[jonlee]

Frankly, I don't think the OP's first post proves anything. Even among the Pentax community, people claim Pentax bodies can't track focus as well as other brands.

I did my own informal test, playing fetch with my fast-moving dog, using my K-7 and 50-135 against my D700 and 80-200 AF-S. The D700 tracked better and I had more keepers, but not to say the K-7 isn't capable - it just isn't as good. When all things are considered, this shouldn't be a surprise. The D300/D700 has up to 51 AF points that help track the subject. And the AF-S mechanism on the 80-200 seems slightly faster than the SDM on the 50-135. And, as someone else mentioned, the Nikon combo (either with the D300 or D700) comes at a higher cost.

Despite all this however, there are times I prefer my Pentax setup simply because of this:



Sometimes . . . in fact, most of the time, I'd rather not be burdened carrying around the Nikon alternative, when compared to the Pentax alternative.

Last weekend was an example. Went with the family to check out the Chinese New Year Parade in Los Angeles. I thought to myself, "Which system to take?". With the 2 kids in tow, the choice was easy - Pentax.

And in the end, at least with slow moving action, the results were fine for my purpose - and all without breaking my back:

[PentaxPoke]

Despite all this however, there are times I prefer my Pentax setup simply because of this:



Sometimes . . . in fact, most of the time, I'd rather not be burdened carrying around the Nikon alternative, when compared to the Pentax alternative.

I honestly don't see that much of a difference. Yes the Pentax is smaller, but how much more convenient is the slightly smaller camera+lens combo you show here? I thought there would be a bigger difference when I compared a K-7 + DA 50-135 to a 7D + 70-200. Sure there is a weight and length difference but it is not like the difference between an SLR and a P&S. I figure if I am going to carry an SLR, I might as well carry the best thing to get the job done. A pound or two of weight and a couple inches in length doesn't matter much to me. If I want to go "stealthy" or light weight, I bring a P&S.

[jonlee]

Well, to each, his own, as my k-7 IS my point and shoot.

I didn't weigh the two systems as configured above, but the K-7 combo is significantly lighter, and stores nicely, along with a DA21, in a Crumpler 4 MDH bag. The 7D and 70-200 f2.8 is pretty comparable to my D700 and 80-200 AF-s in terms of size and weight - although I have seen a 7D and 70-200 stuffed inside a Crumpler 5 MDH.

For me, a P&S especially at the telephoto end of the focal range wouldn't compare as well as to a K-7, in terms of responsiveness, functionality, or image quality.

[wlachan]

I honestly don't see that much of a difference. Yes the Pentax is smaller, but how much more convenient is the slightly smaller camera+lens combo you show here? I thought there would be a bigger difference when I compared a K-7 + DA 50-135 to a 7D + 70-200. Sure there is a weight and length difference but it is not like the difference between an SLR and a P&S. I figure if I am going to carry an SLR, I might as well carry the best thing to get the job done. A pound or two of weight and a couple inches in length doesn't matter much to me. If I want to go "stealthy" or light weight, I bring a P&S.

Every oz counts I guess. A year ago a friend was lending me his EF70-200/2.8 IS to shoot his wedding. While it was awesome both AF & optically, it was a little too heavy and "fat" to grip. If I had the f4 with me at the time, I would not be using the f2.8. The difference in weight was huge to me. But then again, I am not the fittest living person.

[PentaxPoke]

For me, a P&S especially at the telephoto end of the focal range wouldn't compare as well as to a K-7, in terms of responsiveness, functionality, or image quality.

I agree, I am saying that it is just not that much different in terms of size. Not enough it seems to me, to justify purchasing an entire k-7 setup + lenses for a "compact" kit. I can see either or, but not both. The extra setup would buy a good number of lenses or accessories for a DSLR.

[jonlee]

I agree, I am saying that it is just not that much different in terms of size. Not enough it seems to me, to justify purchasing an entire k-7 setup + lenses for a "compact" kit. I can see either or.

I'd agree with you too - I spoil myself when it comes my camera gear.

[jsherman999]

I honestly don't see that much of a difference. Yes the Pentax is smaller, but how much more convenient is the slightly smaller camera+lens combo you show here? I thought there would be a bigger difference when I compared a K-7 + DA 50-135 to a 7D + 70-200. Sure there is a weight and length difference but it is not like the difference between an SLR and a P&S. I figure if I am going to carry an SLR, I might as well carry the best thing to get the job done. A pound or two of weight and a couple inches in length doesn't matter much to me. If I want to go "stealthy" or light weight, I bring a P&S.

They both may seem big, but believe me, the difference in size there does matter when you're lugging them about all day.

Also, Jon made the wise choice for that application - in good light, low-iso telephoto application like a parade like that, the DA + K7 is probably going to give you better IQ than the D700 combo.

I know that doesn't sound right, but the D700 wasn't made for super-high resolution low-iso telephoto - it was designed for fast AF, AF-tracking, and especially low-light/high ISO or large-DR-required apps.

Thom Hogan, Nikon book-writer and general demigod, shoots his aps-c D300 in Africa, not his D3 or D700. Mike Johnston has compared the K20D against the D700, and prefers the 14mp K20d to the 12mp D700 at low ISO's, and he gave some pretty good examples showing why.


.

[Douglas_of_Sweden]

so which is it, news or rumor?

Adam, we need a new section: "anecdotes"

[Russell-Evans]

I honestly don't see that much of a difference. Yes the Pentax is smaller, but how much more convenient is the slightly smaller camera+lens combo you show here?

The 50-135mm is about as long a lens as I'm willing to carry. Once you get past five inches, the bag needed to carry the lens, to say noting of being able to carry the lens mounted, gets really large. It really becomes a hassle just to get around in public. It's not about stealth, its about being able to enjoy what you are doing, as well as photography.

If you are just doing photography, then you can carry whatever you need, so this doesn't matter. I do think however, the small camera body is only really useful with smaller lenses and that is only going to appeal to a certain type of photographer.

Thank you
Russell

[mattdm]

When all things are considered, this shouldn't be a surprise. The D300/D700 has up to 51 AF points that help track the subject. And the AF-S mechanism on the 80-200 seems slightly faster than the SDM on the 50-135.

That ain't it. My K-7 with the DA Limited 40mm f/2.8 can't keep up with a three year old running straight at me (in broad daylight). I don't have any complaints at all with this combo's focusing speed in general (even in dim light), and I understand it to be just about the fastest Pentax offers. But AF-C is a joke in this case. It'll probably get off one (well focused) shot. Meanwhile, my friend's now-aged Canon 30D (with, it must be said, the gorgeous 70-200mm f/2.8L) does the same thing at 5fps, resulting in a whole long in-focus sequence.

With my camera, I'm much, much better eschewing the sequence attempt and just pre-focusing on a spot and clicking at the right moment.

That's because by the time Pentax had focused on the spot where the skaters were, they'd already done a lap and come back to the exact same place where the camera was pointed...

Funniest post today...

I crack up everytime someone claims the Pentax K7 or Kanything has some predictive AF... It is a lie! There is not predictive anything with Pentax AF... well you can kind of predict that if the SDM fails it will be after the 1 year warranty.

I can predict that with my K20 if my daughters were walking towards me it, could not keep up with their blazing pace and would miss AF each time...

Predictive AF... what a crack up some of you guys are!

[PentaxPoke]

New funniest post today:

... well you can kind of predict that if the SDM fails it will be after the 1 year warranty.

I must agree with that (Although I had two fail within warranty, and one after)

Do I sound bitter

[str8talk83]

They both may seem big, but believe me, the difference in size there does matter when you're lugging them about all day.

Also, Jon made the wise choice for that application - in good light, low-iso telephoto application like a parade like that, the DA + K7 is probably going to give you better IQ than the D700 combo.

I know that doesn't sound right, but the D700 wasn't made for super-high resolution low-iso telephoto - it was designed for fast AF, AF-tracking, and especially low-light/high ISO or large-DR-required apps.

Thom Hogan, Nikon book-writer and general demigod, shoots his aps-c D300 in Africa, not his D3 or D700. Mike Johnston has compared the K20D against the D700, and prefers the 14mp K20d to the 12mp D700 at low ISO's, and he gave some pretty good examples showing why.


.

Do you have a source for that article about the K20D vs. the D700? Not saying you're lying, I'm actually curious to see that since the D700 is a very highly regarded camera. I have heard that the output of the D700 is basically identical to the D300 up to about ISO 400.

[mattdm]

Do you have a source for that article about the K20D vs. the D700? Not saying you're lying, I'm actually curious to see that since the D700 is a very highly regarded camera. I have heard that the output of the D700 is basically identical to the D300 up to about ISO 400.

The Online Photographer: High ISO vs. Image Stabilization

[jonlee]

The Online Photographer: High ISO vs. Image Stabilization

Interesting read, but I'm not sure I understand how Mike Johnston's article supports the idea that he prefers his K20 more than a D700 at low ISOs. The article simply tests shooting a scene with the D700 (at ISO 6400 and 1/60 shutter speed) versus a K20 (at ISO 1600 and 1/15 shutter speed - both done handheld. The K20 had a DA 35 at @ F4, while the Nikon had a 35mm F2 @F4. When the pic was cropped, the K20 pic looked better.

Frankly, it seemed like a silly test, but what does it have to do with the K20 and D700 both at low ISOs?

Also, in regards to Thom Hogan preferring his D300 over his D3 and D700, I haven't read the article but perhaps, it's simply the additional crop factor and higher density pixels that he finds preferable when needing to shoot really long (like in Africa on a safari)?