[dcpropilot]

Get a K-70 or KP, Sigma 17-50 or DA 20-40 Limited (used), Pentax DA 70 limited (used)

[Benz3ne]

I appreciated some guidance from someone of this guild not too long ago. They said that, in short, good glass will retain it's value and will age gracefully and good cameras will still depreciate in value over time. That is, that if you buy good glass now, you can sell for little loss (if any) if you don't find favour. If you buy a good camera now, you will undoubtedly sell at a loss if you don't find favour.

Hence, for now, I have stuck with my K-70 and (mostly) legacy glass. I've strongly debated getting a K-1 but until the opportunity presents itself to me, rather than me actively chasing it, the K-70 is far beyond adequate.

[Rondec]

I'd definitely get an APS-C camera and a used standard lens and portrait prime. KP and Tamron 17-50 and DA 70 would probably be a nice set up from a Pentax standpoint, but you could find something similar in Canon.

Full frame is out of the price range and honestly, APS-C is more than good enough these days.

[krazny]

As far as I know the Nikon D600/610 is the cheapest Full frame camera if bought used. I don't know the price of lenses that would be appropriate for you.

For Pentax I wonder whether your money would not be better served by going for a used K-5IIs and pairing it with a better lens. Maybe even K-3 with a higher pixel count.
The KP may have a better sensor but if you are shooting studio mostly is it a difference you'll notice?

[k5astro]

You seem to be semi-professional so a good FF camera would be a real asset. I wouldn't worry about what lenses you already have especially since the ones you have aren't very fast - maybe not that performant? If you get a K-1 or a Canikon, you'll probably have to buy new lenses anyway. The K-1 is a beautiful highly rated camera so no doubt it will not disappoint. There's nothing quite like looking through a DSLR. Mirrorless is OK but not as inspiring to use, in my view. Its true that Pentax is not very well supported but I think the K-1 is drawing attention from 3rd party vendors. Also, Pentax has released a software development kit that may inspire 3rd party support for things like tethering and remote control.

[Serkevan]

And, apropos of that, I get all my lenses in FF (one exception DA* 55, which works pretty well on the K-1), since they will do well on APS-C (and I would say, generally outperform the native APS-C lenses) .

You do get less vignetting and more uniform performance across the frame; the counterpart, of course, is heavier weight and larger size. The (APS-C) 50-135/2.8 is substantially smaller and lighter than any FF 70-200/2.8.

Then again, all but one of the lenses I used in my K-7 are FF (save for the Tamron 17-50/2.8, which was frankly unbeatable as walkaround zoom unless I were to drop some serious cash).

[pres589]

The Tamron 28-75 f2.8 seems pretty nice on crop for portrait work. I don't think that's been mentioned yet. That lens + your existing FA 50 f1.4 would work well on a crop body for portrait work. The old Tamron 90mm f2.5 AF Macro might be a nice addition as well if you find a good copy (they've been out of production for a while).

Today the KP seems to be selling online for $750 new (it seems like that's $80 or more over a few days ago?). That plus a used Tamron 28-75 for $250 and then $200 for misc stuff would be a good start.

[Serkevan]

The 90/2.5 macro is great for portraits on APS-C (source: I have it). The bokeh is noticeably worse on FF, though.

[pres589]

Why would the bokeh be worse on full frame?

Here's my copy of the 90 f2.5 Adaptall on film;

[James also]

If you still have a FujiFilm body, consider buying the XF 56/1.2 R. I have seen some absolutely stunning portraiture results from it.

But I'm a Pentax fanboy. The K-1 with the FA 77/1.8 Limited or FA* 85/1.4 is a great option, but the KP with the DA* 55/1.4 (or even your FA 50/1.4) would be much much cheaper with little compromise. The DA 70/2.4 Limited is also a superb portrait lens.

I couldn"t agree more. I have hardly put down the 77mm since I bought one second hand for $500 AUS about $300 US.

I always used the FA 50mm on my old K7 when taking portrait Photos.

[Serkevan]

I actually paused when I wrote. After double-checking myself, it probably has to do with the fact that all the portraits I have taken so far on the K-1 have been of people pretty close to nervous backgrounds, while the subjects in the K-7 ones had far more empty space behind.
Oops...

[UncleVanya]

This is a very hard thread to answer. I love Pentax, but if you are starting nearly from ground zero with a budget of $1200 and specific goals, the eval of what equipment can be overwhelming. I have only passing familiarity with process and gear in brands other than Pentax, Olympus, Panasonic, and to a lesser degree, Nikon. And other than Pentax my flash/strobe knowledge is weak. I also haven't shot a KP, but I own a lot of nice Pentax glass and a K-3, and I spent a month with a K-1 before deciding not to buy it.

So bearing that in mind, I'm going to only address the KP vs K1 question.

A lot depends on your ideas of portraits and your locations. If most shots will be outdoors and where the background isn't too close, the background blur should be sufficient with most reasonably fast portrait length lenses with either BODY. FLASH use may dictate that HSS may be very important with outdoor sessions if the light in the rest of scene dictates a higher than standard sync speed. Non Pentax brands are likely to have more feature rich flash options for HSS, but the Pentax lineup has options that work.

Sticking to KP vs K-1, at your budget I'd go KP or K70 or an older body over K1.

Zoom vs prime is another question you have to decide. Assuming prime, the DA* 55 f1.4 is an excellent option, unless you like a much longer perspective. The existing 50 you have will also work great. If zoom is preferred, a DA* 50-135 (Screwdrive converted perhaps) can be super cheap and the lens is spectacular.

My overall thought I'd that if this is going to be a job, you need TWO bodies, a prime or two, and at least one zoom. You also need a pair of flashes and some lighting stands and potentially wireless triggers. If so a K70 as the main camera, and a k-50 or k-5 backup camera. Your existing 50 should be a good prime, a 50-135 a good zoom. The smaller af360fgz (used) and a cactus rf60x with a cactus trigger v6ii would give pretty good flash control.

I think you could squeeze this out of $1200

[pres589]

A pair of K-5 II's, the Tamron 28-75, and then that 90 f2.5 I mentioned, and the OP's existing FA 50 1.4? And then the flashes and such that I never think about.

[UncleVanya]

A pair of K-5 II's, the Tamron 28-75, and then that 90 f2.5 I mentioned, and the OP's existing FA 50 1.4? And then the flashes and such that I never think about.

Why the 28-75? That seems quite a bit shorter than traditional portrait work dictates. I'm no slave to convention having shot a lot of portraits with unusual focal length lenses. The DA* 50-135 is very inexpensive at least one that has failed sdm that is converted is cheap.

[SSGGeezer]

I picked up a nearly new K-1 for under 875 here in the forums but the KP is such a great deal currently. The KP and DA*50-135 plus a flash or two and inexpensive triggers should be easily doable at your budget.