[GibbyTheMole]

Lower end Canons don't just feel fragile and cheap, they actually are.

Yeah, I don't know about the top tier Canons, but the lower priced ones feel like a crappily made toy. The entry-level Nikons are marginally better, but still... My K-x bodies (& K-100D & even the *istDS) smokes them in the handling department. They feel and work the way a camera should. Like a dependable tool.

[pete-tarmigan]

how do you use a fixed focal length such as 500 mm in wildlife? I mean, doesn't zoom matter? it's not like you can zoom in and out with your feet with such huge lens, like when you're using a 50mm prime.

Even with a 500mm you're rarely close enough to fill the frame with a wild bird (semi-tame waterfowl fed pieces of bread don't count). For wild birds, every focal length below 500mm is too short, so no sense losing image quality by buying a zoom with focal lengths you don't use. Unless, of course, you're willing to spend many hours finding a nest or other spot predictably visited by a bird, then take a week to build a blind piece by piece so that the bird habituates to the presence of the blind.

[GibbyTheMole]

Even with a 500mm you're rarely close enough to fill the frame with a wild bird (semi-tame waterfowl fed pieces of bread don't count). For wild birds, every focal length below 500mm is too short, so no sense losing image quality by buying a zoom with focal lengths you don't use. Unless, of course, you're willing to spend many hours finding a nest or other spot predictably visited by a bird, then take a week to build a blind piece by piece so that the bird habituates to the presence of the blind.

True enough. My 500mm is my go-to lens for birds. Anything shorter doesn't usually do it for me.

[K57XR]

Yeah, I don't know about the top tier Canons, but the lower priced ones feel like a crappily made toy.

I had the chance to test drive a T1i when a relative visited from out of state. I asked if can try and compare it side-by-side with my K-x. When I got the approval I picked up the camera holster but it was so light that I asked where the camera was….it was inside. It did take very good pictures, though, but it ate dust against the K-x past ISO800.

[Frogfish]

Yeah ... aren't we all waiting for that 560mm lens from Pentax?

I am waiting until the said lens is released, wait for reviews, and then decide if tht will be my next purchase or ... a Sigma 500/4.5 !!

From my personal experience, I can say that anything less than 300mm for wildilfe isn't worth it. Unless you have some very good skills at the "approach".

JP

500mm to 560mm is nothing. The Sigma is a fantastic lens and faster (worth having in low light or shooting into the canopy/bushes) at 4.5 to 5.6.

No brainer .. until you come to the price

[aleonx3]

.... It did take very good pictures, though, but it ate dust against the K-x past ISO800.

Good or bad? I mean better than k-x?

[boriscleto]

Good or bad? I mean better than k-x?

I think he's trying to say it sucked at high ISO. Can't be sure, he's using a very primitive dialect.

[K57XR]

Good or bad? I mean better than k-x?

Let me step out of my cave….

The K-x is far superior in comparison to the Canon T1i at ISO1600 and above. My tests were rather rudimentary i.e. jpeg only, identical settings/subjects/shooting conditions indoor/outdoor and both with their respective kit lenses. To my observation both cameras produced very good photos in par with each other up until ISO800. At ISO 1600 however, the T1i showed significant amount of noise and at 3200, the Canon samples were barely useful.

Does the T1i produces better pictures than the K-x? = No (To my eyes, they were “almost” equal up to ISO800 – I do prefer the K-x’s color rendition versus the Canon - YMMV)

Is the K-x better than the T1i at high ISO (800 and up)? = Absolutely! It’s not even a match!


…..back to my cave…..need to sharpen my spear, I should be done in two days….

[aleonx3]

Let me step out of my cave….

The K-x is far superior in comparison to the Canon T1i at ISO1600 and above. My tests were rather rudimentary i.e. jpeg only, identical settings/subjects/shooting conditions indoor/outdoor and both with their respective kit lenses. To my observation both cameras produced very good photos in par with each other up until ISO800. At ISO 1600 however, the T1i showed significant amount of noise and at 3200, the Canon samples were barely useful.

Does the T1i produces better pictures than the K-x? = No (To my eyes, they were “almost” equal up to ISO800 – I do prefer the K-x’s color rendition versus the Canon - YMMV)

Is the K-x better than the T1i at high ISO (800 and up)? = Absolutely! It’s not even a match!


…..back to my cave…..need to sharpen my spear, I should be done in two days….

Thanks for clarifying that. I never hate any other cameras (Canikon, Sony or others) just didn't really find any other camera brands attractive enough to make me want one (size and quality wise).

[Crosshair]

If I am not wrong, the T1i corresponds to 500D. 500D was, by many, indicated to be a failure in the xxxD series, it should be bad. So a comparison between a 550D and K-x (only in terms of IQ, of course) could be a better balanced showdown.

[K57XR]

Thanks for clarifying that. I never hate any other cameras (Canikon, Sony or others) just didn't really find any other camera brands attractive enough to make me want one (size and quality wise).

You're welcome. As for other makes, same here. When I was in the market for a DSLR I held both the T1i and D3000 and neither of them felt right. Pentax didn't have anything in the store but I still gambled on the K-x because of the rave reviews....never regret it!

If I am not wrong, the T1i corresponds to 500D. 500D was, by many, indicated to be a failure in the xxxD series, it should be bad. So a comparison between a 550D and K-x (only in terms of IQ, of course) could be a better balanced showdown.

Yes, T1i = 500D. I didn't know that was a failure? I read a review for the Nikon D3K back then, apparently that too was also a disappointment.

[DSims]

The times I have handled Cannon or Nikon my thoughts were Why would anyone lugg this heavy camera around all day? I like nature shooting and the light weight of Pentax is a huge plus. Out of all my lenses there isn't a single white one. I do have to admit that about half are m lenses tho

Additionally, the current rumors for an upcoming Pentax FF (which are now looking quite probable) early next spring have it pegged as the first compact FF DSLR, so it will probably be lighter as well. This would obviously maintain a Pentax advantage for many shooters like you, and a FF body would simply be an advantage with fixed focal length lenses, since you'd get more in the frame and could still crop as needed (with almost the same resolution within an APS-C crop size).

[kenyee]

borrowed a 7d and a 70-200 2.8
...
Now if Pentax would just come out with some proper wildlife lenses.

LOL. A 70-200/2.8 is *NOT* a "proper wildlife lens" as others have said.
A proper wildlife lens is in the 500-600mm/4 range and because of that is pretty heavy and costly ($3-6K+). The 70-200/2.8 is lightweight in comparison

You can make do w/ a Bigma (Sigma 50-500) but if you're going to the trouble of doing wildlife properly w/ Canikon, you should start working out and emptying your bank account

p.s., FF makes a *worse* wildlife body than APS-C because of the "free" magnification of APS-C (really mapping optical view to pixels)...

[aleonx3]

You're welcome. As for other makes, same here. When I was in the market for a DSLR I held both the T1i and D3000 and neither of them felt right. Pentax didn't have anything in the store but I still gambled on the K-x because of the rave reviews....never regret it!

Yes, T1i = 500D. I didn't know that was a failure? I read a review for the Nikon D3K back then, apparently that too was also a disappointment.

Never mind the lower tier models, even the 60D, 7D and 5Ds, aside from the bulkiness, I also don't know if I would get used not having two dials. For example, changing the iso requires two operation of the index finger is not as user-friendly as pressing the iso button (with index finger) while turn the rear dial.

[Edgar_in_Indy]

Lower end Canons don't just feel fragile and cheap, they actually are.

A few years back when the t2i had just come out and was still almost impossible to get, I got it on pre-order to replace my Olympus e-520. I loved the e-520, but the high ISO was not good at all. When I got the t2i, I certainly liked the image quality, but I couldn't abide paying $900 for a camera that looked and felt so cheap. So I sold it on Craigslist for what I paid, and ended up with an almost new white K-x for literally half the price. I used the money I saved to buy my first upgrade lens, the Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8.

What a great decision it was to return the t2i! The K-x had the quality feel and attractive styling comparable to my old Olympus, and it had image quality to match the t2i, as well as some features the t2i lacked. Looking back, I'm so glad I did not fall into the Canikon trap.

I'm just surprised that the Canon Rebels with their ugly flat-black finish and jelly bean styling and cheapo/hollow-plasticy-feel sell as well as they do. Ditto for all the other Canon DSLR's that seem to be needlessly huge and heavy.