Pentax K-50 DSLR Camera for Hunting/Outdoor Photography

[Johnboy]

I'm hoping some of you photography gurus might be willing to offer insights into the suitability and effectiveness of the Pentax K-50 DSLR Camera for hunting trips and general outdoor photography.

http://www.dpreview.com/products/pentax/slrs/pentax_k50/specifications

It seems to be the least expensive weather resistant DSLR type camera available. I know that lens quality/price can vary widely, but I was thinking about the less expensive options like the Pentax DA 50-200mm F4-5.6 ED (LINK) or the Pentax DA 18-55mm F3.5-5.6 AL II (LINK). Are there better lenses for the money?

I admit to being mostly ignorant on the subject. Just hoping to get a camera that will stand up to some northern AK weather, while allowing me to document experiences with photo quality exceeding a point-and-shoot camera. I purchased a point-and-shoot Olympus TG-4 last summer, but it literally lasted for 10 photos in the field in Montana before it had an internal mechanical failure (and I'm extremely gentle on electronics). I replaced it under warranty, but I'm not sure I trust it.

Any thoughts, suggestions or criticisms are welcomed and appreciated.

 

[COlineman78]

I would suggest listening to the Gritty Bowmen podcast on cameras with Aron Snyder to get his opinion. That being said, a lot of the models they will talk about will be far beyond what you're willing to spend based on your choice. He suggests that if you aren't willing to spend thousands on a setup that the Sony RX100 is a very good lower price option. Even though it's a point and shoot, it produces very good photos.

http://www.grittybowmen.com/gritty-podcasts-blog/2015/12/24/uxpb3qkj4llia5h3z567dzdkaet1f0

 

[Steve O]

I bought one a couple years ago. The camera took great pics, but I'm just a point and shoot guy. I got tired of its bulk and complexity.

 

[Ramcam]

I have one of those and if you don't mind carrying a larger camera it will serve you well.I have the cheaper lens with it and do not worry about it.
I would also say that the new micro 4/3 cameras are fantastic but up around the 1000 dollar mark.

 

[CO_west]

We love ours. It's a great value and sturdy.

 

[CrzyTrekker]

That looks like a good enough camera, but the form factor is kinda large for what it is. I would consider this: Three basic choices that will render good pictures:

1. Full frame sensors. The Sony A7 (and variations thereof) are excellent, have full frame sensors, and have small bodies. The lenses are still bigger. These cameras cost thousands of dollars and are great if you have professional needs, or just love photography. These cameras are considered "mirrorless."

2. APS-C sensors. Cameras with APS-C sensors are very good and can have a great, smallish form factor, like the Sony E-mount cameras (NEX, a6000, etc.). I have a 3-year old NEX-6 that can take amazing pics, including time exposures of night landscapes and the milky way, if that's your thing. What you're looking for is a mirrorless camera. Some good ones that are not too expensive. These mirrorless cameras make great backpacking cameras.

3. Micro 4/3 sensors. This is what I use mostly for backpacking. The sensor is the smallest of the three choices, but is large enough to gather significant light. I backpack with an Olympus E-M5 Mark II. Weather sealed, very small form factor. I carry a Gorilla Pod tripod or Manfrotto Pixi Mini tripod. Very light. I routinely make large (12x16 inch) prints from this camera.

In summary, go mirrorless for backpacking.

 

[CrzyTrekker]

Some sample mirrorless pics here.

http://www.rokslide.com/forums/showthread.php?33761-Night-Landscape-Photography-A-Primer

 

[CrzyTrekker]

COlineman78, +1 on that Sony RX100. Someone on this forum sent a few time exposures to me over the weekend, taken with the RX100. Excellent pics considering the smaller sensor. A good compromise if you want something that's lighter/cheaper than larger mirrorless options.

Eric

 

[COlineman78]

COlineman78, +1 on that Sony RX100. Someone on this forum sent a few time exposures to me over the weekend, taken with the RX100. Excellent pics considering the smaller sensor. A good compromise if you want something that's lighter/cheaper than larger mirrorless options.

Eric

Yeah, I think I'm going to pick one up this year. I get by with my Sony Z3V phone that produces good enough pictures to get compliments by itself, so I figure a RX100 will be good enough for me. My goal is just to add some zoom and a little night capability. Even if I could just be able to take okay pictures in the dark where you can tell what's what I would be happy as my phone gets super grainy and noisy in the dark. If your goal is night pictures, you're going to have to spend a lot more money. I'm willing to sacrifice the occasional night picture for major cost savings. Also, as Aron and Brian mention in the podcast; you can't buy better photos so I plan on taking the opportunity to really dive into the settings as it sounds like the RX100 is capable of producing some amazing pictures if you know what you're doing.

 

[CrzyTrekker]

Bbrown please post one of your RX100 night shots. Great stuff!

 

[Piscatory_4]

Check CL for used cameras at good prices compared to new. Get a fast lens(=$$) for low light photo opps that seem to happen frequently- maybe north ak is pretty open (?) . I think you can get a plastic bag type thing, for weather proofing almost any camera, that fastens around the lens and covers the camera. Like a zip lock bag.

 

[bbrown]

Johnboy - shoot Colonel00 a PM, I think he is using a similar camera from Pentax and might have more direct experience with the platform you are asking about. He has posted quite few bad ass pictures taken with his set up.

My wife already had a decent Canon DSLR with a couple lenses that we were tempted to upgrade to a newer/better body. After looking around for the amount we had to spend there was not enough of a jump to justify an upgrade unless we doubled or tripled our budget. My biggest complaint about her DSLR is the size and how often it stays at home given the size so we decided to add a smaller camera to compliment the larger DSLR. Keep in mind I am a pretty much a newbie in the photography world aside from one class I took in middle school where we actually developed film - remember those days? Anyway we picked up the Sony RX-100 based on lots of great reviews and so far we are very happy with it and still figuring out how to get the most out of it.

So far my only complaint is the RX-100 does not allow for a ton of zoom at 3.6 optical and 7.2x digital but not really what the camera is designed for and I have been able to get some decent digiscoping shots just hand holding it.

 

[Clinch]

I have the K5II which is similar. Got it for the features you mentioned. So far I'm very happy with it. A DSLR is a pain to lug around but I have a point and shoot for while I am hunting. For scouting and just being outside I don't mind the sacrifice. Also, the image stabilization being in the body allows you to get older lenses for cheap off ebay.

 

[Tango1]

I have an RX100 and the K30 which is the predecessor to the K50 and very similar. I like them both, though I use the K30 when conditions are tough, weather is an issue or I simply can't baby the equipment. It's a tough camera that reminds me of my old F4's. I've used the K30 hunting and on the ocean fishing and it's been great. The durability and weather-sealing are what set it apart from most cameras. The RX100 is probably the better optical instrument, but when I know the camera is going to get covered in saltwater spray or rain/snow/dirt I use the K30. Nice to have options. A couple K30 shots from a tarpon trip.

 

[colonel00]

A little late to the discussion but I would highly recommend the K-50. I use the K-30 which is pretty much the same camera internally and it has served me well. I'm looking to upgrade to the K-3II but I will keep the K-30 for hunting and adventures.

I haven't read through this whole thread yet so I will revise this post once I get a chance. I would definitely skip the kit lenses 18-55 and 55-200 and go with an 18-135WR as it is a great lens for the money. Add on a 55-300 WR and you have a very decent setup for under $1000 and probably much cheaper. Check out pentaxforums.com and you can probably find used copies of the lenses for a good deal.

Here is a link to some of my favorite photos that are all taken with the K-30. I can link you to a ton more if you wish.

http://s1119.photobucket.com/user/colonel00/library/Prints

Fire away with questions and I can try to answer. I'll also go back through the previous posts as it looks like many people have already mentioned a lot of the great points about the camera.

 

[colonel00]

Here is another recent thread to check out

http://www.rokslide.com/forums/showthread.php?30872-looking-for-new-camera&highlight=pentax

Also, what budget are you thinking for this? And, be aware what you can quickly be sucked in to spending more on better lenses and equipment. On my radar this year are the K-3II, the DA*300mm lens, the 16-85mm lens and the 1.4x teleconvertor. But, that's getting a ways from "beginner" level and more into things that I have found myself taking more photos of.

A couple people do mention size and that is a fair consideration. A DSLR (full frame or APS-C) is big and the body plus a lens or two will definitely add weight to your gear. I'm a big believer in the adage that "you can't take a photo with a camera you don't have with you" and that applies very much so to a bigger camera if you find you won't carry it along much. However, I've come to really appreciate what I get with the K-30 so it goes everywhere with me just about. Also remember that now you will also need a decent tripod at times too

I've just started playing with night photos. I don't have many uploaded but here are a few mediocre examples as I have been trying some things out:

 

[Johnboy]

Also, what budget are you thinking for this? And, be aware what you can quickly be sucked in to spending more on better lenses and equipment. On my radar this year are the K-3II, the DA*300mm lens, the 16-85mm lens and the 1.4x teleconvertor. But, that's getting a ways from "beginner" level and more into things that I have found myself taking more photos of.

I currently have a basically unused Olympus TG-4 that I have as a warranty replacement of the first one I purchased last summer. It was probably just a lemon, but it makes me nervous. It would be a disaster if I flew into the Brooks for the first time and my camera failed. I'd probably be willing to spend up to $1000 on a camera with lens(es). I'm torn between the RX100 IV and the Pentax K-50 (or similar). As has been mentioned here, it's the tradeoff between the virtues of a point-and-shoot and those of a full blown DSLR. My final decision will probably be driven by the quality/type of sample photos that catch my eye.

The good thing is, I'm in no hurry, so I have some time to decide.

 

[COlineman78]

From my research I don't really see the advantage of the RX100 IV over the RX100 III to make it worth the extra $$. The only thing you really get is an improved viewfinder and 4K video that you can only use 5 minutes at a time due to overheating. You do get a slightly faster sensor and a slightly higher ISO, but is it worth $200?

 

[colonel00]

I'll throw out one other question that may help or may make things more confusing. What do you intend to do with the photos down the road? By that, are you just looking to get some good photos to share online and maybe print out some 4x6's to show folks or are you wanting to blow photos up to larger prints? The other factor here is whether you will need to crop (zoom and resize) photos often. This is worth some consideration as for typical online sharing and emailing to friends, a smaller camera can be fine. However, if you want to get larger prints like this one below,

https://goo.gl/photos/ePVZDWRA9vhWaw7x5

(got to love the crappy cell phone photo of a canvas print of a better photo )

 

[moxford]

Where most users are going to see the big changes in price and in size are the lenses. Just like binos/spotters you cannot cheat physics. Glass will cost and where you'll see the biggest improvements.

A smaller sensor gets you a larger "effective zoom" for the same lens size. This is how the cellphones and M4/3 cameras get away with such small lens ... they have very small sensors.

Smaller sensors also limit "how big" you can make a print and they're less-sensitive in low-light situations.

Smaller sensors also have a "crop factor" to be aware of.

If you're not worried about pro-quality shots but you want a big effective zoom relatively cheaply then go check out what are known as "bridge" cameras. They're bigger than a normal mirrorless but slightly smaller and lighter than a DSLR.

The Nikon P900 is a *beast* in the bridge category. Seriously.

That said, spend your money on the glass and not the body. Glass holds its value. Glass makes more difference these days than most of the sensor megapixel wars.

Generally, the most important things in photography, in order:

1) Subject
2) Subject environment
3) Lighting
4) Photographer's eye/composition
5) Photographer's technical skills
6) Glass/lenses
7) Camera body

That SLR, like any SLR, will work fine so long as you're willing to hump it around.

My advice:
If you want high-quality shots and are willing to invest...
1) Try a few different bodies for fit and feel. Make sure you ENJOY using the camera.
2) Make sure that the body you choose has a good lens-selection.
3) $ Buy the body ... used. (no, seriously)
4) $$$$ Buy excellent glass
5) $ Buy 2 online training courses: 1 photography and 1 post-production

If you just want "one camera to do it all, as simply as possible": Go buy a Nikon P900 and you're done.

If you want an EDC/pocket camera and don't care about zoom too much, get the Sony RX100 or the Fuji x100t (x100s is older/cheaper and a good alternative.)