How many clicks?


Darstadlydarcey

Link Posted 26/03/2014 - 20:01
Am considering upgrading from my Kx to a K50 or K5 or K5ii. In the latter case would be 2nd hand and wondering how many shutter clicks are acceptable in a camera? Any views on merits of k50 v 5 also appreciated.
Thanks
Pentax K50,FA 35 2.0,FA 50 1.4, DA 18-135 WR, Sony RX100 2, Manfrotto bits...
Last Edited by Darstadlydarcey on 26/03/2014 - 20:02

fritzthedog

Link Posted 26/03/2014 - 20:18
Everybody will have a different opinion - to me number of clicks (within reason) is not necessarily as important as the condition of the camera and the way in which it has been used.

I would not hesitate buying a camera which had clearly been well looked after with a relatively high click count. All modern Pentax DSLRs should be good for at least 100,000 clicks - so to me 50,000 clicks in the right condition at the right price would not be an issue.

Mine has done over 25,000 and looks and performs like new. As I have never used a K50 I can not give you any opinion on how they compare but can highly recommend a move up to the K5. Although the Kx was a capable camera - you would notice a world of difference between the Kx and K5 - which to me is what upgrading is all about.

Carl
No matter how many lenses I have owned - I have always needed just one more

Blythman

Link Posted 26/03/2014 - 20:21
Where does your K-x let you down. Maybe you'd be better investing in glass and upgrading your kit lenses
Alan


PPG
Flickr

davidstorm

Link Posted 26/03/2014 - 20:45
The K-x is a great camera. However, for me the K-5 was required for several reasons:

- Weather Sealing
- Better AF and ability to adjust for individual lenses
- Quiet Shutter
- Better rear LCD
- Better ergonomics
- Image quality

Out of the above, IQ was the least important as the K-x already has fantastic picture quality, even though it is 'only' 12.3mp. The most important consideration was weather sealing, followed by adjustable AF for each lens as I had experienced problems with one of my K-x's in terms of poor AF accuracy, particularly with the 55-300 lens.

I have never used a K50 so I can't comment on this, but if you can comfortably afford a K-5II I don't think you would be disappointed. It is a lovely camera to own and use, better than a K-x in almost every respect, but don't expect a huge leap in image quality as you won't get it. Expect subtle improvements, probably more so if you buy a K-5IIs as opposed to a K-5II.

I think Alan (Blythman) poses a good question and suggests that good glass may be a better upgrade than a new camera, but I'm in no position to preach having gone from a K-x to a K-5, then onto a K-5IIs and a K-3!

Regards
David
My Website http://imagesbydavidstorm.foliopic.com

Flickr

Some cameras, some lenses, some bits 'n' bobs

Darstadlydarcey

Link Posted 26/03/2014 - 22:43
Thanks. Useful to know what constitutes a "reasonable" click count. Not dissimilar to car mileage v condition figures. I think Blythman's point about what is it about the Kx which let's me down is a good one as I do to chase technology for its' own sake. I like the size of the Kx and I am acquiring some better glass although I mainly use the 18 -250 and a new ( for me) 5 0 mm 1.4 . The lack of focus points in viewfinder is irritating as is noisy shutter but these are minor. Just the urge for a change really and the good value of used K 5 and some deals on k5 ii . Should sleep on it!
Pentax K50,FA 35 2.0,FA 50 1.4, DA 18-135 WR, Sony RX100 2, Manfrotto bits...

Blythman

Link Posted 26/03/2014 - 22:57
I upgraded from my K-x for better AF speed. A lot of my photography being birds.

As David says the K-x is a very capable camera. The shutter is no noisier than many of the Canons and Nikons that are next to me when I'm in a hide. Although the K5 is much quieter. I always shot on centre spot AF and never worried about the focus point because I know where the centre is Still got my K-x. Too good to sell for what they fetch.

I've seen some fabulous lens bargains on here lately, like a Tamron 17-50 f2.8, and a couple of Pentax 16-50's. Also one or two Pentax 50-135's and 55-300's.

Many will no doubt disagree but I think the wide range of the 18-250 is at the expense of optical performance. I have an 18-135 but look upon that as a compromise when travelling light. I'd much rather take the 16-50 and 50-135 when out and about taking general photos

Mind you I'm one to talk. Still chasing better AF and now have a K3 too.
Alan


PPG
Flickr

Darstadlydarcey

Link Posted 26/03/2014 - 23:02
I think you are right about the 18 -250 but it is a really good convenient travel lens and I take a lot of photos when travelling.
Pentax K50,FA 35 2.0,FA 50 1.4, DA 18-135 WR, Sony RX100 2, Manfrotto bits...

Smeggypants

Link Posted 27/03/2014 - 07:01
An 18-250 with a 14:1 zoom ratio is of course going to suffer in the IQ department, but you have to factor in 'getting the shot'. IMO it's better to 'get the shot' than to not get it because taking out 2 or more lenses was too much hassle.
[i]Bodies: 1x K-5IIs, 2x K-5, Sony TX-5, Nokia 808
Lenses: Pentax DA 10-17mm ED(IF) Fish Eye, Pentax DA 14mm f/2.8, Sigma 17-70mm f/2.8, Pentax-A 28mm f/2.8, Sigma 30mm F1.4 EX DC, Pentax-A 50mm f/1.2, Pentax-A 50mm f/1.4, Pentax-FA 50mm f/1.4, Pentax-A 50mm f/1.7, Pentax DA* 50-135mm f/2.8, Sigma 135-400mm APO DG, and more ..
Flash: AF-540FGZ, Vivitar 283

Darstadlydarcey

Link Posted 27/03/2014 - 09:05
Re the "better glass" view . Would the 18-135 provide better IQ than the 18-250? Just thinking of a better travel lens. Think the more limited range would be fine for me.
Pentax K50,FA 35 2.0,FA 50 1.4, DA 18-135 WR, Sony RX100 2, Manfrotto bits...

Blythman

Link Posted 27/03/2014 - 09:28
There was a thread from someone asking about upgrading from the kit lens

https://www.pentaxuser.com/forum/topic/kit-lens-upgrade-46855/p-0

I posted links to some shots I'd taken at Apppleby Horse Fair. Might be of help.

Blythman wrote:
I took the K5 and one lens (the 18-135) to Appleby Horse Fair this year

Here's the threads with images. There are a couple of images missing, but if you click on the the title underneath, it will take you to the picture in flickr

https://www.pentaxuser.com/forum/topic/appleby-horse-fair--a-way-of-life-41781
https://www.pentaxuser.com/forum/topic/appleby-horse-fair--people-41782
https://www.pentaxuser.com/forum/topic/appleby--horses-and-action-41783
https://www.pentaxuser.com/forum/topic/hot-shoeing-42000

Hope this is of some help in making a decision


Alan


PPG
Flickr

Darstadlydarcey

Link Posted 27/03/2014 - 09:52
Thanks will take a look later
Pentax K50,FA 35 2.0,FA 50 1.4, DA 18-135 WR, Sony RX100 2, Manfrotto bits...

Smeggypants

Link Posted 27/03/2014 - 09:55
Darstadlydarcey wrote:
Re the "better glass" view . Would the 18-135 provide better IQ than the 18-250? Just thinking of a better travel lens. Think the more limited range would be fine for me.

It all depends on your own "hassle factor" for your own personal situation.

Only you can weigh up whether an IQ compromise super zoom type lens is going to be more practical than taking multiple lenses.

Another way to look at it is this .....

If your travelling means returning to base fairly often then consider taking out a different lens on each journey. Obvious there's always going to moments where you had the wrong lens with you, but over tine you'll get a more diverse and interesting range of shots than just having one lens for everything.

For example on one journey just take, for example, a 28mm or 50mm prime and on another journey take a zoom. Mix it up.

What I'm saying is rather than try and get a jack of all trades lens, build up a collection of niche lenses and spend some quality time with each of them as to what takes your fancy that day.
[i]Bodies: 1x K-5IIs, 2x K-5, Sony TX-5, Nokia 808
Lenses: Pentax DA 10-17mm ED(IF) Fish Eye, Pentax DA 14mm f/2.8, Sigma 17-70mm f/2.8, Pentax-A 28mm f/2.8, Sigma 30mm F1.4 EX DC, Pentax-A 50mm f/1.2, Pentax-A 50mm f/1.4, Pentax-FA 50mm f/1.4, Pentax-A 50mm f/1.7, Pentax DA* 50-135mm f/2.8, Sigma 135-400mm APO DG, and more ..
Flash: AF-540FGZ, Vivitar 283

mcpieman

Link Posted 27/03/2014 - 10:48
I've owned an 18-250 in the past and found it better than my 18-55 mk1 in that range, it was a bit soft at the long end, although some of that was probably trying to shoot handheld without a fast enough shutter speed (I had a K10 at the time so max ISO was 1600). I kept it for a while after getting a Tamron 17-50 2.8, which was much sharper and used most of the time but I often found the range limiting, especially for candid shots of people. I've now got the 18-135 and am so far impressed its pretty sharp (but then I don't really need sharp corners for most of my shots so never really noticed if its that bad there, as some reviews state), I prefer the colour it produces to the Tamron and the range is much better for me. I'd definitely recommend the 18-135, as you can always use the DA40 if you need to go really sharp.

Also on the camera body front, I recently changed from a K30 to a K5, reasons being:

- Dedicated exposure and focus mode switches.
- locking mode dial
- Top LCD
- Quieter Shutter

TBH, I now miss the AF on the K30 and sometimes the live view, which is much better on the K30. Its subjective as I haven't any hard evidence but I find the AF on the K5 slower and less accurate. I would definitely consider a K-30 as they are relatively cheap now compared to the K-50.
Last Edited by mcpieman on 27/03/2014 - 10:58

Darstadlydarcey

Link Posted 27/03/2014 - 23:03
Thanks. Lots of interesting views and so many lenses to try!
Pentax K50,FA 35 2.0,FA 50 1.4, DA 18-135 WR, Sony RX100 2, Manfrotto bits...

richandfleur

Link Posted 28/03/2014 - 01:43
Sorry but this "too many clicks" dicussion totally reminds me of this
Last Edited by richandfleur on 28/03/2014 - 01:44
Add a Comment
You must be registered or logged-in to comment.