Originally posted by biz-engineer As far as I'm concerned , I put cost on one side of the balance, and value of improved camera specs on the other side:
We all do, but each talks from the perspective of shooting different things.
I shoot wildlife and I want a body that can keep up with the fast and unexpected moments. I also want the best glass available and I have the renting option so that I don't have to worry about spending 10.000$ on a dedicated lens. For example I paid 40$ to rent for 2 days the Cnon RP and Canon 28-70mm f2L lens. And a 300mm f2.8 costs 50$ for 2 days to rent on weekends.
I also shoot corporate events and portraits. For both I use fast lenses and I shoot between f1.2 and f2.8 most of the times and between f4 and f5.6 if I shoot a small group of people on a stage for example. Eye af is good enough these days so that I don't have to worry about getting the shot in focus at f1.4-f2.8.
For travel and landscape I probably won't bother with fast lenses or with fps and buffer and switching systems won't get me any sort of improvements, especially if the camera that I would have to replace would be a Pentax K1 II. But I understand also the reasons of the ones waiting to get the A7R IV as a replacement of the current system or as a simple upgrade from an older Sony camera.
---------- Post added 07-20-19 at 10:44 PM ----------
Originally posted by Rondec People are pulling out pretty specific uses of a camera in this thread. It may be that birding is the most important thing for a camera to be able to do, but if your focus is on birding and the 26 megapixels you get with your crop on this camera, you are going to be cheaper getting a lower megapixel full frame camera to combine with a 24-ish megapixel APS-C camera for when you need that "reach."
But I really think people over estimate how much of a difference there is between a 20 megapixel image (like the D500 has) and a 24 or 26 megapixel image. There isn't a huge difference in real world settings.
Same with the silent mode. Yes, it is nice to have, but the K-1 shutter is soft enough that it isn't a problem in most settings -- certainly less obtrusive than people taking flash photos with their photos.
Rondec, it's not only about bodies. You invest in a system and the camera it's just a small part in the equation. As I said many times, for me resolution is the last I think in terms of importance. But if I tell this to a photographer who has clients that pay for his large prints, I won't have any sort of argument if I want to convince him that resolution isn't important.
Sure, K1 has a soft enough shutter, until you go to shoot a play in a theater and people next to you start to tell you to shut your camera (it happened to me and the second time I've rented a mirrorless).
Yes, people are pulling out specific uses because none of us are shooting the same thing under the same conditions. And some of us also get paid from time to time for our images. Why people who want some specific features are welcomed with things like:
- K1 has a soft enough shutter
- K3 has 8fps and it's cheap and has extra reach
- 60mp is not bringing any advantage over a 36 or 42mp camera
- etc.
Why some people are not willing to get into consideration other people opinions just because they don't deal with the same requirements in their photography activity? Why people willing to invest in expensive cameras/lenses are welcomed with "it's too expensive", "I don't see better images taken with the new camera", "you like 4 shot pixel resolution, how about 16", etc.? Why is it so hard to understand that maybe those people didn't payed a lot of money for better images, but they paid the money to get the same images but easier and faster? These things I don't understand...
Last edited by Dan Rentea; 07-20-2019 at 04:09 PM.