K-3ii to D500... Is this the right move?

UserAccessDenied · 09-17-2018, 10:23 AM

Originally posted by normhead

I used to think that too but look at the date on that photo and I still remember that guy, he obviously made an impression.

The thing about ƒ4, is in demanding AF situations, ƒ4 gives the AF system twice the light to work with. It's not a snob thing about the money, it's functional thing about the odds fo success.

That's why the guy changed his tone. I think he realized how snobby that sounded, and that wasn't his intent. It was all about chance of success.

And the point here is, you don't get the benefit of a better AF system on something like a D500, if you don't buy the lenses that will take advantage of it. IN fact it would be interesting to see a comparison of a D500 with say a 150-600 and Pentax with a 600 ƒ4. People assume there would be an advantage to the Nikon system, but, when the Pentax is the expensive system and the Nikon is the bargain basement system, that's probably not the case.

The only question is "What do I have to pay to get the performance I'd like." You have to count the cost of the whole system, not just the body. If you don't buy the fast glass, how de we know you're gaining anything at all changing systems? I personally gave the a D500 good look when it came out, analyzed what I'd have to buy to get an increase in performance, and stayed with my K-3.

But maybe you have a lot more money to spend than I do.

Right but that comparison isn't realistic, right?
I'm talking about trading my system in for the Nikon equivalent, not spending any money with the potential of losing a few lenses now.
Highly unlikely I'd ever own the 600mm F4, while the Nikon D500 and 150-600 is well within reach. I get what you're saying though... It's not just about the camera body; factor of glass is comparable, if not more important and I need to consider that as well.

Good news there is that the 200-500 F5.6 is touted as a great lens. Not sure how it compares with the 150-450; not sure if anyone has actually tested both lenses with comparable bodies - would certainly be interesting to see such test!

UserAccessDenied · 09-17-2018, 10:29 AM

Originally posted by biz-engineer

My point is, if you want to save money, you stay with Pentax and you improve on the weak part of your system. If you switch all over to another brand, why not get the significantly better system. For me, switching from Pentax K3 + DFA150450 to a D500 with 200-500 isn't a noticeable step forward, simply because the Nikon 200-500 f5.6 is an entry level tele zoom made in China for being priced less than $1500 or so. Lets forget about brand names: take cars, switching from Pentax amateur gear to Nikon amateur gear is like switching brands of car to get the same engine, same volume and same gear box... for the money the difference isn't going to be noticeable. Back to cameras, I have a DFA150-450, it's good , but it's not like a 600 f4, I wouldn't spend the money to get a D500 and put back a 200-500 f5.6 on it...

I'm confused by this analogy...
Are you saying that the K-3ii and the D500 are the same engine, volume and gear box? Can you elaborate here?

If I owned the 150-450 I might not have even posted this thread to begin with. I've never even seen the lens in person, not to mention test it myself.

As I stand currently, my system is lacking with the K-3ii + 1.4xTC + DA*300...

If the Nikon D500 + 200-500 is obtainable for no cost (swap) would I be downgrading (by the sound of many replying here)?
I'm currently shooting 420mm F5.6, so the 500 F5.6 is actually an upgrade; the 600mm F4 was never a contender here.

biz-engineer · 09-17-2018, 10:33 AM

Originally posted by derekkite

The first one is substantially cropped.

When cropping it's a bit like shooting with micro 4/3. That means 450mm on apsc is too short. For some people, the Panasonic Leica 100-400 is a good choice, that's 200-800 FF eq.

UserAccessDenied · 09-17-2018, 10:40 AM

Originally posted by reh321

My main advice to you is to be sure of your facts. Pentaxians seem to think that the D500 is a wonderful camera - it is good, but not as good as we think it is. Like many Nikon cameras, the AF is great by Pentax standards .... and if AF is all that you need, that is what you need to think about. However, in conversing with Nikon users I have come to understand that it is not nearly as good at higher ISO values as we seem to think it is - it has both color fidelity and noise issues {which could be why they think in terms of "constant f/4 lenses"}. If I were you, I would wait until the K-3 replacement comes out and consider that camera + the 55-300 PLM {or better} lens.

Pentax KP First Shots: Going head-to-head against the Nikon D500 at ISO 819,200!

That article... I'm sorry, what?
They compare the KP to the K-3ii at base and 6400ISO
They compare the KP to the 80D at base and 6400ISO
They compare the KP to the D500 at 819,200ISO ? uhhh where's the base and 6400ISO comparison?

Are they leaving it out to sway the result?
Or did they honestly just skip it and go to a completely unrealistic ISO to prove a point?

I would like to see a K-3ii vs D500 at base, 800ISO, 3200ISO, 6400ISO...
But 819,200 is...

Last edited by UserAccessDenied; 09-17-2018 at 10:46 AM.

UserAccessDenied · 09-17-2018, 10:44 AM

Originally posted by VoiceOfReason

If I were you I would try out the K1 even though you're not looking at FF. Seriously, it is not much bigger than the K3 and is miles ahead of it, especially with the 150-450. That lens will lock on pretty fast and will work with the DA 1.4 tc (of course you're stuck in crop mode with that). Then again at that focal length holding it steady is a challenge. Speaking of speed, the DFA 150-450 with the 1.4 tc is faster focusing in my experience than the DA* 60-250. With just the lens it is faster yet.

Is the K-1ii in crop mode comparable to the K-3ii?

I wouldn't mind getting my hands on the K-1ii to test it out... I like everything about that camera, except the FF.

UserAccessDenied · 09-17-2018, 10:55 AM

Originally posted by stillshot2

Can you show us an example of a "keeper" and a "non keeper." Full size image uncropped and before being edited would help me see what you are going for. Rent the Nikon combo you are thinking about before making such an expensive change and see if it will do the job. Also rent the Pentax 150-400. I've never used the D500 but on paper it doesn't seem much more different than the K3. Looks like the D500 has a little less megapixels for cropping, and only marginally better iso performance.

I might be able to grab a few fresh frames after work if weather permits...
but I can also explain the situation...

Bird flying towards the camera, first shot in focus, second shot hunts and out of focus, third shot hunts and out of focus. So out of focus the bird is no longer in the viewfinder...

Second scenario.
Bird flying across my plane of view, first shot in focus, second shot hunts and out of focus, third shot hunts and out of focus, fourth shot hunts and out of focus. Frustrated and give up on that subject.

Occasionally a full focus rack from infinity to MFD.

I'm attributing this to not only the K-3ii but also the HD1.4xTC and DA*300.
I've been told that the 150-450 would likely show improvements so maybe that's the upgrade I should consider, then move to the K-3ii successor whenever that may be...

reh321 · 09-17-2018, 10:55 AM

Originally posted by UserAccessDenied

That article... I'm sorry, what?
They compare the KP to the K-3ii at base and 6400ISO
They compare the KP to the 80D at base and 6400ISO
They compare the KP to the D500 at 819,200ISO ? uhhh where's the base and 6400ISO comparison?

Are they leaving it out to sway the result?
Or did they honestly just skip it and go to a completely unrealistic ISO to prove a point?

I would like to see a K-3ii vs D500 at base, 800ISO, 3200ISO, 6400ISO...
But 819,200 is...

I was trying to be helpful - I provided the best comparison I could.
You are welcome to find one you believe is more useful.

biz-engineer · 09-17-2018, 10:55 AM

Originally posted by UserAccessDenied

Are you saying that the K-3ii and the D500 are the same engine, volume and gear box? Can you elaborate here?

What I mean is that the D500 will give you better auto-focus tracking, and that's all and auto-focus is only a small part of the equation for getting beautiful wide life shots.

UserAccessDenied · 09-17-2018, 02:24 PM

Originally posted by reh321

I was trying to be helpful - I provided the best comparison I could.
You are welcome to find one you believe is more useful.

I'm sorry, sarcasm is difficult to express over text! haha
I understand the comparison, I just think the actual test they did was funny... Would have loved to see the D500 at lower ISO compared to the KP. I think there's something there for discussion given some content to reference.

Again, didn't mean to come off rude!

UserAccessDenied · 09-17-2018, 02:26 PM

Originally posted by biz-engineer

What I mean is that the D500 will give you better auto-focus tracking, and that's all and auto-focus is only a small part of the equation for getting beautiful wide life shots.

Very true.
Part of me wants to just upgrade to a K-1ii and when the K-3ii successor does come out I'll just have a FF and an APS-C body... But the other part of me realizes how expensive this would be!

Perhaps the 150-450 would be a decent lateral "up"grade for now until we hear more about the next APS-C flagship from Ricoh/Pentax.

automorphism · 09-17-2018, 02:40 PM

I am convinced you should get the D500. Here are my reasons:

Autofocus will be superior
Greater lens selection for wildlife, no question. If you get even more serious you can trade up your 200-500 for the newer 500 PF f/5.6 later or an even more exotic option
VR with the Nikon lenses in the lens vs. in body, designed for the specific lens. You should look at tests yourself, but in my experience I have found that in-body stabilization works poorly for 300mm+ lengths.
Another point for #3: in-lens stabilization gives you a stable viewfinder. Around the 400mm mark and above, I find the viewfinder somewhat difficult to use because of the camera shake (and yes, I DO go to the gym and lift weights

I understand thought that you would not immediately be able to replace your limited lenses and 100mm macro, and that would be the sad part. I love my macro lens. I think though that in photography, as with all else in life, if you have a burning desire to pursue something specific, you just have to go for it. Are there some tradeoffs with Nikon? Absolutely - but I think in the long run the D500 will make you happier overall.

Regarding the 200-500, you should also check out the Sigma Sport 150-600, which is supposed to be sharper at 500...though it is of course a lot heavier, but the price difference is not too great.

normhead · 09-17-2018, 02:52 PM - **1 Like**

There's a lot more people who think this or that system should improve their photgraphy than there are people who actually post better images after they upgrade.

The one thing one people never seem to want analyze is what their weaknesses are.

From last winter.... photographing Crosbills from the Algonquin Park Visitor's Centre deck.

If in lens stabilization is so great, why are all these people using tripods?

Algonquin Park, Mew Lake, waiting for the Pine martins to come.

The point being these people, all pretty serious, do not depend on in lens stabilization for wildlife. You say it's a thing. They say it sin't. Who do I believe, the people who own Nikon and Canon gear, and actually shoot wildlife, or the guys who just think it might be nice.

In picture #1 you can see my camera there , my Pentax is on tripod, just like everyone else. What ever the factors are, they mean nada if you are serious about what you're doing. I always give preference to what I see, not so much what I here or read.

So, in summary, there might be some longer focal lengths, where in lens stabilization might be an advantage. But there is clearly a lot of range with long telephoto's where you still need a tripod. Unless you know where that magic point is where in lens stabilization is superior, you don't really know any thing. If you think you know in-;ems stabilization is superior for some longer focal lengths, surely to make that statement you need to have some experience to tell us what the parameters around that are, and some explanation of under what circumstances you might exploit that.

Can't explain the parameters? Your advice is useless. Or is it that all these people who actually own these lenses are wrong, and you know better?

I shoot 500mm ƒ4.5 hand held with in body stabilization. It's not an issue.

surfar · 09-17-2018, 02:55 PM

Originally posted by biz-engineer

For some people, the Panasonic Leica 100-400 is a good choice, that's 200-800 FF eq.

While its working properly, buying that lens is a gamble.

For repair it has to be sent to Japan,Panasonic charge a fortune for the job.They offer a refurbished replacement for around 75% of new price but the damaged lens is a trade in.

It may reach a long way but its a not got a reliable reputation.

photoptimist · 09-17-2018, 03:05 PM

Originally posted by normhead

Talking to this guy, an accomplished birder who will go anywhere for shots with his Nikon D4 and 600 ƒ4, looked at my 400 5.6 and sneered "I don't shoot 5.6". r

LOL! You could have sneered back: "I don't shoot noisy sensors."

mecrox · 09-17-2018, 03:12 PM

Just a suggestion: Buy a second-hand K-mount telephoto lens, see how the whole vibe strikes you for 6-12 months, then sell on for not much of a loss and now with a better idea of what you’d like. Spend a little on tuition and wildlifing trips. Don’t make a big move till you have tested the waters first.

For a Pentax user who takes lots of bird images with I think a Sigma 500mm lens, see the excellent Ken Goh.

09-17-2018, 02:40 PM	#41
automorphism Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2015 Location: Ontario, Canada Photos: Albums Posts: 791	I am convinced you should get the D500. Here are my reasons: Autofocus will be superior Greater lens selection for wildlife, no question. If you get even more serious you can trade up your 200-500 for the newer 500 PF f/5.6 later or an even more exotic option VR with the Nikon lenses in the lens vs. in body, designed for the specific lens. You should look at tests yourself, but in my experience I have found that in-body stabilization works poorly for 300mm+ lengths. Another point for #3: in-lens stabilization gives you a stable viewfinder. Around the 400mm mark and above, I find the viewfinder somewhat difficult to use because of the camera shake (and yes, I DO go to the gym and lift weights I understand thought that you would not immediately be able to replace your limited lenses and 100mm macro, and that would be the sad part. I love my macro lens. I think though that in photography, as with all else in life, if you have a burning desire to pursue something specific, you just have to go for it. Are there some tradeoffs with Nikon? Absolutely - but I think in the long run the D500 will make you happier overall. Regarding the 200-500, you should also check out the Sigma Sport 150-600, which is supposed to be sharper at 500...though it is of course a lot heavier, but the price difference is not too great.

09-17-2018, 02:52 PM - 1 Like	#42
normhead Pentaxian Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Near Algonquin Park Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 40,451	There's a lot more people who think this or that system should improve their photgraphy than there are people who actually post better images after they upgrade. The one thing one people never seem to want analyze is what their weaknesses are. From last winter.... photographing Crosbills from the Algonquin Park Visitor's Centre deck. If in lens stabilization is so great, why are all these people using tripods? Algonquin Park, Mew Lake, waiting for the Pine martins to come. The point being these people, all pretty serious, do not depend on in lens stabilization for wildlife. You say it's a thing. They say it sin't. Who do I believe, the people who own Nikon and Canon gear, and actually shoot wildlife, or the guys who just think it might be nice. In picture #1 you can see my camera there , my Pentax is on tripod, just like everyone else. What ever the factors are, they mean nada if you are serious about what you're doing. I always give preference to what I see, not so much what I here or read. So, in summary, there might be some longer focal lengths, where in lens stabilization might be an advantage. But there is clearly a lot of range with long telephoto's where you still need a tripod. Unless you know where that magic point is where in lens stabilization is superior, you don't really know any thing. If you think you know in-;ems stabilization is superior for some longer focal lengths, surely to make that statement you need to have some experience to tell us what the parameters around that are, and some explanation of under what circumstances you might exploit that. Can't explain the parameters? Your advice is useless. Or is it that all these people who actually own these lenses are wrong, and you know better? I shoot 500mm ƒ4.5 hand held with in body stabilization. It's not an issue. Last edited by normhead; 09-17-2018 at 03:03 PM.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Nikon D500 ?	stevewong	Canon, Nikon, Sony, and Other Camera Brands	24	05-16-2017 07:11 AM
More test images from the Pentax KP compare with D500/K1	melander	Pentax KP	3	02-02-2017 11:00 PM
DXO has tested the D500 and the 80D	D1N0	Canon, Nikon, Sony, and Other Camera Brands	48	08-24-2016 09:35 AM
K1 or D500???	Shanti	Canon, Nikon, Sony, and Other Camera Brands	45	04-18-2016 01:42 PM

09-17-2018, 10:23 AM	#31
UserAccessDenied Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2015 Location: Maryland Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 1,677 Original Poster	Originally posted by normhead I used to think that too but look at the date on that photo and I still remember that guy, he obviously made an impression. The thing about ƒ4, is in demanding AF situations, ƒ4 gives the AF system twice the light to work with. It's not a snob thing about the money, it's functional thing about the odds fo success. That's why the guy changed his tone. I think he realized how snobby that sounded, and that wasn't his intent. It was all about chance of success. And the point here is, you don't get the benefit of a better AF system on something like a D500, if you don't buy the lenses that will take advantage of it. IN fact it would be interesting to see a comparison of a D500 with say a 150-600 and Pentax with a 600 ƒ4. People assume there would be an advantage to the Nikon system, but, when the Pentax is the expensive system and the Nikon is the bargain basement system, that's probably not the case. The only question is "What do I have to pay to get the performance I'd like." You have to count the cost of the whole system, not just the body. If you don't buy the fast glass, how de we know you're gaining anything at all changing systems? I personally gave the a D500 good look when it came out, analyzed what I'd have to buy to get an increase in performance, and stayed with my K-3. But maybe you have a lot more money to spend than I do. Right but that comparison isn't realistic, right? I'm talking about trading my system in for the Nikon equivalent, not spending any money with the potential of losing a few lenses now. Highly unlikely I'd ever own the 600mm F4, while the Nikon D500 and 150-600 is well within reach. I get what you're saying though... It's not just about the camera body; factor of glass is comparable, if not more important and I need to consider that as well. Good news there is that the 200-500 F5.6 is touted as a great lens. Not sure how it compares with the 150-450; not sure if anyone has actually tested both lenses with comparable bodies - would certainly be interesting to see such test!

09-17-2018, 10:29 AM	#32
UserAccessDenied Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2015 Location: Maryland Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 1,677 Original Poster	Originally posted by biz-engineer My point is, if you want to save money, you stay with Pentax and you improve on the weak part of your system. If you switch all over to another brand, why not get the significantly better system. For me, switching from Pentax K3 + DFA150450 to a D500 with 200-500 isn't a noticeable step forward, simply because the Nikon 200-500 f5.6 is an entry level tele zoom made in China for being priced less than $1500 or so. Lets forget about brand names: take cars, switching from Pentax amateur gear to Nikon amateur gear is like switching brands of car to get the same engine, same volume and same gear box... for the money the difference isn't going to be noticeable. Back to cameras, I have a DFA150-450, it's good , but it's not like a 600 f4, I wouldn't spend the money to get a D500 and put back a 200-500 f5.6 on it... I'm confused by this analogy... Are you saying that the K-3ii and the D500 are the same engine, volume and gear box? Can you elaborate here? If I owned the 150-450 I might not have even posted this thread to begin with. I've never even seen the lens in person, not to mention test it myself. As I stand currently, my system is lacking with the K-3ii + 1.4xTC + DA*300... If the Nikon D500 + 200-500 is obtainable for no cost (swap) would I be downgrading (by the sound of many replying here)? I'm currently shooting 420mm F5.6, so the 500 F5.6 is actually an upgrade; the 600mm F4 was never a contender here.

09-17-2018, 10:33 AM	#33
biz-engineer Pentaxian Join Date: Feb 2015 Photos: Gallery Posts: 12,229	Originally posted by derekkite The first one is substantially cropped. When cropping it's a bit like shooting with micro 4/3. That means 450mm on apsc is too short. For some people, the Panasonic Leica 100-400 is a good choice, that's 200-800 FF eq.

09-17-2018, 10:40 AM	#34
UserAccessDenied Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2015 Location: Maryland Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 1,677 Original Poster	Originally posted by reh321 My main advice to you is to be sure of your facts. Pentaxians seem to think that the D500 is a wonderful camera - it is good, but not as good as we think it is. Like many Nikon cameras, the AF is great by Pentax standards .... and if AF is all that you need, that is what you need to think about. However, in conversing with Nikon users I have come to understand that it is not nearly as good at higher ISO values as we seem to think it is - it has both color fidelity and noise issues {which could be why they think in terms of "constant f/4 lenses"}. If I were you, I would wait until the K-3 replacement comes out and consider that camera + the 55-300 PLM {or better} lens. Pentax KP First Shots: Going head-to-head against the Nikon D500 at ISO 819,200! That article... I'm sorry, what? They compare the KP to the K-3ii at base and 6400ISO They compare the KP to the 80D at base and 6400ISO They compare the KP to the D500 at 819,200ISO ? uhhh where's the base and 6400ISO comparison? Are they leaving it out to sway the result? Or did they honestly just skip it and go to a completely unrealistic ISO to prove a point? I would like to see a K-3ii vs D500 at base, 800ISO, 3200ISO, 6400ISO... But 819,200 is... Last edited by UserAccessDenied; 09-17-2018 at 10:46 AM.

09-17-2018, 10:44 AM	#35
UserAccessDenied Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2015 Location: Maryland Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 1,677 Original Poster	Originally posted by VoiceOfReason If I were you I would try out the K1 even though you're not looking at FF. Seriously, it is not much bigger than the K3 and is miles ahead of it, especially with the 150-450. That lens will lock on pretty fast and will work with the DA 1.4 tc (of course you're stuck in crop mode with that). Then again at that focal length holding it steady is a challenge. Speaking of speed, the DFA 150-450 with the 1.4 tc is faster focusing in my experience than the DA* 60-250. With just the lens it is faster yet. Is the K-1ii in crop mode comparable to the K-3ii? I wouldn't mind getting my hands on the K-1ii to test it out... I like everything about that camera, except the FF.

09-17-2018, 10:55 AM	#36
UserAccessDenied Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2015 Location: Maryland Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 1,677 Original Poster	Originally posted by stillshot2 Can you show us an example of a "keeper" and a "non keeper." Full size image uncropped and before being edited would help me see what you are going for. Rent the Nikon combo you are thinking about before making such an expensive change and see if it will do the job. Also rent the Pentax 150-400. I've never used the D500 but on paper it doesn't seem much more different than the K3. Looks like the D500 has a little less megapixels for cropping, and only marginally better iso performance. I might be able to grab a few fresh frames after work if weather permits... but I can also explain the situation... Bird flying towards the camera, first shot in focus, second shot hunts and out of focus, third shot hunts and out of focus. So out of focus the bird is no longer in the viewfinder... Second scenario. Bird flying across my plane of view, first shot in focus, second shot hunts and out of focus, third shot hunts and out of focus, fourth shot hunts and out of focus. Frustrated and give up on that subject. Occasionally a full focus rack from infinity to MFD. I'm attributing this to not only the K-3ii but also the HD1.4xTC and DA*300. I've been told that the 150-450 would likely show improvements so maybe that's the upgrade I should consider, then move to the K-3ii successor whenever that may be...

09-17-2018, 10:55 AM	#37
reh321 Pentaxian Join Date: Nov 2014 Location: South Bend, IN, USA Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 23,177	Originally posted by UserAccessDenied That article... I'm sorry, what? They compare the KP to the K-3ii at base and 6400ISO They compare the KP to the 80D at base and 6400ISO They compare the KP to the D500 at 819,200ISO ? uhhh where's the base and 6400ISO comparison? Are they leaving it out to sway the result? Or did they honestly just skip it and go to a completely unrealistic ISO to prove a point? I would like to see a K-3ii vs D500 at base, 800ISO, 3200ISO, 6400ISO... But 819,200 is... I was trying to be helpful - I provided the best comparison I could. You are welcome to find one you believe is more useful.

09-17-2018, 10:55 AM	#38
biz-engineer Pentaxian Join Date: Feb 2015 Photos: Gallery Posts: 12,229	Originally posted by UserAccessDenied Are you saying that the K-3ii and the D500 are the same engine, volume and gear box? Can you elaborate here? What I mean is that the D500 will give you better auto-focus tracking, and that's all and auto-focus is only a small part of the equation for getting beautiful wide life shots.

09-17-2018, 02:24 PM	#39
UserAccessDenied Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2015 Location: Maryland Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 1,677 Original Poster	Originally posted by reh321 I was trying to be helpful - I provided the best comparison I could. You are welcome to find one you believe is more useful. I'm sorry, sarcasm is difficult to express over text! haha I understand the comparison, I just think the actual test they did was funny... Would have loved to see the D500 at lower ISO compared to the KP. I think there's something there for discussion given some content to reference. Again, didn't mean to come off rude!

09-17-2018, 02:26 PM	#40
UserAccessDenied Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2015 Location: Maryland Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 1,677 Original Poster	Originally posted by biz-engineer What I mean is that the D500 will give you better auto-focus tracking, and that's all and auto-focus is only a small part of the equation for getting beautiful wide life shots. Very true. Part of me wants to just upgrade to a K-1ii and when the K-3ii successor does come out I'll just have a FF and an APS-C body... But the other part of me realizes how expensive this would be! Perhaps the 150-450 would be a decent lateral "up"grade for now until we hear more about the next APS-C flagship from Ricoh/Pentax.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

09-17-2018, 02:55 PM	#43
surfar Pentaxian Join Date: Jan 2015 Location: mid nth coast,nsw Photos: Gallery Posts: 6,138	Originally posted by biz-engineer For some people, the Panasonic Leica 100-400 is a good choice, that's 200-800 FF eq. While its working properly, buying that lens is a gamble. For repair it has to be sent to Japan,Panasonic charge a fortune for the job.They offer a refurbished replacement for around 75% of new price but the damaged lens is a trade in. It may reach a long way but its a not got a reliable reputation.

09-17-2018, 03:05 PM	#44
photoptimist Pentaxian Join Date: Jul 2016 Photos: Albums Posts: 5,121	Originally posted by normhead Talking to this guy, an accomplished birder who will go anywhere for shots with his Nikon D4 and 600 ƒ4, looked at my 400 5.6 and sneered "I don't shoot 5.6". r LOL! You could have sneered back: "I don't shoot noisy sensors."

09-17-2018, 03:12 PM	#45
mecrox Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2009 Location: Oxford, UK Photos: Gallery Posts: 2,375	Just a suggestion: Buy a second-hand K-mount telephoto lens, see how the whole vibe strikes you for 6-12 months, then sell on for not much of a loss and now with a better idea of what you’d like. Spend a little on tuition and wildlifing trips. Don’t make a big move till you have tested the waters first. For a Pentax user who takes lots of bird images with I think a Sigma 500mm lens, see the excellent Ken Goh.