[Gilzuma]

I have a question, just for those that are heavily or even moderately invested in Pentax. If I could give you every dime you had invested in Pentax gear, at what you paid for it, would you take it and switch to something else? This would seem to be the ultimate test of how we really see the situation? Honest answers please.......it's OK to be on the Dark Side for a few minutes!

Regards!

Yes, I think I would. Knowing what I know about Pentax now. I think we may turn a corner soon though.

---

Last edited by Gilzuma; 06-07-2013 at 06:31 PM.

[bossa]

For starters Norm , I never said "more backwards compatible"
I said -

So let me summarise it for you the "better backwards comapatibility" of Nikon vs Pentax.

Nikon F mount came out in 1959 (Pentax k mount came out in 1975 before that it was all screwmount so you need adapters)
In 1977 they added Auto Indexing (AI) an important change in the way the camera gets the aperture value from the lens. Which means its no longer necessary to move the aperture ring back and forth to transfer the lens speed to the camera body. Converting a pre-1977 lens to AI costs around $25 or you can do it yourself.
So every lens made since 1977 works perfectly, complete with color matrix metering !
Pentax I believe is limited to center weighted metering on old glass and you need to use stop down metering if you change the aperture!

And when it comes to manual focusing these older lenses on my Nikon body I can use all 51 glorious focus points (even tells me if my focus is forwards or backwards of subject).

On Pentax? Well your stuck to the center point only and has no telling if your focus is front/back of subject

That basicly sums up why I think Nikon has a better backwards compatible system than Pentax.

Oh and there are more Nikon lenses on the market than Pentax, so that gives you the "more" part

Mr Smartypants aren't we?

[Clavius]

I d think we may turn a corner soon though.

You're the fifth person I see making that claim in the past few days. On what do you base your optimism?

[normhead]

For starters Norm , I never said "more backwards compatible"
I said -

So let me summarise it for you the "better backwards comapatibility" of Nikon vs Pentax.

Nikon F mount came out in 1959 (Pentax k mount came out in 1975 before that it was all screwmount so you need adapters)
In 1977 they added Auto Indexing (AI) an important change in the way the camera gets the aperture value from the lens. Which means its no longer necessary to move the aperture ring back and forth to transfer the lens speed to the camera body. Converting a pre-1977 lens to AI costs around $25 or you can do it yourself.
So every lens made since 1977 works perfectly, complete with color matrix metering !
Pentax I believe is limited to center weighted metering on old glass and you need to use stop down metering if you change the aperture!

And when it comes to manual focusing these older lenses on my Nikon body I can use all 51 glorious focus points (even tells me if my focus is forwards or backwards of subject).

On Pentax? Well your stuck to the center point only and has no telling if your focus is front/back of subject



That basicly sums up why I think Nikon has a better backwards compatible system than Pentax.

Oh and there are more Nikon lenses on the market than Pentax, so that gives you the "more" part

I got two words for you... "shake reduction" in all lenses back to the 60's.... (burn.. high fives all around)..... oh, that reads, shoot any ancient lens including screw mounts with 2 extra f-stops.. how did the great Nikon promoting dude miss that one in his balanced summary of events. That's like a major faux pas, and turns the table a huge amount in terms of utility, i'd say it puts Pentax out in front, especially for those of us who prefer manual to auto-focus in many situations. Turns out he's just another Nikon propagandist who hasn't used a Pentax system enough to even remember it has built in shake reduction.

But being more realistic here and moving away from the trash talk...

Those are all good points, except most of them I don't really care about. And that's what I've always thought about Nikon, they have piles of great features, that I don't care about. My mom always owned Nikon, and i have to admit , they're a really good camera for your mom, or anyone that needs lots of hand holding. My favourite Nikon moment was when my buddy brought in 6 frames per minute film camera (F4?) and showed me these shots of his brother bungie jumping. Coming straight down at the camera. It was impressive, but it was also a gimmick shot , at least to me. My buddy wanted that feature, but he never really used it much, he was a wedding and event photographer and shooting 6 frames per minute with film would lead to huge processing costs, just like shooting burst mode now leads to huge amounts of time spent at the computer sorting through images. And that's what I think of things like 51 focus points and things like that, it's a great gimmick, and it might actually help in some situations, but it's symptomatic of Nikon's philosophy of putting gimmickry over substance. I also find Nikon users seem to be the ones more impressed by gimmicky. Not always, I also know some really serious guys who shoot Nikon, but I bet 90% of Nikon users buy for cool features that are not a part of their core photographic practice. Nikon make great cameras, but I've met more Nikon users who bought the camera for features they never use than perhaps any other brand. SO when you see stuff like 51 focus points, with Nikon, you always wonder, is 51 focus points technically efficient, or did they just bump it up to see how how many they could incorporate for marketing purposes? That's always a question with new Nikon features. Some Nikon cameras have 51 focus points, some have 11. Even some Nikon shooters don't seem to need more than 11. Let's not focus on the sensational.

That's IMHO a sensible response to a pretty biased post... although the first one half is more fun it's more in the spirit of the post I was responding too... I'm sure some Nikon users will find it offensive, like all the really serious guys who shoot Nikon equipment. Because there are many very serious Nikon shooters who buy their cameras for features that are essential to their core photographic practice, more than there are Pentax shooters of the same mindset. They find majority of Nikon shooters to be as much an embarrassment as I do.

My latest Nikon moment was a friend with a Nikon 3200 flipping though the in camera help, thing to figure out how to bracket exposures. I don't know if the D3200 doesn't support bracketing or she just couldn't find it... but she missed 15 minutes of a great sunset trying to read a manual off the back of her camera. It's a feature she bought the camera for, but she would have been better off if the manual was home in her drawer in the end. Something cool is not always something good.

[Diggoar]

My brother is a Canon-user and complained about the Pentax lens prices being so much lower as his Canons! So maybe, yes, it´s just you! ;-)

[Homo_erectus]

I have a nikon camera and recently have acquired the K-01 and K5ii.

The thing that I really miss from the Nikon world is inexpensive entry level lenses that are "good enough".

Looking at both DX and FX lenses, Nikon has six under 200 and fifteen under 400 dollars. In that price range there are a bunch of primes, a macro, and a mix of short, long and super zooms.

For K mount lenses, Pentax has three lenses under 200 and they are all zooms. Going up to 400 dollars there are an additional short zoom and three primes.

New, entry level Pentax lenses are more expensive and there are fewer choices than Nikon offers.

At the low end, options are more important than ultimate quality, in my opinion. Casual users can't tell the difference between a 1000$ and 200$ prime and budding photographers are just happy to be able to get the focal length without breaking the bank.

On the other end of things, well, I don't know anything about it because I can't afford 1000+ dollar lenses on any platform. The choices seem reasonably equivalent to me though.

For bodies, NIkon, and Canon, are much, much stingier with features than Pentax. And that is the reason why I moved to Pentax.

[Pentaxguy22]

Other thing I like about Pentax is how the menus had changed very little over the years and still same setup so it's very easy to troubleshoot
What I do on K-5 is basically the same on K-01 of course the K-01 has a fancy background on it's menu

[bullitt_60]

I'd contend that Nikon's cheap primes are excellent and an awesome value for their performance.

From B&H's current prices:

Nikon 35mm f/1.8g $196.95
Nikon 50mm f/1.8g $216.95
Nikon 85mm f/1.8g $496.95

Pentax 35mm f/2.4 $216.95
Pentax 50mm f/1.8 $246.95
Pentax 77mm f/1.8 $1,046.95 (no 85mm currently manufactured, so this was the closest lens).

The prices don't seem that much different, but when you factor in that Nikon gives you a 5 year warranty versus 1 year with Pentax, it makes you wonder why Pentax isn't cheaper. And then you really wonder when you consider the Nikons above all have SWM for silent focusing versus the old fashioned screw drive of the Pentax lenses. Even DXO confirmed that these cheapo lenses (save the 35mm because it's crop specific) all performed as well as their costlier cousins when they tested them on a D800 here.

In addition to the 35mm being faster, both the Nikor 35 & 50 are much higher build quality IMO.

[SyncGuy]

In addition to the 35mm being faster, both the Nikor 35 & 50 are much higher build quality IMO.

And they're WR with quickshift too, i heard? Forgive me if i'm wrong here coz i don't really "follow" them..

[Homo_erectus]

No, Nikon does make a few weather sealed lenses but they don't really advertise which ones are because weather sealing isn't really something they say much about one way or the other. For Pentax WR is a big deal because it really differentiates them from their competition.

Also, only two of Pentaxs lens that are under 400 dollars are WR anyway and they are both zooms.

[Rondec]

I think that where Pentax is a decent deal is if you want middle priced lenses, 300 to 600. Nikon and Canon tend to have low end consumer glass and then high end stuff and not much in the middle. In addition, Pentax has some lenses that are pretty special -- the DA *55, DA 15, DA *60-250, and DA *50-135. It is hard to compare these to any lenses in either Canon or Nikon's line up, because they don't exactly match up.

To Rupert's question, I wouldn't switch, even if you gave me all the money it would take to do so. The reason mainly has to do with knowing my gear. At this point, I have built up a nice stable of glass and I know its strengths and weaknesses. I am familiar with Pentax cameras as well and I don't have to think about doing things, changing settings, I just do it. To get a new brand would involve some learning and some relearning to minimal benefit. For the style of photography I do (mainly landscapes, taking photos of my kids, my wife takes photos as a wedding photographer and portrait photographer), Pentax is about perfect, particularly because I do a lot of hiking and packing reasonably sized gear that is sealed against the elements is handy for me. That just isn't really available with any other brand at present except for Olympus.

[Fatdaz]

I have a question, just for those that are heavily or even moderately invested in Pentax. If I could give you every dime you had invested in Pentax gear, at what you paid for it, would you take it and switch to something else? This would seem to be the ultimate test of how we really see the situation? Honest answers please.......it's OK to be on the Dark Side for a few minutes!

Regards!

I have to admit I have looked at Nikon in the last few days however, I have also looked at the K-30 and K-5 but it's all about the £'s or $'s and with a limited budget sometimes the dark side is a little tempting. Sorry guys

[Pentaxguy22]

I have to admit I have looked at Nikon in the last few days however, I have also looked at the K-30 and K-5 but it's all about the £'s or $'s and with a limited budget sometimes the dark side is a little tempting. Sorry guys

I get that, I want go with Nikon for the cheaper lenses but there a problem with that, K-5 is the only one in budget with ISO settings it has, I hate to lose my 80 ISO and 51,200 ISO

[wullemaha]

I get that, I want go with Nikon for the cheaper lenses but there a problem with that, K-5 is the only one in budget with ISO settings it has, I hate to lose my 80 ISO and 51,200 ISO

Have you ever really used that? I actually never go above 6400 (12800 only if I really NEED to - which hardly ever occurs).
And that was enough for campfire pictures for me... (like below).

[pxpaulx]

I got two words for you... "shake reduction" in all lenses back to the 60's.... (burn.. high fives all around)..... oh, that reads, shoot any ancient lens including screw mounts with 2 extra f-stops.. how did the great Nikon promoting dude miss that one in his balanced summary of events. That's like a major faux pas, and turns the table a huge amount in terms of utility, i'd say it puts Pentax out in front, especially for those of us who prefer manual to auto-focus in many situations. Turns out he's just another Nikon propagandist who hasn't used a Pentax system enough to even remember it has built in shake reduction.

But being more realistic here and moving away from the trash talk...

Those are all good points, except most of them I don't really care about. And that's what I've always thought about Nikon, they have piles of great features, that I don't care about. My mom always owned Nikon, and i have to admit , they're a really good camera for your mom, or anyone that needs lots of hand holding. My favourite Nikon moment was when my buddy brought in 6 frames per minute film camera (F4?) and showed me these shots of his brother bungie jumping. Coming straight down at the camera. It was impressive, but it was also a gimmick shot , at least to me. My buddy wanted that feature, but he never really used it much, he was a wedding and event photographer and shooting 6 frames per minute with film would lead to huge processing costs, just like shooting burst mode now leads to huge amounts of time spent at the computer sorting through images. And that's what I think of things like 51 focus points and things like that, it's a great gimmick, and it might actually help in some situations, but it's symptomatic of Nikon's philosophy of putting gimmickry over substance. I also find Nikon users seem to be the ones more impressed by gimmicky. Not always, I also know some really serious guys who shoot Nikon, but I bet 90% of Nikon users buy for cool features that are not a part of their core photographic practice. Nikon make great cameras, but I've met more Nikon users who bought the camera for features they never use than perhaps any other brand. SO when you see stuff like 51 focus points, with Nikon, you always wonder, is 51 focus points technically efficient, or did they just bump it up to see how how many they could incorporate for marketing purposes? That's always a question with new Nikon features. Some Nikon cameras have 51 focus points, some have 11. Even some Nikon shooters don't seem to need more than 11. Let's not focus on the sensational.

That's IMHO a sensible response to a pretty biased post... although the first one half is more fun it's more in the spirit of the post I was responding too... I'm sure some Nikon users will find it offensive, like all the really serious guys who shoot Nikon equipment. Because there are many very serious Nikon shooters who buy their cameras for features that are essential to their core photographic practice, more than there are Pentax shooters of the same mindset. They find majority of Nikon shooters to be as much an embarrassment as I do.

My latest Nikon moment was a friend with a Nikon 3200 flipping though the in camera help, thing to figure out how to bracket exposures. I don't know if the D3200 doesn't support bracketing or she just couldn't find it... but she missed 15 minutes of a great sunset trying to read a manual off the back of her camera. It's a feature she bought the camera for, but she would have been better off if the manual was home in her drawer in the end. Something cool is not always something good.

There really are two sides to every coin I think, Norm! Olympus also has in-body shake reduction and can shoot old manual lenses at the press of the shutter in aperture priority, no stop down needed - sure it is a 2x crop, but aps-c is no FF either

I simply can't believe that as an example of excess and unnecessary gadgetry you chose better autofocus, come on - its better! I also don't think you can really blame the camera for your friend not getting to know it before hand No doubt it is hard to find buried in the menu system though - I am sure the d3200 lacks many tactile controls - Pentax definitely always wins there since they only run a 2 body line their cameras have always tended to punch up a level to be competitive.