Originally posted by JayR I do a little bit of commercial photography including architectural work on top of my day job as an architect, and have felt very limited by the lens line up in recent times, the Sigma 10-20 just wont cut it enough especially with taller building shots - only so much in the way of pixels you can lose with software perspective correction.
The Sigma 10-20 (both versions) and Tamron 10-24 stink (from a perfectionist standpoint), so don't give us that cr@p. You need to go with the Sigma 8-16 or primes. You'd be better off with the Q 08, quite frankly.
Originally posted by JayR Ive liked using Pentax, particularly as the lenses are a bit smaller and a bit cheaper, but have found a few irritating things like the SDM death of the 16-50 (thankfully now fine with upgraded motor) the autofocus of the K7 being a bit average sometimes, limited modern lens range and/or rental options, and the less than ideal noise of the K7 sensor -
You're kidding about this too, right?? Don't answer that - you can't complain about noise until you've upgraded to the K-x or beyond. How ironic that this would prompt you to switch to Canon - the noise king! You'll have to select your body carefully, because they still have a lot of noisy sensors in their lineup. The K-7 can be a great camera, but hanging on to one while complaining about AF or noise is a joke.
Also, try Capture One for its keystone adjustments. While I agree that optical adjustments (i.e. getting it right in camera) is generally better, I find it awfully hard to believe you haven't at least tried a K-3 with a Sigma 8-16 and various software first. And I suppose you're doing enough shots that you need digital, but my first inclination for proper TS is a 4x5 film camera, where it's inherent in the design. New ones aren't even that expensive (e.g. an $800 model last I checked).
Furthermore, outside of the TS lenses, UWA is a Canon
weakness, not a strength. Likewise with their macros. They have that very interesting MP-E 65mm 1-5x "ultra-macro," but all their other macros seem inferior to the competition. I shot with a Canon 5D II and 16-35/2.8 L (version 1, I believe) on the Universal backlot a few years ago. I was surprised to find my K200D and DA15 took better photos! Hmm, I only spent $600 on that combo - why can't this $4K+ outfit match it?! Not to mention what my FA31, DA*50-135, FA77, and K200/2.5 gave me! I admit I must have been a little brainwashed by the Canon image (rather than their images) before this experience. I still respect Canon, but you either get their best glass or forget it! I think both Sony and Nikon also beat them at the wide end. Certainly the Sony Zeiss 16-35/2.8 is better than the Canon. It only took me a few shots to figure that out. And I think the Nikon 14-24 beats the Canon UWA prime!
Now, after all that, perhaps you still have some good reasons to switch to a Canon system. They do have a more versatile lens system, after all. But TS seems almost like a kludge on a DSLR. Perhaps it's better when the entire
camera is designed for TS, not just the lens. In any case, some of what you said above sounds more like excuses than reality.