Originally posted by Eigengrau Actually, according to DP Review, the K20 has about 9 stops of dynamic range, whereas the Nikon maxes out at 7.9..
Somebody needs to learn how to read the reviews at DPR.
Yes you are right if you do the measurements on out of camera default JPG's
Try reading the section RAW headroom, just a suggestion
Further more, there are a few people including the "Borgs" that has been writing some really interesting stuff in a number of the subforums about Dynamic Range, how to intepret results from tests and how to maximize RAW capture per colour chanel. Might be worth a read.
Originally posted by Eigengrau Additionally, I was thinking about this: The D700 does allow ISO of 25600, right? And the K20 can go to 6400? If this is the case, and if we can assume that the compromises of the D700 and the K20 at the extremes of their sensitivities are similar, then we have an interesting situation..
You can assume that, personally, I would not like to use the D3/D700 above ISO 6400 (OK12500 or 25800 will do for certain B&W applications).
Originally posted by Eigengrau Nikon offers few fast lenses with VR. Mostly they are either slow, F/3.5 and up, or they are super expensive telephotos..
Yes some of the lenses are expensive, som are not, but make sure you compare comparable lenses.
A nikkor 70-200/2.8VR to a 50-135/2.0. etc. but that is where it gets tricky. a 50/1.4 to a 32mm/1.0, now you were saying about prices again?
Overall though I would expect a 35mm system to be far more expensive than an APS-C one.
Originally posted by Eigengrau If you are shooting a K20 with built in SR, ISO 6400, and a 50/1.4, you have essentially identical low-light capabilities to the D700. The 50/1.4 offered by Nikon doesn't have SR so that costs you 2 stops. Which is precisely the amount made up by the ISO bonus. I think across the lens range you will find similar match ups..
That depends entirely on your application and the situation at hand. you better be shooting something very static.
But why not shoot comparable lenses, say a 35/2 and 50/2.8?
That would narrow it down to about a stop worth of ISO advantage.
Originally posted by Eigengrau Granted, the higher ISO will give a faster shutter speed, which may have an advantage over SR when you are talking about moving subjects. But SR might get you more than a 2 stop advantage in some cases..
The key here is that it "may". The two stop you mention would be regardless of situation, compensate for the DOF difference and we are down to one stop, but it is a solid difference regardless of situation.
THe SR can be solved via a VR lens or monopod, ISO cannot.
And you pay for a lot more than the ISO advantage, AF speed, responisveness of the camera, fps, etc.
While you may not need all of these things, they are part of the price and some of them may make a difference on the situation you describe.
Originally posted by Eigengrau Anyways, I think the Pentax solution is viable. I shoot weddings almost exclusively with available light and a K100D (although I'm getting a K20) and have been getting by just fine. Sure I'd love to see what Pentax could do with a pro level body, but their cameras are very competitive in the markets they participate in, and sometimes even beyond.
I agree with you and you may be able to find scenarios where there is an advantage to the Pentax system, I can think of a few, but wedding photography is just not one of them. Especially if you factor in the Nikon flash system, which is way ahead of Pentax.
For street photography, travel photography, hiking and trekking, I can see it do excellent though and it does represent a lot of value for money.
Why is it so dangerous to admit that there are better cameras out there, they are just more expensive.
I am not trying to compare the IQ of my D3 @ base ISO to a mediunm format digital back either, I know there is a difference and that it will be a notisable one. each step up in format will given equal technology be a step up in IQ, but probalby a step up by a factor of say 5 in price.
Why is that such a big suprise?