Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
11-27-2010, 03:48 PM   #31
Senior Member




Join Date: May 2010
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 208
QuoteOriginally posted by Raylon Quote
The first part yes, is controversial. Totally depends on what you want to shoot. There are differences between the cameras and each has strengths and weaknesses over the other.

The 2nd part is also controversial. IS primes? Canon has those, but not in the low focal length, where it's not totally necesary. 'Designer' primes? I don't know what a designer prime is. Canon has extremely high quality primes. And Pentax has better zooms? That's news to me...
Yes, the cameras do have different strengths and weaknesses. The T2i sensor has more megapixels, while the k-r sensor has better dynamic range, better colour depth, and better image quality (per DXO-Mark, for example). Low-light high-ISO performance is essentially equal between the two, depending on how it is measured. The T2i has Canon ergonomics, the k-r has Pentax ergonomics, and so it goes.

Pentax and Canon certainly both offer fine primes as well as zooms. Pentax offers a range of unique, metal-built, artistically designed primes with excellent optical characteristics at moderate prices, which can be attached to cameras with built-in image stabilization. Canon does not offer this option or those lenses, though it does offer inexpensive "starter" autofocus lenses unavailable from Pentax.

For zooms, to my knowledge, even Canon's APS-C f2.8 line consists of heavier and more expensive lenses (in their image stabilized versions) than the DA* line from Pentax, and that Canon line is not as well-regarded as the Pentax DA* AFAIK. The very best Canon zooms are for full-frame cameras, are many times the price of APS-C glass for any platform, and are not ergonomically suited to the APS-C cameras. Thus I said that Pentax had an advantage in light, high-quality zooms.

11-27-2010, 04:32 PM   #32
Veteran Member




Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: San Diego, CA
Posts: 360
QuoteOriginally posted by Rondec Quote
IS is image stabilization. Nikon and Canon have made the decision to put it as an option in some of their lenses. The IS versions of their lenses are quite expensive in relation to the non-IS versions. The Canon 70-200 f4 is only 650 if purchased without IS, it is 1100 dollars if purchased with IS. This makes for some really hard decisions.

On the other hand, Pentax puts their image stabilization in the camera body, so even old primes are stabilized.

The biggest issue with video on the kr, is really the sound. If you were going to use it to record much video, I would think you would need to have a separate sound recorder and sync it up afterward. It can be done, but is pretty clumsy.
One thing I have to hand to cannon, the 50mm f/1.8 without IS is 100, similarly pentax 50mm f/1.7 is a wooping 200+ how nice of pentax...
11-27-2010, 04:41 PM   #33
Site Supporter




Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Gladys, Virginia
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 16,217
The whole Canon versus Pentax thing is difficult to say, particularly when it comes to cost. This is true in particular, because if you choose to compare a couple of Canon's cheap primes to Pentax's upper end primes, you get a very different idea as to value. From that stand point, you are best off drawing up a list of lenses you hope to end up with (not ones that are temporary till you can buy better) and see what the end result is.

If there are holes there in one system or the other, then that tells you something. Add up the cost and you see where you are at.

If you are not planning to go to full frame down the road, then there is a definite advantage for Pentax, as they have a lot more primes targeted at APS-C.

Edit: As to the 50mm f1.7, that lens doesn't even exist any more. Since the 50mm is a normal prime on a full frame camera, the comparable lens is the DA 35 f2.4 which is a little less than 200 dollars and probably is more useful on APS-C.
11-27-2010, 06:07 PM   #34
Veteran Member




Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: San Diego, CA
Posts: 360
QuoteOriginally posted by Rondec Quote
The whole Canon versus Pentax thing is difficult to say, particularly when it comes to cost. This is true in particular, because if you choose to compare a couple of Canon's cheap primes to Pentax's upper end primes, you get a very different idea as to value. From that stand point, you are best off drawing up a list of lenses you hope to end up with (not ones that are temporary till you can buy better) and see what the end result is.

If there are holes there in one system or the other, then that tells you something. Add up the cost and you see where you are at.

If you are not planning to go to full frame down the road, then there is a definite advantage for Pentax, as they have a lot more primes targeted at APS-C.

Edit: As to the 50mm f1.7, that lens doesn't even exist any more. Since the 50mm is a normal prime on a full frame camera, the comparable lens is the DA 35 f2.4 which is a little less than 200 dollars and probably is more useful on APS-C.
so you're saying the pentax 50mm f1.7 isn't similar to the 50mm f1.8 on canon?

11-27-2010, 07:05 PM   #35
Site Supporter




Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Gladys, Virginia
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 16,217
QuoteOriginally posted by clockwork247 Quote
so you're saying the pentax 50mm f1.7 isn't similar to the 50mm f1.8 on canon?
What I am saying is two things. The first thing is that the FA 50mm f1.7 is no longer in production. The second thing is that both of these lenses are intended to be used on full frame, meaning that if you are using them on a crop frame camera, you end up with more of an 80mm equivalent angle of view.

If, on the other hand, you liked the "normal lens" on film, then you really want to get a 35mm lens on APS-C. Everyone is different, I just don't happen to like the field of view that you get with a 50mm lens on a cropped sensor (although I liked it a lot on film).
11-27-2010, 08:06 PM   #36
Veteran Member




Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: San Diego, CA
Posts: 360
QuoteOriginally posted by Rondec Quote
What I am saying is two things. The first thing is that the FA 50mm f1.7 is no longer in production. The second thing is that both of these lenses are intended to be used on full frame, meaning that if you are using them on a crop frame camera, you end up with more of an 80mm equivalent angle of view.

If, on the other hand, you liked the "normal lens" on film, then you really want to get a 35mm lens on APS-C. Everyone is different, I just don't happen to like the field of view that you get with a 50mm lens on a cropped sensor (although I liked it a lot on film).
oh, alright... well I don't know how much the 50mm f/1.7 when it 1st came out, but right now it's ballooned up to 200+. the f/1.4 version of both manufacture is close though in price.

if you're trying to get a 35mm with similar speed to the 50mm that's gonna be alot of cash , and I'm not sure if they make f/1.4 or f/1.7 35mm.
12-02-2010, 10:17 PM   #37
Junior Member




Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Cincinnati, OH
Posts: 40
I'm surprised nobody has mentioned the Panasonic GH1 in terms of strictly for video usage. Most of the DSLR short films I've seen have been filmed on either the Panasonic GH1 or the Canon 5D Mk II... two slightly different price brackets . The T2i is definitely better than the K-r, or any Pentax for that matter, when it comes to versatility while shooting video. Resolution, framerate options, and manual control are superior on the T2i.
12-03-2010, 07:53 AM   #38
Inactive Account




Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 70
Well, as I said, I bought a k-r w/18-55 & 55-300.
Should be here sometime today.
Looks lke many here think the t2i would have been a better choice?

It was not an easy choice, and part of me still wonders about the t2i. Then again, I also wonder about a bunch of other cameras too... there's just too many. The k-r video looks decent from what I've seen so far, and should be fine for now. I don't plan on doing a lot of video really right now anyway. I want the camera mostly for stills and the k-r puts out some amazing images. Hopefully I'll be happy with it... should find out soon.

As for lenses, I will likely be looking for a macro first. Then I'd like to get a 35mm and maybe a 50mm. For zoom, I don't care about having over 300-400mm really. I think Pentax has about all I'll need, at least for the time being.

12-03-2010, 08:06 AM   #39
Senior Member




Join Date: May 2010
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 208
QuoteOriginally posted by photochimp Quote
Well, as I said, I bought a k-r w/18-55 & 55-300.
Should be here sometime today.
Looks lke many here think the t2i would have been a better choice?

It was not an easy choice, and part of me still wonders about the t2i. Then again, I also wonder about a bunch of other cameras too... there's just too many. The k-r video looks decent from what I've seen so far, and should be fine for now. I don't plan on doing a lot of video really right now anyway. I want the camera mostly for stills and the k-r puts out some amazing images. Hopefully I'll be happy with it... should find out soon.

As for lenses, I will likely be looking for a macro first. Then I'd like to get a 35mm and maybe a 50mm. For zoom, I don't care about having over 300-400mm really. I think Pentax has about all I'll need, at least for the time being.
Well, I expect that you will be happy with your choice. I think the discussion here became a bit too obsessed with video -- the k-r will do video, it is just not a videographer's camera. It is a still photographer's camera.

Your first two lenses do give you an excellent range; macro sounds like an excellent thing to invest in for your first prime. Pentax offers 35mm, 50mm, and 100mm macro primes -- the 100mm may be the easiest for pure macro work, since it doesn't require you to get as close to your subject. On the other hand, the 35mm doubles as a "normal" walkaround lens. Personally, I would get the new DA 35/2.4 for walkaround (smaller and lighter) and some version of the 100mm (the older version of the D FA is cheaper if available but less solidly built than the new WR version). But that way LBA madness lies. :-)
12-03-2010, 08:36 PM   #40
Forum Member




Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Virginia
Posts: 89
Sorry if I'm not getting the point here but here's how I see it.

If you want to take still photos and the occasional video, wouldn't you want the better still photo camera. It seems like the Pentax would be the way to go there. I mean, I'm no expert but, the facts seem to be showing that.

If you want to shoot video more than still, shouldn't you be looking at a video camera? I mean I've always been taught to use the right tool for the job. Even if you wanted to do more serious video while shooting mostly still photos, shouldn't you look for a still camera and a video camera as well?

Here's the thing. I've done some video for a friends band. It's really not very hard to get usable video. If the camera can do 24p it's even easier. The key really is in the lighting and the post production. To get noticeably better video, you're going to be looking at spending a whole lot more on a camera.

Sound is a whole other beast. If you can get remote mic inputs, I highly recommend it. Camera mics suck and there's really no way of fixing it. Poor mic placement and use can make a good video terrible.

I'd look at what you want to do and seriously question what kind of camera will suit you best. It may not be a DSLR at all. However, to me, it sounds like you want a camera to do mostly still photos for the JROTC program and a little video to play around with. I think the Pentax would suit you just fine if that is the case.
12-04-2010, 07:53 PM   #41
Veteran Member




Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: San Diego, CA
Posts: 360
QuoteOriginally posted by Navmaxlp Quote
Sorry if I'm not getting the point here but here's how I see it.

If you want to take still photos and the occasional video, wouldn't you want the better still photo camera. It seems like the Pentax would be the way to go there. I mean, I'm no expert but, the facts seem to be showing that.

If you want to shoot video more than still, shouldn't you be looking at a video camera? I mean I've always been taught to use the right tool for the job. Even if you wanted to do more serious video while shooting mostly still photos, shouldn't you look for a still camera and a video camera as well?

Here's the thing. I've done some video for a friends band. It's really not very hard to get usable video. If the camera can do 24p it's even easier. The key really is in the lighting and the post production. To get noticeably better video, you're going to be looking at spending a whole lot more on a camera.

Sound is a whole other beast. If you can get remote mic inputs, I highly recommend it. Camera mics suck and there's really no way of fixing it. Poor mic placement and use can make a good video terrible.

I'd look at what you want to do and seriously question what kind of camera will suit you best. It may not be a DSLR at all. However, to me, it sounds like you want a camera to do mostly still photos for the JROTC program and a little video to play around with. I think the Pentax would suit you just fine if that is the case.

what these guys are doing is trying to use their expensive lens to record video, something you won't get unless you're looking at multi thousands dollars camcorder (and I'm not even sure if that'll be comparable)... the idea of using the right tool is certainly correct, but these guys aren't full time video recorder, they mainly use the camera to take picture and once in a while video and they want it to be good quality... it's really no fun to carry those huge ass camcorder around AND and DSLR.
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, films, k-r, kr, pentax k-r, pictures, t2i, video, wonder
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Canon t2i or Pentax k-r...? photochimp Non-Pentax Cameras: Canon, Nikon, etc. 15 11-30-2010 01:44 PM
K-x, K-r, D3100 or T2i. kinsale Pentax DSLR Discussion 30 09-09-2010 12:20 AM
Pentax K-7 vs canon T2i mikemike Troubleshooting and Beginner Help 37 05-27-2010 11:23 AM
Pentax K7 vs Canon T2i(550D) rohit anupoju Pentax DSLR Discussion 3 05-03-2010 05:29 PM
Canon T2i + Kmount lenes? tryp-the-lyt Non-Pentax Cameras: Canon, Nikon, etc. 8 03-16-2010 07:33 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 06:28 PM. | 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