I see the guys like Ken Waller running around with big glass on Wembly head
and I'm jealous.
Ah yes lens envy!
Actually, Bob I use a 'King Cobra' head from Kirk and I don't run around
with that rig like I use to. ;+)
Kenneth Waller
http://www.pentaxphotogallery.com/kennethwaller
----- Original Message -----
From: "Bob Sullivan" <rf.sulli...@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Mr. Bunnell on lens pricing...
Paul,
I've managed with my A300/4 and the DA60-250.
I'd like the 500/4 for birding.
The A300 plus the AF1.7X comes close, but the image quality could be better.
I see the guys like Ken Waller running around with big glass on Wembly head
and I'm jealous.
Regards, Bob S.
On Thu, Apr 19, 2012 at 9:58 PM, Paul Stenquist <pnstenqu...@comcast.net>
wrote:
On Apr 19, 2012, at 4:11 PM, Bob Sullivan wrote:
Tom,
I have to say that I'm beginning to feel like you.
I've faithfully upgraded my way thru Pentax cameras to the K-5. (DS,
K-10, K-20, K-7, K-5)
Now I'm beginning to wonder where/when I'll be able to buy long & fast
AF glass for Pentax.
I believe Pentax has a 500/4 on the lens timeline that will be available
next year. There's also a 300 and a 200, and of course the 60-250. No real
shortage of lenses IMO.
The only option is to go Canon/Nikon.
So I am beginning to lose the faith…
What do you want to shoot that you can't shoot with your K-5?
Regards, Bob S.
On Thu, Apr 19, 2012 at 11:10 AM, Tom C <caka...@gmail.com> wrote:
From: Darren Addy <pixelsmi...@gmail.com>
I'm certainly a value/bang-for the buck kind of guy. I'm terribly late
to the K-5 party, but I'm hoping to snag one soon. I believe that it
is *still* near the top of the heap (if not at the top) of the best
APS-C cameras available today. I'm pretty pleased with the 20x30
prints I've seen from APS-C cameras and frankly, I don't think there
are many images that I'm going larger than that with. I think it
provides a lot of bang-for-the-buck particularly if one can buy one
around $900 (body). I also think it is sort of amazing that I can get
*still* probably within $75 for what I paid for my K-x (which I
purchases as a low-mileage used kit) - which will help pay for the
upgrade. That's value too.
Comparing that to the Nikon 800/E (which is 3x the price of the K-5)
is sort of like comparing a $25,000 Prius with a $75,000 Mercedes Benz
CLS. They aren't really targeting the same demographic. If your
discretionary income let's you afford some of the finer things in
life, more power to you. A lot of people are going to have a harder
time justifying an additional $2000 for a camera body, particularly if
it also means they start from Square One on lenses and other
accessories. (Frankly, a lot of the 800/E specs seem aimed more at
videography than still.) If *Pentax* released a full frame camera with
the 800's specs of only 4 FPS and top (real) ISO of 6400, you could
hear the PentaxForums screams in Nebraska.
I don't think the fact that there are far more expensive cars out
there changes the bang-for-the-buck with the Prius and I'd say the
same for the K-5. Should Pentax announce a full frame camera (I'm last
of the true believers) particularly for in the neighborhood of $2700
that can take advantage of all your K-mount stuff, I'd think that
would have to give one looking for another step-up pause.
Well, I'm not saying the K-5 doesn't deliver bang for the buck even
now. For me it's just a bit late in it's life cycle. I bought late
into the K20D and late into the K-7 (had I waited a few more months
I'd have had a K-5). So I'm determined not to do that again.
I appreciate the accuracy of your arithmetic. $1000 vs. $3000 and
$25,000 vs. $75000 are both factors of 3. :-)
There's a $2000 difference in the first case and a $50000 difference
in the second. While being equivalent in magnitude, in real $ there's
a huge difference.
BTW, I'm not being argumentative, just blabbering.
Let's start from the premise that most people wouldn't spend $3000 on
a camera. I agree. In fact I can't justify it for myself (so I've
compartmentalized that and hidden it away so I don't feel unduly
guilty). The 645D is a $10,000 camera so even less people would
purchase that.
The 645D is a 40MP camera. The D800/E is a 36MP camera. Cost per MP
calculation:
645D is $250/MP
800E is $92/MP
(K-5 is $62.50/MP if priced at $1000)
In those terms, the 800E is delivering a lot of bang for the buck and
there's a full compliment of AF lenses available.
The D800E has 90% of the resolution of a 645D yet the cost is only 1/3
that of a 645D. The K-5 has about 48.5% the resolution of the D800E
and the cost is slightly less than 1/3 that of a D800E. Both the D800E
and K-5 offer significant bang for the buck.
I agree with your rationale on the K-5, It's why I continued to buy
Pentax after Pentax, K-mount after K-mount. On the other hand many
people will find themselves scrounging for, or purchasing new FF
lenses in K-mount, were Pentax to come out with a FF body. Using only
legacy non-AF lenses or APS-C lenses on such a body would negate many
of the potential benefits.
For me though, I think the time has come where I ask 'do I keep on
spending money on Pentax?'.
I think the 645D, the Q, and the K-01 are all further signs of a
company that's out of touch with reality (I don't deny the same for
myself sometimes). The fact that they don't have their DSLR's in
mass-market brick and mortar retail outlets is another sign. Have they
just awoken to the fact it may be a good idea?
Looked at another way, if I'd not bought a K20D (or K-7), had not
bought about $2500 of K-mount lenses in the past 4 years, I could
easily have paid for a D800E.
Tom C.
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow
the directions.
