[Frogfish]

loveisageless : I'd be very interested in hearing how you use the D700 (type of shots/situations), and the IQ / outcome, relative to your previous K7 !

[Arpe]

Read this: https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/pentax-dslr-discussion/145270-pentax-k-7-...view-sort.html for my views.

[Frogfish]

Read this: https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/pentax-dslr-discussion/145270-pentax-k-7-...view-sort.html for my views.

Thanks Arpe - I think I've seen that before. However I was specifically thinking in terms of Nikon FF vs Pentax APS-C in terms of results / IQ / use. Especially after going through the Full Frame Shots & Thoughts thread.

I'm still debating with myself whether to get another K5 (I'm selling the K7 which was my backup camera) since I love it so much, or add more arrows to my bow with a D700. I think I should start a thread on this to gather a larger span of opinion.

[Tommot1965]

I've had a K10D and a K7. Currently, I am using a D700 and a D300s (which is currently for sale here in the marketplace). I had a hard time with the K7 shooting handheld between 1/60 th and 1/125. Even with the in-body stabilization and using the limited primes, it was hard to get non-blurry shots. The K7 with the 55-300 and the 50-135mm did not balance well for me handheld. What I find with the Nikons is that the larger body size provides more stability and I have been getting good results even with unstabilized lenses. I tried the D7000 before getting the D300s. Pentax's K7 and K5 have it all over the D7000 when it comes to build quality and button placement. I am selling my D300s because I miss the limited primes. I plan to make Pentax my cropped body. I figure the better ISO performance that appears to be possible with the K5 would help with the blurr issue. I am going to pass on the K5 for now though. For me stains, shutters running amuck, lens mount buttons falling off, FF and flash issues along with outright freezes are just too many QC issues for one camera for me. I will save my money and see whether the successor to the K5 has fewer glitches. I want to shoot Pentax because I love the Pentax colors and the limited primes. Ergonomically, for me, the D700 and D300s are both more comfortable than the K7 type body with a grip, so I will keep my D700 for my 24-120mm, 70-300mm and 105mm macro. Nikon does make decent primes (the 50mm f/1.4 G and the 24mm f/2.8 D primes are a pleasure to work with). I think mostly that it isn't necessary to be a fanboy (fangirl?) for any brand of camera. Some are better for some things and some are better for others. I don't think this forum needs to be hostile to users of other brands. To me, Pentax is about the art of photography, while Nikon is about reliability and productivity. It is not to say that Pentax is not. It is just a matter of finding out what works best for you. I am more interested in hearing forum members who run more than one system, talk about the pros and cons of specific bodies for the work (or pleasure) they are used for. I will say that Pentax Forums is the best designed forum I have come across, bar none. The Nikonians need to learn that less is more when putting together a home page lol. The design of this forum i.e. the equipment databases, camera specific forums and the market place are just light years ahead of them and Fredmiranda, as far as I'm concerned :-)

Lisa

Ive a D300s ..but im also wanting a D700 for the extra FOV with my 17-35F2.8..im hesitant to sell my D300s..the added reach it gives me with my 70-200 VR II plus 1.7TC will defiantly be missed..will you not miss the 1.5 crop reach of you d300s ?

I though about getting a KX...its proven and reliable...just to have a FA 77

FWIW..the k7/K5 were much better IMHO than the d300s..I used to able to adjust the ISO without removing my eye from the viewfinder..not now though

[Arpe]

Thanks Arpe - I think I've seen that before.

Yeah sorry, it was directed at the whole thread rather than you.

[Skog]

I don't know if this is the place for this, but I'll leave a little nikon vs pentax encounter here.

I was shooting some birds at a local pond, with my k-x, when an old man approached me. I could see he had a camera, and I thought "oh another bird photographer, how nice". He came closer to me, but did not say anything. He just stood there hunched and glanced rather obvious at my "equipment". I broke the silence to ease his curiosity and asked him if he had gotten any nice shots. Immediately he responded "What is that!? And what did you pay for it!?", pointing at my k-x . I was a bit taken a back, but told him it was a pentax and the price. He suddenly lost all the coloration in his face, and I could see his eyes bulge under the thick glasses. With a look of pity I have never seen before he said "*Gasph* Im so sorry.. You REALLY should have gotten a canikon blablabla".

It was obvious he had no clue about the k-x, since it was miles a head of the entry level competition at the time. So I just told him; "it's ok, I guess I have my opinion and you have your's", to which he responded "NO, it's not MY opinion. I have read the tests! Nikon is better". And I cant remember the rest of his rant.

At this point it was obvious we weren't going to be best friends.. So I walked to the other side of the pond. As I'm moving away from his I hear him shouting "And I never use anything longer then 70mm", referring to my 300mm lens.

I managed to stay calm the entire time, but I have to say that his ignorance pisses me off when I look back at it.

Ah well, this was obviously a nutcase, and have nothing to do with the quality of either brand. But just so you know: NIIIKON is way better, and you all embarrassed yourself by getting pentaxes

[Digitalis]

I managed to stay calm the entire time, but I have to say that his ignorance pisses me off when I look back at it.

you showed impressive restraint, if any one came up to me and gave me a speil like that I would have verbally torn him to shreds over some of canikons shortcomings.

[mikeSF]

I don't know if this is the place for this, but I'll leave a little nikon vs pentax encounter here.

I was shooting some birds at a local pond, with my k-x, when an old man approached me. I could see he had a camera, and I thought "oh another bird photographer, how nice". He came closer to me, but did not say anything. He just stood there hunched and glanced rather obvious at my "equipment". I broke the silence to ease his curiosity and asked him if he had gotten any nice shots. Immediately he responded "What is that!? And what did you pay for it!?", pointing at my k-x . I was a bit taken a back, but told him it was a pentax and the price. He suddenly lost all the coloration in his face, and I could see his eyes bulge under the thick glasses. With a look of pity I have never seen before he said "*Gasph* Im so sorry.. You REALLY should have gotten a canikon blablabla".

It was obvious he had no clue about the k-x, since it was miles a head of the entry level competition at the time. So I just told him; "it's ok, I guess I have my opinion and you have your's", to which he responded "NO, it's not MY opinion. I have read the tests! Nikon is better". And I cant remember the rest of his rant.

At this point it was obvious we weren't going to be best friends.. So I walked to the other side of the pond. As I'm moving away from his I hear him shouting "And I never use anything longer then 70mm", referring to my 300mm lens.

I managed to stay calm the entire time, but I have to say that his ignorance pisses me off when I look back at it.

Ah well, this was obviously a nutcase, and have nothing to do with the quality of either brand. But just so you know: NIIIKON is way better, and you all embarrassed yourself by getting pentaxes

wow, thx for sharing. Sometimes these canikoners are like the religious nuts that feel like they need to save you from your camera choice or something. I was the hired photographer at an event and was using my 2-yr old K20 with rented DA* glass (50-125 & 200), and some curious guest started taking an interest in what i was doing and began following me, He waited until the event host was talking with me about the shots needed and invaded our conversation with the usual questionioning, "what's THAT?!...You mean Pentax STILL makes cameras?..." Then, he went on to tell me what gear he uses as if to somehow impress the host perhaps, then as he was maybe 20ft away with several other guests in range, he shouted, "Let me know if you ever want to see a REAL camera."
real classy guy.

[mikeSF]

i will balance it out by saying at my kids swim event, another enthusiast came over with his new D7000 and was so excited about it. I was thrilled to talk to him about all the AF points and ISO, etc. He asked what I shoot, and I said, "Pentax" and he replied, "Beautiful!." End of conversation. No hostility ensued.
Not EVERYONE drives a Ford or Chevy, people.

[JohnBee]

He just stood there hunched and glanced rather obvious at my "equipment". I broke the silence to ease his curiosity and asked him if he had gotten any nice shots. Immediately he responded "What is that!?

I would have responded:

That my friend is a DSLR camera...

[Rondec]

There are no bad SLRs sold these days. Some are easier to use ergonomically, some have more options with regard to accessories, lenses, etc, but in the end you should be able to make good photos with any SLR out there, even the most basic one.

[RustyToyotaVT]

There are no bad SLRs sold these days. Some are easier to use ergonomically, some have more options with regard to accessories, lenses, etc, but in the end you should be able to make good photos with any SLR out there, even the most basic one.

That is 100% correct. If someone thinks that they NEED a certain brand of SLR to take good photos, it's most likely that they just aren't a terribly good photographer. Use what you like and trust, just like buying a car.

Oh and if someone had done that to me at a wedding I'm not sure how I would have responded. You're far better restrained than I am, good work

[JohnBee]

There are no bad SLRs sold these days. Some are easier to use ergonomically, some have more options with regard to accessories, lenses, etc, but in the end you should be able to make good photos with any SLR out there, even the most basic one.

But who's to stop this mindset from claiming there is no such thing as a bad digital camera also?

I can't help but wonder if this isn't confusing personal needs and/or expectations with the idea that any and all camera's beyond that of a sensor and lens are unnecessary frivol. <(new word?).

Anyways, I'm not trying to nit-pick but I was thinking that people could just as easily conclude a camera isn't up to their needs and/or the best investment for the money against the current market. And though this doesn't necessarily make a camera good or bad(per say), I'm leaning toward the fact that it could make a good or bad camera on an individual basis.

For example; The D7K's tiny RAW buffer made it a bad choice for me.

[loveisageless]

Hello,
I will try to answer to the questions posed about how I use the D700 and whether I will miss having the reach of an ap-c body. First I want to say that I do not shoot for a living. I shoot to recover from what I do for a living :-) I shoot whatever oppportunity puts in my path. I love nature, so macro photography is definitely a favorite of mine. As many of you know, the D700 has a 12 mega pixel sensor (as does the D300s), which is many million less pixels than the K5, D7000, etc. Having shot with the D300s I can say that I think that more pixels is not all that it is hyped to be by the manufacturers. That said, I have to say that from my first shots taken with the D700, I was blown away by the results. Folks talk ad nausea about the full frame difference and I was skeptical. I chose the D700 because it was a proven reliable camera that seemed to have all the features I would ever need in a digital camera. I needed the stabilized lenses because of a hand tremor. To my surprise the larger body itself makes a big difference for that. For a woman with small hands it may seem counter intuitive, but there it is. When I compare photos taken with the D300s and the D700, what I notice most is the tonal depth of pictures taken with the D700. I am not really interested in video, so it not having it wasn't an issue for me. The best I can describe full frame, being an amature, is too ask you to think of your favorite prime lens. The one that has the ability to make a photograph feel three dimensional. It isn't just depth of field I am talking about, rather it is the balance of resolution and tonal depth. It just draws one into the picture. Sure, some of it has to do with using good glass, but I think the sensor cannot be discounted. I bought a used D300s because Nikon's 70-300mm VR lens is affordable and excellent and I thought I'd miss the extra reach that a cropped body makes possible. I live near the San Franciso bay. The combination is awsome for shooting sail boats and wind surfers on the bay. If I am emphasizing depth of field and focal length the D300s in an excellent camera and does a credible job with a good macro lens too. The D700 is my go to for its image resolution, autofocus and color rendition. If I could not have a D700, did not know about Pentax's primes and was interested in video, I would not look beyond the D300s. It is only slightly smaller than the D700 and therefore meets my need for a larger body for using zoom lenses. Like the D700 it is a very reliable camera. If I could only have one camera it would be the D700. While it lacks the reach of a cropped body, its image quality and low light performance allow me to crop photos to compensate for its shorter reach. I also really appreciate that when I purchased a used wide angle zoom (the Nikon 18- 35mm) I actually got the full 18mm. While I can crop a picture to make it appear larger in the frame, I can't make a narrower field of view wider unless I stitch several shots together. The former is more fun and much less work. The Nikon D700 and D300s are not light weight and coupled with VR lenses are heavier than my Pentax gear ever was. When I am out shooting though, I hardly notice the weight because I am just caught up in the joy of using such capable tools and the results possible with them.

[Tommot1965]

Hello,
I will try to answer to the questions posed about how I use the D700 and whether I will miss having the reach of an ap-c body. First I want to say that I do not shoot for a living. I shoot to recover from what I do for a living :-) I shoot whatever oppportunity puts in my path. I love nature, so macro photography is definitely a favorite of mine. As many of you know, the D700 has a 12 mega pixel sensor (as does the D300s), which is many million less pixels than the K5, D7000, etc. Having shot with the D300s I can say that I think that more pixels is not all that it is hyped to be by the manufacturers. That said, I have to say that from my first shots taken with the D700, I was blown away by the results. Folks talk ad nausea about the full frame difference and I was skeptical. I chose the D700 because it was a proven reliable camera that seemed to have all the features I would ever need in a digital camera. I needed the stabilized lenses because of a hand tremor. To my surprise the larger body itself makes a big difference for that. For a woman with small hands it may seem counter intuitive, but there it is. When I compare photos taken with the D300s and the D700, what I notice most is the tonal depth of pictures taken with the D700. I am not really interested in video, so it not having it wasn't an issue for me. The best I can describe full frame, being an amature, is too ask you to think of your favorite prime lens. The one that has the ability to make a photograph feel three dimensional. It isn't just depth of field I am talking about, rather it is the balance of resolution and tonal depth. It just draws one into the picture. Sure, some of it has to do with using good glass, but I think the sensor cannot be discounted. I bought a used D300s because Nikon's 70-300mm VR lens is affordable and excellent and I thought I'd miss the extra reach that a cropped body makes possible. I live near the San Franciso bay. The combination is awsome for shooting sail boats and wind surfers on the bay. If I am emphasizing depth of field and focal length the D300s in an excellent camera and does a credible job with a good macro lens too. The D700 is my go to for its image resolution, autofocus and color rendition. If I could not have a D700, did not know about Pentax's primes and was interested in video, I would not look beyond the D300s. It is only slightly smaller than the D700 and therefore meets my need for a larger body for using zoom lenses. Like the D700 it is a very reliable camera. If I could only have one camera it would be the D700. While it lacks the reach of a cropped body, its image quality and low light performance allow me to crop photos to compensate for its shorter reach. I also really appreciate that when I purchased a used wide angle zoom (the Nikon 18- 35mm) I actually got the full 18mm. While I can crop a picture to make it appear larger in the frame, I can't make a narrower field of view wider unless I stitch several shots together. The former is more fun and much less work. The Nikon D700 and D300s are not light weight and coupled with VR lenses are heavier than my Pentax gear ever was. When I am out shooting though, I hardly notice the weight because I am just caught up in the joy of using such capable tools and the results possible with them.

that's a honest and interesting reply..I have once again had my desire to own a D700 refreshed ...