| Author | Thread |
|
|
12/30/2006 03:15:16 PM · #1 |
I've been reading about the Pentax K10D, and I have to say I was impressed by a number of features in the design. In addition it has built in IS, which might save me a lot on lenses, since I plan to buy mostly IS/VR enabled lenses.
But on the other hand, I was pretty set on the Nikon D80 before reading that. I loved the feel, and I'm confident Nikon makes good products.
I think both would meet my need to have a good viewfinder. They both have separate RGB histograms, which I think is great. The Pentax supports DNG, which is a great idea.
Curious, what others who have looked at both of these think? How do their lens lines compare in quality. Really I eventually want a great ultrawide angle zoom like my Canon 10-22; a flexible walk around lens like the Nikon 18-200 VR. I would also like to have a long zoom option, like the Bigma 50-500 (which would be better on the Pentax since it would inherit IS from the camera, or one of the 80-400s. And finally, a macro lens--the Pentax would let me buy one of the less expensive Sigma macros (like the 105 or 150) versus the pretty expensive 105mm Nikon VR.
So the Pentax, would in the end, be much less expensive. But would it be as good?!?!?
I'd love to hear other peoples opinions. It's not easy or cheap to switch systems like I'm doing now. So I don't want to make a mistake!
|
|
|
|
12/30/2006 03:31:09 PM · #2 |
Just a quick reply...if you plan on always buying IS technology, then (in the long-run) the total cost of ownership may be considerably less than with Nikon or Canon. As an ex-Canon owner, built-in IS (or AS [Anti-Shake] in Pentax parlance) is the main reason why I bought my K100D.
|
|
|
|
12/30/2006 03:55:40 PM · #3 |
Originally posted by lesgainous:
Just a quick reply...if you plan on always buying IS technology, then (in the long-run) the total cost of ownership may be considerably less than with Nikon or Canon. As an ex-Canon owner, built-in IS (or AS [Anti-Shake] in Pentax parlance) is the main reason why I bought my K100D. |
Some questions, if you are familiar with the Pentax:
What are the standout lenses for the pentax though? Fred Miranda doesn't even have a pentax section! (Will I end up with all Sigma/Tamron/Tokina that way?)
Is there a high quality Pentax 18-200 equivalent? (Could go with the Sigma, but I know that's not quite up to the Nikon 18-200 VR)
|
|
|
|
12/30/2006 04:10:26 PM · #4 |
|
|
|
12/30/2006 04:18:21 PM · #5 |
Pentax has the awesome limited prime lenses (31, 43, 77), which are the main reason I see for getting a K10D...
There's probably a Pentax mount version of some of the zoom ultrawides, but that Canon 10-22 is really good, so what about just getting a 30D? The control wheel on the back is a lot nicer to use than buttons, and the Canon 100-400 is great too.
I'd think a 30D with a 10-22, 24-105, and 100-400 would be nice if you want zooms to cover everything. Pentax doesn't seem to have any impressive zooms, at least that I've seen.
Or, what about a used 1DS, and some Contax (Zeiss) primes? Like the 18 4.0, 28 2.8, 50 1.4, 85 or 100 something, 200, and 300? They're manual focus but do you need AF? The Alternative Digital Systems forum at FM talks about that stuff a lot, you can find out if you'd need to shave the 1DS's mirror or not to use it with those.
edit: M42 mount lenses can be found very cheaply, and those work perfectly with an adapter, and some of them are great. Look on keh.com for Pentax screwmount fixed focal lengths.
Message edited by author 2006-12-30 16:22:47. |
|
|
|
12/30/2006 04:24:41 PM · #6 |
Although I want to have these special purpose lenses, one of the reasons I wanted to change cameras was to
1) Have a great superzoom. I hate changing lenses. I want to hike/bike with only two lenses. 18-200 and the 10-22 equivalent. Both small.
2) Macro and other lenses are for special "assignments"
In other words, I want to change lenses as little as possible. So primes are pretty much out, except I'd consider a prime at the wide end rather than a 10-22 zoom. I mostly use the 10mm setting on my 10-22!
|
|
|
|
12/30/2006 04:32:05 PM · #7 |
I'm very interested in this thread too. For weeks I've been thinking I'll likely buy the Pentax K10, but after reading a lot on the dpreview forums I'm starting to have my doubts.
Problems with focus and banding are issues that seem to come up repeatedly. Then I saw this thread which got me really worried. I have started looking at information about the Nikon D80 and I'm starting to think it's a better proposition. Though I still want anti-dust and a stabiliser.
Will I ever decide or will I always be waiting for something better to come out? |
|
|
|
12/30/2006 04:33:59 PM · #8 |
It honestly just comes down to holding them, feeling them, and making the choice on that and aesthetics.
On a technical side.. you really are just nitpicking in the end. They're both uber-fantastic cameras that really have no equal... except with each other. The K10D even competes well with the D200, except for things like FPS.
|
|
|
|
12/30/2006 04:40:21 PM · #9 |
Originally posted by GinaRothfels:
I'm very interested in this thread too. For weeks I've been thinking I'll likely buy the Pentax K10, but after reading a lot on the dpreview forums I'm starting to have my doubts.
Problems with focus and banding are issues that seem to come up repeatedly. Then I saw this thread which got me really worried. I have started looking at information about the Nikon D80 and I'm starting to think it's a better proposition. Though I still want anti-dust and a stabiliser.
Will I ever decide or will I always be waiting for something better to come out? |
You will have *NO* problems with the sensor becoming loose unless you are using it for every shot, all the time, forever. You can turn the SR *off*.. and should be doing so for 90% of your shooting.
As for the DPReview forums.. ignore them. Seriously. Find the threads that have people posting *actual* photos from the camera.. and not the 1 in 400 shots that have problems and then crying about it as if it's a full-time problem. The differences between both cameras are negligible when it comes to image quality. Completely, 100% negligible.
|
|
|
|
12/30/2006 04:43:58 PM · #10 |
Oh.. just to mention. Pentax' lens selection, while great, is hard to come by at times. It certainly doesn't have the presence of Nikon.. but that *will* be changing. Still, that is another major consideration.
You will find Nikkor lenses easier.. but they'll generally be more expensive. (Except for the rare to find lenses like the FA* 80-200mm or FA* 300mm) Pentax has a new line of *great* lenses coming out though.. so...
Again, as I've said already.. it comes down to feel. (Which includes the type of photography you'll be doing.)
|
|
|
|
12/30/2006 04:44:59 PM · #11 |
Originally posted by nshapiro:
Although I want to have these special purpose lenses, one of the reasons I wanted to change cameras was to
1) Have a great superzoom. I hate changing lenses. I want to hike/bike with only two lenses. 18-200 and the 10-22 equivalent. Both small.
2) Macro and other lenses are for special "assignments"
In other words, I want to change lenses as little as possible. So primes are pretty much out, except I'd consider a prime at the wide end rather than a 10-22 zoom. I mostly use the 10mm setting on my 10-22! |
You're better off with the nikon for super-zooms... but Pentax' Macro lenses are some of the best on the planet :)
|
|
|
|
12/30/2006 04:49:01 PM · #12 |
Just going to play devil's advocate or something here...
For hiking/biking, what about a film rangefinder? RF lenses make the smallest SLR lens look like a 300 2.8, and the bodies tend to take up less space too. A Voigtlander Bessa R2A/R3A and a 15mm 4.5 would come to about a grand, and you can usually get reasonable scans as you get the film developed, by the lab. |
|
|
|
12/30/2006 05:01:28 PM · #13 |
Originally posted by MadMan2k:
Just going to play devil's advocate or something here...
For hiking/biking, what about a film rangefinder? RF lenses make the smallest SLR lens look like a 300 2.8, and the bodies tend to take up less space too. A Voigtlander Bessa R2A/R3A and a 15mm 4.5 would come to about a grand, and you can usually get reasonable scans as you get the film developed, by the lab. |
That is serious Devil's Advocate. The cost alone.. As much as a DSLR, with only one lens, plus cost of developing, scanner costs, time costs.. etc. It's a nice *thought*.. but eeeeee!! :)
Too bad digital rangefinders are still brutally expensive.. cause I can see going *that* route.
|
|
|
|
12/30/2006 05:02:43 PM · #14 |
Originally posted by Artyste:
Too bad digital rangefinders are still brutally expensive.. cause I can see going *that* route. |
That would be a sweet route to take.
|
|
|
|
12/30/2006 05:30:11 PM · #15 |
Something else that's worrying me is the merger between Pentax and Hoya. What if it ends up the same way as Konica-Minolta? And so many people seem to say that the only makes worth considering are Canon and Nikon.
Edit for spelling:(
Message edited by author 2006-12-30 17:34:07. |
|
|
|
12/30/2006 05:38:51 PM · #16 |
Originally posted by GinaRothfels:
Something else that's worrying me is the merger between Pentax and Hoya. What if it ends up the same way as Konica-Minolta? And so many people seem to say that the only makes worth considering are Canon and Nikon.
Edit for spelling:( |
Of course they do.. the sheep go for whatever the other sheep go for ;)
I wouldn't worry about the Pentax-Hoya thing. One major difference is that they are keeping the brands seperate. I'll give you a major success story of this strategy working really well:
Best Buy/Future Shop.
Best Buy bought out Future Shop (a Canadian electronics retailer), but instead of taking it over outright, they decided to keep the brands seperate. Future Shop, while running under the Best Buy company, is run independantly, keeps its name and operating procedures, and is, for all intents and purposes, a seperate entity. This is how the Hoya/Pentax merger will be run. Pentax is keeping its name, its business, and the operation of its lenses.. while also being able to draw on Hoya's resources (and vice versa).
I can only see great things coming out of this..
However, worst case scenario.. you get a great camera and use it until it dies and end up going to a Hoya in the future :) (Although I don't see this happening at all)
The K-Mount is certainly not going anywhere.
|
|
|
|
12/30/2006 05:39:47 PM · #17 |
Well, that's buying new, you could get the body used for quite a bit less, or if you don't want a light meter or electronic shutter, one of the FED or Zorki bodies for very cheap.
The Epson R-D1 goes for about $1500 refurbished... a lot for a 6mp camera, but it's got an M mount.
edit: And if you shoot B&W and develop it yourself you can get the film and dev costs very low. You can get the equipment with chemicals and a bulk loader for about $100, then it's easy to get it under 2 bucks a roll after that.
Message edited by author 2006-12-30 17:44:31. |
|
|
|
12/30/2006 05:48:10 PM · #18 |
Originally posted by MadMan2k:
Well, that's buying new, you could get the body used for quite a bit less, or if you don't want a light meter or electronic shutter, one of the FED or Zorki bodies for very cheap.
The Epson R-D1 goes for about $1500 refurbished... a lot for a 6mp camera, but it's got an M mount.
edit: And if you shoot B&W and develop it yourself you can get the film and dev costs very low. You can get the equipment with chemicals and a bulk loader for about $100, then it's easy to get it under 2 bucks a roll after that. |
Well, like I said, it's definitely a nice thought. Personally, the thought of going back to developing again makes me cry. lol.
|
|
|
|
12/30/2006 05:56:19 PM · #19 |
The problem for me with both cameras is size. I've got really small hands and the Pentax feels so big (I haven't handled the Nikon). But the smaller Nikon D40 and the Olympus E400 just don't seem to have the features I'm likely to need, so I'll have to live with something bigger.
Am I right in thinking that stabilized lenses are a lot bigger? If so then cost isn't the only advantage of Pentax.
I think I'm reading too much and getting more and more confused. Time to make a commitment before I land up buying nothing. |
|
|
|
12/30/2006 06:02:04 PM · #20 |
Originally posted by GinaRothfels:
The problem for me with both cameras is size. I've got really small hands and the Pentax feels so big (I haven't handled the Nikon). But the smaller Nikon D40 and the Olympus E400 just don't seem to have the features I'm likely to need, so I'll have to live with something bigger.
Am I right in thinking that stabilized lenses are a lot bigger? If so then cost isn't the only advantage of Pentax.
I think I'm reading too much and getting more and more confused. Time to make a commitment before I land up buying nothing. |
hahah.. yah.. it seems everytime someone counters a point, you come up with a new issue ;) What's *really* bothering you is maybe you just aren't ready yet?
Seriously though.. check out the Pentax K100D if you haven't already. It's much smaller than the K10D, has many of the same features, but is just a little more hobby-enthusiast than semi-pro-enthusiast.
It might be a much, much better fit for you.
|
|
|
|
12/30/2006 06:12:25 PM · #21 |
| No, I want 10 megapixels - I feel the extra is an advantage for stock photography. I also want antidust, though dpreview users seem to indicate it doesn't work. If I'm going to get a Pentax, it will have to be the K10. But you're right, I am scared of committing to the size and expense of a DSLR. (Or to be honest I'm not good at making decisions generally.) I'm just not happy with the picture quality I'm getting at the moment. And for stock photography things like noise REALLY matter. |
|
|
|
12/30/2006 06:18:10 PM · #22 |
Originally posted by GinaRothfels:
No, I want 10 megapixels - I feel the extra is an advantage for stock photography. I also want antidust, though dpreview users seem to indicate it doesn't work. If I'm going to get a Pentax, it will have to be the K10. But you're right, I am scared of committing to the size and expense of a DSLR. (Or to be honest I'm not good at making decisions generally.) I'm just not happy with the picture quality I'm getting at the moment. And for stock photography things like noise REALLY matter. |
You won't have any problem with noise with either the K10D or the D80 for stock photography. I don't know many people that need to shoot underexposures at high ISO and then pushing them in processing (which is where you get high noise) for stock :)
|
|
|
|
01/05/2007 03:57:28 PM · #23 |
I am going to approach this by looking at total system configurations. Lenses, flash, etc. and see which has the best total package and how much it would set me back.
Anyone want to propose a "good base set" of "very sharp" and afordable lenses for either/both?
Lenses covering the bases:
1) Ultrawide (e.g., 10-22)
2) Macro (e.g., 100 or 150)
3) Walkaround (e.g., 18-200)
4) Telephoto (x-300 or x-400 or even x-500)
In other words, what are your favorite/best lenses in this format for the Pentax or Nikon. I prefer mostly zooms for flexibility, but list your camera bag.
Hopefully, this will be useful to others. Thanks in advance!
|
|
|
|
01/07/2007 06:09:35 PM · #24 |
If your only looking at OEM lenses for Pentax then the choices are made for you by the lack of choice :)
Lenses covering the bases:
1) Pentax-DA 12-24 f4.0
2) Pentax-DA 100mm f2.8
3) Pentax-DA 16-45 f4.0 and Pentax-DA 50-200 f4-5.6
4) Pentax-FA* 250-600 f5.6 (still available as a special order?)
If you really, really want a superzoom for your walk around then its either a 2 lens kit from Pentax or the 18-200m from Sigma or Tamron. The "hard to find" Pentax-FA* 28-80mm f2.8 and Pentax-FA* 70-200mm f2.8 are the pick of the zooms but sell for exhuberant, (sp?), prices on Ebay every now and then. A lot of new Pentax users are instead choosing to wait for the weather-sealed 16-50mm f2.8, 50-135mm f2.8 and 60-250mm f4.0 that are due in a couple of months.
The strength of the Pentax lens lineup has never been based around having a large number of fast, high quality zooms, but moreso about having a great selection of sharp primes that produce great color and rendering. Many Pentax primes score higher MTF ratings than the competition and do it at a cheaper price point without compromising size and weight.
My camera bag is mostly primes with the only zoom that gets regularly used being the Sigma 70-210 f2.8. The rest of the time is 1-3 small primes which are chosen based on what I intend to shoot.
The majority of my primes were picked up cheaply from places like KeH and finding some of them has been just as much fun as shooting with them.
Primes:
Zenitar 16mm f2.8 Fisheye
Pentax-FA 28mm f2.8
Pentax-A 35mm f2.8
Pentax-A 50mm f1.4
Pentax-FA 50mm f1.4
Pentax-F 50mm f1.7
Pentax-A 50mm f2.0
Pentax-FA 77mm f1.8 Limited
Pentax-FA 100mm f2.8 macro
Pentax-SMC 135mm f2.5
Pentax-A 200mm f4.0
Pentax-A* 300mm f4.0
Zooms:
Pentax-F 70-210mm f4.0-5.6
Sigma 70-200mm f2.8
Sigma 18-125mm f3.5-5.6
Accessories:
Pentax AF-140C Ringflash
Pentax AF-360FGZ hotshoe flash x 2
Pentax AF 1.7x teleconverter
Sigma 1.4x teleconverter
Sigma 2.0x teleconverter
Macro extension tubes
Manfrotto 724B tripod
Manfrotto 479 Monopod with 222 head
Canon RS-60E3 remote (works a treat on the Pentax).
Assorted filters,step rings and coupling rings.
Studio Lighting:
Bowens Esprit 500W monos (x2)
Bowens Esprit 250W mono
Bowens 100cm softbox
Bowens 90cm umbrella
Assorted lighting stands, reflectors and light modifiers.
Manfrotto autopoles
Assorted seamless paper backdrops.
Noname wireless triggers from Ebay.
bazz. |
|
|
|
01/07/2007 06:45:06 PM · #25 |
What about the sensor's? Have you compared their strengths and weaknesses?
Not all sensors are equal, especially from company to company.
Look at those as well.
Just a thought.
|
|
