On 2021-08-30, RichA <rander3128@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thursday, 26 August 2021 at 21:39:33 UTC-4, Bill W wrote:
>> It’s about $500, and it’s from a camera store in Japan. I don’t know
>> the shutter count, but I sent them a message asking about it.
>>
>> I want to buy the Sigma 150-600 for my Pentax K-1, and use an adapter for the
>> Nikon version. But I also thought I could get a cheap used Nikon body in case
>> it doesn’t work too well with the Pentax, or I just decide I need
>> autofocus.
>>
>> Any opinions?
>
> $500 for that plastic junk? You can get a D3s for that and the sensor differences are marginal.

Good luck getting a D3S in good condition with low shutter count for the same
price as a D610. Good luck getting a D3 for that matter.

On 2021-08-31, RichA <rander3128@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Monday, 30 August 2021 at 19:07:17 UTC-4, RichA wrote:
>> On Thursday, 26 August 2021 at 21:39:33 UTC-4, Bill W wrote:
>> > It’s about $500, and it’s from a camera store in Japan. I don’t know
>> > the shutter count, but I sent them a message asking about it.
>> >
>> > I want to buy the Sigma 150-600 for my Pentax K-1, and use an adapter for the
>> > Nikon version. But I also thought I could get a cheap used Nikon body in case
>> > it doesn’t work too well with the Pentax, or I just decide I need
>> > autofocus.
>> >
>> > Any opinions?
>> $500 for that plastic junk? You can get a D3s for that and the sensor differences are marginal.
>
> D3x 24mp ($7000 new) are around $700 barebones now.
> Can't pay real money for something that has a mode dial that looks like it came of a D40.

The D3x is terrible in low light. Snobbery about having a dial is silly. Most
amateurs and even professionals don't have the kind of working conditions where
they need a body as solid as a D3. There is also such a thing as insurance.

In article <sgkv92$c0m$3@dont-email.me>, Incubus
<incubus9536612@gmail.com> wrote:

> >
> > This is what my Fuji APS-C can deliver.
> ><https://photos.smugmug.com/photos/i-tKJg2NJ/0/dc385f23/O/i-tKJg2NJ.jpg>
>
> It's a good photo but a full frame camera would deliver a cleaner, sharper
> image.

not necessarily. that depends on many, many factors.

On Aug 31, 2021, Incubus wrote
(in article <sgkv1s$c0m$1@dont-email.me>):

> On 2021-08-27, nospam<nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> > In article<0001HW.26D99D5302A7A34930DBA538F@news-us.newsgroup.ninja>,
> > Bill W <nothing@nowhere.com> wrote:
> >
> > > > > I really just want to have all options open. If I need a long lens for
> > > > > something, I want it available. I was just looking to see if anyone
> > > > > warned
> > > > > me
> > > > > off the D610, or just old Nikons in general. The 610 is like 8 years old
> > > > > now,
> > > > > but it looks like used Nikons might be a good idea. The reviews from back
> > > > > then looked just fine, and nothing scared me off. And I really don1t want
> > > > > to spend much money.
> > > >
> > > > get a d7100 or later in the series.
> > >
> > > I¹m leaning towards full frame, even if there¹s not a particularly good
> > > reason.
> >
> > there isn't.
> >
> > the 7xxx series is extremely capable.
>
> Low light/high ISO capability and depth of field are two good reasons. The
> ability to use Ai lenses is also a good reason now that this has been dropped
> with the D7500.

One other important thing I forgot to bring up is that this camera purchase
revolves only around one lens. I want a 150-600, but if I put it on APS-C, I
have a 225-900 instead, which limits its uses. If I put it on FF, I can
always add (with a penalty, of course) a 1.4x TC. I’m still up in the air
about this, and I’m looking at the 7100, 7200, and 610. I get the lens
tomorrow, so I can try it on both my APS-C and FF bodies, and get a better
feel for it. That should make the decision easier.

On Aug 30, 2021, nospam wrote
(in article<300820212207338402%nospam@nospam.invalid>):

> In article<0001HW.26DDB6230369FE9330664538F@news-us.newsgroup.ninja>,
> Bill W <nothing@nowhere.com> wrote:
>
> > > > I want to buy the Sigma 150-600 for my Pentax K-1, and use an adapter for
> > > > the
> > > > Nikon version. But I also thought I could get a cheap used Nikon body in
> > > > case
> > > > it doesn¹t work too well with the Pentax, or I just decide I need
> > > > autofocus.
> > > >
> > > > Any opinions?
> > >
> > > $500 for that plastic junk? You can get a D3s for that and the sensor
> > > differences are marginal.
> >
> > 12 vs 24 MP is marginal? 2007 vs 2013 is marginal? Why would I care if it¹s
> > plastic?
>
> rich has a thing for plastic.
>
> > I¹m not using it to drive nails.
>
> old nikons could do that :)
>
> > And I¹m not changing systems.
>
> yet :)
>
> > I just need a cheap but usable body for the lens, because they don¹t make
> > it
> > for Pentax. That is the only lens I¹m missing of all the ones I think I
> > need and want. And if this works out, I will have no need to change systems
> > until my Pentax cameras fail, and they go out of business.
>
> they're working on that :(

Yeah, I’m not optimistic. I guess they are doing okay overseas, but they
could still end operations in the US.

In article <0001HW.26DE90E8038C503230F1A538F@news-us.newsgroup.ninja>,
Bill W <nothing@nowhere.com> wrote:

> One other important thing I forgot to bring up is that this camera purchase
> revolves only around one lens. I want a 150-600, but if I put it on APS-C, I
> have a 225-900 instead, which limits its uses.

you could get a 100-400mm lens for aps-c, which would be equivalent to
a 150-600mm full frame.

nikon's 180-400mm f/4 vr would be a *very* good choice, other than not
having 100-180mm, which another lens can provide.

the only problem is that it's $12,397 at b&h. on the other hand, you'll
get a *lot* of cash back on your payboo card.

<https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1383763-REG/nikon_180_400mm_f_4e
_tc_1_4.html>

if that's over budget, you might be able to find their older 200-400mm,
which was a far more affordable $7000 msrp. used prices will be a bit
less than that.

> If I put it on FF, I can
> always add (with a penalty, of course) a 1.4x TC. I¹m still up in the air
> about this, and I¹m looking at the 7100, 7200, and 610.

of those, d7200.

> I get the lens
> tomorrow, so I can try it on both my APS-C and FF bodies, and get a better
> feel for it. That should make the decision easier.

maybe :)

On Aug 31, 2021, nospam wrote
(in article<310820211247035795%nospam@nospam.invalid>):

> In article<0001HW.26DE90E8038C503230F1A538F@news-us.newsgroup.ninja>,
> Bill W <nothing@nowhere.com> wrote:
>
> > One other important thing I forgot to bring up is that this camera purchase
> > revolves only around one lens. I want a 150-600, but if I put it on APS-C, I
> > have a 225-900 instead, which limits its uses.
>
> you could get a 100-400mm lens for aps-c, which would be equivalent to
> a 150-600mm full frame.
>
> nikon's 180-400mm f/4 vr would be a *very* good choice, other than not
> having 100-180mm, which another lens can provide.
>
> the only problem is that it's $12,397 at b&h.

I can come up with that. Just not for a lens. Maybe a nice little used pickup
truck.

> on the other hand, you'll
> get a *lot* of cash back on your payboo card.

Oooh, now I’m wavering.

> <https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1383763-REG/nikon_180_400mm_f_4e
> _tc_1_4.html>
>
> if that's over budget, you might be able to find their older 200-400mm,
> which was a far more affordable $7000 msrp. used prices will be a bit
> less than that.
>
> > If I put it on FF, I can
> > always add (with a penalty, of course) a 1.4x TC. I¹m still up in the air
> > about this, and I¹m looking at the 7100, 7200, and 610.
>
> of those, d7200.
>
> > I get the lens
> > tomorrow, so I can try it on both my APS-C and FF bodies, and get a better
> > feel for it. That should make the decision easier.
>
> maybe :)

Yes, exactly “maybe". Thinking more, if I use just my existing cameras,
APS-C and FF, and get a 1.4 TC, I have an effective range of 150-1260mm. But
all with MF only because of the lens adapter. So the main reason for the
Nikon would be AF, whether FF or APS-C. So with an optional TC, I have to
choose between a range of 150-840 with FF, and 225-1260 with APS-C, with the
benefit of AF. Except that the AF might not work with the TC because of the
effective aperture. And it probably won’t work even without it if I stop
down. I’m getting a headache. And if the Pentax “catch in focus” works
with this lens, that adds one more thing to consider. Now it’s a migraine.

On 2021-08-31, Bill W <nothing@nowhere.com> wrote:
> On Aug 31, 2021, nospam wrote
> (in article<310820211247035795%nospam@nospam.invalid>):
>
>> In article<0001HW.26DE90E8038C503230F1A538F@news-us.newsgroup.ninja>,
>> Bill W <nothing@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>
>> > One other important thing I forgot to bring up is that this camera purchase
>> > revolves only around one lens. I want a 150-600, but if I put it on APS-C, I
>> > have a 225-900 instead, which limits its uses.
>>
>> you could get a 100-400mm lens for aps-c, which would be equivalent to
>> a 150-600mm full frame.
>>
>> nikon's 180-400mm f/4 vr would be a *very* good choice, other than not
>> having 100-180mm, which another lens can provide.
>>
>> the only problem is that it's $12,397 at b&h.
>
> I can come up with that. Just not for a lens. Maybe a nice little used pickup
> truck.
>
>> on the other hand, you'll
>> get a *lot* of cash back on your payboo card.
>
> Oooh, now I’m wavering.
>
>> <https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1383763-REG/nikon_180_400mm_f_4e
>> _tc_1_4.html>
>>
>> if that's over budget, you might be able to find their older 200-400mm,
>> which was a far more affordable $7000 msrp. used prices will be a bit
>> less than that.
>>
>> > If I put it on FF, I can
>> > always add (with a penalty, of course) a 1.4x TC. I¹m still up in the air
>> > about this, and I¹m looking at the 7100, 7200, and 610.
>>
>> of those, d7200.
>>
>> > I get the lens
>> > tomorrow, so I can try it on both my APS-C and FF bodies, and get a better
>> > feel for it. That should make the decision easier.
>>
>> maybe :)
>
> Yes, exactly “maybe". Thinking more, if I use just my existing cameras,
> APS-C and FF, and get a 1.4 TC, I have an effective range of 150-1260mm. But
> all with MF only because of the lens adapter. So the main reason for the
> Nikon would be AF, whether FF or APS-C. So with an optional TC, I have to
> choose between a range of 150-840 with FF, and 225-1260 with APS-C, with the
> benefit of AF. Except that the AF might not work with the TC because of the
> effective aperture. And it probably won’t work even without it if I stop
> down. I’m getting a headache. And if the Pentax “catch in focus” works
> with this lens, that adds one more thing to consider. Now it’s a migraine.

One thing I can say is that AF makes wildlife photography much easier. I
missed a lot of opportunities with manual focus that I can easily get with AF.
Also, getting accurate focus is a lot harder with a tele lens even if it's not
particularly fast. There's no comparison, really. I would never use a manual
lens for wildlife again.