[stevebrot]

The draw may be any number of things:

• The need to have the newest tech at all costs in the hope that might overcome lack of a good eye, compelling subjects, or inability to follow directions
• The need to have different tech to address a need imposed by subject or shooting style. I like to refer to this as a "point of pain". If it is difficult, frustrating, or impossible to do what you wish with your existing gear, a change might be in order.
• The need to see an obvious upgrade path. This one is strongly related to the first point on the list. Marketing loves the perspective that what we have is not where we want to be, despite that which we have meeting all our needs, and also despite whether we can afford the next step up on the ladder.
  

  Brand A is so boring; there have been no new product announcements for three weeks! I think I will move to Brand B so I will have some choice when I want to move up this next payday.

• The last is more subtle and why it is good to not be trying out new gear unless one is truly in the market. You pick it up, look through the viewfinder, see the AF snap, trigger the shutter and...WOW! Where has this been all my life.

Steve

[normhead]

The last is more subtle and why it is good to not be trying out new gear unless one is truly in the market. You pick it up, look through the viewfinder, see the AF snap, trigger the shutter and...WOW! Where has this been all my life.

My response comparing a D800 to my K-3 was the opposite. What's all the fuss about?
My response to mirrorless, was "I feel ill."
In my experience, most of what people upgrade for is window dressing, and often stresses non-essential selling points that make little difference to image acquisition.
I would say the best reason for not investigating new gear would be, the differences are hugely exaggerated and you're probably not going to be impressed. I took the effort to get to camera stores for both these comparisons, and in the end felt I'd wasted time and would have been happier out shooting.

I picked up a D800 with an 85 1.4 and shot also with my K-3 and tamron 90, there was no discernible difference in AF speed, I was in low light in a store , and if anything the Pentax AF was quicker. After all the hype of all the switchers who had to have a D800, my response was "Wow this isn't any better than my K-3" Let's not assume the "Wow " is going to be about something better somewhere else.It may end up being "Wow, no way this teeny tiny bit of improvement is worth the extra money and bother."

Unless specific technical things are desired, faster refresh rate, larger buffer, more FPS, better tracking, are essential to your work flow, the odds of finding a better camera are minimal, and the odds of finding a better camera for the same price are even less.

There is exactly one good reason for not shooting Pentax, "they don't have a model in the more expensive price range with costly technical features I have to have." Looking at cameras in the same price range, you're going to be mightily un-impressed, IMHO.

When I compared the D800 to the K-3, even though it was more than twice the price, I was still un-impressed.

And the whole argument was "It's full frame and much better image quality". Since I've had my K-1, I've realized that's also a bogus argument. I will never print at a size that justifies even a K-1. There are lot's of big files sititng on my hard drives though, that I will probably never view on anything but the 3840 by 2160 of my 4k TV. And I still don't have that definitive shot where I can say, "this is a better image because I took it with an FF." My suspicion is that people who care more and have taken the time to learn are more likely to want a more expensive camera, It's who buys the FF camera that make 95% of the difference. Actual images that really need one of faster FPS, AF better tracking, faster write speeds, bigger buffers , more resolution etc, make up small percentages of the last 5%. If you need those things and are willing to pay for them, you might experience wow. But there are a lot more people that just need to effectively use what they have than there are who actually need a better camera.

The biggest reason for being "Wowed" by non-Pentax product, "They don't make something expensive enough for me."

[boriscleto]

In the camera meetup I'm a member of virtually everyone shoots Canikon. There is one Olympus shooter, two Sony shooters, and me with Pentax...One guy who is primarily a Nikon shooter had a Fuji for a while but I don't think he has it anymore.

[stevebrot]

My response to mirrorless, was "I feel ill."

That was my response when I was shopping in 2014 and picked up the then-new-to-market A7. It was price competitive to a K-3 and FF! It could also do real well with my collection of vintage lenses. Pity the EVF gave me vertigo and an instant migraine. A week or so later I took delivery of my K-3 and "Wow, where has this been all my life".

FWIW, my brother shoots with a D850 and I have taken a few shots with it. It is a nice piece of kit. If I were not already in Pentaxland, I might consider one over a K-1, assuming I had a strong need to go to 24x36mm digital. Right now, the K-3 works well for me with very few "points of pain" and my upgrade path is firmly rooted in two future events: 1) a new Pentax APS-C flagship model and 2) release of the D FA 70-210/4.


Steve

[biz-engineer]

In my experience, most of what people upgrade for is window dressing, and often stresses non-essential selling points that make little difference to image acquisition.

There is a important point here. Upgrade vs 1st acquisition. If you put the benefits into perspective with the price, most offerings look much less compelling. Upgrade from a K5 to K3 when you already had lenses costed much much less than upgrades suggested now i.e dslr to mirrorless. If I look at the cost/benefit of a new milc system , I feel like it's not worth the money, whereas moving from apsc to FF while already having some FF lenses provided more benefits for less cost.

[normhead]

There is a important point here. Upgrade vs 1st acquisition. If you put the benefits into perspective with the price, most offerings look much less compelling. Upgrade from a K5 to K3 when you already had lenses costed much much less than upgrades suggested now i.e dslr to mirrorless. If I look at the cost/benefit of a new milc system , I feel like it's not worth the money, whereas moving from apsc to FF while already having some FF lenses provided more benefits for less cost.

Even more if you keep both. A big selling point, any lens I buy for my K-1 Tess can use on her K-5, (and she absolutely love the 28-105 on her K-5) and I can use on my K-3.

---------- Post added 06-20-19 at 01:39 PM ----------

FWIW, my brother shoots with a D850

The D850 is my answer to the question, if I have nothing (lenses etc.), have a lot of money to spend on complete system, and want the best most future proof camera out there with the largest lens support, the D850 is the guy. It's unlikely it's MP will be out of date anytime in the next 10 years if ever, It's FPS , buffer and AF subsystems are better than my K-3

But I like my old lenses and IBIS and don't want to spend money on the kinds of lenses I'd want for that system.

But theoretically, a great camera, if you have the money.
If limited by a budget, not so much. And I'd bet a lot of D850 users don't have nearly the lens system I do. Spending more than you need to on your body , mean less money for lenses.

But it's a camera you can commit to. If you get it, and pay for it and can afford some expensive glass, it will probably be everything you ever need. I do feel sorry for people, (also Canon 5d mkII shooters) I see out here with a really expensive cameras, using cheap zooms and kit lenses on them, because they blew their camera budget on the body.

One of the most disappointing being a woman with her MkII at Bird Kingdom in Niagara falls, wondering why she couldn't match my K-1 and Tamron 300 2.8 images with her kit lens. She could barely get any image at all. She was like "this is a good quality Canon, it should do better." I said nothing, there was nothing positive to say, that could make her Bird Kingdom trip what she'd hoped for.

[biz-engineer]

Even more if you keep both. A big selling point, any lens I buy for my K-1 Tess can use on her K-5, (and she absolutely love the 28-105 on her K-5) and I can use on my K-3.

Sure, having the same mount for both formats was taken for granted with DSLR. But look now at Canon mirrorless mounts that are different for their full frames and aps.

---------- Post added 20-06-19 at 21:44 ----------

The D850 is my answer to the questio

The caveat with the D850 is its FPS is the same in FF mode or crop mode (~7FPS without grip). In crop mode with a K1 you get almost the same FPS as a D850 in crop mode without the grip. That's why I looked at the D850 when it came out, but then lost interest. D850 with grip deliver 9 FPS, that's double the price of a K1 + grip. There's no free lunch it seems.

---

Last edited by biz-engineer; 06-20-2019 at 12:47 PM.

[stevebrot]

But theoretically, a great camera, if you have the money.

My brother won it in a contest. In addition to the D850 + four high-end Nikkor zooms, they also threw in $17,000 cash, a nice CF tripod, one of the better Nikon flashes, a very nice bag, and a photo vest. Pity they did not include extra batteries, CF/SD cards, or a hat.


Steve

[BigMackCam]

My brother won it in a contest. In addition to the D850 + four high-end Nikkor zooms, they also threw in $17,000 cash, a nice CF tripod, one of the better Nikon flashes, a very nice bag, and a photo vest. Pity they did not include extra batteries, CF/SD cards, or a hat.

Typical Nikon... Lured him with thousands of dollars worth of free photography gear in the hope they could make it all back, and more, on the hat...

[JensE]

There's another piece in the puzzle. Given that I have to send in my K-1 again to fix the last messed-up adjustment attempt, I'm sure at least some choice in repair services is a draw for experienced owners.

[ReadyAimPhoto]

I can see the draw to Nikon but Canon for me is just an ergonomic disaster.


I feel like I can pick up a Nikon and wing my way through the settings relatively easily, but I the last time I used a Canon it took me a solid 10 minutes to change to spot focus.

[KiloHotelphoto]

There's another piece in the puzzle. Given that I have to send in my K-1 again to fix the last messed-up adjustment attempt, I'm sure at least some choice in repair services is a draw for experienced owners.

Being able to get two day service is a big selling point for Canon and Nikon users. Sure you have to be a CPS or NPS member but it’s available.

[BigMackCam]

Being able to get two day service is a big selling point for Canon and Nikon users. Sure you have to be a CPS or NPS member but it’s available.

How much does that cost, out of curiosity?

[Megapixelmk]

For me as a landscape photographer that uses ND filters alot, I have long bemoaned Pentax not having the modern ultra wide equivalent to what Canikon users enjoy, that is a 16-35mm lens that takes screw in filters. I am just not drawn to the square filter system that lenses like the Pentax 15-30mm would require, and which are very expensive. This alone makes me think about other brands full frames and I may still leave Pentax because of that reason.
However the divorce would be painful as I just love the image quality, the ergonomics, ruggedness, and interface of Pentax.
I also watch the developments in the mirrorless area as I do like some of the advantages that it brings, including the ability to set your format in the viewfinder eg square, 16:9 etc. Finally the quality of modern evfs of Mirrorless cameras make the switch even more tempting

[SSGGeezer]

As a coworker who majored in marketing told me yesterday; Marketing is nothing but making you think that what you have is inadequate (trash,) and that the product advertised will bring you joy. (Or success or inner peace or some such jibber jabber.)