Actually Bob, my wife was the one that pushed me over the edge on the big
lens thing.
We had been to Alaska numerous times and I'd always come home with some
decent images but bemoaned the fact that I could have gotten much
better/more images if I only had the 'big lens'.
My biggest at that time was a 300 f4.5 FA. One Christmas I noted a 600 f4
for sale at KEH and told my wife about it. So she says what are you waiting
for - go get it. By the time I got to call KEH, it was gone.
I called the regional Pentax guy and told him what I wanted & asked if he
knew of any used ones available. He called back with good news/bad news -
the bad news was there were no used 600s available as far as he knew, but
the good news was he had a brand new 600 FA sitting in his office and he
would sell it to me at his cost !
Another $1300 later & I had the gimbal head, lens backpack and tripod needed
to haul around and use the 600. Its been to Alaska with me several times and
I've never regretted having it. But with the way airlines are now I doubt
I'll ever fly with it again. Back then I could get it into the overhead on
most planes. I had flown with it to South Dakota when 911 occurred and
because the airline couldn't guarantee I could carry it on board, I rented a
car and drove it home.
I've had several inquires about selling it but so far have refused. Its one
of those things I could never justify but sure enjoy using.
Kenneth Waller
http://www.pentaxphotogallery.com/kennethwaller
----- Original Message -----
From: "Bob Sullivan" <rf.sulli...@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Mr. Bunnell on lens pricing...
Ken,
Earlier this year, Lynn & I visited her old hometown, the Quad-cities.
We spent an hour or two at Mississippi Lock & Dam #14 on the Iowa side.
The Bald Eagles were nesting above the parking lot, and 2 or 3 carloads
of photographers in showmobile suits were wandering about.
They had big glass and gimbal mounts on their tripods.
When I see all those folks with big glass, I get jealous.
(And Lynn doesn't think I'm crazy when I want one of those.)
Regards, Bob S.
On Fri, Apr 20, 2012 at 2:33 PM, <kwal...@peoplepc.com> wrote:
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.
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and
follow the directions.
--
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.
