[Verglace]

I managed to get a Nikon d90 quite cheap from a friend. I'm thinking it will be a good opportunity to start building a FF set. Since Penax continually tells us no FF then I went for it. Only later did I realise how silly it was because the good FF lenses are much more expensive. But, the opportunity is there.

At the moment I only have a K-5 with 12k actuations still in warranty for 4 more months, and also a 16-50 that I just recently bought a month ago...

Should i sell the k-5 and 16-50 at a loss and start building a FF set with the d90, or should I re-sell the d90 for a profit?

There's no question that I will go FF or not, I was thinking late this year or very early next year... which makes it all the more harder...

I could keep both but, whats the point of that :/

[Na Horuk]

I can't make the decision for you, but I often hear the lenses are more important than the body. You have to think of your needs and how soon you have to realize it.

[Verglace]

I might sell my Pentax gear, all you aussies watch out for a K-5 and a 1 month old DA 16-50 on the market place in a couple of weeks

[ll_coffee_lP]

Sell the works and buy a D700 in about a months time when they will sell for $2000 new. Supplement it with a 50mm 1.8 to get you started.

FF lenses do not need to be expensive. Here's my current kit:

Sigma 50/1.4...500 (new)
Sigma 70-200...750 (used)
Tamron 28-75...250 (used)
Nikon 60mm macro...400 (new)

Find me a Pentax kit that is similar that costs less than that and gives you FF coverage and superb IQ.

By the way all these lenses perform spectacularly on the Nikon D700's that I have.

Food for thought...

c[_]

[pinholecam]

From your various post on your displeasure on the choices Pentax gives you, I frankly suggest a switch.
No point have it eat into you.

That said, there isn't any point getting D90. Its just not the same level of camera as a K5.
I get to handle it often enough as my colleague brings it to office or we do photoshoots often enough.
AF adjust - no
Focus screen change - no (flimsy mechanism)
Low light - not comparable at all
Sharpness - not as good (though no slouch)
Its a 3yr old camera and things have really improved over those years, so I'm not putting it down to make K5 look good.
Just the reality of 2yr difference in tech.

If you can get D90 at a rock bottom price, which you will suffer no loss when reselling it in the near term (eg. 1/2 yr), then 'maybe'.
Else if you got your K5 at the cheaper rate that it is now, you won't loose much selling it in 1/2 yr also, because I really don't see how much more a new camera to be announced by Photokina will significantly improve over it (realistically maybe just AF and 24mp sensor).


I'd suggest you go straight for FF if that is your thing. D700 is expected to be cheaper (I've seen a post its dropped by $300).
Lenses are not that expensive with the plastic fantastics (28/2.8; 35/2; 50/1.8; 85/1.8). I've seen nice results from Jsherman with Tamron 28-75/2.8 too.



Gd luck

[einstrigger]

Should be an option to choose "Sell Both". If you want a FF that bad, you're going to need to do so especially if you're starting from scratch with no lenses. There are rumors of price drops for the D700 next month. If the price drop occurs, new bodies are expected to sell for around $2100, so we can only speculate as to what will happen in the used market. Perhaps we'll see them in the $1500 range? Anyhow, if you can sell the D90 at a profit, go for it, but might as well sell the K-5 too.

[nickthetasmaniac]

If you want a full-frame kit, then why not sell everything and get a full frame kit?

[RioRico]

You'll have more+better+cheaper lens options with Pentax than with the D90.

[ThonasDay]

yeah sell both

[aurele]

are you really sure FF will give you anything you can't have with APS-C ?

Think twice about your need in photograhy, and the lenses required, then do what you think is the best choice. And stick with it.

[ll_coffee_lP]

You'll have more+better+cheaper lens options with Pentax than with the D90.

Your statement is maybe true if you are talking about old legacy MF lenses.

In the AF world Nikon has more lenses, some of the best lenses in existence, and as I've noted in my statement above - you can put a FF lens kit together for the same price as you can with Pentax.

c[_]

[Verglace]

I got the D90 from a friend who doesn't have time for photography anymore for just less than $200, so got it for a bargain (he already sold his lenses and didn't want the hassle of selling the camera so he just gave it to me, literally had to force him to take my money so I wouldn't feel bad). I can sell both probably get a huge profit for the D90, but I'd rather not be camera-less for a while (Id rather wait for the D800 than get a D700 now). I've decided I'm gonna grab an 85 f/1.8, for the d90 and try both cameras for a month, even if I decide to sell the D90 I can keep the 85mm for when I get a D800

Edit: surprised at how cheap the 85 is... only around $400 grey.

[cmohr]

What kind of photography do you do that requires a full 35mm sensor size??? Is a good question to ask yourself when contemplating a change. What exactly do you expect from the FF over APS-C sensor size?? Is it for flatter feilds, of better DOF, or is it because its a FF.

Also I'd check that Nikkor 85/1.8 for around 400. It maybe only a DX series, which is for the APS-C sensor size Nikons not the FX series which are around 1600.00

[aurele]

nop the 85mm which is "DX only" is the 85 f3,5 Macro.

The 85/1,8 and 1,4 are FX.

the issue about "DX only" concern zoom a lot, less primes.

(just checked on the Nikon website )

[Verglace]

What kind of photography do you do that requires a full 35mm sensor size??? Is a good question to ask yourself when contemplating a change. What exactly do you expect from the FF over APS-C sensor size?? Is it for flatter feilds, of better DOF, or is it because its a FF.

Also I'd check that Nikkor 85/1.8 for around 400. It maybe only a DX series, which is for the APS-C sensor size Nikons not the FX series which are around 1600.00

I don't do any specific, I joined a photography club and they organize events for us, and also I like to look at photo magazines and try to recreate similar photos. Usually these end up being landcapes, bokeh shots, portraits (family and friends). Probably best to ask what I don't do, and mostly thats the taking photos of strangers kind of photography like streets and event photography. That's because I'm just not bubbly enough for them.

I'm not a pro and I'm not planning to be one, so I guess I don't need a full frame, I just want one. Just like I didn't need my honda my kia could get me to places, and I don't need a mercedes/ferrari just want one

Also yes the 85mm are confirmed FX, the FX prime lenses are quite cheap
(adorama prices)
20mm f/2.8 is $564 - for wide 1913 Nikon 20mm f/2.8D Ultra Wide Angle AF Nikkor Lens - with 5 Year U.S.A. Warranty
or
24mm f/2.8 is $350 - for wide angle 1919 G Nikon 24mm f/2.8D AF Nikkor Lens - Gray Market
both are roughly 15mm / 16mm equivalent for APS-C

50mm f/1.8 is $120 - for normal 2137 G Nikon 50mm f/1.8D AF Standard Auto Focus Nikkor Lens - Gray Market
85mm f/1.8 is $425- for portraits 1931 G Nikon 85mm f/1.8D AF Telephoto Nikkor Lens with Hood - Gray Market

(I picked gray when available because I'm in AU so the USA ones will end up being gray for me anyway)

Its the f/1.4 lenses that are expensive, even then most are less than $1000, mostly just double the price of the 1.8s. The $1500+ lenses are the telephoto ones and the zooms f/2.8 zooms.

I'll only get the 85, Ill decide later on if I want more primes or save up for zooms.