[Eruditass]

actually they do, they have the 50-135 2.8, which actually is a 70-200 on a APS-C camera.

It's a 70-200mm ~f4.2 in terms of DoF control.

[dylansalt]

I personally don't feel that the D7000 is cheap and nasty, considering I could have bought the K5 with ease.

My D7000 has been put through the wringer without missing a beat and I found it way more comfortable to hold and use than the K5 - SO one mans meat is another mans poison.

This dslr has constantly produced images of exceptional quality consistently (can I say 100% keeper) with it's metering and af and with extreme ease - can I say again - extreme ease.

IMHO opinion a lot of Pentax zooms, especially consumer, feel cheap, nasty and archaic (especially af) compared to the Nikon's.

And I don't care what anyone says - the flash and af of the Nikon in all situations is better than the K5 - one of the main reasons why I purchased it.

How can anyone dismiss 3D AF tracking with customizable assist points as not a value add? - I have used this extensively to assist with composition when tracking a subject.

If I compare the Nikon 70-300 to the Pentax 55-300 (I own both) there simply is no comparison wrt to quality finish, ergonomics and af speed and smoothness.

Between 70-250 this lens can produces breathtaking sharpness.

Same goes for the 16-85 which produces MTF figures in the "pro" league, the Pentax 17-50 F4 being nowhere in the same league wrt iq.

The only Pentax lens to compare is the 16-50 2.8 which has weather sealing and a 2.8 aperture as it's only advantage - definitely not IQ, nor in AF.

I have had zero issues with focus accuracy even down to ISO 6400 F5.6 1/10 sec light levels and I have the af assist light disabled.

It's also lovely to be able to walk into a camera shop anywhere and pick and choose the accessories/lenses I need.

[masloff]

glad you`re enjoying your d7000 dylansalt

one man`s trash - another man`s treasure

[Eruditass]

Responses in red.

I personally don't feel that the D7000 is cheap and nasty, considering I could have bought the K5 with ease.

Personally, I was a bit disappointed with how the K-5 felt. I had high expectations because I loved the K-x, but it wasn't that much better. I prefer the K10D

My D7000 has been put through the wringer without missing a beat and I found it way more comfortable to hold and use than the K5 - SO one mans meat is another mans poison.

This dslr has constantly produced images of exceptional quality consistently (can I say 100% keeper) with it's metering and af and with extreme ease - can I say again - extreme ease.

IMHO opinion a lot of Pentax zooms, especially consumer, feel cheap, nasty and archaic (especially af) compared to the Nikon's.


And I don't care what anyone says - the flash and af of the Nikon in all situations is better than the K5 - one of the main reasons why I purchased it.

Agreed on TTL flash systems. Of course, I usually use manual strobist flash, so system doesn't matter.

How can anyone dismiss 3D AF tracking with customizable assist points as not a value add? - I have used this extensively to assist with composition when tracking a subject.

Agreed, their customization and algorithms for AF are just as impressive as their speed. Especially settings like delay when something comes in front of object being tracked, and I can't remember what else. This was on the D300s, and I'm not sure if it's on the D7000.

If I compare the Nikon 70-300 to the Pentax 55-300 (I own both) there simply is no comparison wrt to quality finish, ergonomics and af speed and smoothness.

I too was quite imperssed with the feel of the Nikon 70-300mm, it's like a pro lens. That includes size though, if I remember correctly. Don't remember how the IQ fared, though.
Between 70-250 this lens can produces breathtaking sharpness.

Same goes for the 16-85 which produces MTF figures in the "pro" league, the Pentax 17-50 F4 being nowhere in the same league wrt iq.

I assume you're referring to the Pentax 16-45mm. Never used it, but always heard people referring to it as a stack of primes.

The only Pentax lens to compare is the 16-50 2.8 which has weather sealing and a 2.8 aperture as it's only advantage - definitely not IQ, nor in AF.

I have had zero issues with focus accuracy even down to ISO 6400 F5.6 1/10 sec light levels and I have the af assist light disabled.

AF in low light definitely disappointed me on the K-5, as with tracking. One reason why I'm waiting for the sucessor, though there are many reasons I enjoy the Pentax system over the Nikon and Canon systems (both have their advantages over Pentax in other areas, of course).

It's also lovely to be able to walk into a camera shop anywhere and pick and choose the accessories/lenses I need.

[narichey81]

I recently switched from the k5 to a nikon d7000, so I have a little experience.

First, while the pentax definitely has the edge in ergonomics and feel, the d7000 is not that far off. Once your brain gets used to a different way of doing things its perfectly fine. There is direct access to all the major shooting controls, and you can set the auto iso up in the nikon to work much like the beloved TAV mode on pentax. If not for the poor placement of the ISO button and the MLU not being tied to the 2 sec timer (c'mon nikon) I would not have anything to complain about. I would say build quality is similar, and im not really sure why someone would say it feels nasty and cheap. Its perfectly fine in that regard.

IQ is a complete draw. I know dxo gave the k5 the slight edge, but i honestly cant tell any difference looking at the files. That was one reason I was comfortable switching to the d7000, because I was already familiar with the awesome sony sensor and what i could do. Lets face it, both of these cameras owe most of what makes them popular and awesome to that sensor, so props to sony.

I am missing the in body stabilization, but not as much as I would have a year ago. ISO is so clean that you can really get a high shutter speed without much noise penalty. Im about to pick up a lightly used AF-s VR 70-200 2.8, so I will have VR on my longest lens so far, where I really need it

Lens choice. If I could afford it I would run 2 systems, keeping a pentax just for the awesome limited primes. If I didnt need the things nikon offers over pentax, those little metal and glass jewels would be all I use. I will probably get back into pentax down the road once I can afford it for my purely personal camera and pick up the limiteds again. That being said, taken as a whole Nikon clearly has the more complete lens lineup, ultrawide to super telephoto and everything in between, including some inexpensive and not so inexpensive primes. They also have much better 3rd party support. I can replicate several of the pentax lenses with the tokina variant. I already have the 12-24 f4, which only cost me $550 vs $760 for the pentax. Tokina zooms seem much better made to me than the pentax versions, which is weird. I will shortly have the tokina 35 2.8 macro as well (though it wont be as nice as the limited the optics are the same), for about half the cost. I also can be sure that every new lens from tamron, sigma, or tokina will be made available to me.

AF. There is no other way to say it, the nikons af system is just better. It is faster, more reliable in low light, and much more sophisticated (3d tracking etc..). The k5 was plenty fast and accurate in single shot in bright light, and much better than previous pentax cameras in low light, but it still could not track in af-c. I did a wedding with the k5. It was not successful in tracking the bride and groom in moderate light walking at a moderate pace towards me as they left the reception, and i did not get any keepers from that setup. I guess i just got tired of waiting for pentax to develop the af system into something equivalent to what the big 2 offer.

Flash system. This was the other area that made me want to switch. The nikon flash system is more reliable and flexible. Better yet, i can now access the benefits of full pocket wizard, radio popper support. I can use the PW ac3 zone controller to easily and quickly control 3 flash groups in either ttl or manual modes without having to touch them. Unless pentax develops a similar system of their own or gains alot of market share I just didnt see this capability making it to the pentax system.

I dont want anybody to think im bashing pentax. The k5 is still my favorite camera ever, and I would still own it if i could afford to. The only reason i switched was because Im trying to go pro, and being the odd man out equipment-wise was getting frustrating. There is no local support for pentax, its harder to rent pentax gear or pick up pentax accessories locally. And when I shoot with someone else it is a virtual certainty that our equipment is incompatible. 3rd party support is just not there, and pentax pricing has gone up so much that its not really the same bargain it was when i got into the system. It just became too much trouble to stick with a system for sentimental reasons when money is at stake. So i have picked up a d7000 to use until the next round of full frame or advanced aps-c cameras roll around, at which point the d7000 would become my backup camera

[johnmflores]

I recently switched from the k5 to a nikon d7000, so I have a little experience.

First, while the pentax definitely has the edge in ergonomics and feel, the d7000 is not that far off. Once your brain gets used to a different way of doing things its perfectly fine. There is direct access to all the major shooting controls, and you can set the auto iso up in the nikon to work much like the beloved TAV mode on pentax. If not for the poor placement of the ISO button and the MLU not being tied to the 2 sec timer (c'mon nikon) I would not have anything to complain about. I would say build quality is similar, and im not really sure why someone would say it feels nasty and cheap. Its perfectly fine in that regard.

IQ is a complete draw. I know dxo gave the k5 the slight edge, but i honestly cant tell any difference looking at the files. That was one reason I was comfortable switching to the d7000, because I was already familiar with the awesome sony sensor and what i could do. Lets face it, both of these cameras owe most of what makes them popular and awesome to that sensor, so props to sony.

I am missing the in body stabilization, but not as much as I would have a year ago. ISO is so clean that you can really get a high shutter speed without much noise penalty. Im about to pick up a lightly used AF-s VR 70-200 2.8, so I will have VR on my longest lens so far, where I really need it

Lens choice. If I could afford it I would run 2 systems, keeping a pentax just for the awesome limited primes. If I didnt need the things nikon offers over pentax, those little metal and glass jewels would be all I use. I will probably get back into pentax down the road once I can afford it for my purely personal camera and pick up the limiteds again. That being said, taken as a whole Nikon clearly has the more complete lens lineup, ultrawide to super telephoto and everything in between, including some inexpensive and not so inexpensive primes. They also have much better 3rd party support. I can replicate several of the pentax lenses with the tokina variant. I already have the 12-24 f4, which only cost me $550 vs $760 for the pentax. Tokina zooms seem much better made to me than the pentax versions, which is weird. I will shortly have the tokina 35 2.8 macro as well (though it wont be as nice as the limited the optics are the same), for about half the cost. I also can be sure that every new lens from tamron, sigma, or tokina will be made available to me.

AF. There is no other way to say it, the nikons af system is just better. It is faster, more reliable in low light, and much more sophisticated (3d tracking etc..). The k5 was plenty fast and accurate in single shot in bright light, and much better than previous pentax cameras in low light, but it still could not track in af-c. I did a wedding with the k5. It was not successful in tracking the bride and groom in moderate light walking at a moderate pace towards me as they left the reception, and i did not get any keepers from that setup. I guess i just got tired of waiting for pentax to develop the af system into something equivalent to what the big 2 offer.

Flash system. This was the other area that made me want to switch. The nikon flash system is more reliable and flexible. Better yet, i can now access the benefits of full pocket wizard, radio popper support. I can use the PW ac3 zone controller to easily and quickly control 3 flash groups in either ttl or manual modes without having to touch them. Unless pentax develops a similar system of their own or gains alot of market share I just didnt see this capability making it to the pentax system.

I dont want anybody to think im bashing pentax. The k5 is still my favorite camera ever, and I would still own it if i could afford to. The only reason i switched was because Im trying to go pro, and being the odd man out equipment-wise was getting frustrating. There is no local support for pentax, its harder to rent pentax gear or pick up pentax accessories locally. And when I shoot with someone else it is a virtual certainty that our equipment is incompatible. 3rd party support is just not there, and pentax pricing has gone up so much that its not really the same bargain it was when i got into the system. It just became too much trouble to stick with a system for sentimental reasons when money is at stake. So i have picked up a d7000 to use until the next round of full frame or advanced aps-c cameras roll around, at which point the d7000 would become my backup camera

Very level-headed response. Sounds like you made a smart decision. Best of luck to you.

[Rondec]

I think people get worked over what are very small differences. The D7000 is nice, although, I think the D400 will probably be a significant step up from it. The biggest differences to me really come down to the availability of glass and support available to professionals. As to actual differences in auto focus and image quality, I don't think they are things are going to be felt much by the average shooter.

My wife shoots weddings in fair to poor light with the DA * zooms and has had no issues at all (of course, she shot them prior with the K10 and K20 which were significantly worse). I just think it is human nature to make mountains out of the molehills that are most important to us as individuals.

[Tommot1965]

I recently switched from the k5 to a nikon d7000, so I have a little experience.

First, while the pentax definitely has the edge in ergonomics and feel, the d7000 is not that far off. Once your brain gets used to a different way of doing things its perfectly fine. There is direct access to all the major shooting controls, and you can set the auto iso up in the nikon to work much like the beloved TAV mode on pentax. If not for the poor placement of the ISO button and the MLU not being tied to the 2 sec timer (c'mon nikon) I would not have anything to complain about. I would say build quality is similar, and im not really sure why someone would say it feels nasty and cheap. Its perfectly fine in that regard.

IQ is a complete draw. I know dxo gave the k5 the slight edge, but i honestly cant tell any difference looking at the files. That was one reason I was comfortable switching to the d7000, because I was already familiar with the awesome sony sensor and what i could do. Lets face it, both of these cameras owe most of what makes them popular and awesome to that sensor, so props to sony.

I am missing the in body stabilization, but not as much as I would have a year ago. ISO is so clean that you can really get a high shutter speed without much noise penalty. Im about to pick up a lightly used AF-s VR 70-200 2.8, so I will have VR on my longest lens so far, where I really need it

Lens choice. If I could afford it I would run 2 systems, keeping a pentax just for the awesome limited primes. If I didnt need the things nikon offers over pentax, those little metal and glass jewels would be all I use. I will probably get back into pentax down the road once I can afford it for my purely personal camera and pick up the limiteds again. That being said, taken as a whole Nikon clearly has the more complete lens lineup, ultrawide to super telephoto and everything in between, including some inexpensive and not so inexpensive primes. They also have much better 3rd party support. I can replicate several of the pentax lenses with the tokina variant. I already have the 12-24 f4, which only cost me $550 vs $760 for the pentax. Tokina zooms seem much better made to me than the pentax versions, which is weird. I will shortly have the tokina 35 2.8 macro as well (though it wont be as nice as the limited the optics are the same), for about half the cost. I also can be sure that every new lens from tamron, sigma, or tokina will be made available to me.

AF. There is no other way to say it, the nikons af system is just better. It is faster, more reliable in low light, and much more sophisticated (3d tracking etc..). The k5 was plenty fast and accurate in single shot in bright light, and much better than previous pentax cameras in low light, but it still could not track in af-c. I did a wedding with the k5. It was not successful in tracking the bride and groom in moderate light walking at a moderate pace towards me as they left the reception, and i did not get any keepers from that setup. I guess i just got tired of waiting for pentax to develop the af system into something equivalent to what the big 2 offer.

Flash system. This was the other area that made me want to switch. The nikon flash system is more reliable and flexible. Better yet, i can now access the benefits of full pocket wizard, radio popper support. I can use the PW ac3 zone controller to easily and quickly control 3 flash groups in either ttl or manual modes without having to touch them. Unless pentax develops a similar system of their own or gains alot of market share I just didnt see this capability making it to the pentax system.

I dont want anybody to think im bashing pentax. The k5 is still my favorite camera ever, and I would still own it if i could afford to. The only reason i switched was because Im trying to go pro, and being the odd man out equipment-wise was getting frustrating. There is no local support for pentax, its harder to rent pentax gear or pick up pentax accessories locally. And when I shoot with someone else it is a virtual certainty that our equipment is incompatible. 3rd party support is just not there, and pentax pricing has gone up so much that its not really the same bargain it was when i got into the system. It just became too much trouble to stick with a system for sentimental reasons when money is at stake. So i have picked up a d7000 to use until the next round of full frame or advanced aps-c cameras roll around, at which point the d7000 would become my backup camera

good post..well thought out and written without brand bias.

I called the D7000 cheap and nasty..although that is a bit harsh I know...I still feel the build of the K5 is better...Im with Nikon now for all the reasons you state..a D700 or its successor is in my future ..im saving for lenses at the mo..a 14-24 F2.8 is just on the horizon...but at $2100 AU....it seem daft I used to Balk at $1500 for a 60-250DA...

[Dr Mufti]

Eljaco, my advice if you have big hands is that you get a battery grip, so maybe factor this into your costs if it makes a difference. Overall I found the ergonomics of the K-5 surpasses the Nikon (D7000 and D300s), but did find my pinky flapping in the breeze. It is nice and weighty despite its small size, thanks to its full mag-alloy construction.

[Macario]

Isn't it abaout time that people start shooting with what they got, instead of looking at other brands to see what they have.
Yes, in extreme cases (super tele 400mm and beyond), you might say that you miss a lens, but within normal range I think Pentax does have a lens that will suit anybody. Yes, the 50-135 is not a 70-200 in terms of DOF, but honestly, in how many situations will you notice the difference? And with that I mean lookign at the picture. If you start looking at it in terms of bad DOF, instead of just lookign at the pic. It is not a good picture anyway, and I do not think another lens would have made it better.

So, just shoot with what you have, and if needing something else, there are still the third party lenses, which are not bad at all.

[Blue]

love blockamon's post.

describe the situation extremely well.

Unless the sdm in the 16-50 bites . . .