Next logical upgrade?

[aguerra.1993]

Hello everyone, I am trying to decide on an upgrade to get. I've been shooting for about 3 years, mainly landscape photos, with a Canon t3i and kit 18-55. It's been getting the job done but I am looking to invest in a newer body and new lens. I am an outdoorsy person and love to hike, backpack, and travel so weight is of some concern, and so is the camera being tough. I've been thinking of getting either a Pentax k3/k3ii or if I should spend a little more and go with a 6d. I like that the Pentax cameras are very resistant to the elements but I am worried that the high ISO performance won't be so competent, as I've always wanted to get more into night photography and my T3i can be pretty noisy. Any recommendations would be greatly appreciated. Are there any other cameras to take into consideration?

 

[Ido]

The Pentax K-3 is certainly more rugged than any Canon Rebel, but it isn't any lighter. B&H lists the weight of a usable K-3—with battery and memory card—but only the body's weight for the T3i so it isn't really a fair comparison, but it shows the K-3 should be at least 150–200 grams heavier. Mount a decent lens on it (the kit lenses are weather resistant, but probably not very tough), and that will add up.

Check out cameras such as the Fujifilm X-T10 and the Sony α6000. For night-sky shots, both systems have a 12mm f/2 lens made by Rokinon/Samyang/Bower.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[nerwin]

Any latest cameras from Nikon or Canon good ISO performance.

Check out the Fuji XT-1 if you want the weather sealing...make sure you get appropriate sealed lenses as well. I think the kit 18-55 2.8-4 is weather sealed.

 

[Bryston3bsst]

I usually don't respond to 'upgrade' threads simply because they're as many opinions on upgrades as there are people that post them.

But I've owned a 500D (T1i) and a 600D (T3i), I've carried them into some very remote places under some not so great conditions and always had great performance from them. I now have a 6D which I like very much and use it in much the same way.

For what it's worth.

 

[Ido]

I think the kit 18-55 2.8-4 is weather sealed.

It isn't… The 18-135mm f/3.5-5.6, 16-55mm f/2.8, 50-140mm f/2.8, 16mm f/1.4, 90mm f/2 and several yet-to-be-released lenses that are in Fuji's roadmap are.

 

[aguerra.1993]

Thanks for all the help. If weight weren't an issue would you guys still recommend mirrorless cameras? I'm just wondering because I'm curious if their image quality is similar to a dslr like the ones I was previously looking at. And would the iso capabilities be comparable as well? I don't know much about them, after I bought my t3i I didn't follow so much on the new stuff.

 

[iolair]

I shoot on a K-3 (my K-3ii just arrived and has its first job coming up on Saturday).

It uses exactly the same sensor as crop-sensor Nikons, so low-light performance will be identical. I'm happy with shooting complex, detailed scenes up to ISO 3,200 and shots like portraits up to 12,800. (I'm talking sellable images). To my eyes, quality of noise and shadow colour detail are much better than Canon. That is likely adequate for almost anyone. To go further you'd need full frame.

I like the Sony A7 series very much, but lack of dual card slots and lack of weatherproofing put me off.

 

[Ido]

If weight weren't an issue would you guys still recommend mirrorless cameras?

Possibly. Do you plan on shooting any fast moving subjects in low light? If the answer to that is 'no,' then I will wholeheartedly recommend a mirrorless camera.

I'm just wondering because I'm curious if their image quality is similar to a dslr like the ones I was previously looking at. And would the iso capabilities be comparable as well?

The two cameras I mentioned, and the one that nerwin suggested, all have APS-C sensors the same size as those in Nikon and Pentax DSLR cameras (which means slightly larger than Canon's, but really slightly), and they are all technically better sensors than Canon's. The only possible crippling factor on image quality is lenses, which is a nonissue in the Fuji lineup, but it is at least somewhat troubling in the Sony E-mount range. If you stick to the prime lenses you will have excellent quality through and through, though.

In the case of the Sony α7 that iolair mentioned . . . That's a completely different beast. It has a 36mm x 24mm sensor, which is commonly referred to as "full frame" because it is the same size as a frame of 35mm film, which was the most popular size standard for film, a lot like APS-C is the dominant size nowadays. It gives about a stop's worth of advantage compared to Sony's APS-C cameras—that difference can be bigger or smaller when compared to other sensors, though. Sony's line of full frame-compatible E-mount lenses is mostly comprised of high-end offerings, which is something to keep in mind—this is a premium system, not a cheap way out. Sony does claim that the entire line features weather resistance, though I'm not sure how bold or accurate that claim is.

 

[nerwin]

I think the kit 18-55 2.8-4 is weather sealed.

It isn't… The 18-135mm f/3.5-5.6, 16-55mm f/2.8, 50-140mm f/2.8, 16mm f/1.4, 90mm f/2 and several yet-to-be-released lenses that are in Fuji's roadmap are.

Ha, I was probably thinking about the 16-55 2.8.

 

[aguerra.1993]

I have no plans of shooting anything fast moving in the dark. What I plan to do at night is star trails and maybe pictures of the milkyway. The main thing I shoot, 99% of the time, is landscape, and the occasional animal off the trail. Excluding weight, do you think the X-T1 is a better choice than a K-3ii? Or is there another camera in the $1000 range that is a strong competitor? And let's say I go with the Pentax, do you think it would be wiser to get a K-3ii or a K-3 and put the money saved into better glass?

 

[jaomul]

Pentax have years of old lenses in their back catalog. It may be easier and cheaper to get even an old wide angle prime to suit your style of shooting.

If money isn't a real issue both cameras are good buys, but I wonder would 24mp be better for astro photos

 

[iolair]

If you want to shoot specifically astro, definitely the K-3ii. With GPS built in, it has a special trick up its sleeve: it can shift the sensor in synch with the earth's rotation to get exposures of up to 5 minutes without star trails - giving the potential for amazing images of the milky way or including fainter stars - or just using lower, cleaner ISOs for night sky shots.

 

[Ido]

Excluding weight, do you think the X-T1 is a better choice than a K-3ii?

I do. It's an excellent camera that just keeps on improving thanks to major firmware updates. The lens selection for it is excellent as well, and includes some great options for astro-photography. If you need a "modest" wide-angle, the 16mm f/1.4 would be the best option available. If you need anything wider, you can go with the 14mm f/2.8, or the 12mm f/2.8 Zeiss Touit lens, or the manual 12mm f/2 lens from Rokinon/Samyang.

And let's say I go with the Pentax, do you think it would be wiser to get a K-3ii or a K-3 and put the money saved into better glass?

If you don't see a need for the pixel-shift technology that Pentax introduced with the K-3 II, which has some benefits for image quality, then I'd say go with the K-3. If you find you need the ASTROTRACER feature that iolair wrote about, you can add the $189 O-GPS1 hotshoe-mounted accessory.
Ricoh had to recall a lot of the Pentax K-3 II models, because they had some issue when turning the camera off—parts of it would stay on until the battery was removed. The K-3 is so similar, that it would simply be a safer bet to go with the tried-and-true camera.

Pentax have years of old lenses in their back catalog. It may be easier and cheaper to get even an old wide angle prime to suit your style of shooting.

Those older lenses were all made for 35mm film, so ultra-wide-angle lenses aren't all that wide on the APS-C sensor-equipped DSLRs. These are the ultra-wide-angle offerings from Pentax:

• 14mm f/2.8—cheaper than the Fuji 14mm f/2.8 by around $100–$200, but I don't know how good it is. Worth taking a look.
• 15mm f/4 Limited—f/4 . . .
• 12-24mm f/4—again, f/4 . . .

For the Fuji X system, there is a 16mm f/1.4 lens, and if that isn't wide enough, there are several options with shorter focal lengths at f/2.8 or better.

If you want to shoot specifically astro, definitely the K-3ii. With GPS built in, it has a special trick up its sleeve: it can shift the sensor in synch with the earth's rotation to get exposures of up to 5 minutes without star trails - giving the potential for amazing images of the milky way or including fainter stars - or just using lower, cleaner ISOs for night sky shots.

That does seem like a great solution, although with fast lenses one may not need that. An f/2.8 lens and ISO 1600–3200 on either a Fuji X-T1 or a Pentax K-3 / K-3 II should give very good results in most conditions, sticking to the "500 rule."

 

[Solarflare]

To be honest - in your shoes I would safe the money and wait until you have enough money for a REAL upgrade, for example to full frame.

All you'd get now is a small upgrade.

 

[Ido]

To be honest - in your shoes I would safe the money and wait until you have enough money for a REAL upgrade, for example to full frame.

All you'd get now is a small upgrade.

I'm not sure I agree. Many current APS-C cameras provide significantly better image quality, or at least significantly closer to the sensor-related image quality that one of Canon's full frame DSLR cameras will give.