Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
10-25-2008, 02:38 PM   #31
Pentaxian
Wheatfield's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: The wheatfields of Canada
Posts: 10,043
QuoteOriginally posted by KrisK10D Quote
Pardon my presumption but, this thread seems a little like a pissing contest to me. ISO ISO ISO... who really needs a camera that needs 6400 ISO? No... really? I'd like to know. Pre digital there was what... 1 or 2 films that could shoot at that kinda speed. Do correct me if I'm wrong. Now with digital SLR's it's this constant bitch fight about who gets the best image at the highest ISO. Get over it already.
1)The pro photographer who is competing for jobs against people who have cameras with excellent high ISO capacity would be the person who needs it.
2)The person who does low light photography, either sports in gymnasiums or on artificially lit sports fields would be the person who needs it.
3)The wedding photographer who likes to shoot available light to preserve the ambiance of the ceremony needs it, especially if he is competing for jobs with photographers who have that kind of performance from their cameras.

Pre digital is now part of a past tense discussion. The world has moved on, technology has moved on, and it has opened up a lot of possibilities for images that were simply impossible to create even 10 years ago.
Or it has for users of some brands, but not others
And no, it isn't just about ISO 6400. It is about cameras with better dynamic range, cameras that have improved auto focus and flash control, cameras that are just plain more responsive than what we have to work with now.

Features and performance from the high end cameras do trickle down into lower range cameras as time goes on.
This does, of course, presume that there is a high end camera for stuff to trickle down from.
At the moment, Pentax doesn't have that, and it is hurting them in the marketplace.

QuoteQuote:
If folks want to spend their hard earned on outrageous prices for a FF DSLR and VR glass, for no other reason than they can shoot .5% of their shots at 6400... frankly, you've got more money than sense! Me... I prefer to be able to take the same quality of shot, at typical ISO of course, on my ole K10, with lenses I bought before digital cameras were even contemplated, knowing I spent less on my entire kit than the vibration reducing lens they make a big deal out of
Do you have some evidence to back up that .5% number or are you just setting up a straw man?
There is a market for higher end camera bodies. I am constantly amazed at the level of animosity people on this forum seem to have for the idea of a camera that performs at a level that is comparable to the competitions second tier camera, much less their top tier cameras.
It's almost like Pentax users don't want to see their cameras evolve into better picture taking machines, and it is almost like they want to see Pentax go out of business by refusing to compete for new sales dollars.

Huyundai figured out that they weren't going to stay in the car game very long with the Pony as their top end model, yet Pentax seems to think they can stay in business with a top end model that is the camera equivalent of a Kia Rio.
The real damning thing is, it is posters like the one I am quoting that tells Pentax that they can keep a customer base by churning out nothing but cheap cameras with low performance specifications, and give their present customers no upgrade path beyond every one else's lower end models.
Hopefully Pentax doesn't read this forum.

10-25-2008, 04:15 PM   #32
Pentaxian
Duplo's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Copenhagen
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 916
QuoteOriginally posted by dylansalt Quote
Here in SA Nikon D700 body only price R 36 000 - D300 R 22 000

Pentax k20D body only R 14 000

I will re-iterate.

Does the quantum increase in price for purchasing the above Nikon camera's or similar Canon
give you the same quantum leap in performance and IQ over the K20D or similar product from any other manufacturer. Please read carefully.

Up to ISO 800 and looking at results on a 17" monitor - I could not AND considering they were also using a lens that retails for R 25 000 (Making the Nikon D700 + 24-70 2.8 combo costing R 61 000!)- For that money I could lets say buy the K20D 16-50 2.8 50-135 2.8, the 200 2.8 AND the 300 F4 and still have plenty change left over.

Let's go back a few years - I have a cheap Minolta XPSI SLR with autofocus zoom lens (INCREDIBLY SHARP) which cost only R 2000- could shoot at 3fps, had a huge viewfinder an exposure system that was rarely fooled.

With this simple camera I won two comps which won me holidays to the Okavango.

I have had prints larger than A2 made which look brilliant.

I'm sure there a lot of members here that have similar experiences.

I wonder if an A2 print from the R 61000 Nikon combo at Iso 100 would best (IQ only) any cheap 35mm slr with a decent 50mm prime.

Just some thoughts
The short answer is yes a the D700 has a sensor that will be capable of producing a better print and in a size like A2 it will be visible.
I can see it in my own A4 prints.
I could produce excellent prints from the K10D, but the D3 does a better job.
Dynamic range, tonal graduations and noise is the key.

Not to mention build, responsiveness and speed of operation.

SO yes there is a difference and notisable it is, question is if it is worth the price increase to you?

Same question when comparing to a MFDB.
Is a 20.000 USD really worth the price difference?
Well to some it is and to others it is not.

Regardless of format a 10% increase in IQ may end up costing you 5 times the price of your entire kit and you are the only one that are able to answer if those 10% are worth the price.
Above a not solid figures in any way, but the principle is from my experience true.
10-25-2008, 04:33 PM   #33
Veteran Member




Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Jacksonville, FL
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 531
QuoteOriginally posted by dylansalt Quote
... For that money I could lets say buy the K20D 16-50 2.8 50-135 2.8, the 200 2.8 AND the 300 F4 and still have plenty change left over.
Yes, you are right! I just did the opposite. I sold a K20D, DA14/2.8, FA31/1.8 Ltd, DA16-45/4, DA*50-135/2.8, F50/1.7, A50/2.8 macro, DA*300/4 and got a Nikon D300, 16-85/3.5-5.6 VR, 70-200/2.8 VR, and a 1.7X Tele-Extender. Why, why, why would someone let go of such perfect glass and get so little? Because it isn't the glass with Pentax. Pentax has some of the best lenses in the world right now! The problem is with the focus and low light performance.

I am not putting Pentax down. I love the lenses. But I lost a lot of shots on an expensive vacation in Alaska two months ago, because the camera couldn't focus.

If you don't need fast focus, you are much better off with Pentax. If you don't mind manual focus, you are much better off with Pentax. Why? The glass! Pure and simple, the glass is some of the best!
10-25-2008, 06:23 PM   #34
Veteran Member




Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Norman, Oklahoma USA
Posts: 350
Hey Tom,
Myself and a lot of others agree with you. BTW some of the nikkor lenses are superb also even if they are high as h***
LOL I told you it was fast and accurate!

10-25-2008, 06:41 PM   #35
Site Supporter




Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Prince George, BC
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,255
Check out this 2005 announcement:

News

I believe we have no idea of the advancements to come for digital camera sensors in the years ahead. Google for "black silicon".

When we look back at this discussion from a few years ahead, it will seem prehistoric.

Jack
10-25-2008, 07:07 PM   #36
Veteran Member




Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Jacksonville, FL
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 531
QuoteOriginally posted by jbinpg Quote
Check out this 2005 announcement:

News

I believe we have no idea of the advancements to come for digital camera sensors in the years ahead. Google for "black silicon".

When we look back at this discussion from a few years ahead, it will seem prehistoric.

Jack
Ya, and technology marches on...

But, back to the present...
10-26-2008, 12:37 PM   #37
Veteran Member




Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: NOLA
Posts: 396
another option would be to get a D700 to use it full frame and get a 17-35mm for instance.
Then keep the Pentax and use it for macro and longer focal lengths to keep on using the fabulous 50-135mm, 77mm limited, macro lenses....
outch you'd need money to do that...
10-26-2008, 01:49 PM   #38
Veteran Member




Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Jacksonville, FL
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 531
QuoteOriginally posted by Substitute Quote
another option would be to get a D700 to use it full frame and get a 17-35mm for instance.
Then keep the Pentax and use it for macro and longer focal lengths to keep on using the fabulous 50-135mm, 77mm limited, macro lenses....
outch you'd need money to do that...
I like the way you think! Ha ha ha! I WISH!

10-26-2008, 09:05 PM   #39
Senior Member
Eigengrau's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Colorado
Photos: Albums
Posts: 250
QuoteOriginally posted by Wheatfield Quote
It is about cameras with better dynamic range...

...At the moment, Pentax doesn't have that, and it is hurting them in the marketplace.
Actually, according to DP Review, the K20 has about 9 stops of dynamic range, whereas the Nikon maxes out at 7.9.

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.

Nikon offers few fast lenses with VR. Mostly they are either slow, F/3.5 and up, or they are super expensive telephotos.

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.

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.

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.
10-26-2008, 10:21 PM   #40
Veteran Member
soccerjoe5's Avatar

Join Date: May 2008
Location: Philippines
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,354
I'm not really an ISO guy but the thing I like about high ISO capabilities is that you can use faster shutter speeds with smaller apertures for more depth of field in low light situations. An example is during stage performances. Instead of needing f/2 and ISO800 (just an example) for the right exposure, I can use f/4 or f/5.6 to get more people/stage performers sharp in the DOF.
10-27-2008, 06:35 AM   #41
Pentaxian
Duplo's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Copenhagen
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 916
QuoteOriginally posted by Eigengrau Quote
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.

QuoteOriginally posted by Eigengrau Quote
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).

QuoteOriginally posted by Eigengrau Quote
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.

QuoteOriginally posted by Eigengrau Quote
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.

QuoteOriginally posted by Eigengrau Quote
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.

QuoteOriginally posted by Eigengrau Quote
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?
10-27-2008, 08:56 AM   #42
Pentaxian
Wheatfield's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: The wheatfields of Canada
Posts: 10,043
QuoteOriginally posted by Eigengrau Quote
Actually, according to DP Review, the K20 has about 9 stops of dynamic range, whereas the Nikon maxes out at 7.9.
Perhaps with jpegs, not with RAW though

QuoteQuote:
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.

Nikon offers few fast lenses with VR. Mostly they are either slow, F/3.5 and up, or they are super expensive telephotos.

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.

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.
Shake reduction does absolutely no good with moving subjects. It is not the panacea that people make it out to be.

QuoteQuote:
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.
If you took a file from a D3 (and I presume a D700) and boosted the levels to the point where the detail in the grooms tuxedo was visible, you would see that there is no noise, and no VPN.
And you would quickly conclude that the Pentax solution is very much less than ideal.
You might also conclude, if you took the opportunity to use one of these higher end cameras, that Pentax' competitiveness in the toy camera market is just no longer good enough.

Last edited by Wheatfield; 10-27-2008 at 02:10 PM.
10-27-2008, 09:23 AM   #43
Veteran Member




Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Boston, PRofMA
Photos: Albums
Posts: 3,053
QuoteOriginally posted by Duplo Quote
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.
Believe it or not, the last two Nikon wedding photogs (old film-timers) used their flashes in manual an auto-thyristor modes. I was a bit surprised to say the least. One of them claimed he didn't trust the nikon flash system so he always ran it that way..I tried to convince him to try full e-TTL w/ no luck; in his case, the D700's low-light capabilities and dynamic range easily trumped the K10D/K20D though...
10-27-2008, 01:42 PM   #44
Veteran Member
er1kksen's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Staten Island, NY
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 1,663
QuoteOriginally posted by KrisK10D Quote
Pardon my presumption but, this thread seems a little like a pissing contest to me. ISO ISO ISO... who really needs a camera that needs 6400 ISO? No... really? I'd like to know. Pre digital there was what... 1 or 2 films that could shoot at that kinda speed. Do correct me if I'm wrong. Now with digital SLR's it's this constant bitch fight about who gets the best image at the highest ISO. Get over it already.

If folks want to spend their hard earned on outrageous prices for a FF DSLR and VR glass, for no other reason than they can shoot .5% of their shots at 6400... frankly, you've got more money than sense! Me... I prefer to be able to take the same quality of shot, at typical ISO of course, on my ole K10, with lenses I bought before digital cameras were even contemplated, knowing I spent less on my entire kit than the vibration reducing lens they make a big deal out of

There are quite a few, actually... candlelit weddings? Dimly lit sporting events? Wildlife that's mostly active at dusk and dawn? Any subject requiring a long tele? Concerts? Reportage?

You're right, pre-digital we had very few films to shoot this fast, and most people had to use slower film, and honestly the IQ sucked compared to 6400 on a D700. Why shouldn't we want something better than what we've had? Most people do get too hung up about things like high ISO noise, most people like me have no usual use for ISO 6400. But if I could have a camera that shot a clean 6400, I would, because of the opportunities that would open up for me. But such is far too expensive for me.

However, the people who do buy such cameras in order to make a living or even hobby shooting in the situations mentioned above are not displaying a more-money-than-sense issue anymore than you would be if you bought a car to drive to work with if you were commuting from somewhere in the countryside. They buy what they need to do the job, for pay or for personal enjoyment.
10-27-2008, 02:11 PM   #45
Veteran Member
soccerjoe5's Avatar

Join Date: May 2008
Location: Philippines
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,354
QuoteOriginally posted by KrisK10D Quote
Pardon my presumption but, this thread seems a little like a pissing contest to me. ISO ISO ISO... who really needs a camera that needs 6400 ISO? No... really? I'd like to know.
I'd like to shoot at ISO 6400 in low-light situations where I'd need f/8 to get a lot of people in focus. An example I can think of is it stage/theatre performances. Try shooting at f/8 in low-light below ISO1600 and you won't get shutter speeds fast enough to freeze movement.
Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
camera, dslr, iso, leap, pentax, photography, price, quantum, uber
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Pentax K5 or Nikon D700??? Help!!! conradcjc Pentax K-5 83 09-05-2011 12:31 PM
For Sale - Sold: Nikon D700 w/Nikon Battery Grip, Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 16-35mm f/4G ED VR II (US) luke0622 Sold Items 1 11-04-2010 10:41 AM
Pentax K-7 to Nikon D700 thoughts Samsungian Non-Pentax Cameras: Canon, Nikon, etc. 9 04-06-2010 07:16 PM
Lumolabs: Nikon D700 vs. D5000 vs. Pentax K-x, Dynamic range and noise falconeye Pentax News and Rumors 12 12-18-2009 05:34 AM
Pentax K20D vs Nikon D700 at The Online Photographer cateto Pentax News and Rumors 19 12-13-2008 06:39 AM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 01:06 PM. | See also: NikonForums.com, part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top