Originally posted by Kazy
Do ever want to try shooting tethered on Pentax? Too bad. Pentax stopped supporting it after the K20D.
Most importantly is the flash system. If you use flash, you're going to get a LOT more out of Nikon's CLS system than Pentax's wireless flash system which doesn't do nearly as much.
In reality, the D7000 outclasses the K-5 in anything that matters in a real-world setting. And it does it for $400 less. So the people saying that the Nikon glass is more expensive? The price difference in the cameras more than makes up for it.
I thought I read that the K-5 can do tethered shooting now, but I'm not sure about that.
The flash system is an important point. I'd say this is true from what I've heard about Nikon flashes, combined with my experience with Pentax' flashes.
But I disagree with the "anything that matters in a real-world setting" statement. I think there are many real-world settings where the K-5 would be preferred.
As to the price, I found it rather humorous last night when dpreview posted the 7000D review - according to their price links, the prices for the K-5 and 7000D are the same right now! Apparently online retailers, such as Amazon, are offering the 7000D for $300
over list price, while the K-5 is being offered for around $100 under! I presume this is due to short supply of the Nikon right now. Since the Pentax' price is expected to keep dropping, I think they may both be at near-parity for a while.
The $400 price difference is an aberration. It's $0 - $300 now. The Nikon should drop little because it's already considered a bargain at list.
However, even a $400 difference would never "more than make up" for the difference in lens costs. It's completely irrelevant, in fact. To make the most of these bodies one is going to have to invest a minimum of $3000-$4000 in lenses (if that's his only system). In Pentax, it only takes 3 FA Ltds and 2 DA* zooms to hit that mark, and one still hasn't covered ultra-wide/Fisheye, Macro, or 200mm+ needs. In Nikon that will get you a 24-70/2.8 and one of the 70-200/2.8 VRs - two of the best lenses you can buy - but an even less complete kit. You could then add the 14-24/2.8 for another $1500-2000. At that point you absolutely
will have superior zooms, but only one with VR and nothing faster than f/2.8, at a much higher cost. You can finish off the kit with other fantastic current Nikon glass - each of which will also cost more than Pentax.
So while I can accept the possibility that someone may be able to put together used Nikon glass cheaper than Pentax, I think the statement that the body's cost matters at all damages the credibility of the entire argument.
Does anyone else have insight as to whether the "cheaper Nikon glass" argument is still valid?