Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
04-11-2012, 02:29 AM   #16
Veteran Member




Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Texas
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 528
The T3i has better specs? I don't believe so.. yes for video, no to dynamic range and image quality. The K-X has more dynamic range than a canon costing over 2 grand even (5d mark ii)

04-11-2012, 02:54 AM   #17
New Member




Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 21
back to potrait lens... samyang 85 =)
04-15-2012, 01:25 PM   #18
Senior Member
Drom's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: California
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 210
QuoteOriginally posted by rrwilliams64 Quote
I have a K-r. Upgraded fom a K-x (just needed that LCD bump and AF upgrade ).

Well, here's what I found...voila. I had to actually have both cameras in my hand side by side (which I'd never done, contraire to the first rule for noobs buying a SLR..."how's it feel in hand?") I never realized how much more "substantial" the K-r feels than when I handled the T2i (the 450D, mind you, had hazed in my memory). Feels like a cheap toy, plasticy and non-confidence inspiring. The K-r, w/ its magnesium alloy shell, just has a solidness to it. Even the ergonmics, intuitive layout, yada yada. Right there I realized $%^& the video, what else does the T2i have on my K-r? (yes, the clouds only cleared AFTER i'd bought the Canon)

[/I]
That was my impression as well when I was looking. The K-r, while slightly smaller feeling in my hand, was a little heavier and more substantial feeling.
04-15-2012, 01:41 PM   #19
Veteran Member
GabrielFFontes's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Rio de Janeiro, Brazil
Posts: 647
What about the AF speed in low light? Is the t2i faster and more accurate? Sometimes the k-r disappoints me, and sometimes it impresses me

04-20-2012, 05:54 PM   #20
Veteran Member
madbrain's Avatar

Join Date: May 2008
Location: San Jose, CA
Posts: 789
QuoteOriginally posted by geekette Quote
The T3i has better specs? I don't believe so.. yes for video, no to dynamic range and image quality. The K-X has more dynamic range than a canon costing over 2 grand even (5d mark ii)
The T3i has one thing that none of the Pentax DSLRs do - the articulating LCD screen, which is really useful for video.
The T2i is better in some other ways, like it has faster fps.

For me the articulating LCD was more important. I wanted the video capability and bought a used T3i about a month ago. I am a long time K200D owner (about 4 years). I it, but it doesn't have video and doesn't have an articulating LCD either.

See this thread :

https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/pentax-dslr-discussion/181175-i-bought-canon-t3i-video.html

After I sold the Canon 55-250 lens, my net cost was $620 for the barely used T3i + 18-55 IS II lens.

I thought I would keep using the K200D for stills, and the T3i just for video.
That is, until I started doing comparisons of stills and noticed that the T3i really did a ton better at stills, especially high ISO (K200D maxes out at 1600 ISO).
I was actually considering selling all my Pentax gear and switch to Canon entirely for both stills and video. But that would mean selling my K-mount Pentax DA 18-250 and Sigma 10-20, and buying equivalent lenses for Canon. Not a cheap proposition since that is $1000 of lenses. And would end up with a somewhat less sturdy T3i body. Compromises, compromises - I hate them !

With the K-r blowout at $299, I couldn't resist and got one today (see the Fry's $299 thread). It does high ISO which should make it more acceptable for stills. It actually has faster fps than the T3i too. The 18MP of the T3i don't add that much IMO unless you are shooting things really far away (like the moon, with a zoom/telescope). I'm not doing huge prints.
I wasn't previously aware that the K-r could take AA batteries with a tray. So I think it will be a fine replacement for my K200D, assuming my demo unit K-R checks out.
I clearly cannot have 3 cameras, so one will have to go. Either I will sell my K200D + grip + the DA-L 18-55 that came with my K-R, or return the demo K-R + DA=L 18-55.

I have to agree with you that the Canon T3i body feels like a cheap toy. Certainly compared to the K200D and the Pentax grip. But even compared to the K-r body.
04-20-2012, 06:31 PM   #21
Pentaxian
Edgar_in_Indy's Avatar

Join Date: May 2010
Location: Indiana, USA
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,555
QuoteOriginally posted by madbrain Quote
I was actually considering selling all my Pentax gear and switch to Canon entirely for both stills and video. But that would mean selling my K-mount Pentax DA 18-250 and Sigma 10-20, and buying equivalent lenses for Canon. Not a cheap proposition since that is $1000 of lenses. And would end up with a somewhat less sturdy T3i body. Compromises, compromises - I hate them !
As I mentioned earlier in the thread, I bought a t2i when it was first released, but quickly returned it and bought a K-x. Every once in a while I'll look at a Canon and Nikon, and weight the pros and cons of switching. But the thing that always helps tip the scale is that Canon and Nikon don't have Shake Reduction in the body. For me, that's a big deal.

Once you're used to having SR, you miss it when it's not available. I hate the idea of having to pay extra for lenses with SR. And some nice lenses, especially older ones, simply don't offer it.
04-20-2012, 06:49 PM   #22
Veteran Member
madbrain's Avatar

Join Date: May 2008
Location: San Jose, CA
Posts: 789
QuoteOriginally posted by Edgar_in_Indy Quote
As I mentioned earlier in the thread, I bought a t2i when it was first released, but quickly returned it and bought a K-x. Every once in a while I'll look at a Canon and Nikon, and weight the pros and cons of switching. But the thing that always helps tip the scale is that Canon and Nikon don't have Shake Reduction in the body. For me, that's a big deal.

Once you're used to having SR, you miss it when it's not available. I hate the idea of having to pay extra for lenses with SR. And some nice lenses, especially older ones, simply don't offer it.
In lowlight, at identical ISO and same exposure time, same subject, same focal length, the Canon lens-based SR seems to be more effective than the Pentax body-based.
At least, I got some blurry shots with the Pentax, but not with the Canon. You do pay more for it though, with each Canon lens.

Edit: this was much more of a problem with the K200D which tops at 1600 ISO. Canon T3i goes to 6400 . But even at identical ISO the T3i has less noise, and SR was more effective - no blurry shots somehow.
Of course the K200d is 4 year old. Now I need to compare the K-r with the T3i.
04-20-2012, 07:27 PM   #23
Pentaxian
Edgar_in_Indy's Avatar

Join Date: May 2010
Location: Indiana, USA
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,555
QuoteOriginally posted by madbrain Quote
In lowlight, at identical ISO and same exposure time, same subject, same focal length, the Canon lens-based SR seems to be more effective than the Pentax body-based.
I don't know what specific lens your'e talking about, but my understanding is that SR effectiveness varies between lens models, with newer designs generally being more effective. And as you aluded to, I think that it is similar with SR in camera bodies.

I've always been satisfied with the SR from my old Olympus e-510 and now my K-x, but I'm sure there is room for improvements. For example, Olympus's new OM-D has an improved 5-axis SR system that is presumably superior to older systems.

But even a slightly inferior SR is still way better than no SR. And check out my lens collection in my signature. I hate to think how much I would have to pay for equivalent lenses with SR.

I certainly understand the business model that places SR in the lenses, but I'm glad that some companies put it in the body. As long as Pentax, Olympus, and Sony continue to offer SR and build competive cameras, I'll probably never go to Canon or Nikon. On the other hand, if Canon or Nikon ever do start to offer SR, then the other camera makers should be worried. SR was a major factor for me in buying an Olympus and then a Pentax, and I don't think I'm alone in that.

04-21-2012, 04:12 AM   #24
Loyal Site Supporter




Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Southern Indiana
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 14,954
QuoteOriginally posted by madbrain Quote
In lowlight, at identical ISO and same exposure time, same subject, same focal length, the Canon lens-based SR seems to be more effective than the Pentax body-based.
At least, I got some blurry shots with the Pentax, but not with the Canon. You do pay more for it though, with each Canon lens.

Edit: this was much more of a problem with the K200D which tops at 1600 ISO. Canon T3i goes to 6400 . But even at identical ISO the T3i has less noise, and SR was more effective - no blurry shots somehow.
Of course the K200d is 4 year old. Now I need to compare the K-r with the T3i.
I think the kx/kr are significantly better than the k200 with regard to high iso performance (see the high iso thread: https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/pentax-dslr-discussion/64295-pentax-high-...post-here.html).

SR is obviously an individual preference. The fact that even really old, used lenses are stabilized on Pentax bodies is an advantage to me as well as the fact that there are stabilized primes. SR and IS are equivalent below 200mm, above that, IS probably has some advantage. Having SR in the body also a huge size advantage when it comes to lens sizes (body sizes are about the same either way). Compare the D FA 100mm f2.8 WR lens (3.2 by 2.5 inches, 49mm filter size, 12 ounces -- metal build with weather sealing) to the Canon 100mm f2.8 macro IS (3 by 4.8 inches, 67 mm filter size, 1.4 lbs) and you see a fairly sizable difference.

Anyway, each to their own. There are certainly advantages of Canon bodies and lenses and advantages for Pentax as well, it is just important to choose the tool that fits you best and go with it.
04-22-2012, 01:05 AM   #25
Veteran Member
madbrain's Avatar

Join Date: May 2008
Location: San Jose, CA
Posts: 789
Rondec,

QuoteOriginally posted by Rondec Quote
SR is obviously an individual preference. The fact that even really old, used lenses are stabilized on Pentax bodies is an advantage to me as well as the fact that there are stabilized primes. SR and IS are equivalent below 200mm, above that, IS probably has some advantage.
Actually my tests were at 18mm with a Canon IS 18-55 compared to a DA 18-250, and the IS was significantly better. Aperture was the same. Exposure time was the same, 0.3s .
Have you actually tried to turn off the SR on your Pentax and compare the results with SR turned on ?

A few years ago I did with my K200D at the request of a coworker who was shooting Nikon. I don't remember the exact parameters, but I do remember the result M neither of us were able to discern any difference in sharpness/blurriness of the pictures with SR on or off.
04-22-2012, 01:55 AM   #26
New Member




Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 21
Falk Lumo: Pentax shake reduction revisited
04-22-2012, 05:26 AM   #27
Pentaxian
Edgar_in_Indy's Avatar

Join Date: May 2010
Location: Indiana, USA
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,555
QuoteOriginally posted by madbrain Quote
Have you actually tried to turn off the SR on your Pentax and compare the results with SR turned on ?

A few years ago I did with my K200D at the request of a coworker who was shooting Nikon. I don't remember the exact parameters, but I do remember the result M neither of us were able to discern any difference in sharpness/blurriness of the pictures with SR on or off.
I've never really done any experiments with the SR on my K-x, but about a year ago I used a Samsung GX-1S (same as Pentax *ist DS2) for a week or two while I sent my K-x off to Sigma to have a couple lenses calibrated to the body. I didn't really think about the lack of SR, until I noticed that some of my pictures from the GX-1S were turning out soft. The GX-1S doesn't have SR, and I realized that the softness was because I was used to shooting at the slower shutter speeds that SR allows. Once I bumped up my shutter speed, I didn't have any further problems with shake-induced softness.

But I remember being surprised by how much of a difference SR makes. I had an Olympus e-510 before the K-x, so I've been using a DSLR with SR for years. And when I didn't have it, I really missed it.

I also had a chance to shoot with an Olympus e-410 (no SR) for about a week several months ago, and also had to adjust to not having SR with that camera.

Last edited by Edgar_in_Indy; 04-22-2012 at 06:16 AM.
04-22-2012, 08:33 AM   #28
Veteran Member




Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Texas
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 528
QuoteOriginally posted by madbrain Quote
The T3i has one thing that none of the Pentax DSLRs do - the articulating LCD screen, which is really useful for video.
The T2i is better in some other ways, like it has faster fps.

For me the articulating LCD was more important. I wanted the video capability and bought a used T3i about a month ago. I am a long time K200D owner (about 4 years). I it, but it doesn't have video and doesn't have an articulating LCD either.

See this thread :

https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/pentax-dslr-discussion/181175-i-bought-canon-t3i-video.html

After I sold the Canon 55-250 lens, my net cost was $620 for the barely used T3i + 18-55 IS II lens.

I thought I would keep using the K200D for stills, and the T3i just for video.
That is, until I started doing comparisons of stills and noticed that the T3i really did a ton better at stills, especially high ISO (K200D maxes out at 1600 ISO).
I was actually considering selling all my Pentax gear and switch to Canon entirely for both stills and video. But that would mean selling my K-mount Pentax DA 18-250 and Sigma 10-20, and buying equivalent lenses for Canon. Not a cheap proposition since that is $1000 of lenses. And would end up with a somewhat less sturdy T3i body. Compromises, compromises - I hate them !

With the K-r blowout at $299, I couldn't resist and got one today (see the Fry's $299 thread). It does high ISO which should make it more acceptable for stills. It actually has faster fps than the T3i too. The 18MP of the T3i don't add that much IMO unless you are shooting things really far away (like the moon, with a zoom/telescope). I'm not doing huge prints.
I wasn't previously aware that the K-r could take AA batteries with a tray. So I think it will be a fine replacement for my K200D, assuming my demo unit K-R checks out.
I clearly cannot have 3 cameras, so one will have to go. Either I will sell my K200D + grip + the DA-L 18-55 that came with my K-R, or return the demo K-R + DA=L 18-55.

I have to agree with you that the Canon T3i body feels like a cheap toy. Certainly compared to the K200D and the Pentax grip. But even compared to the K-r body.
omg a k-r for $299? EDIT: Oh well I don't live in Silicon Valley lol. Anyways you should notice better image quality and dynamic range over the t3i for stills.

EDIT #2: Regarding shake reduction.. I don't know how well either works (Canon & Pentax) but lately my gut tells me to turn it off and throw the body on a tripod that way I know 100% it isn't trying to be too smart for its own good. I've just been reading lately about some problems people were having with SR at certain shutter speeds etc.. I am just gonna turn it off lol.

Last edited by geekette; 04-22-2012 at 08:44 AM.
04-22-2012, 09:58 AM   #29
Loyal Site Supporter




Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Southern Indiana
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 14,954
QuoteOriginally posted by madbrain Quote
Rondec,



Actually my tests were at 18mm with a Canon IS 18-55 compared to a DA 18-250, and the IS was significantly better. Aperture was the same. Exposure time was the same, 0.3s .
Have you actually tried to turn off the SR on your Pentax and compare the results with SR turned on ?

A few years ago I did with my K200D at the request of a coworker who was shooting Nikon. I don't remember the exact parameters, but I do remember the result M neither of us were able to discern any difference in sharpness/blurriness of the pictures with SR on or off.
I have, although I have never used a K200 (I have owned a K100, K10, K20, K7 and now two K5s) and there is a significant difference in the middle of the range letting me hand hold to about 1/8 second pretty consistently (I get about 1/focal length without SR). SR has improved up to the K7, which I think is about the same as the K5.
05-04-2012, 05:17 AM   #30
wax
Forum Member




Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Santiago
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 53
QuoteOriginally posted by GrinMode Quote
Nice to read about your feedback, but the K-r has a plastic shell. Only the K-7/K-5 has mag alloy.
Totally wrong. K-r has metal-alloy body, maybe not solid than k-5, but metal. See specifications.
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, canon, f1.8, hand, k-r, kr, lcd, lens, pentax k-r, t2i, video
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
K-r vs. T2i 5389072 Pentax K-r 40 12-04-2010 07:53 PM
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
Preproduction Canon T2i Up at DXO Samsungian Non-Pentax Cameras: Canon, Nikon, etc. 5 02-14-2010 09:26 AM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 02:04 AM. | See also: NikonForums.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