PentaxForums.com - View Single Post

rparmar · 07-31-2008, 04:24 PM

All eyes are on the Nikon D700, a very nicely designed camera that also happens to be full-frame. Despite largely baseless rumours, Pentax has nothing like it now or in the announced future. Though FF is not essential I'd like it for improved noise response and the brighter viewfinder, not to mention restoring the FOV of film. I care more about wide than tele.

Before jumping in to a different system I had a look at the lenses I'd need to replace: the FA43 and FA77 for portraits and general low light goodness, Vivitar Series 1 105mm for macro, DA 16-45 on the wider end for landscapes, DA 55-300mm for tele (actually I don't have the last one yet but have several other lenses I can trade for it). If I was to buy these again the cost would be £380 + £550 + £200 + £200 + £230 = £1560.

So my Pentax camera system of choice, including a K20D for £700, comes to £2260. (I do not own the K20D but better include it to be somewhat competitive with the D700.)

Looking at the Nikon side I'd have to get the AF Nikkor 50mm f/1.4D in place of the FA43 and the AF Nikkor 85mm f/1.8 for the FA77. For a macro there's the Micro-Nikkor 105mm f/2.8G.

The zooms situation is more difficult since I'd need to replicate my current lens FOV on full frame. On the wide end Nikon has nothing cheaper than the AF Nikkor 24-70mm f/2.8G, but at least here I'm gaining a stop. The AF Nikkor 80-400mm f/4.5-5.6D VR fits like a glove to replace the tele.

Damage? £200 + £250 + £490 + £1000 + £980 = £2920. The D700 can be had for £1560 so the system price is £4480.

Anyone see what I'd be losing here? How about image stabilisation, since only the tele zoom and the macro lenses have this feature? How about the compact size of the Limiteds and their amazing build? How about the second-to-none sharpness of the Vivi and the edge-to-edge resolution of the DA 16-45? I am sure the Nikon lenses are perfectly fine, but rather doubt they would offer any significant improvements on the Pentax lenses I'd be giving up.

All this for twice the price.

Nikon may have the camera, but their prime lenses are looking mighty long in the tooth. Many are designs much older than the Pentax counterparts. And I cannot image photography without image stabilisation. Unless Nikon get VR out of lenses and into the body where it belongs, they are unlikely to get my business. Even then they'd need to start producing lenses that go the extra mile and make me crave them, in that "must have another Limited" way.

Thought I'd buy a D700. Then I woke up to reality.

07-31-2008, 04:24 PM	#1
rparmar Pentaxian Location: Ireland Gallery Photos: 30 Posts: 3,335	Thought I'd Buy A D700 All eyes are on the Nikon D700, a very nicely designed camera that also happens to be full-frame. Despite largely baseless rumours, Pentax has nothing like it now or in the announced future. Though FF is not essential I'd like it for improved noise response and the brighter viewfinder, not to mention restoring the FOV of film. I care more about wide than tele. Before jumping in to a different system I had a look at the lenses I'd need to replace: the FA43 and FA77 for portraits and general low light goodness, Vivitar Series 1 105mm for macro, DA 16-45 on the wider end for landscapes, DA 55-300mm for tele (actually I don't have the last one yet but have several other lenses I can trade for it). If I was to buy these again the cost would be £380 + £550 + £200 + £200 + £230 = £1560. So my Pentax camera system of choice, including a K20D for £700, comes to £2260. (I do not own the K20D but better include it to be somewhat competitive with the D700.) Looking at the Nikon side I'd have to get the AF Nikkor 50mm f/1.4D in place of the FA43 and the AF Nikkor 85mm f/1.8 for the FA77. For a macro there's the Micro-Nikkor 105mm f/2.8G. The zooms situation is more difficult since I'd need to replicate my current lens FOV on full frame. On the wide end Nikon has nothing cheaper than the AF Nikkor 24-70mm f/2.8G, but at least here I'm gaining a stop. The AF Nikkor 80-400mm f/4.5-5.6D VR fits like a glove to replace the tele. Damage? £200 + £250 + £490 + £1000 + £980 = £2920. The D700 can be had for £1560 so the system price is £4480. Anyone see what I'd be losing here? How about image stabilisation, since only the tele zoom and the macro lenses have this feature? How about the compact size of the Limiteds and their amazing build? How about the second-to-none sharpness of the Vivi and the edge-to-edge resolution of the DA 16-45? I am sure the Nikon lenses are perfectly fine, but rather doubt they would offer any significant improvements on the Pentax lenses I'd be giving up. All this for twice the price. Nikon may have the camera, but their prime lenses are looking mighty long in the tooth. Many are designs much older than the Pentax counterparts. And I cannot image photography without image stabilisation. Unless Nikon get VR out of lenses and into the body where it belongs, they are unlikely to get my business. Even then they'd need to start producing lenses that go the extra mile and make me crave them, in that "must have another Limited" way. Thought I'd buy a D700. Then I woke up to reality.