. It was hard on the ol' pocket book, but at least the hits came pre-Hoya.

If you feel the 40 is too long, get the 35, or 21, or 15. It does not matter which, you'll love it. Also, you will not really miss the others, since it won't be long before you acquire them, too...

Enjoy... M

[HenrikDK]

You guys are KILLING me

I was trying to be funny about this and I am being dragged down into this philosphical discussion about glass and tools and whether my camera is enabling me or not. LIGHTEN UP. LIFE IS TOO SHORT!!!

Yes - you are right - glass would be a "smarter" investment. No - I am not sure if expensive glass or K-5 would improve my pitures more - i'll let you guys fight that out. No - great photographers do not need expensive cameras, but 645s and Leicas and expensive glass certainly makes it easier.

I am NOT a great photographer, nor am I pretending to be, nor do I believe that a K-5 or a 31mm Ltd will make me one. Nor am I trying to "impress" my friends with my new K-5 (I am using my MB for that - yes I am that kind of person) - heck - none of them would know a K5 from a P&S. Now if I wanted to impress them I need to get one of those really big Canikons with those HUGE lens sticking out

BUT I sure am excited to do photography again, and the K-5 makes me very happy, and I will add some expensive glass just to make you guys happy, and yes - I will still be a mediocre photographer after spending all that money.

So - can I now go back to having FUN with my new camera?

LOL

Mr Cool