>>3814714I'm seeing them for $700 on Am*zon for the body only, not sure what lens you are thinking of getting, but let's use that as a starting point. For that price or less, you can get a pro level, full frame camera from a few years ago, like the Canon 5D Mark II, 6D, Nikon D750 or D800(e), and still have plenty left over for a decent macro lens. A Canon 6D and the EF 100mm f/2.8 macro (non-L) should run you around $900 altogether, which will get you a much, much better camera and access to a much more robust, better lens system than what Pentax offers.
There are a lot of reasons I would caution against Pentax. The camera company is literally defunct and Ricoh, which bought the brand, is only releasing lenses on a slow trickle which appear to all be licensed Tamron copies, so nothing exciting that is coming out new anymroe, and the cameras they are releasing are only incremental upgrades. You would be buying into a dead system.
As for that camera system, a large number of lenses are still driven by screwdrive AF, which can be quite slow when the lens hunts (happens with macro lenses) and no Pentax lens has optical image stabilization. Instead, the camera relies on IBIS to handle everything, but IBIS is inherently less effective in capability than optical systems, in particular at longer focal lengths. Additionally, IBIS introduces the possibility of shutter shock, which is very real and can be frustrating to work around.
Pentaxes aren't really bad cameras, but they are several years behind the times at this point (so the comparison to a Canon 6D is MORE THAN generous). The little Limited lenses are cute, but they aren't really that fast and they all have screwdrive AF (except the 20-40). But if you want a compact camera, you'd be better off with a compact mirrorless like a Fuji. Even the much-memed Canon M6II is a significantly more competent camera, and at about the same price new.
>>3814722DO NOT impulse-buy a new camera just because it's "on sale."
