So much generosity, wisdom and experience in this thread it makes you proud to be a member of this forum.
I would also add my compliments on the photos in your Flickr album. I see a good eye and good skills there. Keep reading (there's a wealth of information on this site alone), study what others do (well or badly) and keep practising and you'll see continued improvement.
I don't think you need to apologise for wanting to upgrade your gear. Most of us can look back and see where a new camera or a new lens enabled us to get better photos - not because they make us better photographers (gear doesn't do that), but because they allow us to make more of our skills and sometimes they give the opportunity to develop new ones.
For me, each body upgrade from the 6mp K100D Super to the 16mp K-30 and then to the 24mp K-3 was a big leap - each allowed me to get shots I could not have got with the previous camera. In particular, as you are interested in insects and wildlife, more pixels means more ability to crop. But it's not just that:
- The removal of the AA filter also helps resolution.
- The more modern bodies like the K-70 and KP offer much better high-ISO capacity (I now have the KP and it is very impressive in this regard).
- The K-3 and the KP also have much better exposure metering.
- Any of these bodies will also offer big improvements in autofocus speed and accuracy, even with screw-driven AF lenses - that is particularly true of the K-3 and KP.
- For macro shooting (as well as for landscapes), an articulating screen (with good LiveView) is also a big advantage, so you can shoot more easily from low or high angles.
- Shake Reduction has improved with each generation of cameras. The KP is insanely good - here's an example at 0.8 seconds handheld:
(BTW, this article is compulsory reading to improve handheld shooting:
Making the Most of Long Exposure Handhelds - Introduction - In-Depth Articles)
So I think you would gain appreciably from a new body. The KP would be the obvious choice, but if that is too expensive, you would get 80% of the features and performance from a K-70. A used K-3ii or K-3 is another option - they are robustly built and are a fairly safe buy second hand. The ergonomics of the K-3 series are outstanding IMO - although they are shaded by the KP/K-70 in high-ISO performance, they are still fine and capable cameras.
You would also gain from better lenses. There are several obvious potential replacements for the 18-55: DA 16-85 might be the top choice (the extra width could stave off a craving for an ultrawide lens), but a DA 18-135 would be more affordable, especially if bundled with a camera. Either is very capable as you can see from these threads:
DA 16-85 WR,show us what it can do. - PentaxForums.com DA 18-135 WR, Show us what it can do - PentaxForums.com
The Sigma 17-70 C f2.8-4 is another one to consider. Or the f2.8 zooms, like the Pentax DA*16-50, Tamron 17-50 or Sigma 17-50 (if the extra aperture is more important than a wider focal range).
Like others here, I think a macro lens in the 90mm to 105mm range would open new horizons. The Pentax DFA 100 WR is the gold standard. If that is too expensive there are plenty of other good cheaper lenses like the earlier Pentax 100 macros, the Tamron 90 or the Sigma 105. Getting the DFA 100 was a "wow" moment for me. Not just for macro but also for landscapes, flowers and animals. See this thread for some ideas:
Pentax-D FA 100mm f/2.8 WR Macro - PentaxForums.com
How you would prioritise these purchases is for you to weigh. But if you go for a K-70 you may be able to get a good deal on a bundle with a DA 18-135 and that would resolve two issues at once. Meanwhile keep an eye out for a macro at a good price.
Hope to see more contributions from you Daniel.
Last edited by Des; 08-09-2019 at 02:09 PM.