# Pentax K-50 good for me?



## OwenT (Aug 13, 2014)

Hi, I want to start up landscape photography, especially for hiking, so I need a durable and relatively non-bulky/heavy camera. I want to spend under $1000 for a body and hopefully something like a 18-200mm lense I did a lot of research and chose the Pentax K-50 because of it's great image quality, relatively low price, and reliable weather sealing.  I want to be able to take high resolution pictures that I can use for desktop wallpapers and make some prints. I'd like to get some big prints sometimes but I figured that I could just stitch a couple pics together. I can do that right? How big of a print could I make with a K-50 anyway?  So is the K-50 gonna work for me or do I need something higher end like a K-3? Correct me if I'm wrong about any of this but if I'm sounding reasonable a simply confirmation will suffice.


----------



## wtlwdwgn (Aug 14, 2014)

The K-50 should be a great starter DSLR especially now that you can get one for $369. The 18-135 is also WR and would make a nice walk around lens. The best thing is that you can use any Pentax lens ever made which means a lot of inexpensive used lenses. I have a 10 MP K10D that I've made 20 x 30 prints from so the K-50 should be even better. If you call B&H or Adorama they might put together a package for you. 

And yes, you can stitch images together to make panoramas. Adobe PhotoShop Elements is easy to learn and does a pretty good job of post processing.

Just my $0.02.


----------



## OwenT (Aug 14, 2014)

Sweet, thanks


----------



## OwenT (Aug 14, 2014)

So looking at lenses, I'm seeing that the 18-135 might not be as ideal as I thought.  I've read that the 18-135 has some weaknesses and loses sharpness especially at the wider end which is what I'd probably use most.  Is the difference really noticeable?  I want to mostly do landscapes so pretty wide angle with some freedom, but also be able to have some zoom once in a while. I also want weather sealed lenses, and don't want to have to lug around any more lenses than absolutely necessary while hiking.  What are your recommendations?


----------



## wtlwdwgn (Aug 14, 2014)

All lenses are compromises. I've seen some pretty good images from the DA 18-135 WR. You can always go with the kit 18-55 WR and DA 55-300 WR. No all in one lens will be perfect and most zooms are not at their best at the extreme ends. The other choices are either not WR or not in your budget. You can always start with the kit lenses and keep track of the focal lengths you use most often. Then you'll know where to go for your future lenses. For the best images you'll want to shoot in RAW DNG and post process them. JPGs will be compromised. Again, just my $0.02.


----------



## OwenT (Aug 14, 2014)

Okay, I appreciate your comments.


----------



## OwenT (Aug 14, 2014)

:blushing:Last question I promise, my only WR options are the two kit lenses or the 18-135.  Same price.  which of the two choices would you recommend for best image quality?


----------



## wtlwdwgn (Aug 15, 2014)

There is also the DA 55-200 WR. I haven't shot with any of them but I have seen some good images posted from them. These are the lenses that are within your limited budget. If you are just starting out these lenses are capable of producing some fine images. You can always get better lenses later when you can afford them. Cameras and lenses are just tools a photographer uses to make photographs. Buying the absolute best equipment will not make you a better photographer. You have to start somewhere. Back in the day we started out with a film body and a standard 50mm lens and shot with just that for a long time before buying a new lens. That we way we knew what the next lens we wanted would be whether longer or wider. Look here and here and here for examples. Again, just my $0.02.


----------



## Tinderbox (UK) (Aug 29, 2014)

I had ordered an K-50 today before i saw this post, it seems like a great camera for the price it weatherproofed and has an 100% viewfinder with an pen-ta-prism viewfinder instead of the cheap pen-ta-mirrow and built in image stabilization, so primes have IS too, also it uses dng format for raw and lenses are quite cheap as they don't have to have IS built in, and it has pixel mapping in case you get any hot or dead pixels on the sensor.

But until you have the camera in your hands and try it out who knows, but i am looking forward to it.

John.


----------



## pez (Sep 9, 2014)

The 55-300 WR is a fantastic deal, and can produce some sharp, rich images with surprisingly nice bokeh- I have one and love it. The 18-135 WR is good walk around lens- It's hard to find anything better in that price range, weather sealed. I use a Tamron 17-50 f2.8 (not sealed) as a walk around lens. It's a GREAT lens that doesn't bust the bank.


----------



## Dewman (Oct 6, 2015)

The K-50.  The best money every spent!  I would highly suggest the 18-55mm WR and the 55-300mm WR with the K-50 body.  There's not much those two lenses won't cover unless you're into extreme macro.  I wouldn't trade mine for all the tea in China!

Glad to see you here, Steve!


----------

