[mee]

It isn't even close to an honest comparison. Because it is too difficult to compare these systems accurately in this manner. There is way too much mix and match that needs to happen and, in a lot of cases, this is not possible.


Yet just as comparison, if we use the Roks on the Nikon side (could do the same with Canon), and then use the Tokina 50 and the Tamron zooms, The latest sig macro (slightly sharper than the Nikkor), as well as the comparable Nikon body (to the K-1 II), then we come with a much lower price.

Some of the OEM glass is over priced for what it is. But there are quality third party options that more resemble what is offered with the Pentax example system.

Attached Images

 

[reh321]

It isn't even close to an honest comparison. Because it is too difficult to compare these systems accurately in this manner. There is way too much mix and match that needs to happen and, in a lot of cases, this is not possible.

Yet just as comparison, if we use the Roks on the Nikon side (could do the same with Canon), and then use the Tokina 50 and the Tamron zooms, The latest sig macro (slightly sharper than the Nikkor), as well as the comparable Nikon body (to the K-1 II), then we come with a much lower price.

Some of the OEM glass is over priced for what it is. But there are quality third party options that more resemble what is offered with the Pentax example system.

Even by all these changes, using few Nikon lenses, your price is still $1K above their Pentax price, which uses mostly Pentax lenses.

[mee]

Even by all these changes, using few Nikon lenses, your price is still $1K above their Pentax price, which uses mostly Pentax lenses.

The Pentax still has the worst autofocus system hands down.. and no 'better' body to upgrade into. Or lower res body, which would have dropped the price dramatically.


If I use the Tamron 70-200mm f/2.8 G2 for the extreme priced Nikkor E (or even the older but quality G) the price ends up yet even lower.

But the point isn't any of these things. You can slice and dice a number of ways, but the options they chose for the article don't represent anything than total cost and some mildly similar focal lengths. This article doesn't tell you anything about the quality of the experience you're getting for the money. It doesn't even explain lightning or 3rd party support, repair support, etc. It just shows some rough costs of buying into a system but not how functional that system is. You can buy a crappy Ford Pinto and drive on the interstate for cheap too.. it doesn't really say anything about the quality (or safety in this case!) of the experience. Please don't miss the forest for the trees.

[Winder]

The Nikon 50 f1.4 G is a joke compared to the Sony and Pentax 50mm 1.4 modern lenses. The lens is very much like the FA 50 f1.4 which is lovely for what it is but not in the same class as the new DFA 50. At a minumum they should have included their 58mm which is massively more costly (still no equal to the DFA).

Yes. The Nikon 50mm F/1.4 G is definitely one of the dated lenses. The Canon 50mm F/1.2 isn't exactly an awesome lens either for modern high mega-pixel digital sensors.

[mee]

Yes. The Nikon 50mm F/1.4 G is definitely one of the dated lenses. The Canon 50mm F/1.2 isn't exactly an awesome lens either for modern high mega-pixel digital sensors.

For sure. All reviews I've seen have been mediocre on sharpness at 1.4

I'd rather just go with a Sigma 50 Art or the new Tokina/Pentax instead.. if I wanted a ginormous f/1.4 lens.

The new 50 f/1.2 for Z mount coming next year.. so it looks like instead of updating the F Nikon just went for the new Z. Probably trying to woo people over there.

[biz-engineer]

How much money I have or don't have is irrelevant to that list

If I only can buy the camera and standard zoom, how relevant is the list?

[monochrome]

Some people just aren’t gonna let it go. If created thoughtfully, a K-mount kit of professional quality produces 99% of the opportunity set for 70% of the cost. Those 5 silk-screened letters are expensive.

[NZ_Ross]

If I only can buy the camera and standard zoom, how relevant is the list?

The list is still relevant as it is likely over a number of years that a photographer will add lenses to their system as needed, and funds are available.

To take the extremes of the FF list, there is a big difference in the Leica FF kit price verses the Pentax FF kit price, and it would be wise to consider that sort of price differential against perceived performance and need before buying into a particular manufacturers photographic system.

[monochrome]

If I only can buy the camera and standard zoom, how relevant is the list?

If you lease each complete setup it is perfectly relevant.

[biz-engineer]

If you lease the setup it is perfectly relevant.

Every pro photographer use what they need. Some pro sport photographer only do sport photography, they use a body and long lens and that's all. For weddings the same applies, wedding photographers don't use a 100-400 lens, the more used is likely 50mm and 70-200 or 85, 135mm lenses aren't used very much, and that's why 135mm isn't as wide spread as 85mm.

Anyway, the more I use the K1, the more I believe I made the right choice, simply because it has the right size, cost, and deliver best in class image quality. There are many other choices, but none rival Pentax in terms of value for money.

[Rondec]

Nice.

Someone comes up with a list that is at least a bit thought provoking and people who have moved on come back to "speak truth" to the deluded Pentaxians. Pentax has good value. It doesn't meet everyone's needs and Pentax is very slowly adding higher end lenses. That doesn't change the fact that you can buy a K-1 II and f2.8 zoom series from B and H right now for 5787.80 USD, which is a very good value in my book.

The whole point of the exercise was to use as many brand name lenses as possible (not used). That is not entirely possible with Pentax as they don't have all of those focal lengths covered, but I would argue as well, that it is generally hard to match Pentax lenses to Nikon/Canon equivalents. The FA limiteds have significantly different esthetic compared the f1.8 primes available from Canon and Nikon, but they are f1.8 lenses.

It doesn't change the fact that if you buy into any of these systems and purchase brand name only lenses, you will pay out a lot of money and the new RP and Z mounts are only going to compound that issue.

[Winder]

If I only can buy the camera and standard zoom, how relevant is the list?

That is a question only you can answer.

---------- Post added 03-09-19 at 07:51 AM ----------

Nice.

Someone comes up with a list that is at least a bit thought provoking and people who have moved on come back to "speak truth" to the deluded Pentaxians. Pentax has good value. It doesn't meet everyone's needs and Pentax is very slowly adding higher end lenses. That doesn't change the fact that you can buy a K-1 II and f2.8 zoom series from B and H right now for 5787.80 USD, which is a very good value in my book.

The whole point of the exercise was to use as many brand name lenses as possible (not used). That is not entirely possible with Pentax as they don't have all of those focal lengths covered, but I would argue as well, that it is generally hard to match Pentax lenses to Nikon/Canon equivalents. The FA limiteds have significantly different esthetic compared the f1.8 primes available from Canon and Nikon, but they are f1.8 lenses.

It doesn't change the fact that if you buy into any of these systems and purchase brand name only lenses, you will pay out a lot of money and the new RP and Z mounts are only going to compound that issue.

Nobody here is "speaking truth" to deluded Pentaxians. Nobody has said Pentax is not a good value. What several people have said is that the list fails to do a very good job of comparing apples to apples.


If you are going to compare cost for a comparable system let's us Nikon and Pentax. The D810 is a better comparison to the K-1 or K-1.2 and you can pick up a new D810 fro $1,700. You get the same sensor with the better AF of the D810. Nikon is actually well known for the high image quality of the F/1.8 prime lenses. The Canon F/1.8 are decent lenses, but the Nikon lenses are really good. The FA Limited lenses might have significantly different esthetic compared to the Nikon F/1.8 lenses (separate discussion), but the same can be said for the F/1.4 glass from Nikon compared top the Limited lenses. The Nikon 50mm F/1.4 is pretty much a dog in the digital era so I would switch to Sigma ART for that option. With the Nikon kit you have the option of either building your kit with the F/1.8 primes, the Sigma ART lenses, or the F/1.4 G series glass. You have 3 different lines, or more if you count other 3rd party glass, to mix and match your kit to fit your specific needs. I've never owned a Nikon camera and I have no desire to switch to Nikon even though I know I could put together a comparable kit for a lot less money, but I would have my head in the sand if I didn't acknowledge the strengths and advantages other systems have.


In order for the list to be relevant you need to compare not just price, but performance as well. There are more and more professional hybrid shooters and their list and needs is going to be different than a pure stills photographer. The professional sports photographer probably isn't going to take ANY of the cameras on that list.

[c.a.m]

This article doesn't tell you anything about the quality of the experience you're getting for the money. It doesn't even explain lightning or 3rd party support, repair support, etc. It just shows some rough costs of buying into a system but not how functional that system is.

I think this is a good point to keep in mind. Simply comparing the costs of the various camera/lens systems only provides a small piece of the picture.

The Pentax still has the worst autofocus system hands down..

@mee, Although the theme of this present thread is not AF capabilities per se, I'd like to mention that several other active threads are discussing Pentax AF (in Pentax DSLR Discussion). It would be great if you could present some of your rationale in one of those threads to support your general claim of "worst autofocus system hands down." It's not obvious that anyone has conducted credible tests or comparisons of current systems including the K-1 II.


- Craig

[normhead]

The Pentax detractors claim bias, which is really just that the article doesn't confirm their own personal bias, the Pentax users, with first hand experience with their K-1s etc say "ya, that's why I chose Pentax."

But as Craig points out, someone who professes to know about AF who has't kept up with the science...
How does Pentax AF-C compare to other brands? - PentaxForums.com

or the Single point AF scores posted on Imaging Resources

should be seriously be questioning the basis of their evaluation. In the world of science "everybody says so" isn't valid, until repeatable testing has taken place. Theories only supported by anecdotal evidence are not worth considering as more than suggestions for research, and over time, it's amazing how many of those "everybody says so" theories were wrong.

One of the most surprising things from those tests, a D7200 doesn't even AF with tracking on. it tracks the movement and predicts the position. It doesn't check focus before releasing the shutter. . So in essence, if there is speed variation by the subject, it will be focussed on where the camera thinks the subject should be, not where it is. For the number fo times i've heard of the D7200 advantage I found that to be rather shocking. It's clear from the research, people are happy when their AF works, and ignore it when their system fails. Regardless of the brand they use. But it's fashionable at the moment to repete "pentax AF sucks." You can certainly tell who is swayed by public opinion.

However, the issue with MSRP is that it's not really open to debate. Pentax comes out on top. People who hate Pentax are upset. There's going to be fallout. Exactly why I never listen to anecdotal evidence if i can find some science on the matter.

[ThorSanchez]

People will nitpick the choices in the lineups but it kind of shows the challenge for Olympus.
You can get many APS-C setups for the same price as an Olympus setup without much of a size/weight penalty.
So they are squeezed from above and then squeezed from below by cell phones.

If I were Olympus I would look at this and think that maybe I need to focus more on the size and weight. If you're using a 4/3rd sensor you can get very small bodies and small lenses with relatively high image quality. If you're going to have a kit that costs as much as APS-C and in some cases FF you need an advantage, and in my opinion that would be a GR-sized ILC. I really don't get the point of a 4/3rd sensor surrounded by FF-sized body and lenses.

Olympus' motto should be Cell Phone Sized Camera with a Big Sensor.