[patrickhh]

For a lot of people, the K20 just isn't good enough often enough, and a lot of people who buy Pentax apparently leave the brand because they outgrow what is available to them.
It's really too bad, the lens quality is definitely there, but the camera bodies underperform the lenses by a rather large margin.

That's exactly my experience. As I wrote earlier in this thread, I would buy the D700 instantly, if only I could mount the FA limiteds on it. But as far as I know, that is not possible and there are no Nikon primes that are comparable with the Pentax Limited lenses. (plz correct me if I'm wrong - I think the 85/1.4D may be comparable to the FA77/1.8 but I've seen no pictures below 85mm that impressed me much)

As for my style of shooting, the lenses are much more important than the camera body, I stay with Pentax for the time being and accept having to shoot with a mediocre camera body (but the best short AF primes). Until Nikon launches prime lenses that are comparable to the Pentax Limiteds (or until Pentax comes up with a camera body that is comparable to D300/D700). If I miss a shot or two, I can live with it, since I'm only a amateur, anyway.

[Blue]

There are still people out there that are angry with Canon. Trying to buy a lens for a Canon camera is a tricky thing also, especially in the "used arena" because of the different variations in the EF mount electronics. Many of those people shifted to Nikon. I agree that the crippled k mount is annoying.

As far as the K20D being on the level as Canon's 3rd tier, I totally disagree. That would be the better Rebel stuff and K200d can hold its on there. The k20D is in the 2nd tier though and the 50D is the Canon answer to the K20D. The MII and MK III are in another league. The K20D would be like a Mustang GT and the MK III is like a GT!.

[er1kksen]

Blue, I think he's counting the 5D line as Canon's second tier, which would peg the 40D/50D down to third tier.

[Blue]

Blue, I think he's counting the 5D line as Canon's second tier, which would peg the 40D/50D down to third tier.

Maybe he is, but with a $2700 msrp, I don't agree at all. I'm basing that on Canons on numbering system, 1Ds, 1D, 5D, followed by 50D and 40D and then the Rebel stuff.

Edit: Plus, the 5D is full frame.

[dylansalt]

A very interesting debate!

I still hold on to my original post;-)

After reading Benjikan's post under"Pentax news and rumours" - K20D quality fooled an art director" with a link to Luminous Landscape - it will make many re-think about the $$$$$$ DSLR'S and superior IQ.

I just don't know how I managed wedding,sport and event photography for ten years with a lowly Nikon FE2,OLY OM2 , Contax MD and Minolta XG and max ASA 100 film.

Read the post-very interesting

[offertonhatter]

I have tried to think of various tiers of the market, and where each compare to others, and I have come up with this. I might be wrong, but it is worth a try.

Entry Level:-
Canon EOS1000D
Nikon D40
Pentax K-m (K2000)
Olympus E-420
Sony Alpha 200

2nd level
Canon EOS450D
Nikon D60
sony Alpha 300

2.5 level
Pentax K200D
Olympus E-520
Sony Alpha 350

3rd level
Canon EOS 40D
Nikon D90
Samsung GX-10
Panasonic DMC-L10

3.5 level
Pentax K20D
Sony Alpha 700
Samsung GX-20

4th level
Canon EOS50D
Nikon D300
Olympus E-3

5th level
Canon EOS 5D mk2
Nikon D700
Sony Alpha 900

6th level
full pro cameras
etc


So, looking at it, I can see that apart from entry level, Pentax are straddling so called "levels" with their DSLR's, which is a good thing, taking most of the capabilities (but not all) from the level above but pricing around, if not below, the level below.
On the levels above, I have ignored the price, purely the abilities.

Some examples, are interesting, such as the A350. It may have 14mp, but in reality, it is only as capable as the K200D, but less than the Canon 40D in build features etc. And the E-3 is not on par with full pro (in spite what Olympus thinks), but a good top semi pro camera that competes with D300/50D

What does everyone think?

[Duplo]

A very interesting debate!

I still hold on to my original post;-)

Indeed interesting, at least parts of it...
And I would most certainly disagree with you

After reading Benjikan's post under"Pentax news and rumours" - K20D quality fooled an art director" with a link to Luminous Landscape - it will make many re-think about the $$$$$$ DSLR'S and superior IQ.

I think Ben achievements is primarily down to Bens skills as a photographer.
Not to mention professional retouching etc. It all plays a part.
I respect Bens Skills and opinion a lot.
and yes if you stay with the boundaries of a given camera, then it is likely to perform very nicely, at least speaking of the cameras available today.

The difference will show when you start pushing these boundaries, then you will start really seeing differences.

But the difference is there even at base ISO.

I just don't know how I managed wedding,sport and event photography for ten years with a lowly Nikon FE2,OLY OM2 , Contax MD and Minolta XG and max ASA 100 film.

Read the post-very interesting

Well the same way everybody else did. But technology moves on and so does photographers.
If there is a camera that will allow you to extend your working range, shoot in new ways and cover new territory, why not embrace it?
You are able to do things today and get shots today that you would not even consider trying out back then.
Sure you were able to get by back then, but would you be able to get by with the same equipment in todays market?

---

Last edited by Duplo; 10-29-2008 at 04:02 PM. Reason: Careless spelling

[axl]

.....
Well the same way everybody else did. But technology moves on and so does photographers.
If there is a camera that will allow you to extend your working range, shoot in new ways and cover new territory, why not embrace it?
You are able to do things today and get shots today that you would not even consider trying out back then.
Sure you were able to get by back then, but would you be able to get by with the same equipment in todays market?

I don't think you are 100% right here.
Sure technology evolves, but is it on photographers demand?!? I'd say, it's because camera companies want more money, and they throw more nonsense at us... some of us buy into it, some of us don't. Photography is becoming less and less about itself, and more and more about technology.
How do I know? You'd give me film camera even with the best lens, and Lee filter set, and I'd struggle to get shot which I can do now with DSLR and kit lens (OK, maybe that's bit exagorated, but I think you get the point).
What I mean, is that companies come up with stuff, and people embrace it, but often they just hide behind it...
Talking about boundaries of Pentax DSLR bodies, and that they do fairly well in their limits. Sorry to point it out again, but I think Ben's work proves that you can push it, and it still looks great...
BR

[Duplo]

I don't think you are 100% right here.
Sure technology evolves, but is it on photographers demand?!? I'd say, it's because camera companies want more money, and they throw more nonsense at us... some of us buy into it, some of us don't. Photography is becoming less and less about itself, and more and more about technology.
How do I know? You'd give me film camera even with the best lens, and Lee filter set, and I'd struggle to get shot which I can do now with DSLR and kit lens (OK, maybe that's bit exagorated, but I think you get the point).
What I mean, is that companies come up with stuff, and people embrace it, but often they just hide behind it...
Talking about boundaries of Pentax DSLR bodies, and that they do fairly well in their limits. Sorry to point it out again, but I think Ben's work proves that you can push it, and it still looks great...
BR

And you are most welcome to Peter.
I think that depends on which photographers you ask.
Landscapes photographers urging for more dynamic range, smoother tonal graduations?
Sports photographers urging for faster AF, faster lenses and higher ISO?

No I think photographers still drive them, otherwise they would not sell.

And whether we use to automation to hide behind or to optimise our output is a choice that we all have to make. I prefer to see advances as an opportunity to improve, rather than something to hide behind.
In fact I dare say and from my own experience, that the more advanced the camera, the larger the risk of a usererror. the more advanced AF systems are perfect examples of that.

I have a lot of respect for Bens work I really do, but I do not think he is pushing its performance envelope for sure, but he stays within it. He shoots a totally controlled environment and to perfection at that, but that is not the same as pushing i.e. AF technology or dynamic range to its boundaries. If he did that there would a large risk to ruin the shot.
I dare say that people like i.e. marc shooting wildlife is probably pushing these boundaries a lot more.


You idea about people hiding behind technology and photography being more about technology is wrong IMHO.
If you are not able to use a fully manual camera and a lightmeter, sure you can still use a camera in auto or semiautomatic modes, but you still need to know your basics to make full use of the camera and understand when to do what.
Automation is darn good these days, but excellent takes both knowledge of photography, a good eye and knowledge of the advanced camera technology.

Bens work is a perfect eample of just that IMHO.

[Wheatfield]

A very interesting debate!

I still hold on to my original post;-)

After reading Benjikan's post under"Pentax news and rumours" - K20D quality fooled an art director" with a link to Luminous Landscape - it will make many re-think about the $$$$$$ DSLR'S and superior IQ.

I just don't know how I managed wedding,sport and event photography for ten years with a lowly Nikon FE2,OLY OM2 , Contax MD and Minolta XG and max ASA 100 film.

Read the post-very interesting

I read the post, and the luminous landscape article. I'm not quite certain what Mike was getting at, which is odd, usually I find him to be quite a lucid writer. Bens photo, while very nice, is not pushing the limitations of the K20, which does have good imaging properties, as long as you don't push it's boundaries at all.
I started shooting weddings in 1973 with a Spotmatic. I believe VPS was an 80 ISO film at the time, but it worked better at ISO 64.
We were all using similar equipment back then, There wasn't the huge performance disconnect that we are seeing now.
While I did just fine with that equipment, I have absolutely no desire to go back in time and relive the past, especially when my competition is starting to use full frame cameras that b!tchslap the Pentax for image quality and is already using cameras that make the K20 look like it's stuck in a timewarp.

[Wheatfield]

Maybe he is, but with a $2700 msrp, I don't agree at all. I'm basing that on Canons on numbering system, 1Ds, 1D, 5D, followed by 50D and 40D and then the Rebel stuff.

Edit: Plus, the 5D is full frame.

I wasn't really paying much attention to Canon when I wrote that. I dislike the brand on general principles, but I presume that since they are locked in a head butting contest with Nikon, they will be slicing the market up in a similar fashion.
Whether this presumption is correct or not, I neither know, nor care. I only research equipment that might be of interest to me.

The K20 is in a similar performance category as the D90. The Pentax has slightly higher pixel count, the Nikon has somewhat better perfomance specifications.
Above the D90 is the D300, slightly less pixel count than the k20, but much higher performance specifications, the D700, which has the high ISO advantage of a 24x36mm sensor, again, similar but slightly lower pixel count than the K20, and performance specifications that are a few lightyears beyond the K20, and then you can move up to the D3, which makes the k20 look like it came out of a Crackerjack box.
This puts the K20 firmly in the fourth tier, with no upgrade path in sight, and in fact the fourth tier is starting to pull ahead as well.
Will the K20 be a fifth tier camera soon?
You can bet that Nikon and Canon aren't sitting on their hands, what is Pentax doing?

[krypticide]

Wheatfield, do you have examples of images that you shoot, and why the K20D isn't enough?

[Wheatfield]

Wheatfield, do you have examples of images that you shoot, and why the K20D isn't enough?

Sure:

Bill's Pictures
A Picture
A Picture
A Picture
A Picture
A Picture
A Gallery of Fun

I don't really think there is anything there that is really running the cameras to the edge as I've learned to stay within what the camera can to, and I don't get out of it's comfort zone, since I find the results to be unusable. I do find the frame rate to be slow, for chasing down my dogs. The dog pictures were shot with a manual focus lens, as Pentax is now 3 years behind on the 60-250 zoom, which I am waiting for with growing impatience

Next is some barely usable or unusable images. Not anything scientific, more of a test to destruction to see what the sensor could do when really pushed.
Top picture and crop-ISO6400: Image unusable due to noise and banding.
Bottom picture and crop-ISO800 Image usable.
A Picture

ISO800: Image usable, but this is getting close to my limit of acceptability. By ISO 1600, the K20 is pretty much done, as VPN is just too much of an issue.
A Picture

[Eigengrau]

I read the post, and the luminous landscape article. I'm not quite certain what Mike was getting at, which is odd, usually I find him to be quite a lucid writer. Bens photo, while very nice, is not pushing the limitations of the K20, which does have good imaging properties, as long as you don't push it's boundaries at all.
I started shooting weddings in 1973 with a Spotmatic. I believe VPS was an 80 ISO film at the time, but it worked better at ISO 64.
We were all using similar equipment back then, There wasn't the huge performance disconnect that we are seeing now.
While I did just fine with that equipment, I have absolutely no desire to go back in time and relive the past, especially when my competition is starting to use full frame cameras that b!tchslap the Pentax for image quality and is already using cameras that make the K20 look like it's stuck in a timewarp.

The whole point of the luminous landscape article is that there is no noticeable difference between cameras in many scenarios - even cheap cameras are now capable of amazing pictures, and industry experts are unable to tell the difference between $500 worth of camera and $40,000 worth of camera in many cases. Which is exactly fitting to this case - there isn't a drastic quality difference between Pentax cameras and Canikons, even across pretty big price gaps. 95% of the time pros won't be able to point out variations between the two reliably in real world, print size situations (even relatively large prints). If you fall into the 5% where it makes a difference, then either accept the compromises or get out your wallet.

The reason you're encountering such resistance here is because of your frankly inflammatory language. It is one thing to say that you wish Pentax had a high-end body, (I agree) but it is an entirely different thing to say that Pentax is more or less worthless.

You aren't being very consistent. On the one hand, you want to be able to spend more money to have the state-of-the-art. On the other hand, you don't want to have to spend money to change systems. It seems to me like you want to have your cake and eat it too - if you aren't happy then bite the bullet, sell your Pentax gear, and move on. The unfortunate reality is that Pentax has no obligation to you - you bought the gear based on the value it held for you at the time, and if it no longer has that same value then there's no reason to take it personally.

It seems like you have some kind of brand loyalty that makes you resistant to sell off your Pentax stuff, but at the same time you hate your stuff and don't want to keep using it. Just make up your mind, and realize that it comes down to a preference. There isn't a right or wrong. You don't have to convince everyone that Pentax is junk to justify your decision to use a different system.

Honestly, if it isn't the best system for you, why are you shooting Pentax? You could probably recoup a good chunk of your investment and have a good start into one of the brands you actually like.

[Wheatfield]

The whole point of the luminous landscape article is that there is no noticeable difference between cameras in many scenarios - even cheap cameras are now capable of amazing pictures, and industry experts are unable to tell the difference between $500 worth of camera and $40,000 worth of camera in many cases. Which is exactly fitting to this case - there isn't a drastic quality difference between Pentax cameras and Canikons, even across pretty big price gaps. 95% of the time pros won't be able to point out variations between the two reliably in real world, print size situations (even relatively large prints). If you fall into the 5% where it makes a difference, then either accept the compromises or get out your wallet.

The reason you're encountering such resistance here is because of your frankly inflammatory language. It is one thing to say that you wish Pentax had a high-end body, (I agree) but it is an entirely different thing to say that Pentax is more or less worthless.

You aren't being very consistent. On the one hand, you want to be able to spend more money to have the state-of-the-art. On the other hand, you don't want to have to spend money to change systems. It seems to me like you want to have your cake and eat it too - if you aren't happy then bite the bullet, sell your Pentax gear, and move on. The unfortunate reality is that Pentax has no obligation to you - you bought the gear based on the value it held for you at the time, and if it no longer has that same value then there's no reason to take it personally.

It seems like you have some kind of brand loyalty that makes you resistant to sell off your Pentax stuff, but at the same time you hate your stuff and don't want to keep using it. Just make up your mind, and realize that it comes down to a preference. There isn't a right or wrong. You don't have to convince everyone that Pentax is junk to justify your decision to use a different system.

Honestly, if it isn't the best system for you, why are you shooting Pentax? You could probably recoup a good chunk of your investment and have a good start into one of the brands you actually like.

You would do well to think before you write. My investment in Pentax equipment numbers in the dozens of very high quality primes, and several tens of thousands of dollars, some of the best lenses Pentax has made, and therefore some of the best lenses ever made by anyone.
Why would I want to give that up for second rate glass, even if it was a financially viable proposition.
I am not a cheap donk of a user who has a camera body and a couple of consumer zoom lenses, and buys third party glass to save a couple of dollars.
What I want is a body that is of the same high quality standard as the lenses I have bought.
What I want is for the company to show some long term consistency. My long term consistency is just fine, thank you very much. When I bought Pentax, the camera body standard was similar to the lens quality standard.
It is one of the reasons, but not the defining reason, for why I trusted the company with a very significant monetary investment.
Now the camera body standard is far lower, which is a let down to their entire user base, not just me.
I'll never kid myself into thinking they owe me anything, though the Christmas gift I get from the rep on a yearly basis is nice.
They do owe their user base a camera that is up to the performance of the lenses though.
The K20 is close, but it isn't there.