Switch To Another Brand?

carpents · 09-10-2007, 04:50 AM

Staff note: This post may contain affiliate links, which means Pentax Forums may earn a small commission if a visitor clicks through and makes a purchase. If you would like to support the forum directly, you may also make a donation here.

Originally posted by philmorley

But it is sad when new lenses from another system are cheaper than what we have pay for 2nd hand lenses. and of course you can just order them without hours looking through ebay and waiting for the lens you want to come along, or if you want 2nd hand the amount available is pretty amazing for nikon / canon.

Phil, you are right on the money. I was looking through the keh.com catalog and noticed a Nikon Nikkor ED 180/2.8 for $300. I thought to myself - if that was a Pentax lens it would be $1,000 and impossible to find. Then I looked at new prices and couldn't believe it. Same goes for the Nikkor 200/2 - if it were a Pentax lens it would be twice as much.

But I can't really bitch about the pricing too much, since I'm helping to inflate it. The used market is dictating prices based on demand (with some obvious hiccups from uninformed buyers and sellers) and sad to say Pentax could be making a mint by bringing back out their discontinued FA and FA* lenses. This is where my problem with the 50-135/2.8 comes in - it does nothing to satiate the need for the FA* 80-200/2.8!

The only downside IMO is that I don't particularly like Nikkor glass, and I don't like Canon bodies. I think Pentax beats them both when all things are considered (quality of high-end glass and quality of bodies), and unfortunately that is coming at a premium. I guess I'm thinking somewhat like a Leica user in this regard.

So anyway, I agree with your post.

--Sean

Avantphoto · 09-10-2007, 07:30 AM

That's what I find hard to understand, everyone always says pentax is so much cheaper, I don't find that, sure you can buy old manual lenses cheap but if you want a modern equivalent to a Canon or Nikor lens it will cost just as much if not more since they are hard to find.

Just as an example you can get a Canon kit from 17-300mm all stabilized (No matter what is said in lens IS is better then in body SR) in 2 lenses that both perform pretty decent, with a lot of upgrade path all for about 1000, that's not bad at all, if you get it used even cheaper and heck one of those is full frame compatible if you decide to upgrade.

I am by no means defending Canon, but just saying I never understood the whole Pentax is cheaper thing, sure if you buy 3rd party it can be somewhat cheaper, but still not that much.

ericc · 09-10-2007, 08:46 AM

Originally posted by carpents

Yes you can!

So, that goes to M42, which will then require you to get a M42-K adapter. That's two adapters on the back side of the lens. Will that screw up the "registration distance"? I'll be honest, I have no idea what that term means, but I see JensR using it from time to time with regards to sticking stuff between the camera and lens mount.

I wouldn't mind an inexpensive (I didn't say cheap) 600m/f4 for getting certain shots out in the wild. It wouldn't even bother me to have to use it in full manual mode. Now you got me to thinking... My annual bonus comes in this week's paycheck...

-E

carpents · 09-10-2007, 10:03 AM

Originally posted by ericc

So, that goes to M42, which will then require you to get a M42-K adapter. That's two adapters on the back side of the lens. Will that screw up the "registration distance"? I'll be honest, I have no idea what that term means, but I see JensR using it from time to time with regards to sticking stuff between the camera and lens mount.

I wouldn't mind an inexpensive (I didn't say cheap) 600m/f4 for getting certain shots out in the wild. It wouldn't even bother me to have to use it in full manual mode. Now you got me to thinking... My annual bonus comes in this week's paycheck...

-E

As for register distance, the Nikon F mount sits a whopping 2mm further out than the Pentax K does. So in theory, those adapters must be 2mm or less in order to retain infinity focus, and it certainly looks thicker than 2mm to me. With really long lenses, that doesn't have nearly the effect as it does on wide ones (it would act as a very small extension tube) however you can always adjust the infinity focus point to make it work. I would bet that you could adjust old manual focus lenses from 50mm on up pretty easily, just like you would if you had front/back focus errors.

As for M42 adapters, they don't add any distance to the rear of the lens, so it wouldn't be an issue. Once the Nikkor is locked into the adapter it should be pretty secure.

Eh, it looks like I'm just going to have to buy one to make sure.

Alfisti · 09-10-2007, 12:15 PM

A small full-featured body would do it.

i.e. a body the size of the K100D with K10D performance, as in speed performance. Buttons not menus, direct ISO control, two wheels, fast AF, fast read/write, etc etc etc.

Right now all the smaller DSLR's are crippled, VERY annoying.

**Mallee Boy** · 09-10-2007, 02:43 PM

the question is "What would it take.."

I answer 'just because' in fantasy land I would have won the lottery and money did not matter...IF this was to ever become the case then it would truly be "just because" ...I can.

But until that day, I'm staying with Pentax.

vinzer · 09-10-2007, 04:48 PM

Originally posted by Avantphoto

That's what I find hard to understand, everyone always says pentax is so much cheaper, I don't find that, sure you can buy old manual lenses cheap but if you want a modern equivalent to a Canon or Nikor lens it will cost just as much if not more since they are hard to find.

Just as an example you can get a Canon kit from 17-300mm all stabilized (No matter what is said in lens IS is better then in body SR) in 2 lenses that both perform pretty decent, with a lot of upgrade path all for about 1000, that's not bad at all, if you get it used even cheaper and heck one of those is full frame compatible if you decide to upgrade.

I am by no means defending Canon, but just saying I never understood the whole Pentax is cheaper thing, sure if you buy 3rd party it can be somewhat cheaper, but still not that much.

I think there are conflicting testimonials about which is better, in-body or in-lens stabilization. I won't go about touting one over the other, as both are equally capable of helping photographers. At least in my experience with SR, I've taken a lot of shots handheld that I would never have taken without a tripod.

Thing is, though, Pentax DOES offer a cheaper option for people like me who cannot really spend tons of money on L lenses precisely because of the third party lenses you speak of. Even if we skip the whole deal about old lenses (of which a lot are as optically capable as new ones), the fact that I can get a third party lens at a fraction of the cost and *still* have that image stabilization is a big boon for people like me.

Rest assured, I understand where you're coming from.

philmorley · 09-10-2007, 06:14 PM

The only downside IMO is that I don't particularly like Nikkor glass, and I don't like Canon bodies. I think Pentax beats them both when all things are considered (quality of high-end glass and quality of bodies), and unfortunately that is coming at a premium. I guess I'm thinking somewhat like a Leica user in this regard.

Hi, I've seen it mentioned before that people don't like Nikkor glass, why is this?? (just curious, as said never used any other system)

Phil

stewart_photo · 09-11-2007, 01:22 AM

Originally posted by pentaxshooter

(snip) Just go over to some of the PRO photo forums and read how often they buy a new body. (snip)

Anyone can hang out in a "pro" photo forum. However, most true professionals, from portrait or commercial, usually switch cameras and equipment as seldom as possible. They're paid for competent skills with their equipment; the ablity to predictably and reliably produce the exact image desired by the client. It's virtually impossible to do that if constantly on a learning curve with the latest gadget. So this often translates into selecting a camera, learning it well, and sticking with it until forced by circumstances to change.

In other words, clients (staff, etc) at a shoot don't expect the professional to be sitting around reading an owners manual trying to figure out the latest gimmick of some new camera or whatever. In fact, they usually don't care about the equipment at all. What they do care about is the price and finished results. A re-shoot is a very undesirable extra expense. To avoid that, and deliver the results imagined by the client the very first time, the professional typically uses the equipment he/she knows and knows well.

New equipment tends to overlap the old by several months. It takes that long before a new purchase is trusted enough and familiar enough to completely replace the old. During those months, a lot of new stuff is introduced onto the market. I'm just now thinking about replacing my 18 year old Mamiya 645 with a newer medium format film camera. My four month old Pentax K10D is only just now starting to replace my two year old Maxxums on commercial shoots (Maxxums might have lasted longer had Minolta not folded). I will expect the K10D to last at least another two to three years. I might add a higher-resolution DSLR sometime next year to supplement the K10D. That equipment will probably carry me through the rest of this decade and into the next.

Finally, most professional photographers are skilled enough to be very selective about the equipment purchased. They don't buy something because the word "pro" is painted on it, a magazine calls it "pro-grade," or some manufacturer hypes it as professional. Instead, they know their needs exactly and how a new item fits into the rest of their equipment and their photography. They most certainly don't buy an item just because it is loaded with gimmicks and is expensive. In fact, since they're in business to make profits (live, buy food, etc), expensive is probably the one thing that will turn them off the quickest.

stewart

JCSullivan · 09-11-2007, 04:11 AM

Choices not that good.

I've used Pentax since almost day one of my photography hobby. Pentax was there and it was affordable - except for the lense of my dreams - a shift lense.

What would it take - someone else paying for the equipment - but even then I would probably still use MY Pentax as the primaries.

Alfisti · 09-11-2007, 06:44 AM

Well from my perspective they have some great lenses but the prices are eye watering. e.g. at least Canon has the 70-200L for around $550 but Nikon has nothing close.

Originally posted by philmorley

The only downside IMO is that I don't particularly like Nikkor glass, and I don't like Canon bodies. I think Pentax beats them both when all things are considered (quality of high-end glass and quality of bodies), and unfortunately that is coming at a premium. I guess I'm thinking somewhat like a Leica user in this regard.

Hi, I've seen it mentioned before that people don't like Nikkor glass, why is this?? (just curious, as said never used any other system)

Phil

View Poll Results: What would it take you to switch to another brand other than PENTAX.
I just have to have the latest stuff, doesnt matter who's.	1	2.04%
Another good review for the Canon 40D	0	0%
Another good review for the Nikon D300	0	0%
Just because	4	8.16%
Sell my old stuff to buy the new stuff.	4	8.16%
The New Canon	0	0%
The new Sony	0	0%
The New Nikon	1	2.04%
The new Olympus	1	2.04%
Nothing, I will never switch....I love my PENTAX.	38	77.55%
Voters: 49. You may not vote on this poll

09-11-2007, 01:22 AM	#39
stewart_photo Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: Heidelberg, Germany Posts: 1,864	Originally posted by pentaxshooter (snip) Just go over to some of the PRO photo forums and read how often they buy a new body. (snip) Anyone can hang out in a "pro" photo forum. However, most true professionals, from portrait or commercial, usually switch cameras and equipment as seldom as possible. They're paid for competent skills with their equipment; the ablity to predictably and reliably produce the exact image desired by the client. It's virtually impossible to do that if constantly on a learning curve with the latest gadget. So this often translates into selecting a camera, learning it well, and sticking with it until forced by circumstances to change. In other words, clients (staff, etc) at a shoot don't expect the professional to be sitting around reading an owners manual trying to figure out the latest gimmick of some new camera or whatever. In fact, they usually don't care about the equipment at all. What they do care about is the price and finished results. A re-shoot is a very undesirable extra expense. To avoid that, and deliver the results imagined by the client the very first time, the professional typically uses the equipment he/she knows and knows well. New equipment tends to overlap the old by several months. It takes that long before a new purchase is trusted enough and familiar enough to completely replace the old. During those months, a lot of new stuff is introduced onto the market. I'm just now thinking about replacing my 18 year old Mamiya 645 with a newer medium format film camera. My four month old Pentax K10D is only just now starting to replace my two year old Maxxums on commercial shoots (Maxxums might have lasted longer had Minolta not folded). I will expect the K10D to last at least another two to three years. I might add a higher-resolution DSLR sometime next year to supplement the K10D. That equipment will probably carry me through the rest of this decade and into the next. Finally, most professional photographers are skilled enough to be very selective about the equipment purchased. They don't buy something because the word "pro" is painted on it, a magazine calls it "pro-grade," or some manufacturer hypes it as professional. Instead, they know their needs exactly and how a new item fits into the rest of their equipment and their photography. They most certainly don't buy an item just because it is loaded with gimmicks and is expensive. In fact, since they're in business to make profits (live, buy food, etc), expensive is probably the one thing that will turn them off the quickest. stewart Last edited by stewart_photo; 09-11-2007 at 05:57 PM. Reason: spelling

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
When/How to use Macro Switch?	hockmasm	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	9	09-23-2010 03:59 AM
Brand Switch question	nemopaice	Troubleshooting and Beginner Help	34	07-20-2010 09:25 AM
For Sale - Sold: For collectors--Brand New K1000 and Brand New M 50mm f1.7	artistcjconrad	Sold Items	12	08-28-2009 10:28 AM
Light switch	beep41	Post Your Photos!	2	05-21-2009 01:40 PM
For Sale - Sold: Brand New Pentax Brand m42 to k mount converter Free shipping!	GatorPentax	Sold Items	1	10-28-2008 08:11 PM

09-10-2007, 04:50 AM	#31
carpents Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: West Chester, PA Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 1,420	Staff note: This post may contain affiliate links, which means Pentax Forums may earn a small commission if a visitor clicks through and makes a purchase. If you would like to support the forum directly, you may also make a donation here. Originally posted by philmorley But it is sad when new lenses from another system are cheaper than what we have pay for 2nd hand lenses. and of course you can just order them without hours looking through ebay and waiting for the lens you want to come along, or if you want 2nd hand the amount available is pretty amazing for nikon / canon. Phil, you are right on the money. I was looking through the keh.com catalog and noticed a Nikon Nikkor ED 180/2.8 for $300. I thought to myself - if that was a Pentax lens it would be $1,000 and impossible to find. Then I looked at new prices and couldn't believe it. Same goes for the Nikkor 200/2 - if it were a Pentax lens it would be twice as much. But I can't really bitch about the pricing too much, since I'm helping to inflate it. The used market is dictating prices based on demand (with some obvious hiccups from uninformed buyers and sellers) and sad to say Pentax could be making a mint by bringing back out their discontinued FA and FA* lenses. This is where my problem with the 50-135/2.8 comes in - it does nothing to satiate the need for the FA* 80-200/2.8! The only downside IMO is that I don't particularly like Nikkor glass, and I don't like Canon bodies. I think Pentax beats them both when all things are considered (quality of high-end glass and quality of bodies), and unfortunately that is coming at a premium. I guess I'm thinking somewhat like a Leica user in this regard. So anyway, I agree with your post. --Sean

09-10-2007, 07:30 AM	#32
Avantphoto Forum Member Join Date: May 2007 Location: Chicago Area Posts: 84	That's what I find hard to understand, everyone always says pentax is so much cheaper, I don't find that, sure you can buy old manual lenses cheap but if you want a modern equivalent to a Canon or Nikor lens it will cost just as much if not more since they are hard to find. Just as an example you can get a Canon kit from 17-300mm all stabilized (No matter what is said in lens IS is better then in body SR) in 2 lenses that both perform pretty decent, with a lot of upgrade path all for about 1000, that's not bad at all, if you get it used even cheaper and heck one of those is full frame compatible if you decide to upgrade. I am by no means defending Canon, but just saying I never understood the whole Pentax is cheaper thing, sure if you buy 3rd party it can be somewhat cheaper, but still not that much.

09-10-2007, 08:46 AM	#33
ericc Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Western Oklahoma Posts: 412	Originally posted by carpents Yes you can! So, that goes to M42, which will then require you to get a M42-K adapter. That's two adapters on the back side of the lens. Will that screw up the "registration distance"? I'll be honest, I have no idea what that term means, but I see JensR using it from time to time with regards to sticking stuff between the camera and lens mount. I wouldn't mind an inexpensive (I didn't say cheap) 600m/f4 for getting certain shots out in the wild. It wouldn't even bother me to have to use it in full manual mode. Now you got me to thinking... My annual bonus comes in this week's paycheck... -E

09-10-2007, 10:03 AM	#34
carpents Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: West Chester, PA Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 1,420	Originally posted by ericc So, that goes to M42, which will then require you to get a M42-K adapter. That's two adapters on the back side of the lens. Will that screw up the "registration distance"? I'll be honest, I have no idea what that term means, but I see JensR using it from time to time with regards to sticking stuff between the camera and lens mount. I wouldn't mind an inexpensive (I didn't say cheap) 600m/f4 for getting certain shots out in the wild. It wouldn't even bother me to have to use it in full manual mode. Now you got me to thinking... My annual bonus comes in this week's paycheck... -E As for register distance, the Nikon F mount sits a whopping 2mm further out than the Pentax K does. So in theory, those adapters must be 2mm or less in order to retain infinity focus, and it certainly looks thicker than 2mm to me. With really long lenses, that doesn't have nearly the effect as it does on wide ones (it would act as a very small extension tube) however you can always adjust the infinity focus point to make it work. I would bet that you could adjust old manual focus lenses from 50mm on up pretty easily, just like you would if you had front/back focus errors. As for M42 adapters, they don't add any distance to the rear of the lens, so it wouldn't be an issue. Once the Nikkor is locked into the adapter it should be pretty secure. Eh, it looks like I'm just going to have to buy one to make sure.

09-10-2007, 12:15 PM	#35
Alfisti Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Toronto (for now) Posts: 1,748	A small full-featured body would do it. i.e. a body the size of the K100D with K10D performance, as in speed performance. Buttons not menus, direct ISO control, two wheels, fast AF, fast read/write, etc etc etc. Right now all the smaller DSLR's are crippled, VERY annoying.

09-10-2007, 02:43 PM	#36
Mallee Boy Site Supporter Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: South Australia Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 3,904	the question is "What would it take.." I answer 'just because' in fantasy land I would have won the lottery and money did not matter...IF this was to ever become the case then it would truly be "just because" ...I can. But until that day, I'm staying with Pentax.

09-10-2007, 04:48 PM	#37
vinzer Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Philippines Posts: 1,399	Originally posted by Avantphoto That's what I find hard to understand, everyone always says pentax is so much cheaper, I don't find that, sure you can buy old manual lenses cheap but if you want a modern equivalent to a Canon or Nikor lens it will cost just as much if not more since they are hard to find. Just as an example you can get a Canon kit from 17-300mm all stabilized (No matter what is said in lens IS is better then in body SR) in 2 lenses that both perform pretty decent, with a lot of upgrade path all for about 1000, that's not bad at all, if you get it used even cheaper and heck one of those is full frame compatible if you decide to upgrade. I am by no means defending Canon, but just saying I never understood the whole Pentax is cheaper thing, sure if you buy 3rd party it can be somewhat cheaper, but still not that much. I think there are conflicting testimonials about which is better, in-body or in-lens stabilization. I won't go about touting one over the other, as both are equally capable of helping photographers. At least in my experience with SR, I've taken a lot of shots handheld that I would never have taken without a tripod. Thing is, though, Pentax DOES offer a cheaper option for people like me who cannot really spend tons of money on L lenses precisely because of the third party lenses you speak of. Even if we skip the whole deal about old lenses (of which a lot are as optically capable as new ones), the fact that I can get a third party lens at a fraction of the cost and still have that image stabilization is a big boon for people like me. Rest assured, I understand where you're coming from.

09-10-2007, 06:14 PM	#38
philmorley Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: in a house in Armidale, Australia Posts: 472	The only downside IMO is that I don't particularly like Nikkor glass, and I don't like Canon bodies. I think Pentax beats them both when all things are considered (quality of high-end glass and quality of bodies), and unfortunately that is coming at a premium. I guess I'm thinking somewhat like a Leica user in this regard. Hi, I've seen it mentioned before that people don't like Nikkor glass, why is this?? (just curious, as said never used any other system) Phil

09-11-2007, 04:11 AM	#40
JCSullivan Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Windsor, Canada Posts: 3,056	Choices not that good. I've used Pentax since almost day one of my photography hobby. Pentax was there and it was affordable - except for the lense of my dreams - a shift lense. What would it take - someone else paying for the equipment - but even then I would probably still use MY Pentax as the primaries.

09-11-2007, 06:44 AM	#41
Alfisti Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Toronto (for now) Posts: 1,748	Well from my perspective they have some great lenses but the prices are eye watering. e.g. at least Canon has the 70-200L for around $550 but Nikon has nothing close. Originally posted by philmorley The only downside IMO is that I don't particularly like Nikkor glass, and I don't like Canon bodies. I think Pentax beats them both when all things are considered (quality of high-end glass and quality of bodies), and unfortunately that is coming at a premium. I guess I'm thinking somewhat like a Leica user in this regard. Hi, I've seen it mentioned before that people don't like Nikkor glass, why is this?? (just curious, as said never used any other system) Phil