Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
02-27-2012, 07:26 PM   #46
Site Supporter




Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Gladys, Virginia
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 16,009
QuoteOriginally posted by Verglace Quote
Posts like these are just pure disinformation and what lead me to my post here:
https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/pentax-slr-lens-discussion/173728-fa-77-1...ml#post1806660

The fact is Nikon does have an equivalent for those lenses, and often times they are cheaper. Consider The DA*16-50, The Sigma and Tamron 17-50 are considered better in terms of IQ and are definately cheaper (see DA* 16-50mm vs. Sigma and Tamron 17-50mm F2.8 Comparison - Introduction - PentaxForums.com they are both available for Nikon).
The 50-135 is matched or bettered by the Sigma 70-150 f2.8 (sigma can be found cheaper)
The FA77 matched by Sigma 85 1.4 (also sigma can be found cheaper)

Most Pentax lenses are also available from Tokina at cheaper prices too.

The only thing that they have no match for is the DA15mm Limited and the Novelty factors of the slow DA 21/40/70 ltd pancakes

And that's just Sigmas and Tamrons. They can be found cheaper for better IQ. The only reason to go for Pentax these days is the WR. Pentax bodies are cheap yes, lenses are not.

As for sizes
Primes tend to be small (besides thsoe f/1.2 primes and telephotos) and zooms tend to be large, the D7000 and k-5 are similar in sizes.
I don't understand. If you are going to get a Sigma or Tamron lens, then why does it make a difference if you buy a Nikon or Pentax (or for that matter a Canon)? Nikon's "equivalent" to these lenses is a full frame lens that costs more. End of story. Obviously third party lenses are available for most cameras (with the exception of Tokina for Pentax), with all the usual ups and downs of that. But, I never heard of someone going for a D7000, because he could get "an awesome deal on a Tamron 17-50" to go with it.

I happen to differ from you with regard to your analysis as well. The Sigma 85mm may be sharper edge to edge and have faster auto focus, but its rendering of out of focus areas is definitely a step back from the FA 77.

02-27-2012, 07:30 PM   #47
Pentaxian
twitch's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 4,571
QuoteOriginally posted by Verglace Quote
The FA77 matched by Sigma 85 1.4 (also sigma can be found cheaper)
The Sigma is more expensive than the FA77, but the Nikon or Canon 85/1.8's are both cheaper.
02-27-2012, 08:08 PM   #48
Loyal Site Supporter




Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Tennessee
Posts: 5,758
QuoteOriginally posted by eddie1960 Quote
The D7000 may well be that path but he did mention he doen't have great lenses either so where will he get the better value on lens/body combination if he wants the better glass and has the $2500 to spend. Nikon is heavily vested in very good but big heavy and expensive FX glass with a very limited selection in DX Glass. Pentax has a very good more affordable selection of Glass on the market if you are looking for iq/price combination IMO (if you went used you could get a 16-502.8 and a 50-1352.8 along with the K5 for pretty close to that $2500.... there is no equivalent Nikon in that price range. You could also get the DA LTD pancake trio and a K5 for that price once again there is no Nikon equivalent to that

So it boils down to how does the OP want to shoot (he did state getting smaller and lighter was a goal . the ltd trio with a K5 would be tough to beat in that respect
You mean other than the Tokina versions of the lenses that are designed by Pentax and actually cheaper than Pentax..... and not prone to SDM failure? No they are not WR and the build quality of the DA* is better, but the Tokina lenses are cheaper and optically the same.
02-27-2012, 08:22 PM   #49
Veteran Member
Verglace's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 468
QuoteOriginally posted by Rondec Quote
I don't understand. If you are going to get a Sigma or Tamron lens, then why does it make a difference if you buy a Nikon or Pentax (or for that matter a Canon)? Nikon's "equivalent" to these lenses is a full frame lens that costs more. End of story. Obviously third party lenses are available for most cameras (with the exception of Tokina for Pentax), with all the usual ups and downs of that. But, I never heard of someone going for a D7000, because he could get "an awesome deal on a Tamron 17-50" to go with it.
-To most people it wouldn't make a difference especially if they are starting from scratch, but in the OP's case he already has a Nikon.
-Equivalent to most people would be similar focal lenght with a similar aperture. So the equivalent of a 16-50 2.8would be the 17-50 2.8 and not a 24-70 2.8, it would be equivalent if the OP was moving to a full frame camera but in the OPs case he is moving from APS-C to another APS-C.
-In any case my post was mainly to point out that "Pentax has the best IQ/Price combination" which is false and misleading. Pentax has many things going for it such as WR, but IQ/Price combo is not one of them, not in recent times anyway.

02-27-2012, 08:31 PM   #50
Pentaxian
normhead's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Near Algonquin Park
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 25,558
QuoteQuote:
In reality, Pentax has got it-self out of the "affordable" category a good while ago. If somebody was to start a photographic system from scratch Today, buying a Penxax body+lenses would be hardly a financial choice over other manufacturers.
You can get a K-x for about 450 and 35 2.4 for 200, that's 650 for any entry level system and you think Pentax doesn't have enough cheap glass? Please. HOw much cheap glass do you need? The DA 18-55 non WR kit sells for $129 and you can get a 50-300 for $329. The equivalent Nikon is 55-300 is $429.What the heck are you talking about? No one, not one of the Nikon advocates on here has said a thing about the cost of Nikon pro quality glass.

QuoteQuote:
There are thousands of happy K5 customers ! I personly doubt very much that there are many that will say they would swop there D300 for one if they had one for
a wk though.
ANd you know this how? You haven't said a word about why you think what you think. Sometimes what you're used to is easier not because it's better but because it's what you're used to. Now you're speaking for thousands of K-5 customers? Who gave you the right? As I said before, if you can't get your K-5 to perform, that's on you. The guys at DxO can get it to perform, the guys at Photozone get Pentax lenses to perform, the guys at Colorfoto can get a K-5 to perform, but you can't get a K-5 to perform... as I said... there's two possibilities, one is it's the camera, or 2 it's you. What is to lead us to believe that your analysis is anything more than being more familiar with one system than the other?

I had students who produced pro quality work with a K1000, and you tell me you can't work with a K-5? Really....

So since thousands of K-5 users would switch, lets throw it out there, where are those that learned on a K-5 system who have switched to Nikon and are happier for it? I know two guys that switched from Pentax to Nikon, they both got free systems. One won $3000 in Nikon gear in a contest and the other was handed down a system from his dad. It was good for me, I got good lenses for relatively cheap. By the way, you guys should put your money where your mouths are and get rid of those crummy k-5 systems. You'd be more believable. One of my buddies shoots Nikon all the time. Don't get me wrong, their are Nikon systems I'd be happy to own, if they were paid for, but the D7000 isn't one of them. I'd also be happy to own a 645D if it was paid for. But I wouldn't pay for either one unless I had work that required it.

I sense your big fear here is you tell someone about this big problem on your K-5 and they'll say... oh, just do this.. and your problem will be gone as well as your argument. Or that you are shooting in an environment that a K-5 just wasn't made to do well in. But I can't tell because despite your sweeping denunciations of Pentax and K-5s, you haven't posted one little sniglet of what the problems are that you are having so much trouble with.


But my ears are open... I'm willing to entertain this argument, if you can find me a few of these happy switchers to make your case. I know I should just take your word that they exist... but since you're not taking my word that you can possibly do better with a K-5, I guess trusting each others opinions without documentation is pretty much off the table.

So lets look at the upgrade path. Looking at Henry's in Toronto
Nikon D7000 w 16-85 VR lens $1899.

K-5 DA 18-135 F3.5-5.6 $1499

The Pentax system is $400 cheaper and has more zoom range. But Pentax has priced themselves out of the market? Dude, what are you smoking?

Last edited by normhead; 02-27-2012 at 08:40 PM.
02-27-2012, 10:22 PM   #51
Veteran Member
Frogfish's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Shanghai
Posts: 4,490
We seem to be straying ever further away from what the OP was asking for ... a lighter system than he has now and whether the K5 was worth buying over the D300s ...... so here I've condensed my post above (i apologise for the repetition but the K5 vs D300s does seem to be the pertinent fact) :

Cameras

D300s : 938 g, 12.2 MP, 3,200 base ISO max, 12.2 EV, shutter lag 225 ms, 147x114x74 mm, 6,400 ISO (boost ISO), 22.5 bits, 787 ISO (DR), 51 (more focus points), 15 (cross-type focus points).
K5 : 740 g, 16.1 MP, 12,800 base ISO max (2 f-stops better), 14.1 EV, shutter lag 104 ms (x2 faster), 130x96x72 mm, 51,200 ISO (boost ISO is 3 f-stops better), 23.7 bits (Better color depth), 1,162 ISO (substantially better dynamic range), 11 (focus points), 9 (cross-type focus points). To say nothing of Pentax's in-camera SR Image stabilisation which is worth another 2-3 stops over a non-stabilised Nikon lens.

Lenses

Tamron 17-50/2.8 ($500) + 50-135/2.8 ($800) (if you can still find a Sigma 50-150/2.8 I'd get that instead - ca. $600 used) and a 55-300 ($350 - but only if you need the length) = US$1,650 (much less if buying Used) + the K5
Or to go much lighter :
15 Ltd ($480) or 21 Ltd ($325) + 40 Ltd pancake ($360) or 43 Ltd ($800 or about $500 used) + the 70 Ltd ($550) + Pentax 100 WR ($600) or Tamron 90 di ($500) = US$1,990 - 1,735 new (or much less and in budget for 4 lenses if buying Used) + the K5.


So for most uses a better camera (K5 over D300s) and 3 or 4 very small AF primes combine for a very light system. Which I think is what the OP was asking for.

Last edited by Frogfish; 02-28-2012 at 01:15 AM.
02-27-2012, 11:17 PM   #52
Pentaxian
johnmflores's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Somerville, NJ
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 5,148
QuoteOriginally posted by Frogfish Quote
We seem to be straying ever further away from what the OP was asking for ... a lighter system than he has now and whether the K5 was worth buying over the D300s ...... so here I've condensed my post above (i apologise for the repetition but the K5 vs D300s do seem to be the pertinent facts) :

Cameras

D300s : 938 g, 12.2 MP, 3,200 base ISO max, 12.2 EV, shutter lag 225 ms, 147x114x74 mm, 6,400 ISO (boost ISO), 22.5 bits, 787 ISO (DR), 51 (more focus points), 15 (cross-type focus points).
K5 : 740 g, 16.1 MP, 12,800 base ISO max (2 f-stops better), 14.1 EV, shutter lag 104 ms (x2 faster), 130x96x72 mm, 51,200 ISO (boost ISO is 3 f-stops better), 23.7 bits (Better color depth), 1,162 ISO (substantially better dynamic range), 11 (focus points), 9 (cross-type focus points). To say nothing of Pentax's in-camera SR Image stabilisation which is worth another 2-3 stops over a non-stabilised Nikon lens.

Lenses

Tamron 17-50/2.8 ($500) + 50-135/2.8 ($800) (if you can still find a Sigma 50-150/2.8 I'd get that instead - ca. $600 used) and a 55-300 ($350 - but only if you need the length) = US$1,650 (much less if buying Used) + the K5
Or to go much lighter :
15 Ltd ($480) or 21 Ltd ($325) + 40 Ltd pancake ($360) or 43 Ltd ($800 or about $500 used) + the 70 Ltd ($550) + Pentax 100 WR ($600) or Tamron 90 di ($500) = US$1,990 - 1,735 new (or much less and in budget for 4 lenses if buying Used) + the K5.


So for most uses a better camera (K5 over D300s) and 3 or 4 very small AF primes combine for a very light system. Which I think is what the OP was asking for.
Exactly. They are both very good cameras, and if you can't get a good shot with either one I'd look in the mirror before I looked at B&H. If the OP wants high quality and small, the K-5 plus primes are very potent. If the OP wants smaller still but willing to accept a small drop in IQ, then I'd suggest Micro Four-Thirds, namely the GX1, G3, and new OM-D.

Or just get the K-01 plus a fistful of pancakes and spend the rest of the money on a serious compact.
02-28-2012, 01:32 AM   #53
Veteran Member
Tommot1965's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Perth Western Australia
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 1,026
QuoteOriginally posted by philbaum Quote
It all depends on what kind of shooting one does.

I and about 3 other photographers shoot live threatre rehearsals in an official capacity. We're not allowed to use flash. Some plays they put on are very dim. I shot the image below at 20,000 iso and have gotten great comments on it from a local camera club and the theatre:




It was underexposed at 20,000 iso While the above image looks great at a 12"x18" size, its not the high IQ needed for larger work submitted to juried art shows im my region. I then use the 14ev range of the K5 at iso80 and thereabouts for that kind of image. I currently have a 36" canvas on order with a different image and am considering printing it up to 60" long. So what i'm saying it, the K5 is capable of producing fine images at both ends of the iso spectrum depending on the application. I'm retired and enjoy my enthusiast status, i have no desire to shoot weddings or be a pro shooting from NFL sidelines.

The rated range of the D300 is 3200iso. One of my friends has a D300s and he considers it to have a very noisy shutter, which the K5 does not.

The D300 was an excellent camera for its generation, but if one needs to shoot in low light, it no longer is competitive in my opinion.

Its true that the Nikon system has a more complete lens selection, but it appears that Ricoh intends to rectify that situation with their new lensmap. I like my smallish K5 very much and enjoy taking it for a stroll. The nikon AF systems are reputed to be the best of any mfr, but my 20,000 iso image was also correctly focused on the lead female subject. Large heavy cameras and VR lenses don't appeal to me. Life's a series of compromises and the camera world is no different.
Ive seen that image before on this site,,and crikey its good...thanks for posting it again

02-28-2012, 01:40 AM   #54
Veteran Member
Tommot1965's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Perth Western Australia
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 1,026
QuoteOriginally posted by normhead Quote
There is lots of info out there contradicting what these pro-Nikon gentlemen have to say... my take , Nikon marketing, the whole thing. From the OP to some of the answers, it all seems fishy and disingenuous. One guy talks changing systems for no apparent reason, a bunch of other guys jump in and talk poop about Pentaxes while extolling other systems... a bunch of reasonable Pentax users make some reasonable posts giving an honest breakdown... the end result is lots of PR for Nikon. Most of us know if we need to go top of the line everything we are probably going top of the line Nikon. D7000, not so much.

This looks to me like a choreographed marketing effort, attempting to get users of other products to look at Nikon products. If anyone can see anything more in this, I'm not sure what it might be. I find it amusing that on a Pentax site, a guy comes on and gets told to buy Nikon product, without anyone even finding out what he shoots, what lenses he has, all the reasonable questions.

SInce Adam and the moderators don't seem to have an issue with his kind of marketing... we can solve this easily by instead of responding to these guys with long posts, not answering until the person in question has explained exactly why Nikon sucks and he's looking at Pentax, before we provide answers. The number of people on here pushing non- Pentax product in areas where Pentax is not deficient is disturbing. Surely, on a Pentax forum, if a Nikon user is asking, the first response should be, "What's wrong with your Nikon?" The second should be whether or not a Pentax would help him out. We've had tons of threads with people advising people to go Canon or Nikon based on their shooting needs, be that low light, faster autofocus, full frame or whatever.

I fail to see why every one of these CaNikon threads has to turn into a Pentax bashing thread. And I really question why so many of you are Pentax users. Really... save your bucks and go buy the system you need. My K20D is good enough for what I do, I haven't even gone to K5 yet. All these clown who have to have a Nikon or Canon, fine, go get your Nikon or Canon, but, you don't shoot what I shoot, you don't need what I need, and your advice and constant claiming you need better is getting old.

I also find it amusing that when Adam put up a site for all camera users, most of these clowns stayed here... just more proof that this isn't about cameras, this is just Canikon marketers trying to mine Pentax users for new customers on a largely Pentax site. Hardly a wonder then that you hardly ever see these Canikon guys posting in post your photos. They aren't here for sharing or helpful advice, they are probably here for commercial gain.
Norm ..you crack me up mate, seriously

..the Op stated that he was thinking of stepping out from a D300s to a K5..what better advice is there from people that have had both..you on he other hand have had neither but seem to get your back up when people that have had both, seem to think that the D300s is a better option than a K5....we aint pentax bashers...just saying what our experiences are pure and simple....we are first and foremost photographers..to be honest I couldnt give a rats what brand I use..as long as it suits my needs and works as advertised..
02-28-2012, 01:52 AM   #55
Veteran Member
Tommot1965's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Perth Western Australia
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 1,026
QuoteOriginally posted by Frogfish Quote
We need to balance a few posts in this thread. I'll state straight up that I've never used the D300s but I have shot paid events with a pro's 7D also mentioned above. Better than the K5d ? Not in my book, though both have their pros and cons.

Now firstly I'm glad that Boriscleto posted that link above - that is a very extensive test that blows the AF question out of the water. Is the K5 slower, just a tad, is it more accurate ? I certainly is. So unless super fast AF is an imperative for you then it comes down to preference, accuracy over speed.

Next the D300s vs K5 comparison.
D300s : 938 g, 12.2 MP, 3,200 base ISO max, 12.2 EV, shutter lag 225 ms, 147x114x74 mm, 6,400 ISO (boost ISO), 22.5 bits, 787 ISO (DR), 51 (more focus points), 15 (cross-type focus points).
K5 : 740 g, 16.1 MP, 12,800 base ISO max (2 f-stops better), 14.1 EV, shutter lag 104 ms (x2 faster), 130x96x72 mm, 51,200 ISO (boost ISO is 3 f-stops better), 23.7 bits (Better color depth), 1,162 ISO (substantially better dynamic range), 11 (focus points), 9 (cross-type focus points).

To say nothing of Pentax's in-camera SR Image stabilisation which is worth another 2-3 stops over a non-stabilised Nikon lens (or pay the bigger bucks for stabilised lenses).

As for the lenses question. Who cares if it's 3rd party or the manufacturers own lens so long as it delivers the IQ and suits your needs ? Don't think you can find enough lenses in the Pentax + 3rd Party line-up to meet the OP's needs ? Really ?! I didn't see him asking for long 500/4, 600/4, 800/5.6 birding lenses. So Pentax's and 3rd Party's 90 new lenses (to said nothing of discontinued or legacy lenses) are not enough even though they don't match Nikon's + 3rd Party's 132 ? Far far too much is made of this. Maybe, long lens wildlife/birding shooters aside, only one in 20 shooters can not find what they want from those 90 lenses above with 19/20 being very satisfied.

If the OP decides on a K5 now then for his budget and needs I'd marry it to : Tamron 17-50/2.8 ($500) + 50-135/2.8 ($800) (if you can still find a Sigma 50-150/2.8 I'd get that instead - ca. $600 used) and a 55-300 ($350 - but only if you need the length), buying one or more of those used will keep you within budget. If you want primes then consider the 15 Ltd ($480) which is an amazing lens if you like the FL and is tiny, the 21 Ltd is tiny ($325), the 40 Ltd pancake ($360 is both tiny & great) the 43 ($800 or about $500 used) is small and one of the best lenses ever made (that's a quote from a Leica shooter), the 70 Ltd ($550) is again tiny and a superb lens, the Pentax 100 WR ($600) is an excellent lens but for the money the Tamron 90 di can't be beat ($500), and yet, despite that BS above about not being able to find Pentax lenses on the used market, I've never found any problem finding whatever I need (and I've seen all of those mentioned listed used for sale on Pentax forums over the past few weeks).
the quote in red is not true...just about every Nikon consumer lens have VR.... 18-55 DX VR can be bought for $130 AU...and its not half bad ...a 55-300 VR is around $300 au
02-28-2012, 04:46 AM   #56
Veteran Member




Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: London
Posts: 466
I have been shooting since mid-1970s... Fujica 605, Olympus OM1N, OM2SP, OM4Ti, Nikon 5700, Pentax IST-DL, K200D, K5.

The K5 is the first camera I've had where one can set the shutter, set the aperture (TAV mode), and shoot. The wide ISO range ensures that you get great pics way over 90% of the time. Such a wide dynamic range is priceless for normal "out and about, and indoor" usage.

Obviously if you work in a studio then you don't need that because you can have unlimited lighting.

FWIW, I have owned several Nikon cameras (the 5700 and some compacts) as well as the ED5000 slide scanner with a bulk feeder (bought just to scan in my 5000 slides and then sold) and my impression of the UK end of the company was one of utterly rubbish and arrogant customer service, well performing but unreliable products, and (where applicable) really clunky and bug-ridden PC software. I have met numerous professional photographers, who all use Nikon, and they actually agree! One chap I know laughs "what customer service... Nikon? you must be kidding". They report a constant stream of broken cameras going back to Nikon, having to fight with their customer service, but they stick with Nikon because of the performance and specifically the way the multi-flash functionality is neatly integrated. I know just one chap who is semi-pro and who uses Canon. But all these cameras are much bigger than the K5 and walking around with something like that is at best a hassle and probably an invitation to get mugged. A friend bought what I think was a D5000 (cost him c. 3000); somebody saw him putting it in the back of his car and they followed him and when he next parked they broke in and stole it. My Coolpix 5700 went back 2x or 3x to Nikon for repair. The lens extension motor used to strip; the head of customer service accused me (on the phone) of breaking it and added that I probably change gears in the car without using a clutch I never touched Nikon after that - except the slide scanner on which there was no option if you wanted a bulk feeder.

Pentax does seem to have QA issues. My K5 was bought soon after they came out (unusual for me) and I had the contaminated sensor and intermittently defective front and back wheels. This suprised me because I never had any issues with any camera before - except the 5700 and my pet hate Sony compacts and their defective "Infolithium" batteries and their dishonest handling of that debacle (Sony is another name I won't touch anymore). The replacement K5 has been fine, except possibly some wheel issue at low temperatures which I can't reproduce now. It does what i regard as totally satisfactory pics with minimal effort. I have tried RAW and then doing stuff in Photoshop but the gain is too small to bother with. I shoot a lot from a light aircraft at high (oxygen) altitudes and even those pics (notoriously hard to do well due to haze, which does need to be photoshopped out) come out well - F8 for everything I have avoided the SDM lenses since they don't seem to offer anything special. I use just one lens: 17-70 F4 but have a cheap long one (50-200) for a few shots.

Last edited by peterh337; 02-28-2012 at 04:54 AM.
02-28-2012, 05:43 AM   #57
Site Supporter




Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Gladys, Virginia
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 16,009
QuoteOriginally posted by Tommot1965 Quote
the quote in red is not true...just about every Nikon consumer lens have VR.... 18-55 DX VR can be bought for $130 AU...and its not half bad ...a 55-300 VR is around $300 au
I think there is a big gap in Nikon's line up between consumer lenses and upper end lenses. It just doesn't feel like they have much in between. Pentax has consumer lenses too, that are cheap (and all are stabilized). For Nikon, if you want to move up in quality, there is a big jump in price. And stabilized primes? They are all expensive and long.

Nikon offers a lot and it may work better for some people, but comparing consumer grade lenses is awash. They are just stepping stones to the decent stuff (when you can afford it).
02-28-2012, 06:59 AM   #58
Loyal Site Supporter
eddie1960's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Toronto
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 12,264
QuoteOriginally posted by Frogfish Quote
We seem to be straying ever further away from what the OP was asking for ... a lighter system than he has now and whether the K5 was worth buying over the D300s ...... so here I've condensed my post above (i apologise for the repetition but the K5 vs D300s does seem to be the pertinent fact) :

Cameras

D300s : 938 g, 12.2 MP, 3,200 base ISO max, 12.2 EV, shutter lag 225 ms, 147x114x74 mm, 6,400 ISO (boost ISO), 22.5 bits, 787 ISO (DR), 51 (more focus points), 15 (cross-type focus points).
K5 : 740 g, 16.1 MP, 12,800 base ISO max (2 f-stops better), 14.1 EV, shutter lag 104 ms (x2 faster), 130x96x72 mm, 51,200 ISO (boost ISO is 3 f-stops better), 23.7 bits (Better color depth), 1,162 ISO (substantially better dynamic range), 11 (focus points), 9 (cross-type focus points). To say nothing of Pentax's in-camera SR Image stabilisation which is worth another 2-3 stops over a non-stabilised Nikon lens.

Lenses

Tamron 17-50/2.8 ($500) + 50-135/2.8 ($800) (if you can still find a Sigma 50-150/2.8 I'd get that instead - ca. $600 used) and a 55-300 ($350 - but only if you need the length) = US$1,650 (much less if buying Used) + the K5
Or to go much lighter :
15 Ltd ($480) or 21 Ltd ($325) + 40 Ltd pancake ($360) or 43 Ltd ($800 or about $500 used) + the 70 Ltd ($550) + Pentax 100 WR ($600) or Tamron 90 di ($500) = US$1,990 - 1,735 new (or much less and in budget for 4 lenses if buying Used) + the K5.


So for most uses a better camera (K5 over D300s) and 3 or 4 very small AF primes combine for a very light system. Which I think is what the OP was asking for.

Exactly

As for the well you could get tokina etc, well i looked for tokina pricing for my comparison and none of the canadian dealers have the equivalnt (less SDM and WR and in poorer build - so not really equivalent) models for a fair comparison

Reality though is OP asked about smaller lighter. the DA LTD trio and a K5 cannot be any where near duplicated by Nikon, and if you just look t clos (and heavier) FL Nikkor glass and a D7000 you'll spend more money than Pentax

And if you look at the Kit Norm nailed it. Still several hundred cheaper, more reach and fully WR unlike the Nikon, also Filll Mag alloy construction, unlike the Nikon

I don't hate Nikon (and in fact if I was to change it is what I would buy)

Honestly I don't get this why are you leaving Nikon for Pentax crap. do you really think if someone came to a Nikon forum and asked the inverse they would be questioned.
If you can't get results form a K5 and the lenses available you aren't going to get them with a Nikon (or a 645D or a Hassy 80mp monster - it's YOU not the camera. A good tog can get pro results from a 60 year old TLR. While I am a huge fan of leica the early leicas that HCB shot some of his most iconic work with are insanely primitive and limited to use but they are still capable of a great image
02-28-2012, 06:59 AM   #59
Pentaxian




Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: North
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 3,907
QuoteOriginally posted by Verglace Quote
Posts like these are just pure disinformation and what lead me to my post here:
https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/pentax-slr-lens-discussion/173728-fa-77-1...ml#post1806660

The fact is Nikon does have an equivalent for those lenses, and often times they are cheaper. Consider The DA*16-50, The Sigma and Tamron 17-50 are considered better in terms of IQ and are definately cheaper (see DA* 16-50mm vs. Sigma and Tamron 17-50mm F2.8 Comparison - Introduction - PentaxForums.com they are both available for Nikon).
The 50-135 is matched or bettered by the Sigma 70-150 f2.8 (sigma can be found cheaper)
The FA77 matched by Sigma 85 1.4 (also sigma can be found cheaper)

Most Pentax lenses are also available from Tokina at cheaper prices too.

The only thing that they have no match for is the DA15mm Limited and the Novelty factors of the slow DA 21/40/70 ltd pancakes

And that's just Sigmas and Tamrons. They can be found cheaper for better IQ. The only reason to go for Pentax these days is the WR. Pentax bodies are cheap yes, lenses are not.

As for sizes
Primes tend to be small (besides thsoe f/1.2 primes and telephotos) and zooms tend to be large, the D7000 and k-5 are similar in sizes.
I think you are not looking carefully enough at the shots if all you think of a lens is sharpness and aperture size.
The 77ltd certainly exhibits a fine point in contrast, sharpness, rendering (some call if pixie dust) that makes it unique over just another 85/1.4 lens, not saying that its always better, but its small size (easy of handling and portability) makes it far easier to use than you'd think.
The Sigma is also more expensive than the 77ltd, so your point on cost is misleading.

DA*16-50, WR and a unique offfering of 16mm on the wide end. This 1mm is more significant on the wide end (between 17mm on a 17-50) than on the long end. Meaning you'd not necessarily need a UWA in many cases. At f2.8 to boot. A unique walkabout lens package. Not may brands can boast this.

DA*50-135mm compared to 70-150/2.8. Yes, on paper only.
50mm on the short end is going to be far more usable on APS-C than 70mm on the 70-150.
And while at it on this same line of 'similar' logic, 70-200/2.8 or 80-200/2.8 betters 70-150 too. Longer and still f2.8

BTW, if you go for all Tamrons and Sigmas, you can probably use any brand and it matters little. Except that those Canikons have more encumbrance.

If you can't appreciate the reduction of encumbrance small lenses that are sharp from wide open; Lenses that exhibit nice bokeh even for wider FOV lenses and good contrast. If lenses are only small f-numbers and MTF numbers, yeah, maybe Canikon cheap plastic fantastics are a better choice.


Yes, primes are smallish for all brands, but Pentax ones are always smaller


K5 similar sized to D7K?
You'd have to see the more bulked up edges of the D7K that actually makes it larger in the flesh.

Last edited by pinholecam; 02-28-2012 at 07:25 AM.
02-28-2012, 08:29 AM   #60
Pentaxian




Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Slovenia
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,177
Guys, I think the OP's been scared away...

Well, here's my two cents: I've recently held the D7000, the 7D and K-5, IMHO the cameras the OP would be looking at if HE DIDN'T WANT A SMALLER SYSTEM. Here's my opinion, and if you don't like it that's your problem.
The 7D was the biggest of the three, also the heaviest. But you can grip it very well thanks to the bulky design.
The D7000 felt just small enough and not tall enough that I couldn't comfortably grip it. the perfectly straight grip doesn't help.
The K-5 left my small finger in the air, so you need the battery grip for that (I already know it's grip or bust for me because of other reasons also). You can hold the camera very well because of the indentation on the grip, which seats the middle finger perfectly.

That's all folks! C ya
Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
camera, d300s, dslr, k-5, k-5 ii, k-5 iis, k5, lenses, nikon, pentax k-5
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Thinking of switching back to pentax from a canon clark Pentax DSLR Discussion 10 07-04-2011 01:18 AM
I'm thinking of switching to Nikon.. help (!?) Lauke_101 Non-Pentax Cameras: Canon, Nikon, etc. 15 08-20-2010 11:44 AM
Thinking of switching from Comcast to Verizon FIOS MRRiley General Talk 5 04-14-2010 08:38 AM
Thinking about selling K20D and buying D300s foots Pentax DSLR Discussion 42 03-22-2010 06:01 PM
For Pentax users who changed systems or thinking about switching rustynail925 Pentax DSLR Discussion 34 03-04-2010 01:22 AM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 10:10 AM. | See also: NikonForums.com, CanonForums.com part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top