The 1k camera question...

JJ!

JJ!

Messages
5,822
Edit My Images
No
Time to upgrade my kit as I want to start making more money next year.

Last year I was taking pics at horse shows using a trusty Olympus E-620 and 40-150mm lens. Nought special, but the pics came out very well and I sold quite a few (www.jayx2aphotography.com - pics).

Want to up my game a little next season, so looking for advice on what to get. If I sell my G3 I reckon I could have around £1100 max.

FPS is not a huge issue as I usually track and pull out single shot pics anyway.

Budget wise I am looking at kit lenses to start out with (and maybe a prime).

Was looking at the D7000 with 18-105 or 60D with either 15-85 or 18-135.

Any suggestions and opinions very much welcome.
 
I'd be more concerned about what glass I'd be using rather than the body. Canon has the highly affordable 70-200 f/4 which Nikon doesn't...
 
Pentax does look rather tempting too! But both the Nikon and Canon have so many lenses to choose!
 
Last edited:
JJ! said:
Pentax does look rather tempting too! But both the Nikon and Canon have so many lenses to choose!
Click to expand...

This is one of the main reasons people may choose a Canon or Nikon over the Pentax or Sony models, but they do some very nice lenses and you can get more from the body with Sony / Pentax eg. The bodies have IS built in, so every lens used has IS, rather than it being lens specific...

Have you been and had a play with any of the bodies - they can feel different to hold and the buttons / menu layout etc can be a personal thing as to what you like, I would recommend you have a try of different makes and models - see which you prefer and which model size you prefer eg the Canon 60D is a larger body than the 600D.

Hope this is a help...
 
The pentax is great if you have smaller hands like me (the body is a lot smaller than other semipro cameras), and even better with a grip attached.
 
Managed to pop in to my local camera shop and liking the k5 very much. D7000 close 2nd. Ruled out the 60d as handling not for me. At least I have the choice down to two bodies!
 
JJ! said:
Managed to pop in to my local camera shop and liking the k5 very much. D7000 close 2nd. Ruled out the 60d as handling not for me. At least I have the choice down to two bodies!
Click to expand...

I use the D7000 and it is a real good camera, the K-5 is meant to be ever so slightly ahead. However I personally think you are better off investing in Nikon/Canon systems at the moment as the others are still playing catch up. You will get access to more lenses, Nikons CLS and lots of other features. Thats just me though :thumbs:
 
JJ! said:
Managed to pop in to my local camera shop and liking the k5 very much. D7000 close 2nd. Ruled out the 60d as handling not for me. At least I have the choice down to two bodies!
Click to expand...

I came from Nikon having used a D40 for the best part of 5 years and bought a D7k as a logical upgrade. I ended up ditching it two-three weeks later cause the K-5 was so much better in so many ways.

Don't forget you have all sorts of third party lens choice with the Pentax. The Tamron 70-200 and also the Sigma and you don't even need them in their OS versions as the K-5 has it built in. Which means you should be able to find reasonably cheap good quality glass!

If you don't need to go as far as 200mm the 50-135 (which I own) is an amazing lens (smaller and lighter too) from Pentax or you can try the 50-150 Sigma if you can find one very good lenses for the price.
 
Thanks for the info! Budget may also allow me one prime for the time being. Was looking at the 50mm f1.4 which can be had under 300. Any other primes around that 35-50mm length worth looking at for under 300?
 
If you're not after superteles or tilt shift lenses I can't see Pentax being behind Nikon or Canon at all for you when it comes to lenses.
 
vrapan said:
35mm 2.4 :) 139 new have seen them 120 s/h amazing lens and very very compact!
Click to expand...

That's cheap as chips! Was looking for something for low light so not sure if 2.4 will be good enough. Although looking at the high ISO performance, maybe this is not so much of an issue!
 
ausemmao said:
If you're not after superteles or tilt shift lenses I can't see Pentax being behind Nikon or Canon at all for you when it comes to lenses.
Click to expand...

Nikon still leads by quite some way. They have in production 56 different lenses with a focal length of under 200mm (not counting t/s lenses). Pentax in its complete range only has 33. This is also not taking into consideration the hundreds of discontinued lenses which can be had for relatively nothing from Nikon. I would presume that if he is doing motorsport photography teles will be high on his list. Another consideration is upgrade paths. If you buy a full k5 kit, it will be harder to resell and there are less upgrade paths if you decide to take this hobby further :thumbs:
 
JJ! said:
That's cheap as chips! Was looking for something for low light so not sure if 2.4 will be good enough. Although looking at the high ISO performance, maybe this is not so much of an issue!
Click to expand...

I had the exact same reservation when moving over because I could not find affordable very fast lenses. However what was pointed out to me was that there are plenty of fast expensive Nikon/Canon lenses but none is stabilised.

To put that 2.4 into perspective, the equivalent on the Nikon is the 35 1.8 for 160-170. You lose 1/2 or 1/3 of a stop ( can't remember) but you do have the lens stabilised which at worst would net you 2 stops at best 3-3 1/2 so you are better off by 1 1/2 stops at least on a smaller cheaper lens. Couldn't argue with that.

If you need that extra half stop on moving objects then bump the ISO a bit. It will be half a stop higher than you would need to on a D7k but if you can tell the difference then maybe you are already in need of an FF camera :)
 
vrapan said:
I had the exact same reservation when moving over because I could not find affordable very fast lenses. However what was pointed out to me was that there are plenty of fast expensive Nikon/Canon lenses but none is stabilised.

To put that 2.4 into perspective, the equivalent on the Nikon is the 35 1.8 for 160-170. You lose 1/2 or 1/3 of a stop ( can't remember) but you do have the lens stabilised which at worst would net you 2 stops at best 3-3 1/2 so you are better off by 1 1/2 stops at least on a smaller cheaper lens. Couldn't argue with that.

If you need that extra half stop on moving objects then bump the ISO a bit. It will be half a stop higher than you would need to on a D7k but if you can tell the difference then maybe you are already in need of an FF camera :)
Click to expand...

I slightly disagree with that because the 1.8 will give you faster shutter speeds which is much preferred. This is even more evident on f1.4 primes compared with the f2.4. VR/Stabilisation can not be used as a replacement for fast glass in all except the most static of subjects. VR comes into its own with long lenses and video shooting, which incidentally is an area where the D7000 has an advantage.
 
jacob12_1993 said:
I slightly disagree with that because the 1.8 will give you faster shutter speeds which is much preferred. This is even more evident on f1.4 primes compared with the f2.4. VR/Stabilisation can not be used as a replacement for fast glass in all except the most static of subjects. VR comes into its own with long lenses and video shooting, which incidentally is an area where the D7000 has an advantage.
Click to expand...

I agree that you can't compare the two but they do provide similar advantages with static objects - except for extra shallow DoF.

What you can't really do though is you can't compare a 1000£ 35 1.4 to a 130£ 2.4

Of course the advantage is there on the other systems that they do have those extra large aperture lenses but for many of us I think that advantage is purely academic. It is good to have the option but for me it was never a necessity whereas in body IS and small/light weightkit was.

In any case if the OP really needs a 1.4 aperture there is always the Sigma 1.4 30mm for just under £300. Personally I'd save the 170£ and go for the Pentax one!
 
Last edited:
vrapan said:
I agree that you can't compare the two but they do provide similar advantages with static objects - except for extra shallow DoF.

What you can't really do though is you can't compare a 1000£ 35 1.4 to a 130£ 2.4

Of course the advantage is there on the other systems that they do have those extra large aperture lenses but for many of us I think that advantage is purely academic. It is good to have the option but for me it was never a necessity whereas in body IS and small/light weightkit was.

In any case if the OP really needs a 1.4 aperture there is always the Sigma 1.4 30mm for just under £300. Personally I'd save the 170£ and go for the Pentax one!
Click to expand...

Sorry I didn't mean to compare with the 35mm f1.4, I was thinking of the 50mm f1.4 :bonk: which is around £200-250
 
jacob12_1993 said:
Sorry I didn't mean to compare with the 35mm f1.4, I was thinking of the 50mm f1.4 :bonk: which is around £200-250
Click to expand...

In which case Pentax has a 50 1.4 and a 55 1.4 for 300 and 550 respectively :) I was talking about the 35mm that the OP was inquiring about in which case you need to look for third party lenses if you need a very large aperture.
 
jacob12_1993 said:
Nikon still leads by quite some way. They have in production 56 different lenses with a focal length of under 200mm (not counting t/s lenses). Pentax in its complete range only has 33. This is also not taking into consideration the hundreds of discontinued lenses which can be had for relatively nothing from Nikon. I would presume that if he is doing motorsport photography teles will be high on his list. Another consideration is upgrade paths. If you buy a full k5 kit, it will be harder to resell and there are less upgrade paths if you decide to take this hobby further :thumbs:
Click to expand...

Nikon have 56 lenses in production, yes (I'll take that from what you say, I have no idea of the exact number ;)). How many do you own? How many would you seriously consider buying? System completeness can be a selling point. For some people it's absolutely crucial. For most amateurs, and I'd guess a good number f pros, it's not especially relevant - most SLR manufacturers between their own lenses and the third party manufacturers can cover most needs. Incidentally, even with my requirements I could move to Pentax though it'd cost...a pretty penny and then some (Schneider make fantastic tilt shift lenses for several mounts, though they make the Canon/Nikon versions look like the bargain of the year and they're as yet missing a 24/17). :)
 
ausemmao said:
Nikon have 56 lenses in production, yes (I'll take that from what you say, I have no idea of the exact number ;)). How many do you own? How many would you seriously consider buying? System completeness can be a selling point. For some people it's absolutely crucial. For most amateurs, and I'd guess a good number f pros, it's not especially relevant - most SLR manufacturers between their own lenses and the third party manufacturers can cover most needs. Incidentally, even with my requirements I could move to Pentax though it'd cost...a pretty penny and then some (Schneider make fantastic tilt shift lenses for several mounts, though they make the Canon/Nikon versions look like the bargain of the year and they're as yet missing a 24/17). :)
Click to expand...

Neither do I, I googled it ;)
 
I'm very tempted by the Pentax now. I know my sensible side says I should go with Nikon but I never like to follow that side lol. The Pentax just feels better in my hand. Don't want to rush in though and regret what is quite a big decision!
 
Well I think it is both what you have and how you use it. You need to feel comfortable and in control of your gear so you can use it to take decent pictures. It will not make you a top notch photographer but it will help you use what you have effectively.

My D40 still feels about as perfect as ever and the K-5 is pretty darn close to that but the D7K was always too big and bulky as were the lenses. Carrying it felt a bit like a chore instead of pleasure. Though I think the best camera I have ever held/used was a Nikon F70 the square short grip was the best match as was the layout and the controls. Wish Nikon actually recreated it in digital form but doubt it as it was never as well regarded for ergonomics... Go figure!
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top