Actually, what I want to do and how I shoot is already pretty solidly defined. That's part of what's making this so difficult.
I shoot lots of high shutter speed telephoto work at low ASA. Which means relatively fast primes, or a fast constant-aperture zoom.
All my life, I was heavily invested in Canon film gear. Starting in the early 1980s, I'd worked my way up from AE-1s, through F-1s and T-90s, and by the end I had an EOS-1n, EOS-1v, and a bag full of L series glass. One trip to the hospital in 20004 took care of all that, though. For what seemed like an eternity, I didn't even own a camera. Well, a couple of years ago I bought a "lowly" EOS-1 and an EF 50 1.4, and got back in the game. All I shoot is Provia 100F, and occasionally a few rolls of Efke 50 or 100.
I knew that digital was the way to go, though, and I always figured I'd eventually end up with one of the entry-level EOS-1D cameras. That way, any investment I made in EF glass would carry over.
Well, fast forward to this spring. A friend of mine who often ribbed me about still shooting film passed away and left me his K10D and a Pentax 18-250 zoom. At that point, ditching my modest investment in EOS gear and sticking with Pentax seemed like a no-brainer.
That was, until I started looking over the very confusing Pentax lens line. It took me forever just to figure out that there are sometimes three or even four versions of the same lens. Then I started noticing what the "Pentax Tax" ... which is to say that all the lenses I really consider useful are either "new and limited" or "old and rare". Take the 200 2.8, for example. The new version, which isn't even full-frame, costs $900 or more. Well, the FA version is years old and *starts* around $900 but gets up over $1000 real fast. It seems like that's the story for nearly all Pentax lenses. In some cases, you can't even consider the older A, M, or K lenses, because they cost even more! Even buying a simple 50mm lens was frustrating.
But anyway, back to the story... I knew very quickly that the Pentax 18-250 wasn't doing it for me. It was too slow and the variable aperture was an issue. I also felt like it wasn't really showing me the full capability of the K10D body. So I sold it, and a few days later bought a FA 50 1.4, which I considered to be a solid, benchmark lens. Well, on the first trip out of the house, it fell apart in my hands. No parts, even though it's still being sold new ... so no repair. Basically, half the equity in my Pentax gear went up in smoke.
Well, now the puzzle is even more confusing, and further complicated by the fact that I can't really invest in one system without liquidating the other. Do I unload the K10 and try to trade it in on an EOS-1D? Do I unload the EOS-1 and buy Pentax lenses, even though I'd be pretty much stuck buying older M or A lenses and hoping to upgrade later? Is it worth keeping a $300 body, even though I pay that much or more for a Pentax lens when compared to something equal from Canon? (For example, the aforementioned 200 2.8 can be had for around $500.)
It seems like there are a million options, and no clear winner. I love the feel of the EOS-1s and am so familiar with them I can operate them in my sleep. Digital is the future, though, and the K10 seems like a very good camera. And I have no doubt that Pentax's primes are optically excellent ... but good lord, the prices!!
Argh. No wonder I have a headache.
I apologize for the length, but this has really been frustrating me lately, and I don't have anyone I know personally who I can talk this over with. So anyone who's read this far has my thanks, and I could really use some sensible advice.
