Pentax Users Looking to Upgrade... Sony/Minolta Discussion

[Gianna'sPapa]

Or anyone looking for a deal on a new camera... B & H has a sale on the new K-3. Its 1296.95 for the body a 50mm f1.8 lens, D-BG5 vertical battery grip and a 32gb class 10 SDHC.

For those not familiar with the Pentax line, the K-3 is Pentax' top of the line APSC enthusiast/professional 24mp camera. The camera has been getting excellent reviews and in the real world the reviews have even been better. This is just for information for anyone looking.

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/search?Ntt=pentax+k-3&N=0&InitialSearch=yes&sts=ta

 

[Animagic!]

I had the brief opportunity to use the K-3 a few weeks ago. A woman had a the K-3 and was watching me take some pictures. I guess I looked like I knew what I was doing because she asked me to take pictures for her on her camera as well. I was able to shoot about 50 pictures for her, including some portraits of her posing near some fun architectural details. 50 shots on a camera I know nothing about doesn't account for much but I'd like to throw out there...

That camera feels amazing. The instant I picked it up I was like, "Woah..." The Pentax K-3 feels solid. Not plastic or cheap at all. It's kind of heavy (in a good way) and has the definitive "metal" feel to it. Like picking up the Sherman tank of dSLRs. Knowing absolutely nothing about this camera or its layout I was able to pick it up and use it immediately without issue. It's rather intuitively set up. Performance seemed good, but I wasn't exactly testing it out. After handing the camera back I thought "Holy crap, I want one of those!"

After using it I went home to look that camera up. If I didn't already have my Sony and so many lenses invested in it I would definitely be tempted to buy that Pentax. It's a sweet little camera.

 

[havoc315]

I had the brief opportunity to use the K-3 a few weeks ago. A woman had a the K-3 and was watching me take some pictures. I guess I looked like I knew what I was doing because she asked me to take pictures for her on her camera as well. I was able to shoot about 50 pictures for her, including some portraits of her posing near some fun architectural details. 50 shots on a camera I know nothing about doesn't account for much but I'd like to throw out there...

That camera feels amazing. The instant I picked it up I was like, "Woah..." The Pentax K-3 feels solid. Not plastic or cheap at all. It's kind of heavy (in a good way) and has the definitive "metal" feel to it. Like picking up the Sherman tank of dSLRs. Knowing absolutely nothing about this camera or its layout I was able to pick it up and use it immediately without issue. It's rather intuitively set up. Performance seemed good, but I wasn't exactly testing it out. After handing the camera back I thought "Holy crap, I want one of those!"

After using it I went home to look that camera up. If I didn't already have my Sony and so many lenses invested in it I would definitely be tempted to buy that Pentax. It's a sweet little camera.

The k3 is a great camera. But you'd also get a similar quality feel from the Sony a77/99.
You're used to your a58-- the most plasticky cheaply built dSLR Sony has made in years.

 

[hakepb]

The k3 is a great camera. But you'd also get a similar quality feel from the Sony a77/99.
You're used to your a58-- the most plasticky cheaply built dSLR Sony has made in years.

I suppose its just a mirrorless with no mirror, but I think the a3000 wins the cheapest contest

 

[Gianna'sPapa]

I just checked B & H and the deal is gone. They still offer the body with lens and SDHC, but no longer are they offering the grip. That was a $229 grip and really made the deal worthwhile. Now its just ok.

 

[havoc315]

I suppose its just a mirrorless with no mirror, but I think the a3000 wins the cheapest contest

lol. Technically, the A58 still falls within the general dSLR category (IMHO). At least Sony and the professional publications and retailers, all consider the dSLTs to fit within the dSLR category.
The A3000 -- I guess the verdict is still out. It technically is totally mirrorless. I have noticed that Sony includes it on the same page as the dSLTs, and Best Buy has it next to the dSLRs. But with pricing at $350 (and can find deals for under $300), seems like it is a failed experiment by Sony. I wonder if we will see more E-mounts in dSLR bodies.

Getting back to the original topic... If I wasn't already invested in a system, the K3 does look like a magnificent camera. But if you are invested in the Sony system (or like EVFs), you can get a very similar quality camera for less money in the A77. (Sony fanboys would claim the A77 is better than the K3... I won't go that far. I'd probably prefer the K3, if they were the same price and if I wasn't already invested.. but simply because of the better ISO performance).

 

[Animagic!]

The k3 is a great camera. But you'd also get a similar quality feel from the Sony a77/99.
You're used to your a58-- the most plasticky cheaply built dSLR Sony has made in years.

Haha yes I know. I actually love my a58. I know it's not popular (or more realistically, universally hated) but it has what I want. I bought it knowing full well how plastic it felt. However getting 20mp, EVF, SLT tech, etc. in a body with a kit lens for only $448 (or something like that) I considered the plastic feel to be a trade off I can live with. Honestly, I never bought it to use it long term. I bought it to teach myself more about photography and to get better images. Then after a couple years upgrade the body and make the a58 a back up/second body if I need it. Right now I'm waiting patiently until I see Sony's new bodies coming out in 2014. Then I'll have an idea of what the a58 gets replaced with.

As far as the Pentax goes, I think the K-3 is really nice. But I think once I see the a77's replacement I'll probably forget about the Pentax.

 

[havoc315]

Haha yes I know. I actually love my a58. I know it's not popular (or more realistically, universally hated) but it has what I want. I bought it knowing full well how plastic it felt. However getting 20mp, EVF, SLT tech, etc. in a body with a kit lens for only $448 (or something like that) I considered the plastic feel to be a trade off I can live with. Honestly, I never bought it to use it long term. I bought it to teach myself more about photography and to get better images. Then after a couple years upgrade the body and make the a58 a back up/second body if I need it. Right now I'm waiting patiently until I see Sony's new bodies coming out in 2014. Then I'll have an idea of what the a58 gets replaced with.

As far as the Pentax goes, I think the K-3 is really nice. But I think once I see the a77's replacement I'll probably forget about the Pentax.

What's amazing is that you can get a good condition used A77 for about $650 now...
And it's still a heck of a camera.
I really wonder how much of an upgrade the new 2014 bodies will be. Other than updating the jpeg engine and adding wifi, and perhaps 5-axis IBIS, not sure whether to expect much more than that.

 

[Animagic!]

What's amazing is that you can get a good condition used A77 for about $650 now...
And it's still a heck of a camera.
I really wonder how much of an upgrade the new 2014 bodies will be. Other than updating the jpeg engine and adding wifi, and perhaps 5-axis IBIS, not sure whether to expect much more than that.

That's true. But I'm not going to worry about a new body right now. I haven't even had my a58 for a year yet. Besides, I have a Sigma 18-35mm f/1.8 on preorder. Personally I'd rather drop the money for the Sigma first before I worry about a new body. I subscribed to the idea of "The lenses mean more than the body," so I bought an entry level body and kit lens. I'd rather have the cheaper a58 and more lenses than the a77 and less glass (based on the assumption I'm going to upgrade the body later). At the time that I bought my a58 the a77s were still full price. The price difference of an a77 + kit was significant enough for me to chose the a58 and a couple lenses right off the bat.

Honestly I have no idea what they will do differently to the a77. Its Sony. Sony is always playing around with something new. I'll give them credit for that. Realistically I think it'll be pretty similar to the current a77 with a few small changes, marketed to look like a dramatic and dynamic new upgrade. Who knows, maybe it will get a new autofocus. Perhaps I misread but didn't Sony Alpha Rumors say the new a77 and a99 are getting higher MP sensors?

 

[havoc315]

That's true. But I'm not going to worry about a new body right now. I haven't even had my a58 for a year yet. Besides, I have a Sigma 18-35mm f/1.8 on preorder. Personally I'd rather drop the money for the Sigma first before I worry about a new body. I subscribed to the idea of "The lenses mean more than the body," so I bought an entry level body and kit lens. I'd rather have the cheaper a58 and more lenses than the a77 and less glass (based on the assumption I'm going to upgrade the body later). At the time that I bought my a58 the a77s were still full price. The price difference of an a77 + kit was significant enough for me to chose the a58 and a couple lenses right off the bat.

Honestly I have no idea what they will do differently to the a77. Its Sony. Sony is always playing around with something new. I'll give them credit for that. Realistically I think it'll be pretty similar to the current a77 with a few small changes, marketed to look like a dramatic and dynamic new upgrade. Who knows, maybe it will get a new autofocus. Perhaps I misread but didn't Sony Alpha Rumors say the new a77 and a99 are getting higher MP sensors?

I'll be very curious as to what you think of the Sigma 18-35.

I generally agree about lenses. Though a smart shopper -- especially with used Minolta -- can find some great value.

I'm using a Minolta 50mm macro (about $200) as my main lens on the Sony a99 with great results. At the 50mm focal length, I doubt the $2000 Zeiss 24-70 would give me better results.

 

[Animagic!]

I'll be very curious as to what you think of the Sigma 18-35.

I generally agree about lenses. Though a smart shopper -- especially with used Minolta -- can find some great value.

I'm using a Minolta 50mm macro (about $200) as my main lens on the Sony a99 with great results. At the 50mm focal length, I doubt the $2000 Zeiss 24-70 would give me better results.

I've heard a lot of great things about the old Minolta lenses; however, I know absolutely nothing about them. Do any of them feature autofocus or are they all manual? Which Minolta lenses do you recommend looking into?

 

[havoc315]

I've heard a lot of great things about the old Minolta lenses; however, I know absolutely nothing about them. Do any of them feature autofocus or are they all manual? Which Minolta lenses do you recommend looking into?

Every Minolta Maxxxum lens since the mid 1980's has auto focus. They all have image stabilization on a modern Sony body.
Great sources for information on Minolta lenses can be found at Kurt Munger's website and dyxum.com.

My favorites are the 50/2.8 macro, the 135/2.8 prime and the original 1986 version of the 35-105/3.5-4.5. I have the "famous" beercan, 70-210/constant f4. Excellent telephoto zoom but not as good as my Tamron 70-300 usd.

My macro is the sharpest lens I own, even sharper than the excellent Sony 16-50/2.8, which I no longer own. Plus, it's true 1:1 macro.
The 135--- about $300 and spectacular image quality. The only current 135 primes in the Sony lineup are $1500. And you can use it as a fast telephoto instead of spending big money on a 70-200/2.8.
The 35-105 is quirky-- it can only focus from 5+ feet. But it's under $100 or so, very sharp, great colors and contrast, and an excellent outdoor portrait lens.

I don't own it, but Ken Rockwell calls the Minolta 100/2.8 macro the greatest lens he has ever tested, even compared to all current lenses. I believe it goes for $300-400.

And the nice thing about buying 20-year-old lenses... You can usually re-sell them for approximately the same price you paid in the first place.

 

[Animagic!]

Every Minolta Maxxxum lens since the mid 1980's has auto focus. They all have image stabilization on a modern Sony body.
Great sources for information on Minolta lenses can be found at Kurt Munger's website and dyxum.com.

My favorites are the 50/2.8 macro, the 135/2.8 prime and the original 1986 version of the 35-105/3.5-4.5. I have the "famous" beercan, 70-210/constant f4. Excellent telephoto zoom but not as good as my Tamron 70-300 usd.

My macro is the sharpest lens I own, even sharper than the excellent Sony 16-50/2.8, which I no longer own. Plus, it's true 1:1 macro.
The 135--- about $300 and spectacular image quality. The only current 135 primes in the Sony lineup are $1500. And you can use it as a fast telephoto instead of spending big money on a 70-200/2.8.
The 35-105 is quirky-- it can only focus from 5+ feet. But it's under $100 or so, very sharp, great colors and contrast, and an excellent outdoor portrait lens.

I don't own it, but Ken Rockwell calls the Minolta 100/2.8 macro the greatest lens he has ever tested, even compared to all current lenses. I believe it goes for $300-400.

And the nice thing about buying 20-year-old lenses... You can usually re-sell them for approximately the same price you paid in the first place.

Cool, thanks for the info!

I hear the 50mm f/1.7 is popular. Although it's not really an ideal focal length on my crop sensor. The 135 f/2.8 sounds interesting. It would be excellent for Fantasmic! How much do those 50mm f/2.8 macros go for? Sounds like a fun lens. Interesting about the Tamron. That's good to know. I just bought the Tamron 70-300mm Di USD. I literally just got the lens in the mail three days ago. I haven't really had a chance to try it out too much but it has a certain "fun" factor that I can't describe. Should be an awesome lens.

Thanks for the recommendations. You have me very seriously considering the Minolta lenses. Speaking of Minolta...

just picked up a Minolta camera tonight at a thrift store. It is the Konica Minolta DiMAGE A2. It is in awesome condition and came with two batteries, charger, three filters, a Minolta camera case, Minolta neck strap, manuals, cables/cords, software, etc. all for $30. I'm soooo ready to have some fun with this decade old camera. It has a 28-200mm f/2.8-3.5 lens on it and an 8 MP sensor. And EVF!!!



Konica Minolta DiMAGE A2 by tomserwin, on Flickr


Minolta DiMAGE A2 by tomserwin, on Flickr

 

[havoc315]

Interesting camera, an early Minolta digital.

There was a poll on a Sony message board, list the lenses you own and used. Among experienced users -- they all owned the Minolta 50/1.7. But they all kept it in the closet. It's often the first prime lens a Sony shooter buys (it's so cheap and does some things well), but it eventually gets replaced.
Now that I'm shooting full frame, I'm dusting off my 50/1.7 a bit. But on the crop body, the Sony 35/1.8 can make more sense. And at the 50mm focal length, the 50/2.8 macro is vastly superior to the 1.7. Yes, the aperture isn't as large. But it is amazingly sharp plus 1:1 macro. The 1.7 is soft for a prime lens (still better than kit zoom lenses ), and can suffer from bad ghosting.

You won't go wrong buying the 1.7-- it is a fun lens and cheap. But if you stick with photography, you'll eventually outgrow it.

The Tamron 70-300 is a fantastic value. For a medium priced lens, it performs as well as an expensive lens.