Building a new DSLR System - Pentax vs Canon considerations - Help

falconeye · 04-13-2008, 06:45 AM

Originally posted by Noisychip

The kit lens, by the way, is pretty good anyway.

I disagree.

Noisychip · 04-13-2008, 07:21 AM

Originally posted by falconeye

I disagree.

It may not be high-end glass, but I think it's better than many kit lenses from other manufacturers. It's at least usable.

RiceHigh · 04-13-2008, 08:02 AM

Originally posted by Noisychip

It may not be high-end glass, but I think it's better than many kit lenses from other manufacturers. It's at least usable.

Depending on what you judge, I think the kit lens DA 18-55 is a nice lens and is better than many recent Pentax digital lenses which are far more expensive. It does feel like an original Pentax in color response, unlike some others which do taste somehow Tokina.

twinda1 · 04-13-2008, 09:11 AM

Originally posted by striker

Thanks for the tip. I may be holding off just to save up the cash.

You do realize that for indoor low light portrait work, SR is only useful if you can tell your subject to hold still right? I have a small child myself, and I don't find SR terribly useful for indoor candids as he's too young to "hold still". And if you have a couple of flashes and umbrellas, again SR isn't terribly useful. It's much more useful to be able to crank up the ISO.

Torphoto · 04-13-2008, 09:54 AM

One thing I keep hearing is how bad Pentax AF in low light BUT I shot in a night club with another photog with a 40D and with similar ( I had a 35mm F2 him 50mm F1.8 ) and my af tho slower locked every time accurately, I would say tho the Canon was faster still has a 35% miss factor.

striker · 04-13-2008, 09:55 AM

Originally posted by twinda1

You do realize that for indoor low light portrait work, SR is only useful if you can tell your subject to hold still right? I have a small child myself, and I don't find SR terribly useful for indoor candids as he's too young to "hold still". And if you have a couple of flashes and umbrellas, again SR isn't terribly useful. It's much more useful to be able to crank up the ISO.

I guess I do realize that it won't stop motion as well but I figured it would be still usefull when their not moving around too quickly.

In your opinion, is the high ISO performance of the K200 good enough to do just what your saying?

ksignorini · 04-13-2008, 10:56 AM

Originally posted by falconeye

But with Pentax, noise reduction is only done by the camera when shooting JPEGs and is adjustable (in camera) only with the K20D. For RAW or not K20D, you must do it during the RAW processing with noise reduction explicitely switched on. Most photo magazine tests don't get this and publish misleading noise figures.

Can you explain this a bit more? If you shoot RAW with a K20D, exactly how do the Noise settings in the Custom menu affect the final image? (You don't have to explain how RAW files work--that I understand well. But how do the settings affect the RAW file?)

And further, the manual says the High ISO Noise Settings are applied to High ISO. Exactly HOW high? 800? 1600? How about lowly 400?

*EDIT* I'm going to ask this as a separate forum post.

Last edited by ksignorini; 04-13-2008 at 11:15 AM.

jms698 · 04-13-2008, 12:17 PM

Another thing to keep in mind regarding the Pentax AF performance is that if you raise the flash while focusing in low-light it will fire a few strobes off to help focusing and then focus really well, even in low-light. You can then lower the flash again, if you won't want to use it to actually take the final picture.

simons-photography · 04-13-2008, 12:56 PM

based mainly on brand ego : PENTAX

but seriously pentax bodies a little cheaper, have inbuilt shake reduction reducing lens prices, and if you want a non pentax lens its cheaper than other brands for example the tamron 70-300 is cheaper in the pentax version than in the canon or nikon version

you can focus manually and I would think that would be prefered in portraits, as for speed do you really need more than 3 fps ? the K10D can take 8-10 shots in one burst the K20D can take 35 (so I'm told) I don't know about the canon.

KFrog · 04-13-2008, 02:31 PM

Originally posted by nostatic

I love my FA 77 ltd for portrait. I'd gladly shoot a 43 ltd as well. Many here think the 70 is on par with the 77, but the FA lenses are absolute porn...beautiful.

77 on left, 35 on right

mmm, lens porn

advantage to 21/35/40/70 is quick shift for manual focus tweaks on the fly. 31/43/77 you have to flip the switch on the body to manual to do that. For portraits using my 77 it isn't an issue...AF is excellent and if I feel like I'm having a tough time I just flick to manual and go that route.

Oooo! Those are nice! I would love have that 35mm macro. A little too rich for me right now though. I think I'll go for the Tamron 90mm macro instead.

I do like the limited lenses. I may break down and pick up the 70mm one day. Got to have a least one Limited lens.

**rparmar** · 04-13-2008, 05:19 PM

The main reason to buy a body is to get the lenses that can attach to it. For me that came down to two words: prime limited. As you can see from further up the list, they are gorgeous, built like perfection and take amazing pictures.

I only have one but will get more when I can afford it... or justify it using some round-about psychological self-deceptive ruse.

ksignorini · 04-13-2008, 05:22 PM

Originally posted by rparmar

... or justify it using some round-about psychological self-deceptive ruse.

I'm gettin' pretty good at those.

btw: Don't tell my wife I said that.

**rparmar** · 04-13-2008, 05:22 PM

Originally posted by falconeye

If you only have the kit lens, you may want to have a look into DxO

PTLens is only 15 bucks, has a free trial, comes with both stand-alone and plugin versions and does everything I need: one-touch lens distortion correction plus perspective, vignetting, de-fish and CA. It's a no-brainer.

falconeye · 04-14-2008, 05:07 AM

Originally posted by rparmar

PTLens is only 15 bucks, has a free trial, comes with both stand-alone and plugin versions and does everything I need: one-touch lens distortion correction plus perspective, vignetting, de-fish and CA. It's a no-brainer.

You actually get what you pay for, at least here

PTLens is about mathematically trivial operations as the ones you described above. It does not make your images like from a better lens.

DxO supports a few lenses only. But for those, it is worth every penny because it makes them perform like more expensive optics. Especially in terms of micro contrast and resolution where PTLens cannot help.

**rparmar** · 04-14-2008, 02:37 PM

Originally posted by falconeye

PTLens is about mathematically trivial operations as the ones you described above. It does not make your images like from a better lens.

DxO Optics Pro does these same "mathematically trivial operations". If you think DxO gives you "a better lens" then PTLens does too. No magic will add resolution or correct focus or improve DOF control.

DxO does several things besides lens correction. But I do not need another RAW converter, image sharpener, denoiser etc... I already have good tools for these purposes. For what it does, PTLens seems far more useful. Instead of one body and 5 lenses it supports all the bodies and dozens of lenses. Just this fact alone diminishes the usefulness of DxO to near nil, for me at least. $15 is a lot cheaper than $169 for a programme that corrects many more specific lens.

If you want batch processing get DxO . If you need to support FF bodies, get the Elite version for $300. Otherwise get PTLens... it's the Pentax of software... small, great and under-appreciated.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
building my Nikon system....	luke0622	Canon, Nikon, Sony, and Other Camera Brands	23	08-12-2010 08:35 PM
Non-Canon zoom lens on Canon DSLR, what's up?	GerryL	Canon, Nikon, Sony, and Other Camera Brands	21	06-26-2010 07:23 PM
Pentax vs Nikon vs Canon - A Lens System Comparison	cputeq	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	46	05-20-2010 06:09 PM
Asahi Pentax Spotmatic SLR lens adapter for Canon DSLR EOS?	emmatrim	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	6	03-28-2010 12:43 PM
Pentax announces a limited edition, white PENTAX K2000 DSLR system	Ole	Homepage & Official Pentax News	0	01-02-2009 11:18 AM

04-13-2008, 06:45 AM	#46
falconeye Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: Munich, Alps, Germany Photos: Gallery Posts: 6,871	Originally posted by Noisychip The kit lens, by the way, is pretty good anyway. I disagree.

04-13-2008, 07:21 AM	#47
Noisychip Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2008 Posts: 282	Originally posted by falconeye I disagree. It may not be high-end glass, but I think it's better than many kit lenses from other manufacturers. It's at least usable.

04-13-2008, 08:02 AM	#48
RiceHigh Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Hong Kong Posts: 1,934	Originally posted by Noisychip It may not be high-end glass, but I think it's better than many kit lenses from other manufacturers. It's at least usable. Depending on what you judge, I think the kit lens DA 18-55 is a nice lens and is better than many recent Pentax digital lenses which are far more expensive. It does feel like an original Pentax in color response, unlike some others which do taste somehow Tokina.

04-13-2008, 09:11 AM	#49
twinda1 Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: Boston Posts: 142	Originally posted by striker Thanks for the tip. I may be holding off just to save up the cash. You do realize that for indoor low light portrait work, SR is only useful if you can tell your subject to hold still right? I have a small child myself, and I don't find SR terribly useful for indoor candids as he's too young to "hold still". And if you have a couple of flashes and umbrellas, again SR isn't terribly useful. It's much more useful to be able to crank up the ISO.

04-13-2008, 09:54 AM	#50
Torphoto Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: Trinidad W.I. Photos: Gallery Posts: 612	One thing I keep hearing is how bad Pentax AF in low light BUT I shot in a night club with another photog with a 40D and with similar ( I had a 35mm F2 him 50mm F1.8 ) and my af tho slower locked every time accurately, I would say tho the Canon was faster still has a 35% miss factor.

04-13-2008, 09:55 AM	#51
striker Inactive Account Join Date: Apr 2008 Posts: 9 Original Poster	Originally posted by twinda1 You do realize that for indoor low light portrait work, SR is only useful if you can tell your subject to hold still right? I have a small child myself, and I don't find SR terribly useful for indoor candids as he's too young to "hold still". And if you have a couple of flashes and umbrellas, again SR isn't terribly useful. It's much more useful to be able to crank up the ISO. I guess I do realize that it won't stop motion as well but I figured it would be still usefull when their not moving around too quickly. In your opinion, is the high ISO performance of the K200 good enough to do just what your saying?

04-13-2008, 10:56 AM	#52
ksignorini Forum Member Join Date: Apr 2008 Location: Edmonton, AB Posts: 70	Originally posted by falconeye But with Pentax, noise reduction is only done by the camera when shooting JPEGs and is adjustable (in camera) only with the K20D. For RAW or not K20D, you must do it during the RAW processing with noise reduction explicitely switched on. Most photo magazine tests don't get this and publish misleading noise figures. Can you explain this a bit more? If you shoot RAW with a K20D, exactly how do the Noise settings in the Custom menu affect the final image? (You don't have to explain how RAW files work--that I understand well. But how do the settings affect the RAW file?) And further, the manual says the High ISO Noise Settings are applied to High ISO. Exactly HOW high? 800? 1600? How about lowly 400? EDIT I'm going to ask this as a separate forum post. Last edited by ksignorini; 04-13-2008 at 11:15 AM.

04-13-2008, 12:17 PM	#53
jms698 Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Wellington, New Zealand Posts: 133	Another thing to keep in mind regarding the Pentax AF performance is that if you raise the flash while focusing in low-light it will fire a few strobes off to help focusing and then focus really well, even in low-light. You can then lower the flash again, if you won't want to use it to actually take the final picture.

04-13-2008, 12:56 PM	#54
simons-photography Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Northamptonshire - England Photos: Gallery Posts: 496	based mainly on brand ego : PENTAX but seriously pentax bodies a little cheaper, have inbuilt shake reduction reducing lens prices, and if you want a non pentax lens its cheaper than other brands for example the tamron 70-300 is cheaper in the pentax version than in the canon or nikon version you can focus manually and I would think that would be prefered in portraits, as for speed do you really need more than 3 fps ? the K10D can take 8-10 shots in one burst the K20D can take 35 (so I'm told) I don't know about the canon.

04-13-2008, 02:31 PM	#55
KFrog Senior Member Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Katy, Texas Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 294	Originally posted by nostatic I love my FA 77 ltd for portrait. I'd gladly shoot a 43 ltd as well. Many here think the 70 is on par with the 77, but the FA lenses are absolute porn...beautiful. 77 on left, 35 on right mmm, lens porn advantage to 21/35/40/70 is quick shift for manual focus tweaks on the fly. 31/43/77 you have to flip the switch on the body to manual to do that. For portraits using my 77 it isn't an issue...AF is excellent and if I feel like I'm having a tough time I just flick to manual and go that route. Oooo! Those are nice! I would love have that 35mm macro. A little too rich for me right now though. I think I'll go for the Tamron 90mm macro instead. I do like the limited lenses. I may break down and pick up the 70mm one day. Got to have a least one Limited lens.

04-13-2008, 05:19 PM	#56
rparmar Site Supporter Join Date: Jan 2008 Photos: Gallery Posts: 8,823	The main reason to buy a body is to get the lenses that can attach to it. For me that came down to two words: prime limited. As you can see from further up the list, they are gorgeous, built like perfection and take amazing pictures. I only have one but will get more when I can afford it... or justify it using some round-about psychological self-deceptive ruse.

04-13-2008, 05:22 PM	#57
ksignorini Forum Member Join Date: Apr 2008 Location: Edmonton, AB Posts: 70	Originally posted by rparmar ... or justify it using some round-about psychological self-deceptive ruse. I'm gettin' pretty good at those. btw: Don't tell my wife I said that.

04-13-2008, 05:22 PM	#58
rparmar Site Supporter Join Date: Jan 2008 Photos: Gallery Posts: 8,823	Originally posted by falconeye If you only have the kit lens, you may want to have a look into DxO PTLens is only 15 bucks, has a free trial, comes with both stand-alone and plugin versions and does everything I need: one-touch lens distortion correction plus perspective, vignetting, de-fish and CA. It's a no-brainer.

04-14-2008, 05:07 AM	#59
falconeye Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: Munich, Alps, Germany Photos: Gallery Posts: 6,871	Originally posted by rparmar PTLens is only 15 bucks, has a free trial, comes with both stand-alone and plugin versions and does everything I need: one-touch lens distortion correction plus perspective, vignetting, de-fish and CA. It's a no-brainer. You actually get what you pay for, at least here PTLens is about mathematically trivial operations as the ones you described above. It does not make your images like from a better lens. DxO supports a few lenses only. But for those, it is worth every penny because it makes them perform like more expensive optics. Especially in terms of micro contrast and resolution where PTLens cannot help.

04-14-2008, 02:37 PM	#60
rparmar Site Supporter Join Date: Jan 2008 Photos: Gallery Posts: 8,823	Originally posted by falconeye PTLens is about mathematically trivial operations as the ones you described above. It does not make your images like from a better lens. DxO Optics Pro does these same "mathematically trivial operations". If you think DxO gives you "a better lens" then PTLens does too. No magic will add resolution or correct focus or improve DOF control. DxO does several things besides lens correction. But I do not need another RAW converter, image sharpener, denoiser etc... I already have good tools for these purposes. For what it does, PTLens seems far more useful. Instead of one body and 5 lenses it supports all the bodies and dozens of lenses. Just this fact alone diminishes the usefulness of DxO to near nil, for me at least. $15 is a lot cheaper than $169 for a programme that corrects many more specific lens. If you want batch processing get DxO . If you need to support FF bodies, get the Elite version for $300. Otherwise get PTLens... it's the Pentax of software... small, great and under-appreciated.