[Praestigium]

Greetings everybody! Hope you're all having a fantastic holiday.

I'm currently in the predicament of not knowing how to go about upgrading from Pentax K-x. I've been using the K-x for over two years now and feel that I can probably sell the K-x and start upgrading.

However, I'm not entirely sure what I should upgrade to, most people have advised I avoid the K-r as it isn't really a major upgrade over the K-x and that I should instead hold out for the K-5. My questions to you folks are:

How much should I expect to sell the K-x for and where would the ideal place be to sell it?


What camera should I upgrade to assuming that my price range is $400 + (Whatever it is I get for the K-x)?



Many thanks!

[GDRoth]

Have you checked the Buy/Sell forum here?

You may get a couple hundred for the Kx.............maybe more...........I think you'll do better selling it here than trading it in or selling on eBay.....add $400 to that and maybe you can get a used K7............which might be a good step up.............

[ihasa]

If you haven't a specific camera in mind, I am not so sure you *need* to upgrade at all. The Kr would be an incredibly slight upgrade. The K7 would be a major body upgrade but a slight step back in IQ. If you're not sure what you want to achieve from your upgrade, my advice is continue to enjoy your Kx.

[jatrax]

If you haven't a specific camera in mind, I am not so sure you *need* to upgrade at all.

+1 What do you want to do that the k-x doesn't?

$400 plus your k-x is not going to get you to a k-5 and the k-r is not (IMHO) enough of a step up from the k-x to justify changing. Also, the k-r is rumored to be at end of life so a replacement should be coming along in the next 6 months or so. If I were you I would hold onto the k-x, save up some more $ and wait to see what is released next.

Your other option is the used market, the k-7 as already noted is a significant upgrade in body but not in image quality.

I think with your budget you are at the best you can get for now.

[RioRico]

jatrax nailed it. The basic question when thinking of more gear: What do i want to do that i can't do with what i already have? As mentioned, the Kr and K7 aren't great advances on the Kx. The K5 *is* a major advance on many fronts, but it ain't cheap. What do these do that you need?

For someone who always wants the latest and greatest, fine, collect the whole set. I can't afford that and you apparently can't either. I got my K20D about 3.5 years ago because I wanted a camera that wouldn't prod me to 'upgrade' anytime soon. That strategy has worked so far. I might be tempted by a Kr because it DOES have features lacking my K20D. But I haven't jumped yet.

So, what will a newer body do that your older body won't?

[Roob-N-Boots]

Just invest in better lenses if you haven't already, and wait for the next generation of bodies.

[Praestigium]

You all do raise a valid point, I guess what I was really after was a body that would yield higher quality images, but the more I think about it now, the more I believe that whatever poor results I get are more due to my shortcomings rather than my camera's...I think I really need to sit down again and fiddle with the Shutterspeed's and Aperture settings of my lenses.

Righto then, I think I'll stick with my camera for a little while longer, thanks for the solid advice, gentlemen!

[jatrax]

Just invest in better lenses if you haven't already

Bodies come and go, glass is forever. You do not mention what lenses you are using but assuming it is the kit 18-55 zoom, then the best return on your $400 is a new lens.

[Praestigium]

Bodies come and go, glass is forever. You do not mention what lenses you are using but assuming it is the kit 18-55 zoom, then the best return on your $400 is a new lens.

Oopps, sorry! Along with the standard 18 - 55 kit lens I own:

- SMC PENTAX M 50mm f1.7
- SIGMA 28-90mm
- PANAGOR PMC 90mm Macro (My pride and joy!)
- SIGMA 70 - 300mm Macro

All I'm missing is a decent lens to take some landscape pictures with.

[RioRico]

Righto then, I think I'll stick with my camera for a little while longer,

Good move!

You do not mention what lenses you are using but assuming it is the kit 18-55 zoom, then the best return on your $400 is a new lens.

Oopps, sorry! Along with the standard 18 - 55 kit lens I own:

- SMC PENTAX M 50mm f1.7
- SIGMA 28-90mm
- PANAGOR PMC 90mm Macro (My pride and joy!)
- SIGMA 70 - 300mm Macro

All I'm missing is a decent lens to take some landscape pictures with.

That's a decent basic kit. And now I can go into my 'scape rant. My usual points:

1) Most 'scapes don't move around much except in seismic zones, so a fast AF lens isn't really needed. Except maybe for town'scapes.
2) If you look at published collections of 'scapes you'll see that most are shot within a focal range equivalent to 18-55mm on APS-C.
3) Ultrawides aren't really 'scape lenses -- they magnify the nearby and shrink the distant, turning mountains into molehills.
4) If you want distortion-free 'scapes, use a 'normal' lens which for APS-C is 28-31mm. If you can stand a little distortion, go to 20-24mm.
5) As with portraits etc, 'scapes can be shot at almost any focal length. All rules should be creatively broken, especially mine.

So, what did you have in mind for 'scapes?

Yes, you are missing out on the wide end. Any number of 28s would be wizard no-distortion 'scape lenses, like the SuperTak 28/3.5, or any of the Vivitar or Tamron or Sigma 28s. 24mm primes are a bit tougher, but the Panagor PMC 24/2.8 is sharp and mine was cheap. 19-20-21mm primes are more rare and costly. And that's still not really wide.

Beyond that, the best contenders IMHO are the DA12-24 and Tamron 10-24. I chose the Tamron over the Pentax and the Sigma 10-20s because of 1) warranty, 2) QC issues, 3) cost, and 4) the 20-24mm ranges is SO useful! I use my 10-24 in tight spaces at the short end, and for land-sea-air-town 'scapes at the long end. Midrange is good for narrow streets etc.

Others may recommend a kit.lens replacement, one of the 17-50 or 16-45 bunch, and those *will* give somewhat better results than the DA18-55, but they won't expand your range much. The DA16-45 would be a good 'scape lens, if that's where you want to concentrate. Or you can just stop-down the 18-55 to f/8, put it on a tripod, and have at it.

[Praestigium]

That's a decent basic kit. And now I can go into my 'scape rant. My usual points:

1) Most 'scapes don't move around much except in seismic zones, so a fast AF lens isn't really needed. Except maybe for town'scapes.
2) If you look at published collections of 'scapes you'll see that most are shot within a focal range equivalent to 18-55mm on APS-C.
3) Ultrawides aren't really 'scape lenses -- they magnify the nearby and shrink the distant, turning mountains into molehills.
4) If you want distortion-free 'scapes, use a 'normal' lens which for APS-C is 28-31mm. If you can stand a little distortion, go to 20-24mm.
5) As with portraits etc, 'scapes can be shot at almost any focal length. All rules should be creatively broken, especially mine.

So, what did you have in mind for 'scapes?

Yes, you are missing out on the wide end. Any number of 28s would be wizard no-distortion 'scape lenses, like the SuperTak 28/3.5, or any of the Vivitar or Tamron or Sigma 28s. 24mm primes are a bit tougher, but the Panagor PMC 24/2.8 is sharp and mine was cheap. 19-20-21mm primes are more rare and costly. And that's still not really wide.

Beyond that, the best contenders IMHO are the DA12-24 and Tamron 10-24. I chose the Tamron over the Pentax and the Sigma 10-20s because of 1) warranty, 2) QC issues, 3) cost, and 4) the 20-24mm ranges is SO useful! I use my 10-24 in tight spaces at the short end, and for land-sea-air-town 'scapes at the long end. Midrange is good for narrow streets etc.

Others may recommend a kit.lens replacement, one of the 17-50 or 16-45 bunch, and those *will* give somewhat better results than the DA18-55, but they won't expand your range much. The DA16-45 would be a good 'scape lens, if that's where you want to concentrate. Or you can just stop-down the 18-55 to f/8, put it on a tripod, and have at it.

This was incredibly useful thank you. I'll admit that I'm still lacking knowledge in regards to what requirements I should be looking for in a landscape lens, but I've taken the lens's you posted as guidelines for what I should be looking for.

I think I'll search through the Marketplace before heading over to Ebay.

[Praestigium]

I've thought about and I guess the kind of landscapes I'm interested in photographing are generally:

- Horizons
- Beaches
- Mountain Ranges
- Forests
- Lakes and Rivers
- Ports

In fact, I have a one week fishing trip coming up on the 6th of February, so I'm planning on testing it out the new lens then. I'm a little nervous about using a manual lens however....every time I think I've managed to nail a shot in the view finder I open it up on my PC to discover it's blurred out.

That said, I think I've managed to spy a Takumar 28mm on ebay....I'll keep an eye on it for the time being.

[GoldenRGuy]

Oopps, sorry! Along with the standard 18 - 55 kit lens I own:

- SMC PENTAX M 50mm f1.7
- SIGMA 28-90mm
- PANAGOR PMC 90mm Macro (My pride and joy!)
- SIGMA 70 - 300mm Macro

All I'm missing is a decent lens to take some landscape pictures with.

I just got the Sigma 10-20. Fantastic lens!! (makes my K7 stand on it's head!)

[JinDesu]

I would like to step in and say, even though you've made your mind on keeping the k-x (which I agree is a good idea), there are a few k-5s on the for sale threads going for 800-900 bucks, and a k-x would sell for 300-400. So theoretically one could get the k-5 in that scenario.

As far as a landscape lens goes, have you looked at the DA35 F2.4?

[RioRico]

@Praestigium,
Looking at you lens and target lists, I have to ask: Is your Sigma 28-90 AF or MF? If it's AF, I'd still recommend the Tamron 10-24 for the reasons I mentioned above. If it's MF and you aren't satisfied with MF, think hard about the Tamron 17-50/2.8.