New camera shopping the more I look the more I'm confused!

[jaomul]

Just be careful on the weather sealed part. The 18-55 is, I'm not sure about the 55-300. I believe there us a weather sealed version, not sure if this is the one.

jamoul I stayed up waaaay too late last night reading up on the K5 and I can't thank you enough for pointing it out to me! It ranks up with the Canon D70 and Nikon D7100 at a fraction of the cost. Yeah it doesn't have the bells and whistles but it has the image quality that's what matters to me. With everyone moving to the K-3 they are a bargain and I never considered I could have afforded a camera at this level. Thank you!

Great stuff. Enjoy your new toy. Don't forget to come back here to post shots

 

[jcdeboever]

I have an extra Pentax 50mm 1.4 prime you can have for free if you end up buying that K 5. Not sure if it will fit on that body but I will check it out when I get home tonight. It's a super sharp lens and creates beautiful bokeh. However it will be a totally manual focus. It was my main lens that I used on my Pentax film camera.

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

 

[jaomul]

^^ wow, that's great

 

[jcdeboever]

O.K. I just got home and I have 2 different ones. The smc Pentax a -1:2 or known as the f2 NOT the 1:1.2 and it's not sharp at all at wide open. F8 if I recall it's very sharp.

BUT I do have a m-1:1.7 and it was the one I was thinking of and its yours, sorry it's not the 1:1.4. Tack sharp and beautiful bokeh. Problem with it is beatup on the outside, you can't put a filter on it, dent on edge. I remember it well, slipped on ice and it banged top of fence. See pic... The optics are fine.
http://www.pentaxforums.com/lensreviews/SMC-Pentax-M-50mm-F1.7-Lens.html

Here is a guide on how to use it on a K5

http://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/...enses-all-pentax-dslrs-k-5-k-r-k-x-k-7-a.html

Or you can have the f2 but it's only sharp stopped down. It's in great shape because I used the beatup one all the time.

The f2

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

 

[soufiej]

Thank YOU soufiej! You are spot on with the photo of the people up there. I had it on aperture priority with the lowest setting it would allow but that is as much depth of field[ as it would do. When I first saw the shot I thought it focused on the tree behind and to their left but I had it center weighted so it shouldn't have.

I do like the long zoom but at either extreme it is no good. Zoomed all the way in gives about a 120 degree fish eye effect and zoomed all the way out the image quality is pretty much unusable. This shot is all the way in.


This is the same shot 10 paces back at 2x zoom and the fish is gone.

It's usable if you know that and work with it but I would much rather have an honest image than the fish eye bit.

I hear you loud and clear and have been around long enough to know no matter how good the gear is it's still all about the user. A good driver in a lousy car will beat a lousy drive in a good car every time. At this point I've got a good eye for framing a shot that tells a story and a lot of luck and that's about it. I have a loooong way to go!

It is a bit concerning that my shots would be no better with an SLR. I was thinking there would be more resolution and saturation and just over all better image quality with an SLR. It's interesting Snap shot rates the FZ150 higher over all than the K5 but for image quality the K-5 completely blows it way at 82 to 40. I love the zoom but would give up reach for quality any day...

Now let me ask you this. I don't even know enough to be dangerous with cameras but it looks to me like the bridge and slr are completely different animals and perhaps akin to an electronic drum set and a real drum set. Sure the electronic set will make drum sounds but for nearly every situation a real set is better suited and the electronic is pretty good at covering up newbee mistakes and making them sound better than they really are. I would never want a student to start on or even own an electric set. So am I off in my thinking that I would want to start where I know I will eventually end up anyway and learn this craft with an SLR? If for no other reason to have a focus ring?

I hear you on gear size and after 40 years of schlepping drums from gig to gig I can say with great confidence I couldn't care less how big a camera is! I've got a back pack full of junk I haul around at the track and it doesn't bother me a bit. But there is no question I'm only playing with 49 cards of the deck...

I respect your opinion and thank you for the really thought provoking post.

I play guitar so I can only compare an electric guitar to an acoustic. A DSLR and a bridge camera are not in that league of difference. I do wish my neighbor the drummer would have purchased a new electronic drum kit though. I would have contributed the headphones.

I get what you're saying though about the electronic kit covering up newbie mistakes. It's not a very sensitive machine and allows bad technique to go unnoticed.

I would not put that on a bridge camera if the bridge camera is intended for the "enthusiast" user. That generically means whether the bridge can shoot in RAW capture, has fairly decent manual controls and a hot shoe at the least.

Here's how one reviewing magazine summed up your Panasonic, "Although the FZ150 faces stiff competition from the new generation of megazoom compacts announced this year, it is still one of the best cameras of its type on the market."; Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ150 Review: Digital Photography Review

Now, admittedly, your camera is several years old and today's bridge/superzoom's have improved as far as specs. But "best cameras" tend to be pretty good for years after they have been replaced.

I cannot, however, tell you going from the tiny-est sensor in your Panasonic to a more conventional APS-C sized sensor will not have advantages. It is, though, the combination of that sensor size and the fixed lens which provides the relative zoom power of the Panasonic. I wouldn't be too quick to pack up the Panasonic and move on. Most lenses aren't going to be at their best at any extreme. They will generally be sharper as you close down the aperture and move away from the shortest and longest focal lengths. That's rather true of any zoom lens you and I can probably afford.

So one answer is rather apparent, if you don't want the fisheye effect, don't use that focal length on the Panasonic from that shooting distance. That's not so much a problem with the bridge camera, it's a decision you would make after learning your equipment. Though the 24X zoom of the Panasonic isn't close to the extremes of today's bridge cameras, it is effectively at a point where handholding a lens can be difficult. Any amount of camera shake from poor technique will be exaggerated by the zoom.

How's the camera if you use the zoom but place the camera on a solid tripod and, rather than depressing the shutter manually, you use the self timer of the camera to release the shutter?

If the camera turns out better quality images under those conditions, then the camera itself is not at fault. You may also be using an incorrect focus point or set of points which will give a result which appears to be related to the camera. Or you could be stepping down the lens too far. Try shooting at no higher than, say, f-8 or lower if possible. How's the camera do at that point?


"So am I off in my thinking that I would want to start where I know I will eventually end up anyway and learn this craft with an SLR? If for no other reason to have a focus ring?"


Reading the review of the Panasonic, it says the lens has the option for manual focus. So, why the desire for a focus ring?

I understand manual focus can be a bit dicey if the viewfinder or LCD lacks sufficient resolution to make manual focus useful in reality. My Canon SX50 is like that. Though for 98% of my work with that camera its auto focus system is adequate and most often quite exceptionally good once I taught myself how to take best advantage of the camera's electronics.

Why do you distrust the auto-focus system of the Panasonic?


Should you start where you know you will end up and learn the craft by using a DSLR?

Well, pending your response to the auto-focus question, your Panasonic offers about all the manual control you would find in most DSLR's. Learning the craft can at times be more effectively taught with minimal gear.

I've heard some very good music come from a Mexican built Telecaster that sells for about $399. There's a popular entertainer right now who plays a $289 Martin. And it's widely accepted that Buddy Guy would still sound like Buddy Guy if he was playing a $200 guitar.

I think there should be no reason to not buy a DSLR. However, I don't think using a DSLR will necessarily turn out more interesting photos. As long as there are sufficient amounts of light, a decent bridge can produce photos which are not too different than would a DSLR with a kit lens. For that matter, most smart phone cameras will turn out quite acceptable photos when provided sufficient amounts of light.

My post above goes into a few reasons why this might be.

As to which DSLR, I can't really say. Buying a Nikon or a Canon assures you of a wide variety of lenses and accessories to select from. Buying the Pentax automatically limits your selection of lenses. That doesn't mean you cannot find enough lenses of decent quality for the Pentax, simply that Nikon and Canon have lots of high quality lenses.

At times I think back to my days of hot rodding cars and I see parallels to other hobbies. Back in my day you could buy a small or big block Chevy, Ford or Chrysler. If you were taking an AMC to the track you were saying you wanted what the others didn't have. On the other hand, you were never going to get the AMC into the 10's. There simply wasn't enough aftermarket equipment to do that. I drove a Chevelle and I could almost buy parts at the grocery store. I later drove a Honda with much the same parts availability.


Personally, I wouldn't put too much money into the camera body. A Nikon D3300 or a Canon SL1 will give very good results which are for most photographers equal to the more expensive models from each company. Both companies have a variety of lenses which will fit most upgrades you might do in the future. If you really believe that you know at this time where you intend to "end up" then buy according to a plan.

In the end, a DSLR will be more versatile than a bridge. It will not just by being a DSLR turn out significantly better quality photos.

Recommended Cameras

DPReview Gear of the Year: Canon Rebel SL1 / EOS 100D

 

[soufiej]

Let's discuss a bit more of your one post ...

"I do like the long zoom but at either extreme it is no good. Zoomed all the way in gives about a 120 degree fish eye effect and zoomed all the way out the image quality is pretty much unusable. This shot is all the way in."

Spend a bit of time investigating focal length's effect on your photos. It is not simply a matter of getting closer to a subject. Begin with focal length and perspective; Nikon | Imaging Products | DSLR Camera Basics | Perspective

"I had it on aperture priority with the lowest setting it would allow but that is as much depth of field as it would do. When I first saw the shot I thought it focused on the tree behind and to their left but I had it center weighted so it shouldn't have."

OK, here's your real world limitation to the tiny sensor of the bridge camera along with its greatest strength. A larger sensor will almost always be more light sensitive when you have a wide open lens which, had you used a DSLR with a "fast" prime lens, would have allowed a lower f-stop for that shot.

Of course, if you say you want the APS-C sensor, then you must begin to look at DSLR's in most cases or move to one of the "enthusiast" level bridge cameras. With the DSLR you have to consider just which lens you might have used for that shot. If you were using a zoom lens, then you have a lens that doesn't normally start off at a low f-stop value. Zoom in and, unless you are using a lens with a constant aperture, you will be raising the aperture value (stepping down the aperture) as you increase the zoom. This is going to be how most moderately priced zooms operate. The result is you are not assured a zoom lens on a DSLR is going to provide the type of background blur you feel would have improved that specific shot. A faster prime lens like the 50 mm f 1.8 I mentioned would have but you would have also needed to place yourself within a comfortable shooting distance for that focal length.

There will almost always be a trade off in this hobby.

As you can see though, as objects at a further distance from the lens begin to blur progressively more and more, this is how you must begin to think about your shot if the result you have in mind is making the foreground subject(s) pop. That's the clue to take away from Britton's shots mentioned in my first post. It's the set up of the shot that works to get you where you envision being.

And, at times, you simply must live with the limitations of your gear. No matter what you own.

Now, just as the small sensor of the Panasonic provides the zoom power of the lens the size of the sensor also effectively ups the real world aperture value of the lens. I'm sure one of the more technically oriented posters can give you exact numbers but the basic idea is, the smaller the sensor the smaller the relative aperture for any number designation. Think of that as saying a f-2.8 lens on your bridge camera is not the same as a f-2.8 lens on a APS-C sensor.

What is the equivallent aperture on different cameras with different sensor size?: Open Talk Forum: Digital Photography Review

So, while it's true you would have likely had more background blur if you had taken that shot with a DSLR and its lens, you also have to consider just what you had to do to take that shot with the DSLR. If you had a long distance between you and the main subjects and you had used the zoom power of the small sensor/lens combination, that's probably an advantage over a DSLR with less reach to its zoom lens. If the DSLR/zoom combination raised its aperture value to reach that shot, then it's quite possible the result wouldn't have been that different than what you have now.

You might also consider how you would otherwise achieve that shot with a different camera/lens that sported higher "resolution". If we simply restrict the idea of resolution to the number of megapixels you have available, you might end up cropping the DSLR's shot to achieve a similar apparent focal length. Once you begin to crop, you will begin to toss away megapixels. If you begin with twice as many, then it's unlikely you will reduce your image to an equivalent number but this is a shot by shot situation. Therefore, "resolution" is another value which will not remain constant simply because you've paid for a more expensive DSLR.

What is the equivallent aperture on different cameras with different sensor size?: Open Talk Forum: Digital Photography Review

Re: 24 Megapixels vs. 16 vs. 10 - How much of a cropping advantage?: Beginners Questions Forum: Digital Photography Review

And, of course, if your print out your own photos, the resolution of your printer will affect the total resolution of your final product.

More on "resolution" later ...


I assume when you say the camera was set to "center weighted" you are referring to your focus point(s). Not how the camera metered the scene. I'll certainly accept any correction from anyone more familiar with the Panasonic system, however, "center weighted" on my Canons refers to metering while focus points and the size of the focus frame are set in the menus. Focus (on my Canons) is not referred to as "center weighted".


"It is a bit concerning that my shots would be no better with an SLR. I was thinking there would be more resolution and saturation and just over all better image quality with an SLR."


Other than your shot of the couple (where they are in shade) there is more than sufficient light available for any decent camera to operate at close to its best performance. Given enough light, even the most modest digital camera can provide good to exceptional results today.

15 Stunning Photos You Wouldn't Believe Were Taken With A Smartphone

This site restricts its users to photos taken with less than a DSLR; Emphoka

It really is the photographer understanding their equipment and the basic rules of photography that makes your shots; Photographs taken on and edited on an Samsung GALAXY Nexus | Photography Forum



If you are shooting in RAW capture, the "resolution" of your camera is fairly well fixed depending upon your setting for aspect ratio. You will have access to the data as it is taken from the sensor when shooting in RAW capture and thus the greatest amount of control over your final result.

If you are shooting in Jpeg, you have control over many of the in camera adjustments made to the photo as it appears on your camera's LCD or on your computer monitor. You can increase or decrease the "resolution" by setting the camera to a larger or smaller file size. Use your owner's manual or a forum to determine whether your Panasonic can be set to the equivalent to "SuperFine" resolution if you want the largest file size from your Jpegs. Otherwise, simply set the camera to the highest file size.

Color saturation can also be controlled by the user when shooting in Jpeg capture. This is probably located in your menus and can probably be set to a custom color setting (or two).

Also, don't ignore the effects of various white balance selections when shooting in Jpeg; How to Set White Balance

You can correct white balance in post production if you are shooting in RAW capture.

Next, realize the time of day and the season will play a part in the saturation of colors; How to Get Great Colors

If you have not yet sat down with your camera and your camera's owner's manual, do so and make the adjustments necessary for the photography you wish to take.

Understand you have considerable control over how your photos turn out and you needn't - and shouldn't - just accept the factory defaults from the manufacturer.

Hope that helps.

 

[charchri4]

O.K. I just got home and I have 2 different ones. The smc Pentax a -1:2 or known as the f2 NOT the 1:1.2 and it's not sharp at all at wide open. F8 if I recall it's very sharp.

BUT I do have a m-1:1.7 and it was the one I was thinking of and its yours, sorry it's not the 1:1.4. Tack sharp and beautiful bokeh. Problem with it is beatup on the outside, you can't put a filter on it, dent on edge. I remember it well, slipped on ice and it banged top of fence. See pic... The optics are fine.
http://www.pentaxforums.com/lensreviews/SMC-Pentax-M-50mm-F1.7-Lens.html

Here is a guide on how to use it on a K5

http://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/...enses-all-pentax-dslrs-k-5-k-r-k-x-k-7-a.html

Or you can have the f2 but it's only sharp stopped down. It's in great shape because I used the beatup one all the time.

The f2

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

WOW even the photos your just toss up with out even caring are amazing!!!

 

[jcdeboever]

O.K. I just got home and I have 2 different ones. The smc Pentax a -1:2 or known as the f2 NOT the 1:1.2 and it's not sharp at all at wide open. F8 if I recall it's very sharp.

BUT I do have a m-1:1.7 and it was the one I was thinking of and its yours, sorry it's not the 1:1.4. Tack sharp and beautiful bokeh. Problem with it is beatup on the outside, you can't put a filter on it, dent on edge. I remember it well, slipped on ice and it banged top of fence. See pic... The optics are fine.
http://www.pentaxforums.com/lensreviews/SMC-Pentax-M-50mm-F1.7-Lens.html

Here is a guide on how to use it on a K5

http://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/...enses-all-pentax-dslrs-k-5-k-r-k-x-k-7-a.html

Or you can have the f2 but it's only sharp stopped down. It's in great shape because I used the beatup one all the time.

The f2

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

WOW even the photos your just toss up with out even caring are amazing!!!

Thank you sir. I was thinking of you and am willing to help you out. I wanted them to look good to add value, the m1.7 deserves it. You seem like a very nice young man and worth looking out for.

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

 

[charchri4]

Let's discuss a bit more of your one post ...

"I do like the long zoom but at either extreme it is no good. Zoomed all the way in gives about a 120 degree fish eye effect and zoomed all the way out the image quality is pretty much unusable. This shot is all the way in."

Spend a bit of time investigating focal length's effect on your photos. It is not simply a matter of getting closer to a subject. Begin with focal length and perspective; Nikon | Imaging Products | DSLR Camera Basics | Perspective

"I had it on aperture priority with the lowest setting it would allow but that is as much depth of field as it would do. When I first saw the shot I thought it focused on the tree behind and to their left but I had it center weighted so it shouldn't have."

OK, here's your real world limitation to the tiny sensor of the bridge camera along with its greatest strength. A larger sensor will almost always be more light sensitive when you have a wide open lens which, had you used a DSLR with a "fast" prime lens, would have allowed a lower f-stop for that shot.

Of course, if you say you want the APS-C sensor, then you must begin to look at DSLR's in most cases or move to one of the "enthusiast" level bridge cameras. With the DSLR you have to consider just which lens you might have used for that shot. If you were using a zoom lens, then you have a lens that doesn't normally start off at a low f-stop value. Zoom in and, unless you are using a lens with a constant aperture, you will be raising the aperture value (stepping down the aperture) as you increase the zoom. This is going to be how most moderately priced zooms operate. The result is you are not assured a zoom lens on a DSLR is going to provide the type of background blur you feel would have improved that specific shot. A faster prime lens like the 50 mm f 1.8 I mentioned would have but you would have also needed to place yourself within a comfortable shooting distance for that focal length.

There will almost always be a trade off in this hobby.

As you can see though, as objects at a further distance from the lens begin to blur progressively more and more, this is how you must begin to think about your shot if the result you have in mind is making the foreground subject(s) pop. That's the clue to take away from Britton's shots mentioned in my first post. It's the set up of the shot that works to get you where you envision being.

And, at times, you simply must live with the limitations of your gear. No matter what you own.

Now, just as the small sensor of the Panasonic provides the zoom power of the lens the size of the sensor also effectively ups the real world aperture value of the lens. I'm sure one of the more technically oriented posters can give you exact numbers but the basic idea is, the smaller the sensor the smaller the relative aperture for any number designation. Think of that as saying a f-2.8 lens on your bridge camera is not the same as a f-2.8 lens on a APS-C sensor.

What is the equivallent aperture on different cameras with different sensor size?: Open Talk Forum: Digital Photography Review

So, while it's true you would have likely had more background blur if you had taken that shot with a DSLR and its lens, you also have to consider just what you had to do to take that shot with the DSLR. If you had a long distance between you and the main subjects and you had used the zoom power of the small sensor/lens combination, that's probably an advantage over a DSLR with less reach to its zoom lens. If the DSLR/zoom combination raised its aperture value to reach that shot, then it's quite possible the result wouldn't have been that different than what you have now.

You might also consider how you would otherwise achieve that shot with a different camera/lens that sported higher "resolution". If we simply restrict the idea of resolution to the number of megapixels you have available, you might end up cropping the DSLR's shot to achieve a similar apparent focal length. Once you begin to crop, you will begin to toss away megapixels. If you begin with twice as many, then it's unlikely you will reduce your image to an equivalent number but this is a shot by shot situation. Therefore, "resolution" is another value which will not remain constant simply because you've paid for a more expensive DSLR.

What is the equivallent aperture on different cameras with different sensor size?: Open Talk Forum: Digital Photography Review

Re: 24 Megapixels vs. 16 vs. 10 - How much of a cropping advantage?: Beginners Questions Forum: Digital Photography Review

And, of course, if your print out your own photos, the resolution of your printer will affect the total resolution of your final product.

More on "resolution" later ...


I assume when you say the camera was set to "center weighted" you are referring to your focus point(s). Not how the camera metered the scene. I'll certainly accept any correction from anyone more familiar with the Panasonic system, however, "center weighted" on my Canons refers to metering while focus points and the size of the focus frame are set in the menus. Focus (on my Canons) is not referred to as "center weighted".


"It is a bit concerning that my shots would be no better with an SLR. I was thinking there would be more resolution and saturation and just over all better image quality with an SLR."


Other than your shot of the couple (where they are in shade) there is more than sufficient light available for any decent camera to operate at close to its best performance. Given enough light, even the most modest digital camera can provide good to exceptional results today.

15 Stunning Photos You Wouldn't Believe Were Taken With A Smartphone

This site restricts its users to photos taken with less than a DSLR; Emphoka

It really is the photographer understanding their equipment and the basic rules of photography that makes your shots; Photographs taken on and edited on an Samsung GALAXY Nexus | Photography Forum



If you are shooting in RAW capture, the "resolution" of your camera is fairly well fixed depending upon your setting for aspect ratio. You will have access to the data as it is taken from the sensor when shooting in RAW capture and thus the greatest amount of control over your final result.

If you are shooting in Jpeg, you have control over many of the in camera adjustments made to the photo as it appears on your camera's LCD or on your computer monitor. You can increase or decrease the "resolution" by setting the camera to a larger or smaller file size. Use your owner's manual or a forum to determine whether your Panasonic can be set to the equivalent to "SuperFine" resolution if you want the largest file size from your Jpegs. Otherwise, simply set the camera to the highest file size.

Color saturation can also be controlled by the user when shooting in Jpeg capture. This is probably located in your menus and can probably be set to a custom color setting (or two).

Also, don't ignore the effects of various white balance selections when shooting in Jpeg; How to Set White Balance

You can correct white balance in post production if you are shooting in RAW capture.

Next, realize the time of day and the season will play a part in the saturation of colors; How to Get Great Colors

If you have not yet sat down with your camera and your camera's owner's manual, do so and make the adjustments necessary for the photography you wish to take.

Understand you have considerable control over how your photos turn out and you needn't - and shouldn't - just accept the factory defaults from the manufacturer.

Hope that helps.

Wow I had to go though this one twice on 2 different days to take it all in. That focal length link is great. It's something you just kind of know but interesting to see it drawn out like that. Actually all of these links are great and I book marked a couple of them to hang on to. You may not think you are technical but you are plenty over my head!

The light page is very interesting and I really have not looked at all at light. On the really bright day I took the shot of the green corvair with the wheel off the ground I thought about putting a polarizer filter on because it was so bright out. I no idea what that would do to things and it was the nationals so I stayed safe but perhaps the colors would be less washed out with it. That was only the 4th event I ever shot and still very much in the learning curve there. Well, actually I have only done 5 total so not much has changed! I did take on shot not too long ago where I waited till the sun went behind a cloud and it pops pretty good.


Makes my little track tramp a lot prettier than she really is! But yeah light is something I need to pay more attention to.

I hear you on compromises like so many things. Moving from the bridge adds complexity for sure but it also a ton of resolution and options that it is hard to see much of a down side.

Thanks for your advice I'm probably going to go through this one again at some point!

 

[charchri4]

What do you think of a 1900 shutter count K3 and a Sigma 18-300mm F3.5-6.3 DC Macro HSM lens with a set of 3 Hoya filters and all the original boxes and accessories for $1048 with the shipping and paypal pay fees?

The lens gets mixed reviews for sports work but it seems like a good foundation to learn on that would last for years.

 

[jcdeboever]

What do you think of a 1900 shutter count K3 and a Sigma 18-300mm F3.5-6.3 DC Macro HSM lens with a set of 3 Hoya filters and all the original boxes and accessories for $1048 with the shipping and paypal pay fees?

The lens gets mixed reviews for sports work but it seems like a good foundation to learn on that would last for years.

Low Shutter count but poo lens in my opinion. You would be better off getting from B&H a K3 for 599 or the K3 II for 699. Pair it up with the Pentax HD Pentax-DA 55-300mm f/4-5.8 ED WR Lens for 349.95. Better glass all around. The k3 is rated a 9 and they go through them guaranteed.



Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

 

[charchri4]

Some day I am going get to where ever you are and buy you a cold one!

 

[jcdeboever]

Some day I am going get to where ever you are and buy you a cold one!

Haha... I don't drink but a nice large big gulp Mountain Dew sounds about right, lots of ice baby!

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

 

[jcdeboever]

Hey, I was at local camera store today and they had a good condition K-5 with 18-135mm Pentax lens. $400... He said may ship, had to talk to boss. It's clean, 15,042 Shutter count. Has battery pack on it. They went through it and is nice. Good all around lens, buy that 55-300, good to go. I have that 50mm m1.7 for you.

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

 

[charchri4]

LOL Opps... I was feeling a bit tired of the hunt last night so I worked out what my commission will be for Sept and it was off to B&H and Amazon for an early Christmas. I went with the second hand K-3 and new on a PENTAX DA 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 AL WR and Pentax HD DA 55-300mm f/4-5.8 ED WR lens. I'm still under a grand with 390 of that being 12 months interest free so it's too big of a hit all at once.

I really appreciate all the advice and help you guys have given me on this forum and this thread. I'm an admin over on V8Miata.net and have spent many hours helping guys with their build so I know what it's like to be on both ends of the learning curve. You guys don't have to do any of this and I really appreciate your efforts here. It's a great community and I hope to know enough to be useful around here some day too!