[Alex645]

My question is, would I be better off upgrading to a K-70 body and keeping the current lens, or upgrading to a different lens? If a lens, what would you suggest? Not looking to spend a lot of money here, anything over $1,000 is a "no go" for me. Even if the lens isn't adjustable zoom that's fine as long as the image quality is good, I could always crop after the fact.

If you're happy with your 18-135mm zoom, the K-70 will give you a visibly significant improvement over grain and noise at higher ISO over your K-r.

Would a faster lens improve things with the K-r? Yes. So then it comes down to cost. Your 18-135mm at the long 135mm end is f/5.6, so you'd want at least f/4 or to equal the image quality of the K-70 at least f/2.8

New K-70: $550.
New Pentax DA 200mm f/2.8: $800
New Pentax D-FA 100mm WR macro f/2.8: $480

So what do you like more? The K-r? Then go for either telephoto primes. The 100mm will be sharp enough that you could consider cropping instead of zooming.

Like the 18-135mm more than the K-r? Then the K-70 is the way to go.

[mikesbike]

Images are coming out grainier than I'd like, I'm sure having to do with this being a bit of a slower lens have having to shoot at a higher ISO.

The K-r is an upgraded version of the K-x, both of which are better for "grain"- actually noise, at higher ISO settings than were previous models, except the K-5 which is close or slightly better. You could gain more than a stop (twice-to-4x the ISO) of performance with a fast lens (capable of a wider aperture) like the very fine Sigma 17-50mm f/2.8 EX DC HSM, which is very reasonably-priced for what it is, and a very well-built lens also. But then your zoom range is greatly reduced, unless you spend even more for the excellent DA* 50-135mm f/2.8 DC WR which is quite costly then you'd need to change lenses often. So one thing to do is keep track of what focal lengths you often use. Those older , faster prime lenses might work for you, but then maybe you will need a zoom lens, and autofocus, for what you are doing.

The K-70 would definitely be an upgrade in a number of ways. it would provide at least one stop, maybe 3 or 4x improvement in ISO even over your K-r. But if going that far, I would say go a bit farther and get the KP- an ultimate upgrade over the K-r- a more durable, pro-level build style body not subject to the aperture solenoid failure sometimes occurring with the K-70, with a far better set of controls (less going to menus) and not all that much more than a K-70, a real bargain for that class of camera. So many things are improved. Better AF, SR, better metering for better exposures, every bit the improved higher ISO with low noise performance and perhaps even more so. Many other advancements and providing both thumb and finger dials over your K-r's single dial. It can make your current zoom lens perform as well or better at higher ISO compared with a big, heavy 70-200mm f/2.8 lens on your K-r, though it does not go to 200mm, if that is what you need. Best to get both if possible!

Bottom line, you can get sharper and better photos with the KP compared with the K-r. along with the higher ISO performance, and numerous other benefits. It even has a dedicated battery grip accessory available for extended battery life for lengthy shooting of events so you will not likely need to be interrupted for battery changes, and it offers better handling and balance with bigger, heavier lenses, along with duplicate controls for shooting in the vertical position, while the K-70 does not.

[automorphism]

Another option if you don't mind trying manual is one of those Samyang 85mm f/1.4 lenses. Now that REALLY lets in a lot of light!

[clackers]

Hi Martowski, I don't think either your camera or your lens are up to today's task of shooting action in low light ... others have made great suggestions as to what should replace them if you're able.

[Martowski]

Going to get some different glass first, as I think that will make the biggest difference.

[mikesbike]

Going to get some different glass first, as I think that will make the biggest difference.

Yes, it can make a big difference, but maybe still not the best choice. I think clackers is getting onto a good point. Let's say your choice to get 2 more stops without noise problems is going to be either a new, faster lens or a new, better camera for this and other purposes- which can do the same with the current lens. Shooting at f1.4 or f/1.8 and 85mm will greatly compromise DOF to quite a degree while being a great help in solving the noise issue while using the K-r, yet this may or may not be better for the subject in the shot. Not much leeway for movement, perhaps. When using telephoto settings, it is not difficult to get a reduced DOF to blur spectators at some background distance if one wishes even if shooting at f/4.5 or 5.6, like with the zoom lens, which with the better camera can still deal with the noise issues. So then in this case, better flexibility for framing by using the zoom lens is doable, and this with a better camera for overall better imaging.

Another note- if you choose to get a KP, and you like shooting high-quality JPEG images, the KP's in-camera processor is exceptionally good for results right out of the camera. Just be sure to set up "Fine Sharpening" in the Custom Image menus.

Avoid having your mode dial set to the green "auto" mode, as then the camera will make all decisions, even which Custom Image processing will be in use, and will disallow many controls and adjustments. Use the "P" mode for fully automated exposure. Your new camera's 2-dial thumb and finger controls will allow you access to the exclusive Pentax Hyper System, which the K-r does not. In the "P" mode, if you wish another shutter speed or aperture than the camera has selected, you just go ahead and select what you want, and the camera obeys. You can thus instantly shift into Tv or Av on the fly without first having to re-set your mode dial before making your selection. Then you can return to full "P" mode wth a touch of the green button.

But since you have these other lens options, it doesn't hurt to try them out.

[Alex645]

Going to get some different glass first, as I think that will make the biggest difference.

Certainly no harm with getting faster lenses and primes, and all things being equal, glass does make the biggest difference. BUT a 12MP K-r introduced in 2010 vs. a 24MP K-70 from 2016 makes a huge difference, especially in low light performance.

Pentax K-70 vs Pentax K-r Detailed Comparison

At least starting with glass, you can use it with your next DSLR...

[Rondec]

I'd look seriously at the K-70 -- it really does well up to iso 6400 from what I've seen.

I'd also try to figure out what focal length you most often use and try to get a lens with a faster aperture for that -- one of the DA limiteds or the DA 50 f1.8 would all be reasonable options that will allow you to shoot with lower iso in poorer light.

[GQPhdFBI]

Lets take things from the beginning,
1. You are shooting gymnastics indoors, so you need fast shutter speed, at least 1/500s and because of that, you need a fast lens and a camera with good high iso performance at around Iso 3200.

2. You are shooting from a distance of 25 yards, so from my point of you need a lens that is around 70-200mm on full frame 35mm, in crop this can be the the 50-135, the 60-250 or the 55-300. Dont get a prime lens and dont buy a manual focus lens unless you are a very experienced shooter.

3. You are using a camera, the K-r which can hardly be used after iso 800-1000.

So given the above facts, the best solution in my opinion on the 1000$ budget is to find all of the above USED.
You can find a Pentax K3 with 50-135 at 1000$. Because the 50-135 has the know issue with the SDM motor and there is a big chance to encounter problems, you can try the 60-250 at about the same price.



If by any chance you are allowed to use flash (2-3 speedlights) then you might be able to come to a solution with less than 500$.

Cheers

[maw]

To exclude the lens manual focus, the moments of static are very few in a competition of artistic gymnastics, so in addition to knowing the sport you need to know their equipment,
the Kr holds well up to 6400 Iso, who says no obviously does not know well the equipment or can not work the Raw.
Of course you should not exaggerate as in all things, but the parameters that come into play in this kind of competitions, are the lighting, the brightness of the lens f/2, 2.8,
and the shooting time (at least 1/125 better over) according to ISO, and then very important, to know the stopping points or static exercise.

Here a test on high ISO KR

Ciao Mario

[aslyfox]

the OP has apparently made the choice between going for lens vs. camera body:

Going to get some different glass first, as I think that will make the biggest difference.

now which lens

perhaps spending a little money on a rental would be beneficial before investing in an expensive lens ?

Information on Businesses that offer cameras and lenses for rent

Read more at: Information on Businesses that offer cameras and lenses for rent - Page 3 - PentaxForums.com

[pres589]

For about $500 USD I think you can get a good used copy of the Tamron 28-75 f2.8 and a K-5 II or K-5 IIs. If the shots you've taken with your 18-135 are mostly all in the range offered by the Tamron 28-75, that should be a nice upgrade.


The 18-135 is a good lens; I have a copy and like it a lot. But it really isn't the best tool available for the task at hand.


If you want a newer body (and it is understandable if so) than the K-5 II, then a KP or K-70 would be decent upgrades for what you're trying to do. I would personally go for a KP as mentioned previously.

p.s. I think this thread could really use someone that has shot these kinds of scenes specifically with a K-r or similar era camera, got results that they're happy with, and described how they got there like with EXIF data to show how the shots were taken.

[Martowski]

Wow, really appreciate all the input from everyone. I like the idea of the Kp at some point to replace my Kr, that may be my longer term plan. For the time being, I like the idea of upgrading the lens first since that will help with both my current body and a new one in the future.

[mikesbike]

p.s. I think this thread could really use someone that has shot these kinds of scenes specifically with a K-r or similar era camera, got results that they're happy with, and described how they got there like with EXIF data to show how the shots were taken.

I have shot many a HS or college wresting tournament using my K-5 or K-r. I think the indoor lighting would be much the same for gymnastics, in fact in many cases both are held in the same venue. (but not at the same time- ha ha). I found the lighting was strong enough for just using ISO 800 or so. I also used flash, more as a fill, since the lighting is very much downward, so the flash would open up the shadows this creates, and helps to even it out and in many cases helps to compensate somewhat for the off-color of the artificial lighting. I would expose for the scene as non-flash use, then use the flash as fill. I found I could use a slower zoom lens with good results, since my shutter speed was enough for this action as set between 1/100 up to the 1/180 sec flash sync. depending on whether I needed a freeze-action shot or one where the arms or legs were somewhat blurred (since these would be moving faster than the body) in order to show motion for a more dynamic shot.

In some parts of gymnastic competition, the body movements will no doubt be faster than in wrestling completion (though at times wrestling moves can be quite fast), so when a freeze action shot is desired, a higher shutter speed might be needed. With flash, if beyond the 1/180 sec sync is required, one would need to employ the HS flash mode.

[Martowski]

Flash is not allowed at any gymnastics competitions, so that is not an option for me. But yes, lighting is probably similar to what you experienced.