[shaolen]

the ISO performance of the D500 seems to be amazing. The price is too high though. The only way they get away with it is that many people are oblivious to pentax

[stevebrot]

Well, yes, I see where this argumentation goes, and I'm telling you, that dog won't hunt.
Ansel Adams too was a working professional, and he needed but a manual focusing camera.

Thank you for making my point.


Steve

[rawr]

the ISO performance of the D500 seems to be amazing.

But ISO performance is kind of 'lumpy'. If you look at the DxOMark dynamic range charts, below ISO 400 D7200 does better, and between IS0 400 and ISO 6400 D7200 and D500 are about the same. Only after ISO 6400 does the D500 take off.

Interestingly, the only DxOMark sensor metric where the D500 seems hugely better than the D7200 is tonal range, not dynamic range. There it just seems head-and-shoulders better than D7200. Tonal range must have been something Nikon made some special effort to boost out of the sensor, for some purpose.

[Uluru]

Well, how many Pentaxians will spend $2000 for such a camera? Even if we discount it by 20% to $1600, how many Pentaxians will buy that?

They will. If a difference between 95% of shots taken well and 70% taken well is $600, then it's a no brainer.
But everyone knows that a $750 camera can't have 95% of all shots taken well — it's impossible.

But be able to have 70% of keepers, and moan constantly about remaining 30%, is a waste of breath and is not positive marketing.
Then the picture is also stretched beyond belief by some smartarse pundits: they come and treat K-3 like it's a pro level camera, although it isn't. Neutral people then come to see, compare it to D500, and then ask are Pentax users crazy or live in alternative universe? In a matter of speaking yes, they create false assumptions.

Majority of profits for all camera manufacturers come from APS-C; Pentax is no different. To have a landmark camera in that arena is money better invested than in 1000 billboards. It speaks for itself and it positions the brand one step up.

Or think like this: If Pentax is able to sell 100,000 of K3 cameras worldwide at $750, and is able to sell 90,000 of K3 cameras at $850 with pro-level K2 also available alongside, those extra 90,000x$100 is 9 million dollars difference that could have been used to make a killer AF in the K2 — all financed using same K3.

With extra camera positioned as Pro, Pentax has more flexibility in pricing too, and does not need to sell cameras at price levels below human dignity.

[stevebrot]

But everyone knows that a $750 camera can't have 95% of all shots taken well — it's impossible.

The smoke is getting pretty thick in here and the odor is akin to burning butyl rubber.




Steve

[MJSfoto1956]

But everyone knows that a $750 camera can't have 95% of all shots taken well — it's impossible.

I have a $299 camera where 100% of the images are taken well. Nikon Coolpix A. What's your point?

Michael

[slip]

body image stabilization keeps me in the Pentax family as I have shaky hands. if Nikon decided to do in body, then I would have no problem with paying extra for the better autofocus.
D500 performance is not available from Pentax at ANY price :d

Randy

[Uluru]

Not sure I agree. A quick comparison shows that the two cameras are comparable yet address different markets. In fact, you could buy a K-3ii and a K-1 for "about" the same price as a D500. So I do think that Pentax have produced a quality pro camera system at a very affordable price point.

It is not a professional camera setup by market's definition. It is very fine, competent, affordable, so forth, but no pro.

Pentax is a legendary master of no-commitment to a real climb up the Mt Fuji: they have no stamina to run in thin air. Partly, it was because they knew they cannot sustain any more serious work without competent management, which Pentax started to lose by late 1980s / early 1990s.

They were always Toyota, but without Lexus part. They were Honda, but without Formula One part. There must be one part that pushes forward.

To go there, to the summit, they needed more passionate coach. Now Ricoh, which surely is a very competent company, is not the one that will splurge big bucks and spend months in the gym to go head to head with Nikon in pro department. To Ricoh, photography is not true passion, but a diversion. My idea was that they at least deliver something pro in the market which they can practically own by coincidence — pro level crop, and for their own sake, to keep them on top of their toes and always anxious to be better.

I think that does not require too much either; tech-wise, just more sophisticated AF, faster overall responsiveness. UI improvement too.

But I would never assume Ricoh would try anything similar in the FF arena.

[RobA_Oz]

They were always Toyota, but without Lexus part. They were Honda, but without Formula One part. There must be one part that pushes forward.

A fraught analogy, bearing in mind the Celica Supra (definitely not a "hairdresser car") and the MR2. The Lexus performance cars could have had a Toyota badge, but badged as a Lexus they can charge more for the mystique, or whatever passes for it in that market.

Anyway, the "market" you speak of is the market of sales dominance. Even in the restricted segment of MF, that makes the 645Z a professional's camera. Clearly, that doesn't make the Leica S2 a non-professional's camera.

[Alex645]

It is not a professional camera setup by market's definition. It is very fine, competent, affordable, so forth, but no pro.

For anyone still following this thread, my final two cents, to a large degree regarding the term "pro" in reference to cameras. Professional is a loosely used adjective that defines the camera as one capable or frequently used by a hired or independent photographer using said equipment to make money.

I have learned through experience that some of this is technically valid and some of this is not. I started my pro career in "Hollywood" in the ʻ80s with four Minolta FSLRs. I switched systems for two reasons: 1) all four cameras and six lenses were stolen; 2) my own insecurity dealing with clients that superficially judged the photographer by their equipment and not their images. When I switched to Nikon in the late 80ʻs, it was because of these two reasons; not because I could not get pro images from Minolta cameras.

The Minoltas were replaced with two Nikon F3HP bodies, but I also wanted a lightweight backup camera and got the entry-level N2000. The salesman chided me because he said there was no way the cheap plastic geared N2000 could be trusted on a daily and nightly grind in the elements. My first pro-level F3HP needed repair under warranty on a cold night shooting on location in Minnesota. Both F3HP have been sent in for maintenance and repair over the years, but that N2000, which has shot an equal amount of actuations, has never failed and somehow never needed what should be routine maintenance.

Overlapping this 35mm story is my Pentax 645 which I also acquired new in ʻ86. Iʻve used it both for my fine art and pro work for 30 years. This was at a time when Hasselblad dominated the pro MF market. I did my research, and met with a photographer that worked for THE top intelligence agency in my country. They could easily afford any system and to my surprise, they exclusively used Pentax cameras and lenses at a time when Hasselblad, Rollei, Leica, Contax, Mamiya, and Bronica were all considered pro MF systems.

So what makes a camera professional? Well it does need a system of lenses, accessories, and a certain level of quality and durability. But itʻs not determined by bloggers, consumer reporters, a web site, or ads; itʻs pro if it is used professionally by photographers. The 645Z and K-1 are awesome cameras. Perfect? No. Good enough for a pro? Let me just say that if it isnʻt, Iʻd question the photographerʻs skills, not the camera specs.

[Rondec]

I guess i would just say in answer to Uluru's diatribes that top end tracking auto focus is needed only by a very small segment of the photography population. Most photographers need excellent single shot auto focus and auto focus that is capable of tracking people moving at a slow to moderate pace. The K3 II is more than capable of doing both of those things.

To this point, Ricoh has chosen not to go after the sports market with any of their cameras. Most folks who need sports cameras have migrated away from Pentax long ago and have purchased the necessary camera bodies and lenses from other brands. But for folks interested in astro photography, landscape, wedding photograpy, the K3 II is a good deal as is the K-1 and these are more than capable of most of the things such types of photography require, including adequate tracking auto focus.

[noelpolar]

The real question here is what will take the longest..... a Pentax sport oriented camera to come to market or a single like for Uluru?

[Dan Rentea]

For action photographers there is no contest between D500 and K-3 II. D500 is way ahead Pentax in this segment because it has:

- 10 fps vs 8.3 fps (which counts)
- a lot more advanced Af system than K-3 II
- larger body (is more suitable to work with big lenses)
- a variaty of specialised lenses (not available at this moment in Pentax mount)
- higher ISO performance

If action photography is the main area for someone, then D500 is the ovious choice. K-3 II on the other hand is hard to beat as a general purpose camera because it has a lot of features. And if we also bring into discution the K-3 II low price that it has these days... it's easy to choose between them.

[Rondec]

For action photographers there is no contest between D500 and K-3 II. D500 is way ahead Pentax in this segment because it has:

- 10 fps vs 8.3 fps (which counts)
- a lot more advanced Af system than K-3 II
- larger body (is more suitable to work with big lenses)
- a variaty of specialised lenses (not available at this moment in Pentax mount)
- higher ISO performance

If action photography is the main area for someone, then D500 is the ovious choice. K-3 II on the other hand is hard to beat as a general purpose camera because it has a lot of features. And if we also bring into discution the K-3 II low price that it has these days... it's easy to choose between them.

True.

I would say that the D500 is over kill for most applications. Sure, it could do landscape photography, but I don't know that it is necessary to have 10 fps for that or an endless buffer to take photos of a non-action stuff. Traditionally, someone like Ansel Adams used large format cameras which took a lot of time to set up and would meticulously arrange his shot for his one frame. And that worked. I am glad that my cameras shoot more than one exposure at a time, but I end up throwing away a lot more unnecessary shots a result.

[MJSfoto1956]

for me one of the key differentiators between pro and prosumer is the number of shutter actuations the camera is capable of before needing repair. By this standard (and many others) the K-3 series is clearly "pro" over nearly any other crop sensor other than the D500 (which has identical shutter life expectancy as the K-3 btw).

Michael