[jsherman999]

I may eat my words, but not with your line up. You did not select equivalent lenses like jsherman999 did. The equivalent line up would be 18-36/5.6, 24-70/4, 70-200/4 with in-body SR. It's already cheaper today as far as it exists (Canon has offers closer to this, with good and affordable 17-40/4L and 70-200/4L where the latter is a gem). If you redo your math, you'll see that the FF lenses are well below $3000 (combined) and you're saving $700+ on lenses. And there are good offers for a 5D2. Of course, Pentax would be more interesting, with in-body SR and many legacy FF lenses.

I don't say buy FF. I only say that the days where APSC was cheaper are counted...

One other WA choice - 20mm f/2.8, effective FOV on APS-C would be 13mm. Think I paid $280. I can't find a very small 13mm f/2.8 prime to shoot on my K20D for $280 - or for any price.

Also picked up a Sigma Super-wide 24mm f/2.8 for $77 (a very sharp, small ~16mm f/2.8 on aps-c)

Deals can be had. Telephoto is another story though (if you want to accept the 'aps-c reach' argument that vexes many .




.

[knumbnutz]

I may eat my words, but not with your line up. You did not select equivalent lenses like jsherman999 did. The equivalent line up would be 18-36/5.6, 24-70/4, 70-200/4 with in-body SR. It's already cheaper today as far as it exists (Canon has offers closer to this, with good and affordable 17-40/4L and 70-200/4L where the latter is a gem). If you redo your math, you'll see that the FF lenses are well below $3000 (combined) and you're saving $700+ on lenses. And there are good offers for a 5D2. Of course, Pentax would be more interesting, with in-body SR and many legacy FF lenses.

I don't say buy FF. I only say that the days where APSC was cheaper are counted...

I cant say that I would even come close to considering those lenses, they are not the best lenses available and thats what the system comparison should be.

The reason I choose those lenses are because they are 2.8, not just for DOF but also ability to focus under lower light and Also they are weatherproof and fair comparison between 16-50 and 50-135, there are no equivelant to the 14-24 nikon but the 12-24 is close.

The 5D is not weather resistant which is the main reason you would not include it.

Legacy lenses are pointless too. If you are after a cheap FF and want to stick legacy lenses on the FF then your missing the point why people currently migrate to FF.
They want to get a better camera kit which is why they consider it an upgrade to a professional model and lenses to match.

Pentax now has a great solution for an upgrade path that didnt exist before in the 645D and I still consider it a fantasic option. I had a 67 and can see real merit in this option. Hopefully glass will go on sale sooner rather than later.

Cheers Neil

[falconeye]

I cant say that I would even come close to considering those lenses, they are not the best lenses available and thats what the system comparison should be.

Neil, that doesn't sound very logical to me.

This is like saying 6cylinder cars are much more expensive than 4cylinder cars because there are much more expensive specimen for the 6cyl. class.

You really must compare systems of similiar performance. And on top of that, I agree, you can add much more expensive options to the FF class if you like. I never said that FF wouldn't add options...

There really is no need for faster than f/4 lenses in the FF comparison if all you use on APSC is f/2.8. Even the AF is fine as you don't need the f/2.8 AF sensors for comparable AF performance (and Pentax doesn't even have them to start with).


That's the lens side.

OTOH, I agree that compelling FF bodies have not yet been released, they're all crippled in one way or another. Or their price is insane (D3X). And they're all bricks.

[Pentax Kid]

I was sold on the k7 but now the k5 has just been relased is it really worth forking out the money, im not using the camera for any "specific" work.
Any help please and thankyou

[falconeye]

I was sold on the k7 but now the k5 has just been relased is it really worth forking out the money, im not using the camera for any "specific" work.
Any help please and thankyou

How can you expect advice when you give no information? Both cameras have a similiar overall price performance as this is what the market achieves for you.

The K-5 would have an extra value (beyond the market equilibrium) if:
- money plays no role for you.
- you often shoot fast action (sports, kids, birds, which requires both higher ISO and faster AF).
- you're hooked on available light (candlelight portraiture etc.).
- you really need contrast AF.

The k-7 is the better value otherwise:
- you had to save up to aquire a K-7
- your subjects are more classic (portrait, landscape, cityscape)

All in all, it may depend on how good a deal you can find on a K-7 and K-5.

OTOH, I agree that compelling FF bodies have not yet been released, they're all crippled in one way or another. Or their price is insane (D3X). And they're all bricks.

falconeye,

Do you think the 5D mk III will be compelling, or will it just be a minor upgrade to the mark II? Either way I am very excited to see what is coming. I can only imagine the sensor advancements Canon has made in the past two years, especially looking at advancements made in their APS-C department in the past few years.

[hegedus]

I don't need a FF camera. I'd like to have such option though.

Agreed.
Also, if Pentax managed to squeeze so much from an aps-c sensor, imagine what could be done with FF sensor made the same way as the newest aps-c ...

[johnmflores]

The "APS-C is Good Enough for Me" and "Full-Frame Forever" camps are already well established.

I'd love to get some feedback from those that checked one of the middle options - that the K-5 has changed their opinion of FF one way or the other.

[falconeye]

Do you think the 5D mk III will be compelling

I am sceptical.

As long as FF isn't a de-facto standard for SLRs (that's still a bit down the road and requires MILC to take over the APSC segment), I fear Canikon will cripple their FF offerings to protect their pro offerings (D3 and 1D) from cannibalization. So, I expect no 7D or D7000 with just a larger sensor in the short term future (next year).

That's why there still is a window of opportunity for Pentax and Sony. I know, Sony already tried but at that time, it was too early and not convincing enough.

I am sure Pentax could take over a big chunk of the enthusiast market in storm by releasing a K-5 style ~30MP FF for $2000. Same size (10mm higher) and with a "DX" option for faster fps and APSC lens support. This is doable. The reasons it's not done are not technical. Canikon won't do it for another two years I think.

So, there's no reason to jump ships but Pentax better already prepares for next Photokina 2012...

[clark]

i'm sorry pentax but I just bought a 1d mk3

ended up going down the video path and pentax isn't really up to scratch, come on would it be so hard to put manual controls in! I love the idea of a stabilised camera but my camera doesn't have IS and I also own no pentax AF lenses as I don't think the system 'k5 not withstanding' was worth the mone,) so I bought a 1d and picking up a 550d later on

now, lenses:
full frame lenses are huge and heavy, I wish I could be weilding a 50-135 2.8 rather than a 70-200 2.8

corner sharpness is a real issue for me now, especially with wide angle- just be glad you can use the sigma 10-20 or the 12-24, wide angle options are very expensive for full frame, the only upside is that an inexpensive 28mm prime becommes quite wide on full frame/aps-h

135mm prime makes more sense on full frame, and 135mm primes are dirt cheap, although 50mm doesn't work as a portrait lens anymore

viewfinder is still massively better on full frame, but the 7d has an amazing viewfinder, and so does the d300, the k7/5 is not quite there yet, and probably never will be
i also instantly fell in love with the control/menu layout of the 1d/7d over the pentax, ergonomics are maybe nicer on the pentax though, and it looks sexier



I think full frame has no real benefits anymore- in fact it's a bit of a pain, i'd got used to how lenses worked on aps-c so i've got to re-adjust to everything- depth of field can be ridiculously thin, but if you use a 30mm 1.4, 50mm 1.4 and 85mm 1.4 it's thin enough on aps-c, on full frame it's too thin, always have to stop down (counter acting the light gathering ability)

high iso performance is perhaps one stop better, but it's really close- havent seen any k5 samples but comparing the 1d/550d (1d is better at 6400) to the kx the kx comes in 3rd, but I guess the k5 will be as good as the 550d at least. Also shutter speed- shooting full frame means you always need a higher shutter speed for telephoto stuff, again this makes low light shooting more difficult that aps-c

i really liked shooting aps-c, I think it's a good compromise, 1.3 crop is nice for some extra width, but i think full frame is very over rated

[Michaelina2]

i'm sorry pentax but I just bought a 1d mk3

... but i think full frame is very over rated

Give yourself some time, if you've got it.

The old pros say it takes a year of serious shooting for your skills to return to the level you had when you changed systems. Until then, enjoy the born again world of the beginner all over again.

Cheers...

[kittykat46]

......

high iso performance is perhaps one stop better, but it's really close- havent seen any k5 samples but comparing the 1d/550d (1d is better at 6400) to the kx the kx comes in 3rd, but I guess the k5 will be as good as the 550d at least. .........

I guess there is no point debating this with a fully-paid up Canon fan.....
but the K-X at least equals the 7D in High ISO performance, ......the 550D is somewhere in the rear-view mirror.
DxOMark has clearly placed it in numbers...

Perhaps still early days, but the K-5 looks like its going into territory where no APS-C camera has gone before...

[clark]

I guess there is no point debating this with a fully-paid up Canon fan.....
but the K-X at least equals the 7D in High ISO performance, ......the 550D is somewhere in the rear-view mirror.
DxOMark has clearly placed it in numbers...

Perhaps still early days, but the K-5 looks like its going into territory where no APS-C camera has gone before...

actually I got the 1d for less than the price of a k5, I got it for such a good price I could sell it on and make money on it- I just needed something for a particular shoot and it happened to fall into place. I was going to get a k5 and a 550d (for video) but the 1d was too tempting. I don't have any canon lenses yet, i only use m42 and i'm a bit disappointed my pentax m primes won't fit without a leverectomy

I might sell the canon and get the k5 when I actually get to use one, I just needed a better camera as I had some shoots coming up where my ist dl wasn't up to performing


I'm not sure I agree with DxO mark, maybe the numbers suggest it's fractionally better- I don't know I've never even looked at the numbers, but from what i've shot myself the 550d has slghtly better (yes!) high iso handling than the 7d, and the 1d is slightly better than the 550d. I've shot a kx at 6400 and it was a little bit noisier to my eyes than the 550, but it is half the price so with that in mind it is a great deal
if I was just doing this for a hobby i'd have no issue with shooting pentax, i'm not saying i'm a pro or anything, i'm actually a designer and as part of a entire visual circle It's a real benefit for everyone to be using the same kit, and as most people are using 5d's for studio work it means I can lens swap etc

I was actually quite surprised at the kx performance, maybe the camera i was using was set up incorrectly but I thought that because of the reputation the kx has I was expecting it to destroy the canon but it didnt. ISO 3200 is my limit anyway, 6400 at a push- i don't really shoot things that would need any higher, and until 25,600 looks like iso 3200 does now I can't see myself ever needing to go that high just to 'get the shot'

there's pro's and con's for both systems, the 1d didn't suddenly make my pictures look amazing- I like how it render's red tones, I like how my pentax DL renders greens and blues. Pentax lenses are a great deal too, but I feel that lenses are something you only buy once, so a couple of £100 more for lenses isn't a massive issue in the grand scale of things


the one thing I will miss though is SR, not that my DL had it anyway, but I wish I could have stabilised primes. I just wish pentax hadn't fluffed up the video bit, then I wouldn't have even considered canon, i've been with pentax for over 10 years, starting with a mz-5, then a dl, then a dl and a friends d300, now the dl has to go, I wish it didn't- but I can't afford to run 2 systems and I need to cut the levers off my m primes so there's no point keeping the pentax body anymore

[jsherman999]

...
Legacy lenses are pointless too. If you are after a cheap FF and want to stick legacy lenses on the FF then your missing the point why people currently migrate to FF.
They want to get a better camera kit which is why they consider it an upgrade to a professional model and lenses to match.

.

In the most polite possible way, I'll have to respond with: Speak For Yourself!

Part of the reason I bought FF was specifically to shoot some classic - and extremely good - 'legacy' lenses on FF.

You can buy the pro zooms if you'd like, and they are truly excellent, but you can also buy (used prices):

20 2.8 AF-D $280
50 1.8 AF-D $110
85 1.8 AF-D $285
180 2.8 AF $540
300 f4 AF $490

About $1700 spent on 5 lenses, which range in quality from very good (50 1.8) to "Limited-good" (180 2.8).

If you want to pick up a pretty new used D700 for $1800, you've spent around $3500 for an exceptional, large FF kit.

If you're willing to give those old clunky 'legacy lenses' a go, that is.



.

[servaas-products]

You can see the k-x compared to the 5D II and D700 here DxOMark - Compare sensors and then make some assumptions based on k-x vs K5. I am sure DXOmark will add the K5 and then you can make an actual comparison