On Sat, Jul 06, 2013, Bruce Walker wrote: > On Sat, Jul 6, 2013 at 2:37 AM, Aahz Maruch <[email protected]> wrote: >> On Sat, Jul 06, 2013, J.C. O'Connell wrote: >>> On 7/6/2013 2:19 AM, Aahz Maruch wrote: >>>>On Sat, Jul 06, 2013, Bipin Gupta wrote: >>>>> >>>>>What Aahz, whats this "would need to get a K-5 first... ;-)" ?? With >>>>>prices hitting the bottom most at around $ 600 please grab one. >>>>>You wont regret it. Even the K-5 II is hardly $ 70 more than the K-5. >>>> >>>>The problem isn't the body, it's the glass. I don't own any Pentax >>>>equipment currently (I rented for my cruise), and I haven't decided yet >>>>what kind of equipment I want to get medium-term. >>> >>> If I was starting from scratch, I would go with NIkon, better range of >>> dslrs and you can use newer af glass, as well as vintage mf glass. >>> No FF with Pentax, no vintage mf glass with Canon. >> >> Nikon weather-resistant lenses are more spendy than Pentax, I don't care >> about FF, I like in-camera shake reduction for prime lenses, and I have >> a soft spot for Pentax because I grew up with it. Basically, my choices >> boil down to Pentax, m4/3, or high-end P&S with occasional equipment >> rental when I need the best (the last is what I'm currently doing). >> >> As I mentioned in another post recently, my impression is that long-term >> (more than 5-10 years out), *all* the camera makers are poor bets due to >> likely technological disruption, which makes me leery of investing in >> glass. > > 5-10 years out you could be bored with photography, blind or dead. Buy > glass now while you can still enjoy it. :-)
Right -- the question is whether I'll enjoy the glass enough over 5-10 years. The way I think about stuff like this, I guess/calculate how much it costs per hour. So a movie these days is about $10-$15/hour (ticket plus munchies). So let's look at how much "basic" Pentax gear would cost me, assuming I buy new (all Amazon prices, rounding to nearest $50): K-5 II with 18-135 WR $1150 DA* 60-250 $1350 D-FA 100mm macro WR $700 That's $3200, divide by $25/hour and that's 128 hours. So I'd need to use that for at least 25 hours per year over five years to get my money's worth. And that's rock-bottom minimum, I'd really want a normal or wide-angle lens F2.8 or wider. Buying used would save some money at the cost of time (keh.com doesn't have them all right now and a used 60-250 isn't much cheaper than new). Then there's the fact that I rented two bodies for the cruise, and it's really really handy to not switch lenses... Normally I wouldn't be quite so rigorous in my analysis, but that much money makes me think, especially when I already have equipment that gives me about eighty percent of this capability (and is significantly better in some respects, namely bulk/weight/convenience: Nikon P7100, Canon G1X with 250D closeup lens, and a Fuji X-S1 that arrives Tuesday). So really, that's 25 hrs/yr *in addition* to what I'm already doing for taking photos. Makes it a lot harder to justify to myself. -- Hugs and backrubs -- I break Rule 6 http://rule6.info/ <*> <*> <*> Help a hearing-impaired person: http://rule6.info/hearing.html -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
