Originally posted by Winder LOL. I have probably used it 3-4 hours this week. That is actual on time, but a lot of that is testing and setting it up. I'm still using my K-1 in studio, but i will probably switch that out for an A7rIII. I have been shooting 2 systems for years and I am over it. Too much of a pain in the butt.
Using a field camera in the studio really doesn't make a lot of sense. It was designed as a field camera. Some folks are doing commercial work seem to love the Pixel Shift function, it all depends on what you do.
So the big question here is "Is the A7rIII better than the K-1 with Pixel Shift." I recently dropped my K-1 and DA* 60-250 while trying to mountt it on a tripod in minus 10 weather with mittens on, a good 5 foot fall. My guess is, with any Sony I've ever seen I wouldn't even have a camera at this point. But I've never handled an A7rIII or an A9 so maybe they are better who knows. At their price, it doesn't matter. If price isn't an issue for you, your opinion is pretty much irrelevant to 99% of the forum. Most people don't buy Pentax for it's feature set. Most people buy them because for the money they have, they can get more bang per buck. Posts like the above are for the most part not tailored to Pentax users. Just some guy saying "I have more money to spend on cameras than you and I can get more capability by not buying Pentax." It is interesting that for a time even Winder thought the K-1 was a thing.
For those of us who probably aren't going to buy a Sony for us, why don't you break down the costs of your K-1 system and the cost of you Sony system, just so we can see what you're talking about, in consumer terms. That's the issue for most of us looking at an A7rIII or A9, what's this going to cost me? The thing I'd like to know i, I know Sony is way more expensive for less durability and ruggedness, but how bad is it?
Given that 90% of the forum is using entry level k-30 through K-70 type cameras, the big question is what do i get for spending 5 to 10 times what they spent on their system. Usually it's just not that impressive when you work out the numbers. Especially since in a lot of my work with small birds and birding, you have to have 51MP FF to out resolve my K-3.
K-3 and Tamron 300 2.8 with 1.4 TC on it gives me 420 ƒ4, FF equivalent to 630mm ƒ4. What would that cost me with an A7rIII or A9? Making $200 a print, how many prints would I have to sell to cover that?
To me, those cameras are for those who don't trust their skill level to get them the images they want. * for is amazing if you know what you're doing, and 4 FPPS is manageable.
That image has more resolution than you'd get with an A9, and there can be absolutely no argument about that. Even at 4 fps, I threw out a pile of very similar images to get the keeper. I guess with an A9 I could have thrown out 25 images instead of 5. But why do i want that?
I find it so difficult to even comprehend what people are talking about without images. For those of us trained in getting an image with an 8x10 or 4x5 view camera. at one frame per minute max, some guy going for 20 FPS in the studio seems crazy. I'd compete with a guy like that with my one frame per second if we are talking final output.