Can the K-5 dethrone the D700 ?

JohnBee · 09-11-2010, 06:09 PM

Originally posted by Belnan

I think that the K5 vs D700 is a valid comparison, just like the 7D vs D700 would been at the 7D's initial price point. They are in the same order of magnitude price wise.

Its at the system level that price matters most. Alot of people think it's simply a matter of... but that's not quite true. Granted, there are people out there(with small kits) who could simply switch unscathed. But for those who have built-up kits for work etc., switching is hardly an open and shut case scenario.

Nikon FF cost of ownership is not for the faint of heart

Blue · 09-11-2010, 06:11 PM

Originally posted by Belnan

I think that the K5 vs D700 is a valid comparison, just like the 7D vs D700 would been at the 7D's initial price point. They are in the same order of magnitude price wise. A silly comparison would be the 645D vs the K5, there not even the same ball park with regards to price. In many ways the D700 is a benmark in DLSR's for some photographers. I will probably by a new camera soon and if the price of the K5 is close to the D700, say within $500 then I will switch to Nikon. Do I want to? No, but brand loyalty does not pay off. Ergonomicaly I like the K7 design so I really want the K5 to deliver. I am cautiously optimistic but don't want to get my hopes up. Time will tell.

At the moment the D700 is $2389 for the body at BH and the msrp of the K-5 is thought to be ~1600.

JohnBee · 09-11-2010, 06:16 PM

Originally posted by Blue

At the moment the D700 is $2389 for the body at BH and the msrp of the K-5 is thought to be ~1600.

Which isn't indicative of the D700 release tag either.
I suspect the K-5 will settle in the mid 1300 region shortly after the holidays.

The 7D(body) sells for aprox. 1650- in Canada atm. and it is one heck of an attractive landscape camera too.

**Belnan** · 09-11-2010, 06:17 PM

Some of Nikon zooms are a little scary price wise. You are correct though a full system swap would be a lot. A lot of people on this forum are heavily invested in pentax gear so I hope the K5 suits there needs. Fortunatley for me and alot of others I am at a cross roads and could switch to a d700 with a little less pain. But the D700 does feel like a bit of a dump truck after handling the K7 and to be honest that may be what keeps me from buying the beast.

Boris · 09-11-2010, 11:52 PM

Originally posted by alexeyga

But in real life - good luck selling a well-equipped Chevy at Mercedes prices...

That's a very valid point. Pentax is ain't no Mercedes no matter how hard we might wish it were.

alexeyga · 09-12-2010, 05:21 AM

Originally posted by Belnan

Some of Nikon zooms are a little scary price wise. You are correct though a full system swap would be a lot. A lot of people on this forum are heavily invested in pentax gear so I hope the K5 suits there needs. Fortunatley for me and alot of others I am at a cross roads and could switch to a d700 with a little less pain. But the D700 does feel like a bit of a dump truck after handling the K7 and to be honest that may be what keeps me from buying the beast.

If you think Nikon zoom's prices are scary, try to buy a couple of Limited primes... For the prices of 31Ltd + 77Ltd you can easily get the 14-24 or 24-70 with some cash left for silly things like filters... Better yet, check the used market prices...

Big G · 09-12-2010, 05:46 AM

Just to echo the SDM sentiment, this is something that a superb new body won't help. I found the SDM implementation woeful on my 17-70mm; it wasn't very quick, it was uncertain (more to do with the K20D I feel) and it eventually packed in completely.

Maybe the DA * range are different / better, but there has to be a significant improvement to make the most of the K-5 based on my own personal experience of SDM.

AGWoodard · 09-12-2010, 05:51 AM

But how long will you keep a lens? Bodies get upgraded every couple of years, but a good lens, like a good ball head should last a long time with moderate care.

An 800 dollar lens, over 5 years comes to about 43 cents a day to own.

Lens cost and lens price are two different things.

I have a number of old A and FA lenes. My cost to own them today is almost nothing. The price I paid was a one time thing. I bit the bullet back then, got it over with and now, they cost me nothing to use.

And you can be sure if Pentax ever comes out with a FF camera, those prices are NOT going to go down. Best to get them now if you can, even if you have to stretch it over a year or so, and be done with it. A good lens is never going to go down in value especially if you use it even moderately. You will always come out ahead. A cheap lens on the other hand, is like an anchor. Works for what you need today, but down the road, it's still nothing more than dead weight.

falconeye · 09-12-2010, 06:18 AM - **1 Like**

Originally posted by ManuH

DxOMark - Compare sensors

ISO score: 1368 for 5D Mk.1, 811 for K-x. That's not bad, that's less than 1 stop, better than the theorical 1.3 stop difference between FF and APS-C.

The high ISO performance is governed by sensor area (times fill factor and quantum efficiency). Both values in "()" haven't increased lately and therefore size matters.

Dynamic range is governed by sensor area (times full well capacity divided by read-out noise if larger than 1 electron). The read-out noise was improved significantly recently masking somewhat the size advantage. But that's a temporary effect until newer editions of the larger sensores emerge. To increase the full well capacity could be a permanent effect but may be more expensive than to increase the sensor surface. No APSC vendor has attempted this yet.

One may think that the full frame advantage just translates to a 2 year advantage required for the smaller format to catch up. That's not true. The possible progress (full well capacity, read-out noise, fill factor and quantum efficiency) is finite and the time to catch up will increase and eventually become infinite.

pcarfan · 09-12-2010, 07:03 AM

Originally posted by falconeye

.......................................
One may think that the full frame advantage just translates to a 2 year advantage required for the smaller format to catch up. That's not true. The possible progress (full well capacity, read-out noise, fill factor and quantum efficiency) is finite and the time to catch up will increase and eventually become infinite.

Hopefully Pentax will come up with a FF prior to the technology getting close to this finite limit

Blue · 09-12-2010, 07:12 AM

Originally posted by alexeyga

If you think Nikon zoom's prices are scary, try to buy a couple of Limited primes... For the prices of 31Ltd + 77Ltd you can easily get the 14-24 or 24-70 with some cash left for silly things like filters... Better yet, check the used market prices...

You are comparing primes to large, heavy zooms (31 to 34.2 ounces) and at least one of them takes 77mm filters. Again, you are going to compare used market to New.

I wonder what a 10 year old Lexus sells for.

Originally posted by Boris

That's a very valid point. Pentax is ain't no Mercedes no matter how hard we might wish it were.

While it may be part of Urban Legend, neither are CaNikon. If you want to drag Leica into the argument, o.k. then.

alexeyga · 09-12-2010, 09:18 AM

Originally posted by Blue

You are comparing primes to large, heavy zooms (31 to 34.2 ounces) and at least one of them takes 77mm filters. Again, you are going to compare used market to New. :Hysterical: I wonder what a 10 year old Lexus sells for.

While it may be part of Urban Legend, neither are CaNikon. If you want to drag Leica into the argument, o.k. then.

If it would make you sleep better, today's Mercedes cars are total rubbish... luxury-filled rubbish that is... Nice to own while the lease lasts, but not a car you'd want to keep once it's over... Cost of ownership and maintenance is prohibitive.... and so are Beemers and Lexuses for that matter...

Actually my point was that currently Pentax is trying to play on the same field with big boys prices-wise, but in terms of technology it's still lagging far behind... Back when i've switched to Nikon I was a bit frustrated with Nikon's gear size, so I though of switching back... but after doing some math, a comparable system body+lenses+flashes was actually more expensive with Pentax... Why bother?

Blue · 09-12-2010, 09:32 AM

Originally posted by alexeyga

If it would make you sleep better, today's Mercedes cars are total rubbish... luxury-filled rubbish that is... Nice to own while the lease lasts, but not a car you'd want to keep once it's over... Cost of ownership and maintenance is prohibitive.... and so are Beemers and Lexuses for that matter...

Actually my point was that currently Pentax is trying to play on the same field with big boys prices-wise, but in terms of technology it's still lagging far behind... Back when i've switched to Nikon I was a bit frustrated with Nikon's gear size, so I though of switching back... but after doing some math, a comparable system body+lenses+flashes was actually more expensive with Pentax... Why bother?

I don't have a beef or hangup with Mercedes because I drive a Wrangler and a Bronco. However, I fail to see what a big premium zoom lens has to do with a prime LTD series lenses. People that get into primes and specifically the LTD series often don't have that many zooms. If these same folks were to switch to Nikon, I bet they would have maybe 1 zoom and they would be seeking it the Nikon equivalent to the LTD lenses and DA* primes. That was the point I was making. That D700 is a big puppy itself.

Urkeldaedalus · 09-12-2010, 10:07 AM

The good news is that the K-5 doesn't have to dethrone the D700 or any other camera for that matter. It just has to give Pentax users the performance they need so they don't look for more expensive options.

pingflood · 09-12-2010, 10:30 AM

Originally posted by Urkeldaedalus

The good news is that the K-5 doesn't have to dethrone the D700 or any other camera for that matter. It just has to give Pentax users the performance they need so they don't look for more expensive options.

Problem is that making Pentax users happy can be a fool's errand.

They could release a 999 AF point 20 fps camera with every feature imaginable and sell it for a 100 bucks, and some would bitch that it is now too cheap and they won't get taken seriously if they use one.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Nikon D700	dylansalt	Canon, Nikon, Sony, and Other Camera Brands	38	01-16-2024 01:13 AM
D700 winning me over...	JohnBee	Canon, Nikon, Sony, and Other Camera Brands	25	04-20-2010 08:54 AM
Going up against a D700!!	Torphoto	Pentax DSLR Discussion	19	12-29-2009 10:59 AM
K20D vs D700?	HermanLee	Pentax DSLR Discussion	129	05-14-2009 10:56 PM
Nikon D700	Matjazz	Pentax News and Rumors	91	07-13-2008 01:26 AM

09-11-2010, 06:09 PM	#46
JohnBee Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2008 Location: Newrfoundland Photos: Albums Posts: 4,667	Originally posted by Belnan I think that the K5 vs D700 is a valid comparison, just like the 7D vs D700 would been at the 7D's initial price point. They are in the same order of magnitude price wise. Its at the system level that price matters most. Alot of people think it's simply a matter of... but that's not quite true. Granted, there are people out there(with small kits) who could simply switch unscathed. But for those who have built-up kits for work etc., switching is hardly an open and shut case scenario. Nikon FF cost of ownership is not for the faint of heart

09-11-2010, 06:11 PM	#47
Blue Moderator Site Supporter Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Florida Hill Country Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 17,377	Originally posted by Belnan I think that the K5 vs D700 is a valid comparison, just like the 7D vs D700 would been at the 7D's initial price point. They are in the same order of magnitude price wise. A silly comparison would be the 645D vs the K5, there not even the same ball park with regards to price. In many ways the D700 is a benmark in DLSR's for some photographers. I will probably by a new camera soon and if the price of the K5 is close to the D700, say within $500 then I will switch to Nikon. Do I want to? No, but brand loyalty does not pay off. Ergonomicaly I like the K7 design so I really want the K5 to deliver. I am cautiously optimistic but don't want to get my hopes up. Time will tell. At the moment the D700 is $2389 for the body at BH and the msrp of the K-5 is thought to be ~1600.

09-11-2010, 06:16 PM	#48
JohnBee Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2008 Location: Newrfoundland Photos: Albums Posts: 4,667	Originally posted by Blue At the moment the D700 is $2389 for the body at BH and the msrp of the K-5 is thought to be ~1600. Which isn't indicative of the D700 release tag either. I suspect the K-5 will settle in the mid 1300 region shortly after the holidays. The 7D(body) sells for aprox. 1650- in Canada atm. and it is one heck of an attractive landscape camera too.

09-11-2010, 06:17 PM	#49
Belnan Site Supporter Join Date: Jul 2010 Location: Nova Scotia Photos: Albums Posts: 1,090	Some of Nikon zooms are a little scary price wise. You are correct though a full system swap would be a lot. A lot of people on this forum are heavily invested in pentax gear so I hope the K5 suits there needs. Fortunatley for me and alot of others I am at a cross roads and could switch to a d700 with a little less pain. But the D700 does feel like a bit of a dump truck after handling the K7 and to be honest that may be what keeps me from buying the beast.

09-11-2010, 11:52 PM	#50
Boris Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: Israel Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 932	Originally posted by alexeyga But in real life - good luck selling a well-equipped Chevy at Mercedes prices... That's a very valid point. Pentax is ain't no Mercedes no matter how hard we might wish it were.

09-12-2010, 05:21 AM	#51
alexeyga Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2008 Location: Montreal, Canada Posts: 838	Originally posted by Belnan Some of Nikon zooms are a little scary price wise. You are correct though a full system swap would be a lot. A lot of people on this forum are heavily invested in pentax gear so I hope the K5 suits there needs. Fortunatley for me and alot of others I am at a cross roads and could switch to a d700 with a little less pain. But the D700 does feel like a bit of a dump truck after handling the K7 and to be honest that may be what keeps me from buying the beast. If you think Nikon zoom's prices are scary, try to buy a couple of Limited primes... For the prices of 31Ltd + 77Ltd you can easily get the 14-24 or 24-70 with some cash left for silly things like filters... Better yet, check the used market prices...

09-12-2010, 05:46 AM	#52
Big G Veteran Member Join Date: May 2009 Posts: 581	Just to echo the SDM sentiment, this is something that a superb new body won't help. I found the SDM implementation woeful on my 17-70mm; it wasn't very quick, it was uncertain (more to do with the K20D I feel) and it eventually packed in completely. Maybe the DA * range are different / better, but there has to be a significant improvement to make the most of the K-5 based on my own personal experience of SDM.

09-12-2010, 05:51 AM	#53
AGWoodard Banned Join Date: Jul 2010 Location: New Hampshire/Vermont Posts: 118	But how long will you keep a lens? Bodies get upgraded every couple of years, but a good lens, like a good ball head should last a long time with moderate care. An 800 dollar lens, over 5 years comes to about 43 cents a day to own. Lens cost and lens price are two different things. I have a number of old A and FA lenes. My cost to own them today is almost nothing. The price I paid was a one time thing. I bit the bullet back then, got it over with and now, they cost me nothing to use. And you can be sure if Pentax ever comes out with a FF camera, those prices are NOT going to go down. Best to get them now if you can, even if you have to stretch it over a year or so, and be done with it. A good lens is never going to go down in value especially if you use it even moderately. You will always come out ahead. A cheap lens on the other hand, is like an anchor. Works for what you need today, but down the road, it's still nothing more than dead weight.

09-12-2010, 06:18 AM - 1 Like	#54
falconeye Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: Munich, Alps, Germany Photos: Gallery Posts: 6,871	Originally posted by ManuH DxOMark - Compare sensors ISO score: 1368 for 5D Mk.1, 811 for K-x. That's not bad, that's less than 1 stop, better than the theorical 1.3 stop difference between FF and APS-C. The high ISO performance is governed by sensor area (times fill factor and quantum efficiency). Both values in "()" haven't increased lately and therefore size matters. Dynamic range is governed by sensor area (times full well capacity divided by read-out noise if larger than 1 electron). The read-out noise was improved significantly recently masking somewhat the size advantage. But that's a temporary effect until newer editions of the larger sensores emerge. To increase the full well capacity could be a permanent effect but may be more expensive than to increase the sensor surface. No APSC vendor has attempted this yet. One may think that the full frame advantage just translates to a 2 year advantage required for the smaller format to catch up. That's not true. The possible progress (full well capacity, read-out noise, fill factor and quantum efficiency) is finite and the time to catch up will increase and eventually become infinite.

09-12-2010, 07:03 AM	#55
pcarfan Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: Dayton, Ohio Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 2,978 Original Poster	Originally posted by falconeye ....................................... One may think that the full frame advantage just translates to a 2 year advantage required for the smaller format to catch up. That's not true. The possible progress (full well capacity, read-out noise, fill factor and quantum efficiency) is finite and the time to catch up will increase and eventually become infinite. Hopefully Pentax will come up with a FF prior to the technology getting close to this finite limit

09-12-2010, 07:12 AM	#56
Blue Moderator Site Supporter Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Florida Hill Country Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 17,377	Originally posted by alexeyga If you think Nikon zoom's prices are scary, try to buy a couple of Limited primes... For the prices of 31Ltd + 77Ltd you can easily get the 14-24 or 24-70 with some cash left for silly things like filters... Better yet, check the used market prices... You are comparing primes to large, heavy zooms (31 to 34.2 ounces) and at least one of them takes 77mm filters. Again, you are going to compare used market to New. I wonder what a 10 year old Lexus sells for. Originally posted by Boris That's a very valid point. Pentax is ain't no Mercedes no matter how hard we might wish it were. While it may be part of Urban Legend, neither are CaNikon. If you want to drag Leica into the argument, o.k. then.

09-12-2010, 09:18 AM	#57
alexeyga Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2008 Location: Montreal, Canada Posts: 838	Originally posted by Blue You are comparing primes to large, heavy zooms (31 to 34.2 ounces) and at least one of them takes 77mm filters. Again, you are going to compare used market to New. :Hysterical: I wonder what a 10 year old Lexus sells for. While it may be part of Urban Legend, neither are CaNikon. If you want to drag Leica into the argument, o.k. then. If it would make you sleep better, today's Mercedes cars are total rubbish... luxury-filled rubbish that is... Nice to own while the lease lasts, but not a car you'd want to keep once it's over... Cost of ownership and maintenance is prohibitive.... and so are Beemers and Lexuses for that matter... Actually my point was that currently Pentax is trying to play on the same field with big boys prices-wise, but in terms of technology it's still lagging far behind... Back when i've switched to Nikon I was a bit frustrated with Nikon's gear size, so I though of switching back... but after doing some math, a comparable system body+lenses+flashes was actually more expensive with Pentax... Why bother?

09-12-2010, 09:32 AM	#58
Blue Moderator Site Supporter Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Florida Hill Country Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 17,377	Originally posted by alexeyga If it would make you sleep better, today's Mercedes cars are total rubbish... luxury-filled rubbish that is... Nice to own while the lease lasts, but not a car you'd want to keep once it's over... Cost of ownership and maintenance is prohibitive.... and so are Beemers and Lexuses for that matter... Actually my point was that currently Pentax is trying to play on the same field with big boys prices-wise, but in terms of technology it's still lagging far behind... Back when i've switched to Nikon I was a bit frustrated with Nikon's gear size, so I though of switching back... but after doing some math, a comparable system body+lenses+flashes was actually more expensive with Pentax... Why bother? I don't have a beef or hangup with Mercedes because I drive a Wrangler and a Bronco. However, I fail to see what a big premium zoom lens has to do with a prime LTD series lenses. People that get into primes and specifically the LTD series often don't have that many zooms. If these same folks were to switch to Nikon, I bet they would have maybe 1 zoom and they would be seeking it the Nikon equivalent to the LTD lenses and DA* primes. That was the point I was making. That D700 is a big puppy itself.

09-12-2010, 10:07 AM	#59
Urkeldaedalus Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2008 Location: Iowa Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 1,369	The good news is that the K-5 doesn't have to dethrone the D700 or any other camera for that matter. It just has to give Pentax users the performance they need so they don't look for more expensive options.

09-12-2010, 10:30 AM	#60
pingflood Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Borås, Sweden Photos: Gallery Posts: 3,169	Originally posted by Urkeldaedalus The good news is that the K-5 doesn't have to dethrone the D700 or any other camera for that matter. It just has to give Pentax users the performance they need so they don't look for more expensive options. Problem is that making Pentax users happy can be a fool's errand. They could release a 999 AF point 20 fps camera with every feature imaginable and sell it for a 100 bucks, and some would bitch that it is now too cheap and they won't get taken seriously if they use one.