projected use:
90% Ansel-Adams-tier landscapes, 10% other shit. No video.
current gear:
- a6000 + rokinon 21mm 1.4
pentax gear:
- k70/50 + w/e lens
My a6000 hasn't impressed me too much, and am eyeing up the pixelshift + stabilization + weather resistance of the pentax for rough weather conditions.
I feel I bought into a meme with the a6000. But am I being a Luddite in wanting Pentax?
Other suggestions (budget ~ $500 + w/e I can sell my a6000 + rok for)???
Okay, so, this is off topic from your question, but:
I'm a Canon shooter, with a 5D Mark III and three L lenses and a bunch of other lenses (50/1.4, 85/1.8, etc). I am a serious photographer who does a lot of serious photography.
But every goddamn time I see those clown factory explosion wacky colored Pentax bodies, I feel super tempted to pick one up. They're just so ridiculous. I love 'em.
So I guess in answer to your question, I say: Get a Pentax. Get one in bright-homosexual-fucking-pink with a matching lens, and shout to the world that you don't give a fuck about looking like a pro because you're an amazing goddamn photographer and you can take amazing goddamn photos with a camera that looks like Lisa Frank fucked Oskar Barnack.
>>3144850
Try Sigma if you want ansel adams shit
>>3144865
kinda like how the biggest guy in the gym wears obnoxiously bright chucks to deadlift. I feel ya.
>>3144850
The a6k and rokinon are an awesome little landscape combo.
I am not personally sold on pixel shift, but if you think it is worth it, give it a shot.
Try renting it from lensrentals one weekend to see how you like it.
>>3144850
If you go with Pentax I can recommend going for either a screwdrive converted DA* 16-50 or on the cheap end get a 16-45/4.
For pixel peeping the DA 16-85 is what you want, this and the 16-50 are weather sealed.
For UWA purposes, get the DA 10-17, it is a diagonal fisheye but is sharp and easy to rectilinearize in LR.
The Tamron 70-200/2.8 Macro is sharp as nails from f/4 and reasonably priced but not weather sealed. The DA* 60-250/4 is weather sealed but prepare to punch a hole in your wallet.
Budget option is either the HD DA 55-300 WR or the new iteration 55-300 WR PLM.
I suggest going for the K-70. I hope this helps you making a decision
>>3144850
K-70 owner here. Only picked it up recently so I have limited experience.
The in-body stabilization seems to work well enough, but be aware that it seems to not play well with lenses that have significant barrel distortion. The stabilizer will keep the center sharp, but will blur the edges on such lenses.
I've only done a few test shots with pixel shift, but from those few shots it was obvious that it reduced graininess (especially at high ISOs). I didn't really pay much attention to sharpness, but I wouldn't be surprised if it helped there too. The nice thing is that it will only open the shutter once, take all four shots, before closing it and processing the image. That should reduce wear on the shutter if that ends up being a primary use case.
A feature you didn't mention that I have come to rely on with this camera is the gyro. This camera uses the gyro to display how level the camera is. Works really well for night shot long-exposures where you can't pick the horizon through the viewfinder. As long as I've adjusted the tripod to where the camera thinks it's level, I'll get a dead straight horizon. Pretty neat, and a welcome feature coming from a camera which didn't have this feature.
>>3145184
>gyro
Doesn't every modern camera have this?
OPs old a6000 even has it.
>>3145186
My old camera didn't have one. It was a K200D. It's probably closing in on a decade old by now but it still took good shots, so I've only recently upgraded.
>>3145023
They are a pretty good combo, but it feels like they're made of glass or something.
I live in the Canadian rockies and shit gets cold and windy in winter and extremely hot and ashy (this summer) and dusty.
Even if I'm on some touristy neeeeture walk, the basic dust I kick up from walking on a path will get inside the camera and the back of the lens.
I guess when buying it I should have been thinking more practically than simply "muh image quality" and considered other combos with WR and other features.
It's too bad that even the used prices of K1s are crazy expensive here (I can get a new grey market a7rii for about the same price).
>>3145186
The IBIS in the K-70 can also autolevel the sensor for you up to a certain angle.
Also astrotracer, pretty neat tracking feature for your nightscape composite shots.
>>3145192
Pentax APS-C line is much more complete than Sonys, if you want 140° horizontal angle just get the 10-17 fisheye or the 12-24 rectilinear.
If you do it as a hobby then you don't really need to spend out on a K-1 and FF lenses.
The widest WR lenses are 16mm only with the 16-50 or 16-85, so it means panorama stacking to get the needed wide angles.
FF has the disadvantage, no matter what system, is it is expensive. Just look up your options in APS-C to save money, the results are not really that different.
I know a guy who made poster prints with a K-20D, the curator asked if he shot them on medium format. This only shows you don't need the best and latest in specs to get your shot, look up some lens options, a cover set if you stay with Sony and go out and take the shot. Think less about spending on FF.
>>3145209
Crop is a false economy, crop only lens prices never stop tumbling, the sensor is less than half the size of full frame, bodies are worthless the day you buy them.
You can get a 2nd hand sony a7, nikon d610, canon 5dii for less than the cost of a new crop body and the difference in performance and usability is night and day. Lenses are also pretty much free if you buy decent ones second hand, as they just don't lose resale value, and quite often go up in value.
>>3145220
Lol, I wondered when the nolife troll would show up
>>3145209
>Pentax APS-C line is much more complete than Sonys, if you want 140° horizontal angle just get the 10-17 fisheye or the 12-24 rectilinear.
Or just get a 10/12mm Samyang, 12mm zeiss, or 10-18mm Sony or other lenses. Or if you want a 8mm Samyang fisheye.
Or some of the FF lenses w/ FR.
> Just look up your options in APS-C to save money, the results are not really that different.
Nah, wide angle shots are quite different on FF with appropriate glass vs. APS-C. And so are photo capabilities in many other situations.
Not that you should break your bank and take huge personal risks for it, but it's very reasonable to use FF as hobbyist - even if it costs some money it will look better and high-end FF gear will generally more reliably get you each shot.
>>3145220
>Crop is a false economy, crop only lens prices never stop tumbling, the sensor is less than half the size of full frame, bodies are worthless the day you buy them.
Shit, lemme know where I can pick up free crop bodies and crop lenses for pennies on the dollar. That sounds like a fantastic deal, given that crop bodies and lenses give you about 95% of the quality of full frame in most situations.
>>3145220
> Lenses are also pretty much free if you buy decent ones second hand
I think you might want to consider investing in stocks or bonds? Those are even more likely to appreciate in value than full frame lenses.
People mostly buy cameras and camera gear so they can take pictures with them, not to use as a savings account.
I hope this has cleared things up a bit for you, and I wish you good luck in your investments in the future!
>>3145257
Canon 70 200 2.8 ii
Amazon price new - £1300
Average price 2nd hand on ebay - £1200
= 92% of purchase price
Sigma 17 - 70 f2.8-4
Amazon new price - £385
Average price 2nd hand on ebay - £175
= 45% of purchase price
Just look up the sale prices yourself senpai, doesn't take long to realise you are just pissing money away with crop gear.
Bodies the effect is just as bad, you lose over a quarter of the price of a d3400 the second you take it out of the box, a 3 year old 20k clicks d810 loses less than 20% off it's current price on amazon.
>>3145224
spot the poor boy.
>>3145259
You're the only one to say the word investment senpai. Everyone else around here knows that they upgrade their gear and sell their old stuff. And a lot of people do a complete exit from photography. personally I don't have any financial issues, and can grab £700 lenses without even thinking of the financial implications, because I know I can always get £600 back. It's just basic budgeting and a part of every adults life. You'll be rich enough to afford to use your money one day :)
>>3145264
What the fuck, I just went and checked like 20 lenses against each other, and as long as it's canon/nikon/sony/pentax the crop lenses aren't worth fuck all what they cost
fucking bullshit, i wanted to upgrade to full frame and sell my crop shit and this has just set me back about $500 more than I expected
>>3145264
>Just look up the sale prices yourself senpai, doesn't take long to realise you are just pissing money away with crop gear.
The crop lens doesn't lose 55% of its value every time it's purchased. It's not like a JPEG that keeps getting edited. It loses 55% of its value when you open the box, but then it stays pretty near constant. If you buy used gear, hey, that average 2nd hand price also becomes your average sale price, and as an added bonus, the "it's cheaper" argument in favor of APS-C just got way stronger.
>>3145269
It's time to stop, moop.
>>3145264
>pissing money away with crop gear
How so? If someone buys used crop stuff for a few hundred dollars and it fulfills their ACTUAL photography NEEDS for many years? How is that a bad investment in any possible way? Versus just keep buying more and more expensive gear just because it's better, even though they likely won't improve the end result at all. To me it seems you're the poor kid trying to show off a few grand worth of gear like that would impress anyone, yet you constantly scream at strangers to stop wasting money. I've dunked tens of thousands of dollars on my hobbies in the past few years, photography included, and I've come to realize that the most fun I have is shooting with tiny cheap point&shoot cameras, because they pose a challenge. And I like to exercise my brain.
>Everyone else around here knows that they upgrade their gear
Ah you admit that you're just a gearfag and don't actually do any photography. No wonder you're a sonygger.
>>3145271
Lol, spot the salty kid with zero money.
get the fuck out of here, you make it smell like poverty in here.
>>3145274
>i have the best, most expensive gear, but my favouritest gear is the cheapest gear.
Said no-one ever, unless they were lying to cover the fact they lust over good gear whilst they tell everyone they LOVE their cheap camera.
You cucked yourself.
And I shoot Canon, thanks tho.
>>3144882
I feel like bright coloured cameras are better for street photography because no paparazzi or professional would use a multicoloured camera so you are less intimidating.
>>3145277
Nah breh, not everyone is a stupid gearwhore like you.
>>3145279
>paparazzi
Wouldn't do 'street'
>>3145277
>Said no-one ever
I've also got a bunch of high end camera gear and still think it's fun to go out shooting occasionally with shit-tier gear. It really can be pretty enjoyable.
Not the guy you were responding to, btw.
>>3145302
I work with top of the line Nikon kit, and on my own time I prefer to use my entry level mirrorless with 3 lenses. So...yeah.