Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
12-24-2014, 08:32 PM   #1
Senior Member
naldopr's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 163
New and looking to get advice k50 or k3

good evening
I'm new to photography and I will like a little help from you the experts
Prices are going down on cameras but which one should I get k50 or k3? I want to do wildlife photo macro maybe some sport this 2 cameras are great but wich one should I get? And also lens?
Mery Christmas

12-24-2014, 08:43 PM   #2
Veteran Member
Docrwm's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Somewhere in the Southern US
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 11,275
If you want to do sport then the K3 is more the camera for you because of the improved autofocus speed. Both are nice cameras. As for lens, that's harder. For macro I've never seen autofocus as a plus, which means that there are a lot of very inexpensive manual macro lenses in K mount available. For walk about the 18-135 is weather resistant (as are both cameras) and a very solid performer overall. Merry Christmas.
12-24-2014, 09:25 PM - 1 Like   #3
Pentaxian




Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Far North Qld
Posts: 3,294
If money is no problem, K-3 otherwise K-50. It may not be as AF quick as the K-3, but it's pretty darn quick if you have a good lens. It's also very good at grabbing focus in low light, very good.
12-24-2014, 09:47 PM   #4
Emperor and Senpai
VoiceOfReason's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Nashville, IN
Posts: 5,419
Grab the K3 and the 18-135WR if you have the money. That will be a great place to start if you have the money. The features, image quality, and versatility of that setup will probably do 95% of what you could want, for the rest there are more pro level lenses.

12-24-2014, 11:25 PM   #5
Huy
Forum Member




Join Date: Jan 2014
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 85
QuoteOriginally posted by Steve.Ledger Quote
If money is no problem, K-3 otherwise K-50. It may not be as AF quick as the K-3, but it's pretty darn quick if you have a good lens. It's also very good at grabbing focus in low light, very good.
Totally agree.
This picture was taken by my K-50/ DA* 50-135 at ISO 8000 f 2.8. Applied noise reduction and a bit of sharpening in LR
https://www.flickr.com/photos/110066848@N08/15906957619/in/photostream/

Last edited by Huy; 12-24-2014 at 11:32 PM.
12-25-2014, 04:52 AM   #6
Pentaxian
Na Horuk's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Slovenia, probably
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 10,868
I recommend the K-50 to beginners. It is a great camera and has many, many features. The K-3 is definitely better (higher tier, more expensive), but it is also heavier and has a steeper learning curve. These things can annoy a beginner "Its big, I paid a lot for it, but its complicated and I struggle getting good photos with it!"
So it depends on what kind of person you are. Maybe starting with K-3 works for you. I would instead recommend getting k-50, and spending the money on lenses. You see, a lens will work well for decades, and you can use it on other cameras as well. Lenses lose value slowly, more slowly than camera bodies. Lenses are important for the images. For example, for macro, you need a macro lens. And you can put it on practically any camera, and still get good macro photos.
12-25-2014, 07:09 AM   #7
Senior Member
naldopr's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 163
Original Poster
So wich lens will be good for wildlife land scape and for macro? That will work on both cameras I consider. My self a quik learned person and patience I know there a lot to learn but also the more I use it in the field the faster I will Lear from all the mistake I just want to be sure I get the right equipment also the right sd card to get
Thanks guys

Last edited by naldopr; 12-25-2014 at 07:34 AM.
12-25-2014, 11:39 AM   #8
Forum Member




Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Leuven
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 64
I would recommend the 18-135mm WR lens. It's a weather resistant, and a good general walkaround lens. Wildlife is tricky, but for starters I would choose the 55-300 WR version.

Macro is even more tricky, and heavily depends on your budget. You can try older, manual focus lenses. I played around with reversing rings and rings for lens stacking, but for this you want older lenses with an aperture ring. There are also modern lenses, but I never tried any.

12-25-2014, 11:44 AM   #9
Pentaxian
aleonx3's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Brampton, Ontario
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 3,888
QuoteOriginally posted by naldopr Quote
So wich lens will be good for wildlife land scape and for macro? That will work on both cameras I consider. My self a quik learned person and patience I know there a lot to learn but also the more I use it in the field the faster I will Lear from all the mistake I just want to be sure I get the right equipment also the right sd card to get
Thanks guys
You don't get the all-purpose utility (wildlife, landscape and macro) and expect it to be good.... as others suggested, get the 18-135 WR to start and get comfortable with it first, then go from there. Get the k-3 if you have the budget, otherwise, k-50 is still good.
12-31-2014, 11:07 PM   #10
Senior Member
Trudger1272's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Los Angeles
Photos: Albums
Posts: 288
QuoteOriginally posted by Na Horuk Quote
I would instead recommend getting k-50, and spending the money on lenses.
I agree. If you haven't purchased a camera yet I'll add that you could use the extra money for a 2nd hand macro lens along with the K-50 and DA 18-135wr. My first macro was a vivtar 105mm plastic fantastic for $90 from the forum market place. With the K-50 you will have the preset user modes when things get too frustrating. Then you could upgrade later and keep the K-50 as a backup body.
01-02-2015, 09:08 AM   #11
Site Supporter
savoche's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Lowlands of Norway
Posts: 8,702
QuoteOriginally posted by naldopr Quote
So wich lens will be good for wildlife land scape and for macro? That will work on both cameras I consider. My self a quik learned person and patience I know there a lot to learn but also the more I use it in the field the faster I will Lear from all the mistake I just want to be sure I get the right equipment also the right sd card to get
Thanks guys
SD card: Any 30 or 45 Mb/s speed card will do for a K-50. For a K-3 go for a 80+ Mb/s card - Sandisk and Samsung are known to work well.

Wildlife lens: I find the DA 55-300 to be good and very compact, ideal for hiking. Even better is a DA*60-250, but it's also bigger, heavier, and a lot more expensive. Something like the DA*300 would also be excellent, but also expensive - and less flexible than a zoom, of course.

Landscape: Almost any lens will do. Most people like fairly wide lenses for landscapes, but sometimes a longer lens will be a better fit. The 18-135 is very versatile.

Macro: The easy answer would be a dedicated macro lens, but there are so many options. I would recommend this article by good old Riorico as a starting point.
01-02-2015, 08:59 PM   #12
Veteran Member




Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Pasadena, CA
Photos: Albums
Posts: 1,118
QuoteOriginally posted by naldopr Quote
good evening
I'm new to photography and I will like a little help from you the experts
Prices are going down on cameras but which one should I get k50 or k3? I want to do wildlife photo macro maybe some sport this 2 cameras are great but wich one should I get? And also lens?
Mery Christmas
What is your budget? This is an essential question, because if it is not an issue, then you can choose a bigger kit and see what works for you.

1) You can have a used K-5IIs for $389 from BH Photo. That's what I would get, if I were you, alternatively a K-5II for $449. They come with a 90 day warranty, so if something is off, you can return it.
I bet if you talk to BH they will knock off some $10. K-3 would be my second choice. There is a deal on ebay for $600. It's a good deal. If you have $$ and want a capable kit, then just buy a set of Pentax DA*
zooms and a fast normal prime, for example Sigma 35mm F1.4. Worse comes to worse, you can sell them on ebay at a minor loss.

2) Buy RAW editing program: Capture One or Lightroom+photoshop. If you don't have the money, then raw therapee + gimp.

3) If you don't have the money, then I would get a used K-30 for $200 on ebay. There is also a K-30 + 18-135 for $500 on KEH. For wide landscapes, 16-45 is most cost effective imo, Sigma 10-20 would be a second choice and 14mm Rokinon would be third. For macro, I would go with a tamron 90mm 172E, or 272E. For wildlife, probably 55-300.


Alternative route, get the 18-55 or 18-135 kit lens and try to maximize it's potential for the sake of learning. Then get the 35mm DA, or sigma 35mm and challenge yourself to shooting only with this lens for a couple of weeks.
I shot with a kit lens for last 2 years of college, due to financial necessity, and got lots of great shots that later allowed me to decide what I actually need.
01-03-2015, 08:52 AM   #13
Veteran Member




Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Ottawa, Canada
Posts: 342
QuoteOriginally posted by naldopr Quote
So wich lens will be good for wildlife land scape and for macro?
As others have said, it's hard to cover all of this with a single lens - but you might reasonably do it with a pair. It might help a bit if you could provide a bit of information. When I hear "Wildlife, landscape, macro", I automatically think weather resistance ( WR ) may be an important selection criterion for you. If you think you may be shooting under adverse conditions, or travelling through environments that may subject your gear to water and/or dust, then you may want to think about getting WR lenses, both to protect your lens, and your camera body. Even if you envision yourself as a fair weather photographer, a misplaced step can land you and your gear in water, and storms can come up unexpectedly. Dust is pretty much everywhere in dry environments. If you plan on hiking to remote locations, it may come down to a choice between carrying gear and carrying water. For those who have to put their gear on their back, it often comes down to " the best gear is what you have with you".

For "wildlife", most people understand this to mean birds and large mammals - creatures that won't let you get close to them, or that one should NOT approach because it will cause them stress ( and in a few cases, they may be dangerous to YOU ). For this, you pretty much have to have a long telephoto lens. For birds, using anything less than 300mm is going to be very frustrating, unless you're just planning to shoot birds that come to your bird feeder. I've never used a teleconverter, but unless you're getting a good one ( which may be expensive ), you probably won't get great results.

For landscape, some of the general purpose zooms can work if you have a good copy, but chances are you'll eventually want something wider than 18mm. It's hard to now whether you should get something wider day 1, or wait to see if you really need something wider.

In theory, you could just get something like an 18-200mm lens for general use, a cheap 2x teleconverter ( to give you more reach for wildlife ) and some kind of screw on "close-up" filter for close-up work ( not true macro ). This will allow you do "do it all" with one lens, but it probably won't do wildlife or macro particularly well. Maybe it will be good enough if your goals for shooting wildlife/macro are not particularly ambitious, and it will allow you to get your feet wet with a modest investment. On the other hand, if your ambitions are a bit loftier, it may be a waste of time and money.

For macro, a lot is going to depend on what kind of macro work you plan to do. If you envision yourself working very slowly, with stationary subjects, then the sky is the limit in terms of weird combinations of reversed lenses, flash extenders, focusing rails, bellows, etc. etc. This type of photography tends to be very fiddly - especially when you get into extreme macro ( high magnification ). I think that is more like studio photography - lots of set up time spend on a particular shot. People who do this kind of photography have far more patience than I have.

If you're thinking your macro work will be something you may do while out hiking - eg. stopping briefly to shoot a flower, or an insect, then you probably aren't going to want to be messing with reversed lenses or other complicated, fragile, jury-rigged set-ups that require lots of fiddling ( though some people do seem to be able to make it work ). If this is the kind of "macro" shooting you envision doing, then maybe you'll want to just make do with whatever lens you happen to already have on the camera ( possibly with some kind of close-up adapter - some people seem to get good results with the Raynox adapters ). At most, you might want a dedicated macro lens ( or possibly a zoom with close focus capability ) that you can just swap for your landscape lens. It's easy to talk yourself out of a shot if it involves taking off your backpack, digging out a special piece of gear, re-configuring all your camera settings, etc.

Based on your list, it sounds to me like you may be more likely to be doing this sort of "on the run" macro shooting, but maybe I'm reading too much into your post. As others have said, an older manual focus macro lens will save you some money, but you'll be giving up some automation and the WR. I did this for many years. When my old M series 100mm macro was showing its age, rather than get it fixed, I opted to get a DFA 100 WR macro lens. The rugged construction, quick-shift focus, and WR justified the premium over less expensive alternatives for me. But most people don't walk around with a macro lens on their camera 24/7, and it's hard for them to justify investingthat much money in a specialized lens.

It may be hard for you to know at this point where your hobby will lead you, but if you have ideas of what kind of shooting you plan on doing, please elaborate. Otherwise, it's hard to know where to suggest making compromises. Personally, I carry a wide zoom for landscapes. Since I mostly shoot the wide end with it, I often think I might be better served with the 15mm LTD. I've got the 100mm for macro and short telephoto. I've got an old 70-200 zoom for longer work, but it's really not long enough for "wildlife", and it rarely comes out of the bag. I may upgrade to the 55-300 at some point, but I'm not sure I'll ever really use it enough to justify the expense. I'd probably get more use out of a wide prime. Until you're out there shooting for a while, it's hard to predict which way these kinds of calculations are going to go. ( I've got a variety of other lenses but they rarely come out of the cupboard, much less the camera bag )

In summary, without knowing more details about the kind of shooting you're planning on doing, you're probably going to get this list from most responders:
1) a wide zoom for landscapes and general walk around lens ( 18-135, 16-85, 17-50, 16-50, etc. etc. )
2) a long zoom for wildlife ( 55-300 seems to be the best "bang for the buck" in an inexpensive long zoom )
3) a dedicated macro lens for macro ( assuming you're talking about near macro or actual macro )

As I said earlier, many zooms have decent close-focusing capability. I think there's a Sigma 17-50 that has a good reputation in this regard. It's not a macro lens by any stretch of the imagination, but for many people, it's close enough. It could be that between your wide zoom and your long zoom you can get away without ever buying a dedicated macro lens. Again, without knowing more details, it's hard to know which compromise to suggest.

But if your funds are unlimited and your back is strong, there's no limit to how many lenses you can own and use ( we call it LBA - lens buying addiction ).

Sorry if this is a bit disjointed - but your question really is a tough one to answer.

Personally, I would NOT suggest trying to get a single lens in the hope that it will do it all. You probably won't be happy with the performance. I would start with a good quality general purpose zoom that is likely to at least work for landscapes into the future. If it has close focusing capability that allows you to try your hand at pseudo-macro work, that's a bonus. I would count on needing a separate ( long telephoto or telezoom ) for your wildlife photo, and you can pick that up later.
02-17-2015, 01:42 PM   #14
Senior Member
naldopr's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 163
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by arkav Quote
As others have said, it's hard to cover all of this with a single lens - but you might reasonably do it with a pair. It might help a bit if you could provide a bit of information. When I hear "Wildlife, landscape, macro", I automatically think weather resistance ( WR ) may be an important selection criterion for you. If you think you may be shooting under adverse conditions, or travelling through environments that may subject your gear to water and/or dust, then you may want to think about getting WR lenses, both to protect your lens, and your camera body. Even if you envision yourself as a fair weather photographer, a misplaced step can land you and your gear in water, and storms can come up unexpectedly. Dust is pretty much everywhere in dry environments. If you plan on hiking to remote locations, it may come down to a choice between carrying gear and carrying water. For those who have to put their gear on their back, it often comes down to " the best gear is what you have with you".

For "wildlife", most people understand this to mean birds and large mammals - creatures that won't let you get close to them, or that one should NOT approach because it will cause them stress ( and in a few cases, they may be dangerous to YOU ). For this, you pretty much have to have a long telephoto lens. For birds, using anything less than 300mm is going to be very frustrating, unless you're just planning to shoot birds that come to your bird feeder. I've never used a teleconverter, but unless you're getting a good one ( which may be expensive ), you probably won't get great results.

For landscape, some of the general purpose zooms can work if you have a good copy, but chances are you'll eventually want something wider than 18mm. It's hard to now whether you should get something wider day 1, or wait to see if you really need something wider.

In theory, you could just get something like an 18-200mm lens for general use, a cheap 2x teleconverter ( to give you more reach for wildlife ) and some kind of screw on "close-up" filter for close-up work ( not true macro ). This will allow you do "do it all" with one lens, but it probably won't do wildlife or macro particularly well. Maybe it will be good enough if your goals for shooting wildlife/macro are not particularly ambitious, and it will allow you to get your feet wet with a modest investment. On the other hand, if your ambitions are a bit loftier, it may be a waste of time and money.

For macro, a lot is going to depend on what kind of macro work you plan to do. If you envision yourself working very slowly, with stationary subjects, then the sky is the limit in terms of weird combinations of reversed lenses, flash extenders, focusing rails, bellows, etc. etc. This type of photography tends to be very fiddly - especially when you get into extreme macro ( high magnification ). I think that is more like studio photography - lots of set up time spend on a particular shot. People who do this kind of photography have far more patience than I have.

If you're thinking your macro work will be something you may do while out hiking - eg. stopping briefly to shoot a flower, or an insect, then you probably aren't going to want to be messing with reversed lenses or other complicated, fragile, jury-rigged set-ups that require lots of fiddling ( though some people do seem to be able to make it work ). If this is the kind of "macro" shooting you envision doing, then maybe you'll want to just make do with whatever lens you happen to already have on the camera ( possibly with some kind of close-up adapter - some people seem to get good results with the Raynox adapters ). At most, you might want a dedicated macro lens ( or possibly a zoom with close focus capability ) that you can just swap for your landscape lens. It's easy to talk yourself out of a shot if it involves taking off your backpack, digging out a special piece of gear, re-configuring all your camera settings, etc.

Based on your list, it sounds to me like you may be more likely to be doing this sort of "on the run" macro shooting, but maybe I'm reading too much into your post. As others have said, an older manual focus macro lens will save you some money, but you'll be giving up some automation and the WR. I did this for many years. When my old M series 100mm macro was showing its age, rather than get it fixed, I opted to get a DFA 100 WR macro lens. The rugged construction, quick-shift focus, and WR justified the premium over less expensive alternatives for me. But most people don't walk around with a macro lens on their camera 24/7, and it's hard for them to justify investingthat much money in a specialized lens.

It may be hard for you to know at this point where your hobby will lead you, but if you have ideas of what kind of shooting you plan on doing, please elaborate. Otherwise, it's hard to know where to suggest making compromises. Personally, I carry a wide zoom for landscapes. Since I mostly shoot the wide end with it, I often think I might be better served with the 15mm LTD. I've got the 100mm for macro and short telephoto. I've got an old 70-200 zoom for longer work, but it's really not long enough for "wildlife", and it rarely comes out of the bag. I may upgrade to the 55-300 at some point, but I'm not sure I'll ever really use it enough to justify the expense. I'd probably get more use out of a wide prime. Until you're out there shooting for a while, it's hard to predict which way these kinds of calculations are going to go. ( I've got a variety of other lenses but they rarely come out of the cupboard, much less the camera bag )

In summary, without knowing more details about the kind of shooting you're planning on doing, you're probably going to get this list from most responders:
1) a wide zoom for landscapes and general walk around lens ( 18-135, 16-85, 17-50, 16-50, etc. etc. )
2) a long zoom for wildlife ( 55-300 seems to be the best "bang for the buck" in an inexpensive long zoom )
3) a dedicated macro lens for macro ( assuming you're talking about near macro or actual macro )

As I said earlier, many zooms have decent close-focusing capability. I think there's a Sigma 17-50 that has a good reputation in this regard. It's not a macro lens by any stretch of the imagination, but for many people, it's close enough. It could be that between your wide zoom and your long zoom you can get away without ever buying a dedicated macro lens. Again, without knowing more details, it's hard to know which compromise to suggest.

But if your funds are unlimited and your back is strong, there's no limit to how many lenses you can own and use ( we call it LBA - lens buying addiction ).

Sorry if this is a bit disjointed - but your question really is a tough one to answer.

Personally, I would NOT suggest trying to get a single lens in the hope that it will do it all. You probably won't be happy with the performance. I would start with a good quality general purpose zoom that is likely to at least work for landscapes into the future. If it has close focusing capability that allows you to try your hand at pseudo-macro work, that's a bonus. I would count on needing a separate ( long telephoto or telezoom ) for your wildlife photo, and you can pick that up later.
sorry for the delay and thanks for all your feed back
I do want to be able learn to do macro for insects flowers and macro photos for the corals I sell!
and also like to go in the wild and take photos on anything
I will never feel like that buddy Im here to learn and I take your and other advised seriously you guys are the experts here. and I apresiated all the details you mention


at the moment just have an humble iphone trying to do my best but soon getting the k3 and the recommended lens
thanks
04-04-2015, 04:34 AM   #15
Senior Member
naldopr's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 163
Original Poster
Well guys Im about To get the K3 but before I buy it I have a few more questions
First SD card in adorama the one suggested is the Lexar 32gb professional SDHC uhs-I class 10 for 23.95
Is this the correct ad to buy or you suggest me a different brand etc?
Also my brother is going to add a tripod since there so many brands to choose any suggestions? I research I saw manfrotto 190xbpro there also other brand I like the idea to have the ability to macro also the drop and spill coverage is worth getting it? any suggestions will be appreciated
Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
advice k50, camera, cameras, dslr, k3, k50, photography
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Advice on which to purchase, Pentax K-5IIs or Pentax K3 DCphotog Troubleshooting and Beginner Help 16 08-19-2014 07:26 AM
Looking to get a new "Street" lens, wondering which one would be best. DarkNexiz Pentax Q 13 08-11-2013 02:52 PM
Get extra Li-ions batteries or get new K-7 Battery Grip to use with Eneloops? raider Pentax DSLR Discussion 5 10-26-2009 05:08 AM
How to get these or better results? Need some advice. nostartnoend Digital Processing, Software, and Printing 8 04-16-2007 02:49 PM
New here and looking for some advice Ed in GA Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 6 09-20-2006 05:01 AM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 02:56 PM. | See also: NikonForums.com, CanonForums.com part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top