[jstevewhite]

I was shooting an event yesterday beside a D7K owner.
A couple of things when we were comparing notes:
The K5 has at least one more stop of usable high ISO (he won't go above 6400 under any circumstance), judging by review screen images, and in the conditions we were shooting in, the K5 AF is about as adequate as the D7K AF.
He likes his 36 points that light up like Christmas trees and all that, but the 11 point AF in the K5 seems to work well enough.

If he was shooting in-camera jpg he might not like the aggressive noise reduction of the Nikon's jpg engine. I think they have very similar noise profiles in RAW.

I suspect that sheer numbers of AF points don't translate to "better" af. I don't like multiple points at one time for several reasons - primarily the fact that it frequently chooses to focus on the wrong thing (as do Canons; I've not shot with a million point Nikon). Although for BIF against the sky I choose five point AF; it does really well at picking the bird out, usually (it being my K-5).

I know that the review sites put the K-5's autofocus in the middle of the pack ( the "pack" being the big five, Canon, Nikon, Olympus, Sony/Minolta, and Pentax ) for performance and accuracy. EVERYONE else is behind Canon and Nikon. But there wasn't much difference in the spread, either, in the same price range. Frankly, if you're not spending a lot more money on a body, I think the AF discussion is a bit of a red herring.

I've shot many times beside CaNikon shooters at events and weddings and... well, you name it; there are more of them than of us, yes? At a company softball game I got more peak action shots and more 'keepers' than the fellow with the Canon 7D and Canon ~70-200 2.8. Here's the kicker - I was using a manual focus lens. AF is great, but it's no substitute for understanding the situation you're in. It's not like there were no great photographs - of any kind! - before the EOS.

[Balog]

Trouble is, the average camera enthusiast who is researching digital SLRs would not know a medium format camera from a hole in the ground. Canon and Nikon just happen to be brands that everyone has heard about... and in a vacuum a buyer will purchase something they've heard about 9 out of 10 times...

Mike

p.s. If only Paul Simon had owned a Pentax rather than a Nikon... Things could be vastly different today.

And most people don't want to pay $10k for a camera either... Even the FF Canikon's are half that.

[jstevewhite]

And most people don't want to pay $10k for a camera either... Even the FF Canikon's are half that.

D3x is $8k at B&H.

[Designosophy]

This is a very interesting thread. I chose Pentax for two reasons: Value for price at the entry level, and in-body shake reduction that allowed me to use any lens with shake reduction. I have essential tremors, so I lose up to 2 stops right off the bat. I'm not sure if the value proposition still holds, but the SR consideration remains important to me. I have no incentive to switch.

From my limited experience talking with serious Canon/Nikon users, the lack of FF bodies is the foremost reason why they would not use Pentax. Either they are shooting full frame or they hope to someday. One of them suggested to me that I get out of Pentax before I have invested too much in lenses. On the other hand, the two Pentax users I know of who have switched to Nikon have done so because Nikon has lenses of focal lengths that Pentax does not. I didn't ask what those were, but I figure it's the long lenses talked about in this thread.

This is just anecdotal, but I can see that there is real value for the serious photographer in Canon and Nikon. And it also seems that there are inexpensive AF lens options for Canon/Nikon users that satisfy the casual shooter.

[jstevewhite]

This is a very interesting thread. I chose Pentax for two reasons: Value for price at the entry level, and in-body shake reduction that allowed me to use any lens with shake reduction. I have essential tremors, so I lose up to 2 stops right off the bat. I'm not sure if the value proposition still holds, but the SR consideration remains important to me. I have no incentive to switch.

From my limited experience talking with serious Canon/Nikon users, the lack of FF bodies is the foremost reason why they would not use Pentax. Either they are shooting full frame or they hope to someday. One of them suggested to me that I get out of Pentax before I have invested too much in lenses. On the other hand, the two Pentax users I know of who have switched to Nikon have done so because Nikon has lenses of focal lengths that Pentax does not. I didn't ask what those were, but I figure it's the long lenses talked about in this thread.

This is just anecdotal, but I can see that there is real value for the serious photographer in Canon and Nikon. And it also seems that there are inexpensive AF lens options for Canon/Nikon users that satisfy the casual shooter.

Undoubtedly Canon has a deep, deep lens lineup. As does Nikon. As many, many people have noted before, though, the vast majority of people that complain about Pentax's lack of 600mm f4 lenses dont' own them in Canon or Nikon, either, and never will.

Not that this invalidates the argument - if you think you'll need a 600mm f4 as a matter of business, you should probably be using CaNikon. If you don't do it for a living, you can FIND such things used. I saw a 600mm f4 Pentax on eekbay the other day. It was actually less than comparable Canon lenses, and I'm fairly certain it's comparable in quality. I almost bought it, but I'm pretty sure I would have ended up living in the case it came in when my wife found out.

[Winder]

All this talk about why Canon and Nikon dominate?

Simple:

Pentax does not have the global support.
Pentax does not have an extensive lens line up.
Pentax does not have the support of a large lens rental program.
Pentax does not have the AF to satisfy the largest section of professional photographers.
Pentax does not offer a FF.

The K-5 is the first DSLR to really reach the quality level (IQ and build quality/performance) that would interest professional users. The 645D will appeal to certain segments, but it is a new system and Pentax can not meet the demand of the market. Most people can not afford a second 645D as a back-up so if it goes down they need very rapid turn around from Pentax service to get back to work or a rental/loaner system.

[AntY]

About the lenses: the only lens lineup that matters are the ones you use. If you have need for one of those bulky tele-zooms, then go ahead and go CaNikon.

I prefer to think of us Pentaxians as elite photographers (just because it makes me think i'm actually good at this ). My motivation for this is as follows.

1) A random hockey mom want to take pictures of her family -> CaNikon
2) A person who knows what he/she is looking for and critically examines the alternatives before buying -> maybe pentax

1+2 -> If you randomize photos from pentaxians and canikonists you should get better pictures from the pentax-group.

I'm not saying pentaxians are better than CaNikonists, just that those who want an advanced camera and never goes further than "all auto" tend to end up in the CaNikon-group

[jstevewhite]

All this talk about why Canon and Nikon dominate?

Simple:

Pentax does not have the global support.
Pentax does not have an extensive lens line up.
Pentax does not have the support of a large lens rental program.
Pentax does not have the AF to satisfy the largest section of professional photographers.
Pentax does not offer a FF.

The K-5 is the first DSLR to really reach the quality level (IQ and build quality/performance) that would interest professional users. The 645D will appeal to certain segments, but it is a new system and Pentax can not meet the demand of the market. Most people can not afford a second 645D as a back-up so if it goes down they need very rapid turn around from Pentax service to get back to work or a rental/loaner system.

And the 645d is a studio machine, really; not that you can't take it on location, but it's really designed for commercial photographers that have strobe systems and a site crew. If I were still a commercial photographer, I'd be all over the 645d.

I think some things are interrelated. Pentax does not have an extensive lens lineup, so there aren't large lens rental programs (although a few are coming online).

I agree with your points, but perhaps for different reasons.

There are different kinds of "pros". The vast majority of 'professional photographers' are portrait/wedding/event style shooters. There is absolutely no reason *most* of those can't use virtually any current DSLR "professionally". Yeah, you can do great stuff with a FF - but you can do great stuff with an APS-c, as well. I've seen CaNikon shooters around here doing weddings with one type of camera and one type of lens - such as a Canon 5dMkII and a Tamron 28-200. Absolutely no reason that same thing couldn't be accomplished with a K-5 and an 18-135 (or other short zoom of your choice).

Then there are photojournalists - sports pros, news pros (shrinking in numbers because of the proliferation and improvement of phone cam/video), location pros, travel pros... they all have different needs. Sports pros (largely) treat their equipment like a construction worker treats his tools... They produce those 300 f2.8's you've seen on ebay that look like they were used to drive nails with. A travel photographer can use a Leica M9 and three lenses; A nature photographer doesn't have that luxury.

Many of these folks really need the easy availability of CaNikon. You can pick up a new body in any major city, and usually get big glass within 48 hours. That does make a difference.

None of this changes why I love Pentax... none of it motivates me to switch That doesn't mean it's not true.

[Macario]

All this talk about why Canon and Nikon dominate?

Simple:

Pentax does not have the global support.
Pentax does not have an extensive lens line up.
Pentax does not have the support of a large lens rental program.
Pentax does not have the AF to satisfy the largest section of professional photographers.
Pentax does not offer a FF.

Well, it is not that simple. The domination is mostly in the amteur market (yes in the professional too, but that is just a very small margin of DSLR's out there)
And 99% of the people that buy camera's, do it because they know the brand through ads and so on. They really do not know about global suport, extensive lens line up, let alone know what FF is. Until now, I have only seen one Canon Eos 5D, only one FF camera since the first DSLR came out. All the others were APS-C cameras. And those cameras are bought with standard lenses and used in scene modes.
And would the pro's go to Pentax if they came out with a FF now? I do not think so, as pro's have invested thousands of euro's into lenses already. I think less than 1% would switch

SO for obvious reasons pros use CANIKON, but the real domination is in the APS-C cameras, as people will for 99% buy the barnd they know, and not look into what will suit them best

[Tommot1965]

when we talk about longer glass , pentax is missing a very key lens that is a important FL for most photographers....a 70-200F2.8..they decided that we wouldn't need that FL on a crop sensor and went with a 50-135 F2.8 to get the same FOV as a 70-200F2.8 on a FF body.

trouble is ...most people liked having the greater reach that the crop sensor had with the 70-200F2.8, so I think that pentax made a bad decision there, a 16-50 F2.8 and a 70-200 F2.8 would have made much more sense than what they have opted for?. also a quality TC would have been great too

most Nikon users will opt for a 70-200F28 and a TC for longer reach ..the nikon TC's work very well and the 1.4X shows no loss of IQ/ sharpness quality and no loss of AF speed..the 1.7X that I have ...loses a tad of both and the new 2XIII loses a tickle more again.......

the 300MM AFS VR can be had used for around $3500....that is a quality piece of glass that also works very well with Tc's...either the 70-200 or the 300 will achieve a FL of 340mm or 510 respectively when coupled with the 1.7TC at F4.8....and very very good IQ and sharpness....these are the very reason I left pentax....if pentax had these offerings...Id have thought long and hard before I would have gone.

also I feel these lenses are within the reach of a dedicated amateur...not a soccer hockey mum for sure ...but most guys here would aspire to that sort of glass/price range if pentax had it?....

people do not shift to canikon for 600mm $10 000 lenses..although they are there if you needed them...best of all my local shop will rent me that lens for $400 for a weekend if I really needed the reach...say for a pro surfing tour that we have from time to time...some dedicated birders would buy that lens, and use it all the time too....quite a bit less than a harley or jetski that others might buy for personnel enjoyment ...

on Af of the D7000... Ive not used one..but Ive read plenty of former d300 users have bought the D7000 for better ISO/ dynamic range...only to return or sell it to go back to the d300, as they were disappointed with its AF speed /accuracy ..as the gain of more Iso wasn't worth the backwards step in AF ...again thats only what Ive read....

[GLXLR]

have either of you heard of the 645D?

Too expensive and uses a completely different mount. It's almost like switching brands if you wanted to "upgrade" so I don't consider that a pro body dSLR... more of a special niche camera.

[jstevewhite]

Too expensive and uses a completely different mount. It's almost like switching brands if you wanted to "upgrade" so I don't consider that a pro body dSLR... more of a special niche camera.

Whatever you consider it, it's still a Pentax, designed for pros, and it's an SLR... medium format systems generally *don't* use 35mm lenses. It's only a 'special niche camera' if you consider medium format cameras to be 'special niche cameras'. I think it's a bit of a stretch to call it such, personally.

You can use adapters and share the 645 lenses with your small-format DSLR.

[Wheatfield]

Too expensive and uses a completely different mount. It's almost like switching brands if you wanted to "upgrade" so I don't consider that a pro body dSLR... more of a special niche camera.

Whatever, but the really simple fact is, medium format is what Pentax considers pro.
It's taken them a while to get back in the pro game, but the 645 puts them in it.

[RioRico]

And 99% of the people that buy camera's, do it because they know the brand through ads and so on. They really do not know about global suport, extensive lens line up, let alone know what FF is. Until now, I have only seen one Canon Eos 5D, only one FF camera since the first DSLR came out. All the others were APS-C cameras.

And that is an interesting point. In the past couple years I've seen just two FF's in use, by news shooters out of Sacramento CA and Reno NV, one each C and N. A few days ago I saw a FF here in Santa Fe NM, but the kid was cradling it, almost hiding it, so I couldn't ID it. More undoubtedly exist around sporting and political events (which I avoid) but out on the street, digital FF's are about nonexistant.

FILM is another matter. I've seen and talked to folks with 135 SLRs: an older guy with a Nikon F2 here in Santa Fe; a young gal resuscitating her dad's Minolta Maxxum at the Grand Canyon; even a few Spotties here and there. And 135 FF's weren't uncommon in Guatemala on my last journey. (Digital products had high excise taxes.)

I suspect money is a factor, eh? A pro-level 135/FF camera can be bought for a pittance. My bro-in-law offered to GIVE me his wedding-business Bronica system because it's not worth selling (but where would I put it?). Before I bought a dSLR, I ignored some sage advice: For my budget, get a used SLR system and a top scanner and a thousand rolls of film (wholesale discount). Life would be so different now...

Others have figured out that a cheap film cam is rather more cost-effective than a digital monster for high quality. Who buys FF/MF digital? Pros and wannabees and VERY advanced amateurs with deep pockets. Like dentists. Film makes more sense for the adventurous hoi polloi.

So the 645D will never be a mass-market item. And though Canikony FF's may be high-profile, the Silent Majority of FF users will continue with film as long as it's available. Meanwhile, Canikony will continue to spend vast amounts on marketing and presence, will continue to grab most casual dSLR buyers... but Pentax *IS* getting a bit more recognition, a bit more market share. Maybe PenHoya's long-term plans will succeed. Maybe.

[jstevewhite]

I suspect money is a factor, eh? A pro-level 135/FF camera can be bought for a pittance. My bro-in-law offered to GIVE me his wedding-business Bronica system because it's not worth selling (but where would I put it?). Before I bought a dSLR, I ignored some sage advice: For my budget, get a used SLR system and a top scanner and a thousand rolls of film (wholesale discount). Life would be so different now...

Others have figured out that a cheap film cam is rather more cost-effective than a digital monster for high quality. Who buys FF/MF digital? Pros and wannabees and VERY advanced amateurs with deep pockets. Like dentists. Film makes more sense for the adventurous hoi polloi.

I tried that - because I *had* high-end film cameras. Hasselblad and Canon. (Sold my 4x5 gear when I closed my studio). You think RAW can be a tedious workflow... and back when I bought my first DSLR (*ist DL), a scanner that produced 6MP quality comparable to the digital capture cost more than the camera and lenses I bought right out of the gate. Film processing? Forget it. I just didn't see it as a very economical solution. Cost $2 a neg to get 120 scanned, or a fortune for a scanner to produce high quality scans from 6x6cm.

Not that I don't think about shooting 120 film from time to time... It just feels so.. archaic.