DPChallenge: A Digital Photography Contest You are not logged in. (log in or register) 
 

DPChallenge Forums >> Hardware and Software >> Pentax DSLR vs Lumix
Pages:  
Showing posts 1 - 20 of 20, (reverse)
AuthorThread
 01/17/2006 04:13:14 AM · #1
Recently tossed up whether to purchase a Pentax *ist DL or Lumix/Panasonic DMC-FZ30. Was mighty impressed with the Lumix, but ultimately chose the Pentax and I'm very happy with it. However, I notice that virtually no-one else on DPC uses Pentax. Now a friend is interested in getting into digital on a tight budget and here in Oz the cheapest route to DSLR is still the Pentax *ist DL with a few choices of packaged Sigma lenses of reasonably quality. So, here's the question....given the apparent aversion of most of you to Pentax, do I recommend the *ist DL or do I recommend going for a high spec non-SLR like the Lumix??

Q.
 01/17/2006 04:27:11 AM · #2
It depends on the lenses that person wants. If someone is happy with one or two decent lenses, I usually recommend the Konica Minolta 5D with the kit lens and the 70-300mm Sigma APO which should run around a hundred bucks shy of a thousand US.

Killer DSLR package for the money. Only a hundred bucks more than some of these recent minicams. Not one of them can hold a candle to what you can do with the KM 5D though.

The 5d has a 1.5x crop factor, so 18-300mm works out to 27-450mm equiv with anti-shake. Macro is 1:2 ratio and for about 150 dollars more, you could get set up with the 50mm on the end reversed for real macro fun.
 01/17/2006 04:35:12 AM · #3
If I were you I would strongly suggeest your friend get the Pentax.

Then you can borrow all his/her lenses :)

bazz.

Message edited by author 2006-01-17 06:28:17.
 01/17/2006 04:37:06 AM · #4
Yeah, us Pentax users are the minority here. But you can always look at the *ist DS2. I think the DSLR route is the way to go. Sigma has a pretty good line for starters. The kit lens with the *ist DS is great. I added a Sigma 55-200mm f/4.5-5.6 DC and really like it. Then there is the old Pentax A 50mm f/1.7 MF which is awesome. I also got the Phoenix 24mm f/2.8 MF lens for around $80, and it's working great as well. Now if only I can get better, I'll be set.

Check out the shots the *ist DS users have done and you'll see some pretty good work. And that might be enough to convince you.
01/17/2006 05:50:59 AM · #5
Well Adrian, what can I say, I'm biased. Some details about how I made my choice is on my profile page ... and really I couldn't be happier. Mine is the FZ20 and I have just reviewed the FZ30. I love the new ergonomics of the FZ30. In that respect it is streets ahead of the FZ20 - but not when it somes to glass. This is supported in the review of the FZ30 at //www.dpreview.com where they applaud the new features but say the FZ20 is better optically. Photographs are about optical quality so I passed on the features.

I have confirmed my decision to stay with the FZ20 because that lens could be regarded as one of the best available anywhere at any money - I do. Try and put together a package of any type on any camera where you have 35mm-342mm at f2.8 throughout the whole range. They've changed the FZ30 lens so it doesn't do this now. Its fancier but slower and believe me, when you're shooting at 340mm, you need every half-stop you can get.

The Lumix FZ20 sells here for NZ$779, to make up a kit with any other camera and a 300mm lens capable of f2.8 and the cheapest comes in at around $5,000. I added a 1.5x teleconverter for NZ$600 and I have 650mm capability - and I use it in the street always

Brett
 01/17/2006 06:14:02 AM · #6
I used to have a lumix camera, and they are amazing cameras. I agree that the FZ20 is much more useful than the FZ30 which is expensive and I would miss f2.8 at the tele end. However, there is just no comparison as soon as you move to a DSLR. Being able to shoot at ISO1600 is amazing and the quality of even a kit lens against the quality of a prosumer is like chalk and cheese. Go for the Pentax (or the Minolta!).
 01/17/2006 07:37:44 AM · #7
thanks all for the feedback. out of interest, why exactly is it that the majority of you seem to eschew pentax? i purchased the *ist DL because, considering it objectively it gave me the most 'bang for my buck' (and i say this as a long time canon devotee, who has used both consumer and pro canon 35mm slr in years gone by).
 01/17/2006 08:53:47 AM · #8
Originally posted by AdrianQ:
thanks all for the feedback. out of interest, why exactly is it that the majority of you seem to eschew pentax? i purchased the *ist DL because, considering it objectively it gave me the most 'bang for my buck' (and i say this as a long time canon devotee, who has used both consumer and pro canon 35mm slr in years gone by).


For me, the Pentax body feels toosmall. Ditto the 350xt I might add. Also high ISO performance is better on Canon. But the Pentax is a heck of a package, I agree.

R.
 01/17/2006 09:18:28 AM · #9
Bear has a long history of cameras.

I do not.

The reason I eschew Pentax is because it does not seem to have any real selling points other than 'it's cheap'.

The Rebel XT outperforms it in almost every way and has cheaper glass. If I do choose to go Canon, the future of lenses is better for me because those lenses are cheap and very commonplace. It is very easy to find second hand Canon lenses in very good condition. Anything you want.

Last I checked, the Rebel still uses CF, but the newer Pentax's use SD. I would rather use both, but if given the choice, CF is generally considered a bit more durable and large cards (2-4GB) are still cheaper.

Of course, I already own a 2GB 170X SD card, but I like what I like.

Noise is the primary reason I choose to go Canon over the other brands.

KM, Nikon, Pentax, they are all in pretty much the same boat when it comes to noise. I don't mind using a 6MP cam - it's good enough, but the KM offers basically the same performance as the others at pretty close to the same prices with anti-shake as well.

Comparing non IS lenses to IS lenses, you come out ahead pretty quickly when using that system.

Additionally, if think you might be interested in getting a better body down the line, only Canon and Nikon are serious choices here. A lot of us seriously don't have a need to move up, but we do because we want to.

Pentax makes a body that is roughly a match for the Canon 300D or Nikon D50. There is nothing in their line-up that goes near the 20D, 5D, 1D, 1Ds or the D70, D100, D200, D2H, D2X....

I've heard that the Pentax Film body K1000 is a truly amazing camera and I'm sure a lot of people have lenses for it, so Pentax is the way to go for the reason that you already have the lenses, but if you are starting from scratch like myself...

Canon is the way to go if you want to go big.

KM is the way to go for Bang for your Buck.

To get 35-350mm in Image stabilized, constant aperture F2.8 in glass is one thing, but when you have a miniaturized sensor like in a P&S, it simply can't do the lens justice.

If you got the KM, you could have the equivalent of 27-450mm, Image stabilized, non constant aperture for just a hundred bucks or so more than either the FZ-20, FZ-30, or the Pentax DSLR with the same lens range. With a DSLR, you CAN get better lenses, if you choose, but regardless, the sensor WILL be able to do the lenses justice and will absolutely make all the difference in the world, every time.
 01/17/2006 09:24:24 AM · #10
KM 7D has around the same noise levels as the 20D. That's why I bought it.
 01/17/2006 09:33:29 AM · #11
Yeah. KM does have a serious second tier of cameras too. There are some areas where the 7D falls a bit short of the 20D, like drive mode, but I'm beginning to realize even still that this is less important for me than I imagined before and even less important for many others.

Bottom line, KM is a serious contender, wading into waters where Pentax is not willing to follow.

Pentax has what - 4, 5 bodies? All in the same range of ability.
 01/17/2006 12:21:19 PM · #12
Pentax is a niche market. They rely on the loyalties of long-time Pentax owners and users, and don't seem to really care if they "keep up". They just sit quietly back and make solid, quality equipment, that nearly everyone that owns it loves to death.

Pentax is the Howard Hughes of the photographic world. Eccentric, prone to bouts of extreme strangeness, and oft times aloof and mysterious.

Pentax isn't a brand you go with to "be the best", it's a brand you go with because it feels right, or because you've always personally liked them and continue that connection.

I strongly urge your friend to try your camera out for a day or two and see if it is what he wants. If not, there are plenty of other choices out there. If so, I don't think he'll be disappointed in the least, especially, as Bazz says, you'll be able to share lenses.
 01/17/2006 04:45:50 PM · #13
Originally posted by eschelar:

Bottom line, KM is a serious contender, wading into waters where Pentax is not willing to follow.


Maybe "not willing" is the wrong term.

I'm sure every dslr manufacturer would love to bring out a complete pro range to compete with Canon but unfortunately their hands are tied due to the reliance of sensor development from third parties.

Nikon has the edge here as they have some sort of agreement with Sony and they are generally the first to market with the new sensor offerings.

The release cycle then sees Pentax follow around 6 months later so a new Pentax dslr with new sensor should be released H1 this year.

bazz.
 01/17/2006 04:53:46 PM · #14
Minolta has recently entered a formal partnership with Sony, so should in theory become an even more serious contender against Nikon.
 01/17/2006 05:01:48 PM · #15
I'm waiting for the Pentax 645 digital camera. 18.6 MP with a 645 sized chip.
 01/17/2006 05:03:58 PM · #16
Originally posted by Brent_Ward:
I'm waiting for the Pentax 645 digital camera. 18.6 MP with a 645 sized chip.

What sensor is that going to use I wonder

Message edited by author 2006-01-17 17:07:02.
 01/17/2006 05:08:21 PM · #17
Originally posted by KiwiPix:
Originally posted by Brent_Ward:
I'm waiting for the Pentax 645 digital camera. 18.6 MP with a 645 sized chip.

Is that bigger than a Pentax 67. I saw one of those the other day ...it's just HUGE


No, it's smaller. And yeah, my pentax 67 is big & HEAVY. So are the lenses. I usually only grab a couple of lenses when I go to shoot something with it. I wish they made a 40MP 6x7 chipped Pentax. I would be in heaven. Might even live in my car so I could buy one.
 01/17/2006 05:23:45 PM · #18
Originally posted by eschelar:
The reason I eschew Pentax is because it does not seem to have any real selling points other than 'it's cheap'.

Perhaps 'cheap' isn't exactly the word, because there are less expensive cameras around if you look. They are *inexpensive* perhaps, but whenever you do a cost calculation, you have to factor in the resultant *value*.
Originally posted by eschelar:
The Rebel XT outperforms it in almost every way and has cheaper glass.

One of the great surprises for me and the Pentax was the support for old, manual lenses. My standard kit *always* consists of 3 or more manual lenses from the 1960s, and I have auto-metering and can shoot in aperture-priority mode - basically everything I want except autofocus. Not to mention that Pentax made an AF adapter, which I think is unique to it, that turns any old manual focus lens into an autofocus one.
Originally posted by eschelar:
...CF is generally considered a bit more durable and large cards (2-4GB) are still cheaper.

CF cards slide into pins, which can break. SD cards don't have pins, and are more durable.
Originally posted by eschelar:
Noise is the primary reason I choose to go Canon over the other brands.

Noise is only an issue for people with digicams who don't understand that all the dSLRs have usable high ISOs. I've taken shots at ISO 800 and 1600 that you can't tell - and more importantly don't care - about the noise. (In respect to this, noise was a huge factor for me until I bought a dSLR, so I'm speaking from experience.)
Originally posted by eschelar:
Comparing non IS lenses to IS lenses, you come out ahead pretty quickly when using that system.

True, if you need it. Those taking 400mm shots of birds will see better results with VR/IS lenses, for sure.
Originally posted by eschelar:
Additionally, if think you might be interested in getting a better body down the line, only Canon and Nikon are serious choices here. A lot of us seriously don't have a need to move up, but we do because we want to.

That last sentence is true, and IMO important. It should be interpreted carefully.

BTW, I'd put my images up against a 350D, Oly E500, K-M 7D (which I use and like quite a bit), the D70 and even a 20D. The higher resolution sensors obviously offer better cropping ability, but the bottom line is that they all are capable in the right hands. If you're looking for consistent 24" by 36" prints or larger, you should be shooting medium format film and being paid for it. Otherwise, you should try out the cameras and base your decision on what feels the best for you, not worrying so much about technical minutiae.

--Sean
 01/19/2006 08:26:57 AM · #19
Yeah carpents. I think we are kinda on the same page here. The resultant value of a Pentax is that it is a DSLR, just like most of the rest, and surely *CAN* take pictures just like anything else, including film bodies, but in the DSLR market, a person pays extra for extra features. My comment that 'it's cheap' was in quotes because this is the sales tactic most people take with the Pentax and as you pointed out, this is imperfect reasoning.

I have no argument whatsoever that it's the photographer that takes pictures, not equipment, but the equipment still needs to do what the photographer wants it to do to make it *valuable*.

The Pentax generally has slightly less performance in a number of areas compared to the Canon Rebel XT, but it is cheaper, so works out roughly the same $ for $. Until the photographer actually wants to use the performance features that the Rebel does better.

Regarding glass, it's pretty cool that Pentax has that adaptor, but my point was that new Canon glass is generally cheaper than most of the other brands. I would venture a quick uneducated guess that most newer Canon lenses will have better operational performance (not necessarily optical performance) than manual lenses attached to an autofocus adaptor.

I have found that a lot of older glass still costs quite a bit and in many cases sits on shelves in stores because it simply cannot hold its own $ for $ against newer stuff.

Further, this thread is in the context of someone who is looking for a cam that may not already have a ton of old lenses hanging around. If he did, I doubt he would be asking DSLR vs Lumix.

I should actually retract my statment that Noise is THE primary reason for choosing Canon. Actually it is A primary reason. Actually, for me it also made sense because of friends who also use Canon, second hand lens availability, *lens prices*....

Sorry for the imprecision.

SD is NOT generally considered to be more durable than CF. Both use solid state flash memory chips which are identical except that SD cards use more dense versions to squeeze more information to a smaller physical space. Both formats are extremely durable, but a number of other forums I belong to have also come to similar conclusions that in practice, most people find that SD cards are a tiny bit more finnicky in the long run.

I have 8 media cards in constant use, some of which I have owned for close to three years. Both of SD and CF type. I have not experienced much in the way of problems with either.

Simple logic states that smaller cards will always be able to be a hair faster, but bigger cards will always be able to hold more memory for less cost. Having 50 pins for transferring information would also speak to logic as having far greater potential transfer speeds than the few contacts that are in on the SD card. Technology that will remain undeveloped.

The laws of supply and demand throw any benefits that CF has over SD out the window though, as recently, CF has become a rather ailing technology.

I do not doubt that you take great pictures with your Pentax, nor do I feel that a hypothetical 'average' user could not take excellent pictures and really enjoy the camera.

I just feel, as I stated that Canon provides more room for progression later on and Konica Minolta puts out similar cameras for similar prices that provide significantly better bang for the buck.

Anti-shake, IS, and VR actually help in any low light condition, not just telephoto. The concept is not perfect in its execution and is not free from drawbacks, but it's a really great buffer that is very, very useful for people who are just getting started.
 01/19/2006 09:29:46 AM · #20
Originally posted by Brent_Ward:
I'm waiting for the Pentax 645 digital camera. 18.6 MP with a 645 sized chip.


I'am waiting for that one myself. Rumors are that it may ship with a newer chip than the one that floated through the Tokyo show. Speaking of shipping anyone heard any rumors on that?
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 09/22/2025 05:18:50 PM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.


Home - Challenges - Community - League - Photos - Cameras - Lenses - Learn - Help - Terms of Use - Privacy - Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 09/22/2025 05:18:50 PM EDT.