[DavidWebb]

Hello All,

I am a long time, if not lifetime, Canon shooter currently shooting with a Canon EOS 20D and a variety of lenses at different focal lengths. Ever since the K10D has come out though it has intrigued me. It seems to be a good "bang for your buck" proposition with the weather sealing, anti shake technology and the backwards compatibility with so many early Pentax lenses. It would be quite an ordeal at this point to switch my equipment over to Pentax, but I would be willing to do it if the return on investment of the effort would be worth it. (Honestly, just not owning Canon or Nikon in itself in appealing to me!)

I know that I am talking to a somewhat biased crowd here, but what would be the major advantages (or disadvantages) in your mind in converting my equipment to Pentax from my current stable of Canon equipment. I shoot mostly with Sigma lenses currently as they in a lot of cases are a better bang for your buck performance wise than their Canon counterparts. And I would be able to continue with Sigma if I switched to Pentax, which is a positive as well.

Let me know what you think and what your opinions are on the subject. I would be interested to hear from anyone that has made a similar switch with regards to image noise and overall image quality from the two systems. Thanks!

[pcarfan]

I am not an expert in photography at all...my $0.02.

The only possible issues to consider that I know are
1) AF-C or Al-servo (? canon) for focus tracking is weaker with the Pentax and slower fps compared to the 40d (not too sure about your 20d).
2) Lack of fast long glasses, more like not easily found.
3)questionable lowlight focusiing (I've never had a problem)
4) the loud auto-focus mechanism for non-DA*(much more than Canon, only 2 DA* available so far,a lot more to come though) and the mirror thud which makes it not so ideal for certain situations.

In every other criteria it smokes the competition.....

P.S: Some issues with the lack of a pro- section for Penatx, BUT soon to be available...and the consequent lack of possible rentals during repair times.

Also, I am only mentioning the possible 'issues'.....I will purchase the k10d again today and I knew of all these 'issues' prior to purchase but frankly the advantages the k10d offer over the competition makes these 'issues' to be totally a non-issue for me.

Only advantages I see in the pentax are:
Weathersealing (with the right lenses)
Image stabilitation
Compatibility with old lenses.

As far as I know the M42 lenses can be also used in some canon's with the right adapted but I am not sure if they measure the exposure correctly or if the lens hit the mirror. But you might check this somewhere else cos I am not sure.

If I had the Canon 20D+lenses I would probably keep them instead of switching to Pentax. But that it is just my opinion. Or maybe you can wait till january to see if Pentax release the new model.

[DavidWebb]

Thanks for the input so far......good information shared and some that I was not aware of. Worth the time to post just to get that. I wish that the K10D had the magnesium alloy body of my 20D as well. I would miss that "cool to the touch" feel! :-)

[NaClH2O]

Hi David
Pluses and minuses

Pluses:
1)Backwards compatibility with older K mount lenses
2)In camera shake reduction
Put the above two together and you can get shake reduced lenses quite cheaply. I have a nice Pentax SMC 300 F4.0 lens that cost me about $300. On my K10D it is a shake reduced lens. I would imagine that a Canon 300mm F4.0 shake reduced (image stabilized) lens would set you back a bit more than $300.
3)Weather sealed
4)TAV mode. As far as I know, Pentax is the only camera out there that treats ISO as another variable like shutter speed and aperture. In TAV mode I set aperture and shutter speed and the camera calculates the ISO needed to make the shot with the available light.
5)Price. Great bang-for-the-buck camera

Minuses
1)lack of newer AF lenses. There are many holes in the AF lens "stable" offered by Pentax. Other manufacturers too, there are several lenses offered by Sigma and Tamron with Nikon and Canon mounts, but not found in a Pentax K mount.
2)The FPS is on the low side
3)Predictive continual AF is lacking
4)Not as many flash options as N and C.
5)Resale value not as high

These are what I've found to be the biggest pros and cons of Pentax. I'm sure others will add to either list.

NaCl(I should note that I have never shot a Canon DSLR)H2O

[TaoMaas]

I wish that the K10D had the magnesium alloy body of my 20D as well. I would miss that "cool to the touch" feel! :-)

Have you held a K10D? It's got the feel of a much more expensive camera, so you might not miss your Canon as much as you think in that area. If I were you, I'd wait until after the first of the year to make a decision. You're probably aware of the rumors that Pentax will have some great new offerings then. Even then, though, I might not switch systems. You mentioned that you're using Sigma lenses. As things stand now, there are quite a few 3rd party lenses that aren't offered in Pentax mount, whereas pretty much ALL 3rd party lenses are offered in Nikon and Canon mounts. So if there's a particular Sigma lens you love, you might want to be sure you can get it in Pentax mount. I have hopes that this situation will change if Pentax becomes more competitive (and they're showing every sign that they will be). FYI, the reason I use a Pentax DSLR is because of the lenses I had acquired over the years. Pentax didn't need to build the great DSLR to get me to stick with them. The fact that they DID build one was only icing on the cake.

[Lowell Goudge]

Not to be a negative towards the K10D, as I own one and think it is great, BUT.....

the initial posting indicates a situation that is very difficult to evaluate.

Someone has bought into a system, and is thinking about trading the lot to purchase the K10D and associated (I interpret similar) lenses plus potentially add some older lenses. That is a really tough choice.

Part of why I have a K10D, is that I have always had pentax cameras, and had 11 lenses before I bought the K10D. (I had 9 before I bought the *istD)

I bought into a camera system back in the1980's and have had the good fortune that pentax recognized the need to remain compatible with their existing customer base. (canon owners especially have not had that good fortune)

While used lenses are out there, and every week there is a posting where someone gets a good buy, the compatibility with older lenses has over the past 4 years made them much more scarse than you may expect.

You should read some of the posts in the forum, look at what lenses are available and then decide. any DSLR these days takes great pictures.

Personally I like pentax, I have found my last 3 bodies are interchangeable interms of user functions and controls (PZ-1, *istD and K10D), and they are intuitive.

If after trying one out in a store, and playing whit it, then by all means go for it if that is what you want,

[WMBP]

I am a long time, if not lifetime, Canon shooter currently shooting with a Canon EOS 20D and a variety of lenses at different focal lengths. Ever since the K10D has come out though it has intrigued me. It seems to be a good "bang for your buck" proposition with the weather sealing, anti shake technology and the backwards compatibility with so many early Pentax lenses. It would be quite an ordeal at this point to switch my equipment over to Pentax, but I would be willing to do it if the return on investment of the effort would be worth it. (Honestly, just not owning Canon or Nikon in itself in appealing to me!)

I know that I am talking to a somewhat biased crowd here, but what would be the major advantages (or disadvantages) in your mind in converting my equipment to Pentax from my current stable of Canon equipment. I shoot mostly with Sigma lenses currently as they in a lot of cases are a better bang for your buck performance wise than their Canon counterparts. And I would be able to continue with Sigma if I switched to Pentax, which is a positive as well.

Fashion photographer Benjamin Kanarek, who is a member of this forum, switched rather publicly from Canon to Pentax about a year ago, in response, I think, to the release of the K10D. (Think I've got the time-frame roughly right.) You might Google his name and search for some his messages here. I have heard him talk about his reasons for switching and they were solid reasons, at least for him.

The Pentax K10D is an excellent camera -- a home run for Pentax. Rumor has it that Pentax will hit the ball out of the park next year with its follow-up to the K10D. I'm waiting to see.

But heck, Canon, makes great cameras, too. And whether a switch from a 20D to a Pentax K10D would make sense for you, I can't say, but I doubt it. If I were you, I'd be looking instead at a Canon 40D. The Pentax K10D does offer some advantages over your old Canon 20D, but the new 40D looks like a pretty nice camera. And while it's a fair bit more expensive than the Pentax K10D is right now, you'll save money by sticking with Canon as you'll be able to keep all your lenses.

...It seems to be a good "bang for your buck" proposition with the weather sealing, anti shake technology and the backwards compatibility with so many early Pentax lenses.

I very much like the K10D's solid build, but the weather sealing is not a big deal for me. I'd say the same thing about the compatibility with old lenses. First, those old lenses are hard to come by. I thought that I'd be able to pick up, oh, superlong telephoto lenses for a song. That has definitely NOT turned out to be the case. Search keh.com for Pentax lenses. Slim pickings. Addendum (I forgot "second"): Second, I don't much want film SLR lenses now, I want new digitally optimized lenses.

I would add also that I have doubts about shake reduction. Ironically, one of the main reasons I purchased a Pentax DSLR in the first place was that I'd owned Canon PowerShot S-series cameras for the previous several years, loved the long telephoto zooms and knew very well that the shake reduction built into those cameras was very valuable. When I was making my decision in 2006 about what DSLR to buy, I decided against Canon (and Nikon) because they didn't have shake reduction in the body and I was under the impression both (a) that I was going to miss it if I didn't have it and (b) that if I wanted it, it would cost me an arm and a leg to pay for shake reduction in every lens I purchased. Well, I think I was mistaken about some things. I sold my Pentax K100D to buy the Pentax K10D, and then needed a second camera, so I reached back in time and bought a Pentax *ist DS, which lacks shake reduction. Turns out it's not a problem for the vast majority of the shooting I do. I don't use long lenses with that camera and if I did, I'd use a tripod. But it's not a problem. I also realize now that, if I did own a Nikon, I would probably NOT be paying for VR in every lens, because I would not buy very many lenses that really needed VR. Final point, although the VR lenses may be a little more expensive for Canon and Nikon that similar Pentax-mount lenses without image stabilization, it also has surprised me to learn that many other good lenses for Nikon and Canon are actually cheaper than their Pentax counterparts. So I suspect the difference comes out in the wash.

If shake reduction in the body really were such a huge deal, either Nikon and Canon pros would be demanding it, or they'd be switching to Pentax or Olympus in larger numbers.

What I like about the K10D is something that's a bit hard to articulate. I like to think of it as a very human camera. Like a human being, the K10D is not a specialist in its physical design. There are cameras with bigger sensors (and smaller sensors), faster shutters, better performance at high ISO, wi-fi connectivity, GPS, etc. But the K10D is pretty good at all the things that matter the most -- and it is smart. It's a smart piece of equipment. The designers seem to have anticipated the things I would want to do and put them all at my finger tips. I notice the difference when I shoot with my *ist DS or my Nikon N65 film SLR.

But mainly I like the K10D now because it's what I have now. If I had $10,000 on hand to start from scratch, I'd order a Nikon D3. I am pretty sure I'd be pleased with it. But I doubt my photos would be much better.

(Honestly, just not owning Canon or Nikon in itself in appealing to me!)

Yeah, I understand that. But thinking about the brand mystique cuts both ways. There are significant advantages to using Canon and Nikon, coming simply from the fact that those are the brands that everybody is always talking about. Anyway, I would not switch systems just because I felt bad about using the same brand as everybody else. If you do, and you really want to stick out, don't go to Pentax, which is a rather conservative choice. Go to Olympus.

The tech market has a very prurient dimension: the more we buy, the more we want to buy, until we're never satisfied with what we've got. I speak from painful personal experience. The devil has been taking me out to lunch lately, helping me walk the dog, sitting in the back seat of the car as I drive around, and everywhere we go, he's trying to get me to sell all my Pentax stuff and switch to Nikon. The reason I know it's the devil talking is not that it would be wrong for me to buy a Nikon camera. I know it's the devil because he never gives me any really solid reasons to switch -- it's mostly "Hey, Nikon is different", which boils down to "yellow is brighter than red". The other day I actually spent an hour thinking seriously about ordering a Nikon D40 before my guardian angel sobered me up and explained that the D40 would be a definite step down from the K10D. Anyway, I'm fighting off the temptation. I may indeed switch one day, but I hope that when I do, I have good reasons for doing so.

Good luck,

Will

[kenyee]

If shake reduction in the body really were such a huge deal, either Nikon and Canon pros would be demanding it, or they'd be switching to Pentax or Olympus in larger numbers.

The pros can afford nice high-end IS and VR lenses so they wouldn't care about an in-body system that makes their ancient lenses work better

David:
What you didn't specify is what we'd need the most to give you an unbiased opinion: what type of photos do you shoot? And what kind of lenses do you have and use the most of?
That's like saying "hey, I hear a Toyota Scion is a good car, should I get one?" Without knowing what you use your car for, how can anyone give you an unbiased answer? How would they know you tow a boat? Or live in a really snowy climate? Or haul construction materials around?

[chrisman]

I think the first thing to say is that whatever brand/camera you switch to it will not make you a better photographer - the weakest link is always the person holding the camera.

I switched from Canon to a K10D about a year ago. Why? -

1. I just loved the feel of the K10D when I first handled it and still do. This is of course a very personal thing but adds to my enjoyment of using the camera

2. I very much like the the degree of control over speed, aperture and ISO that the new (unique) modes offer - and all without taking your eye from the viewfinder

3. I think the K10D is very much a 'Photographers' camera

It's not perfect as has been pointed out elsewhere in this post and you need to make sure that it suits your type of photography, but it's one heck of a camera for the money. I have not regretted my purchase one iota.

Good luck, whatever your decision.

[WMBP]

The pros can afford nice high-end IS and VR lenses so they wouldn't care about an in-body system that makes their ancient lenses work better

Kenyee,

From what I understand, compatibility with old lenses is not much of a problem for Canon owners: there aren't any (or many) old lenses that are compatible with the newer cameras. Nikon on the other hand does have a fair number of old lenses out there that are compatible with newer cameras to a lesser or greater degree. Nikon ought to add VR to its bodies. But I guess that would be pretty tricky for them to get away with now, as they've already sold so many of those pricey VR lenses.

I do think shake reduction is useful, in the body. I'm glad I have it in the K10D, and I probably make use of it more than I know. I just don't know that it is a sufficient reason to jump from one pretty good system that you've invested thousands of dollars in, to another system that's going to cost you thousands more.

Will

[Chako]

Well, you can do like I did, and keep both systems. I also own a 20D and didn't really feel like I needed to upgrade it anytime soon. I have a good assortment of lenses for it already. I did get a Pentax K10D for several reasons.

1. The feel of the camera sold me the moment I held it.
2. I already had some old glass from my film days using Pentax cameras.
3. The fisheye zoom. Oddly enough, I still don't have this lens yet. I know Tokina makes a version for Canon and Nikon lenses, but I can't seem to get Tokina lenses up here in Canada.
4. Pentax glass is good stuff.

What happened to me is this. My old Magnicon AF Pentax mount lenses didn't turn out so hot. I decided to slowly build my lens collection, being sure to not get too many overlaps with my Canon system. I quickly bought the DA 16-45, and a DA 50-200mm lens. Then bought a Tamron 70-300mm for use as a bug macro lens. I then bought an FA 50mm f1.4 for low light photography. Next on my list is a fisheye zoom. I reckon that will be the end of that for a while. The way I have it set up, both systems complement each other.

[Kaimarx]

Agree with kenyee, what do you typically like to shoot? That should be the main factor in your decision. Compare your range of glass to what Pentax offers and does it measure up?. Of course the flipside of switching is you need to offload all your gear, you should also factor that in to the equation. Is it worth the hassle?

Edit: From the tone of your post it sounds like you, like many others here including myself, are more comfortable looking for a performance to price ratio. On that front, perhaps Pentax IS for you! As for the noise and image detail, scratch one for Canon with the noise handling. When it comes to detail i dont think theres a camera on the market in this class that can match the K10's RAW capabilities including the newer 40d.

[kenyee]

Nikon on the other hand does have a fair number of old lenses out there that are compatible with newer cameras to a lesser or greater degree. Nikon ought to add VR to its bodies. But I guess that would be pretty tricky for them to get away with now, as they've already sold so many of those pricey VR lenses.

Yep..Canon made the painful USM-only transition long ago. Nikon is doing it now and phasing out screw drive. But "pros" (aka, non-hobbyists) can afford all these changes

The biggest problem w/ in-body VR is you need a bigger sensor and different lenses for FF. Both Canon/Nikon have to figure out what to do w/ that before they can offer it since they both have FF cameras now. Pentax can sort of get away w/ it by using 645 lenses if they go the FF w/ in-body VR route, but the 645 lens selection is even worse than our selection and they're heavy w/ all that glass...

[pentkon52]

No reason you can't have two systems.(I do) But it depends on what type of shooting you like to do.

If you can, keep the 20D and pick up the K10D and a few of the better DA lenses, like the 16-45 and 50-200. This can give you a relatively inexpensive second system to play with. If it suits your needs better, then you can sell the Canon gear.

I never switched from anything to Pentax, as it was my first and only system from 1971 till 2001 when i went big time into digital with a used D1.(keeping my Pentax stuff though)

I almost didi not buy my K10D as i already own a 10MP camera in the D200. I loved the look and feel of the K10D, and the sample images the salesman let me take, and bought it.

I rarley use the D200 now, i think the K1oD is a much nicer camera. My 360 flash works well on it, were as the sb80dx on the D200 lacks some of the functions allowed on the D2H and D1H.

Pick one up, you'll enjoy it.

The least is you can buy some really good M42 glass.

Dave