[Eigengrau]

You would do well to think before you write.
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.

That's a very different sentiment than saying the K20 gets "b!tchslapped" by the competition. You reap what you sow, and if you want a reasoned discussion try to tone down the hyperbole.

I can agree with you that they should make a camera that lives up to their lenses. But I think they are going about things in a way that makes sense, offering at their top end a bang-for-the-buck camera that meets or exceeds the needs of many, many users, and trying to grow the cash cow entry-level market that will really keep their company in business.

I can admit that there is appeal to having a camera that is the best out there. But I think it would fair to admit in return that they do have a camera that is one of the best out there, when adjusted for value and what most cameras are used for. For one, the K20 matches or beats the Sony A700 in many categories, including resolution, noise control, and dynamic range, but sells for $800 to its $1200 last I checked. For the majority of the market that cares primarily about getting the most for their money, the K20 makes a great case.

[Wheatfield]

That's a very different sentiment than saying the K20 gets "b!tchslapped" by the competition. You reap what you sow, and if you want a reasoned discussion try to tone down the hyperbole.

Pick up a Nikon D3. Learn how to use it at a level of basic competency.
Take some pictures.
Pick up a K20. Learn how to use it at a level of basic competency.
Take some pictures.
Get back to me about that b!tchslapped comment.

I can agree with you that they should make a camera that lives up to their lenses. But I think they are going about things in a way that makes sense, offering at their top end a bang-for-the-buck camera that meets or exceeds the needs of many, many users, and trying to grow the cash cow entry-level market that will really keep their company in business.

I'm just an impatient person, and perhaps we, as a group should be a bit less patient as well. Bottom feeder cameras are not cash cows, any more than Big Macs are. They need to sell a lot more K-ms to make back their investment than they would have to sell something that would cost 1500 dollars more.
What the class camera does though is get the Pentax name out where it matters.
The K-m isn't going to be a category killer, it is going to be another lowball camera amid a whole herd of lowball cameras, and it won't generate any excitement about the brand.
Hopefully it won't tank as well.
A D300 class camera would generate as many K-m sales as whatever Christmas ad campaign that marketing decides to put out there.
It would also generate another product category for Pentax to sell cameras into.

I can admit that there is appeal to having a camera that is the best out there. But I think it would fair to admit in return that they do have a camera that is one of the best out there, when adjusted for value and what most cameras are used for. For one, the K20 matches or beats the Sony A700 in many categories, including resolution, noise control, and dynamic range, but sells for $800 to its $1200 last I checked. For the majority of the market that cares primarily about getting the most for their money, the K20 makes a great case.

I didn't adjust my lenses for value when I bought them. The whole idea of adjusting for quality sounds more like an apology than anything else.

[Blue]

A camera that lists nearly 5x the k20d should do more than b!tch Sl@p it. Except I don't really consider it going against it or the 5D. Pentax has a void there. Pentax needs a $2500 body.

[Eigengrau]

Pick up a Nikon D3. Learn how to use it at a level of basic competency.
Take some pictures.
Pick up a K20. Learn how to use it at a level of basic competency.
Take some pictures.
Get back to me about that b!tchslapped comment.



I'm just an impatient person, and perhaps we, as a group should be a bit less patient as well. Bottom feeder cameras are not cash cows, any more than Big Macs are. They need to sell a lot more K-ms to make back their investment than they would have to sell something that would cost 1500 dollars more.
What the class camera does though is get the Pentax name out where it matters.
The K-m isn't going to be a category killer, it is going to be another lowball camera amid a whole herd of lowball cameras, and it won't generate any excitement about the brand.
Hopefully it won't tank as well.
A D300 class camera would generate as many K-m sales as whatever Christmas ad campaign that marketing decides to put out there.
It would also generate another product category for Pentax to sell cameras into.



I didn't adjust my lenses for value when I bought them. The whole idea of adjusting for quality sounds more like an apology than anything else.

Basic economics dictate that we buy based on the value we assign to a product - so of course value comes in to the equation. We make all decisions based on what is more valuable to us - $1200 in the bank or an SLR. You made a value judgment at the time of initial purchase saying the lenses were worth your cash at that point in time. That may no longer be the case, but that is because of your shifting values, not because of anything that changed about the product. It is still the same thing. The only thing changing is the value you assign to it.

I don't work in camera retail, but low-level consumer models are certainly where the bulk of sales happen for any industry. Your point about the big mac proves mine more - you see a lot more McDonalds than steakhouses, last time I checked. Pentax needs a Camry more than they need a Lotus, in other words. You can't be a major market player off of luxury niche items. So I stick by my contention that any camera maker needs to be relevant to the mass market first and foremost if they hope to be a major player.

There is legitimate marketing potential from being a technology leader, but they are betting that having a viable entry-level platform is going to be more important. It worked for them in the past.

And, if you want to compare cameras, lets talk about actual images, because that is what matters. Sure, the autofocus on the D3 is nice, but it is also a massive camera with a massive price tag, both of which mean I'm never going to be buying it unless I suddenly started shooting sports exclusively. That extra bit of AF performance isn't worth the money to me. There's my value judgment.

If you take the Nikon and Pentax and shoot the same pictures with them, in a range of situations that are at least somewhat representative of real life shooting conditions, there are going to be many, many instances where the difference isn't detectable in prints. There is a range of shooting conditions that might favor the Nikon to a large degree, but outside of that small subset the cameras are going to produce highly similar results from a practical standpoint. What you are paying for is higher performance in that subset of conditions. Which isn't even relevant to the way many people shoot. So don't insist that the D3/300/700 is a better camera across the board, because frankly for some people, and even many people, that just isn't the case. It would be irrational of them to give away more cash for no realized benefit. You shouldn't buy a $40,000 Hasselblad when a $500 Canon will suffice.

[Duplo]

I don't work in camera retail, but low-level consumer models are certainly where the bulk of sales happen for any industry. Your point about the big mac proves mine more - you see a lot more McDonalds than steakhouses, last time I checked. Pentax needs a Camry more than they need a Lotus, in other words. You can't be a major market player off of luxury niche items. So I stick by my contention that any camera maker needs to be relevant to the mass market first and foremost if they hope to be a major player.

There is legitimate marketing potential from being a technology leader, but they are betting that having a viable entry-level platform is going to be more important. It worked for them in the past.

Now I agree with you here.
But also understand Wheatfields frustration.
If he has a long lens need like marc (I am not saying marc is considering a switch though) a switch could easily cost him 20-30K.
In my case it was a much more reasonable 15K and I had that expense covered.
So even though he see that a switch would make sense, I can understand if you really would prefer not to...
However it is a business decision and one has to decide if what is gained with the upgrade is worth the additional cost.
I do not see camera gear as investments, it is a tool and tools equal costs, not investments IMHO.

And, if you want to compare cameras, lets talk about actual images, because that is what matters. Sure, the autofocus on the D3 is nice, but it is also a massive camera with a massive price tag, both of which mean I'm never going to be buying it unless I suddenly started shooting sports exclusively. That extra bit of AF performance isn't worth the money to me. There's my value judgment.

If you honestly think the only difference between a D3 and pentax i a bit of AF performance, the nyou have missed out on something.
In my personal opinion, it makes no sense comparing them...
There is a head an shoulder erformance difference and there is an IQ difference as well. However given the price difference there darn well should be.

A much better question is why would you even compare the two?

If you take the Nikon and Pentax and shoot the same pictures with them, in a range of situations that are at least somewhat representative of real life shooting conditions, there are going to be many, many instances where the difference isn't detectable in prints. There is a range of shooting conditions that might favor the Nikon to a large degree, but outside of that small subset the cameras are going to produce highly similar results from a practical standpoint. What you are paying for is higher performance in that subset of conditions. Which isn't even relevant to the way many people shoot. So don't insist that the D3/300/700 is a better camera across the board, because frankly for some people, and even many people, that just isn't the case. It would be irrational of them to give away more cash for no realized benefit. You shouldn't buy a $40,000 Hasselblad when a $500 Canon will suffice.

Now here I disagree with you and quite strongly, but then again, I have evaluated, the 1DsII, D300, D3 and my K10D against each other in a number of prints and I can see the difference between the 1DsIII/D3 and D300/K10D already from A4 and up (though 30x45cm is where it really shows from), on quite a lot of subjects and this is at base ISO.
But then again this is not what I have read on a homepage, this is actual shooting experience.
Now I am a puzzled by Mr. Richmanns article and I congratulate him for having found a shooting scenarion where it does not show. I do not know the 39mp Hassy nor the G10, thus I am unable to comment on that particular test, except for the web images posted and that tells very little IMHO.
However it does not resemble my own experience with much more equal cameras.
However if we stick to comparing apples to apples, say D300 vs k10D, yes there is a generation in between, but at base ISO they are fairly equal, performance wise they are not though.

[Wheatfield]

I don't work in camera retail, but low-level consumer models are certainly where the bulk of sales happen for any industry. Your point about the big mac proves mine more - you see a lot more McDonalds than steakhouses, last time I checked.

I just checked my telephone book. In the city I live in, there are 5 stand alone McD's, and 14 of what I would class as upscale steak houses.

There is legitimate marketing potential from being a technology leader, but they are betting that having a viable entry-level platform is going to be more important. It worked for them in the past.

How many viable entry level cameras do they need? They keep dropping the bar, and then meeting the lowered expectations until they can drop the expectations again. That's not entry level, that's what used to be called a shell game.

And, if you want to compare cameras, lets talk about actual images, because that is what matters. Sure, the autofocus on the D3 is nice, but it is also a massive camera with a massive price tag, both of which mean I'm never going to be buying it unless I suddenly started shooting sports exclusively. That extra bit of AF performance isn't worth the money to me. There's my value judgment.

I don't care what you buy, and I am not going to comment on your value judgements.

If you take the Nikon and Pentax and shoot the same pictures with them, in a range of situations that are at least somewhat representative of real life shooting conditions, there are going to be many, many instances where the difference isn't detectable in prints. There is a range of shooting conditions that might favor the Nikon to a large degree, but outside of that small subset the cameras are going to produce highly similar results from a practical standpoint. What you are paying for is higher performance in that subset of conditions. Which isn't even relevant to the way many people shoot. So don't insist that the D3/300/700 is a better camera across the board, because frankly for some people, and even many people, that just isn't the case. It would be irrational of them to give away more cash for no realized benefit. You shouldn't buy a $40,000 Hasselblad when a $500 Canon will suffice.

I have run into far too many shooting situations where the K20 isn't fast enough, or the buffer isn't big enough, or the metering isn't accurate enough to class what you are talking about as a small subset.
And don't try to tell me that just because a $500 Canon will suffice that there isn't benefit to a $40,000 Hassy when the toy camera doesn't cut it.
I've been down this road far too many times to even bother with addressing it as a valid point.

I'm also not trying to sell a $2000.00 camera as something for some people or many people. I realize that it's not a volume seller, and I also realize that part of the price tag is because they aren't going to sell a boatload of them.
Don't kid yourself into thinking that it costs 4X as much to build a 2K camera as a .5K camera, because it doesn't.

[Blue]

I hate to tell you guys this but all the current major camera makers are more like MCDonald's than Morton's the way the crank stuff out. That is the problem.

[Wheatfield]

I hate to tell you guys this but all the current major camera makers are more like MCDonald's than Morton's the way the crank stuff out. That is the problem.

Well aren't you just the little Mr. Cut to the chase and be done with it.

[Blue]

Well aren't you just the little Mr. Cut to the chase and be done with it.

I couldn't resist. Everyone has been way to serious lately.

[kenyee]

Now here I disagree with you and quite strongly, but then again, I have evaluated, the 1DsII, D300, D3 and my K10D against each other in a number of prints and I can see the difference between the 1DsIII/D3 and D300/K10D already from A4 and up (though 30x45cm is where it really shows from), on quite a lot of subjects and this is at base ISO.

Out of curiosity, could you elaborate a bit on the differences you saw?

I agree w/ the McDonald's strategy, but unfortunately, what has happened is the body is now expendable. It has become our "film" and upgrades are happening as rapidly as computers are being improved...

[Eigengrau]

However it does not resemble my own experience with much more equal cameras.
However if we stick to comparing apples to apples, say D300 vs k10D, yes there is a generation in between, but at base ISO they are fairly equal, performance wise they are not though.

I think this is a fair stance. I understand that there is some benefit to be gained by the Nikon. People rave about the low light auto focus, and I've dealt with hunting and noisy pictures in the dark from my Pentax.

But, I still have some pictures that have come out extremely well, that have sold at art shows, and that keep getting me wedding jobs. The Nikon could make my life easier in a few of those situations, but I can't honestly say the photos would be discernibly better. In fact, I often find that an equipment limitation, like shooting at a fixed focal length rather than a zoom, forces me to be more creative and use my head more in the process.

It is lamentable that cameras have become more of a commodity with the digital age, but we can all also enjoy the fact that we shoot on equipment that would've been unheard of 10 or 15 years ago.

[Duplo]

Out of curiosity, could you elaborate a bit on the differences you saw?

Well, it is aminly 3 things.
The two of them are there almost regardless of situation, and that is the smoother tonal graduations, the increased dynamic range and yes even at base ISO the lack of noice. the D3 files are almost too noise free.

Of course some otf this is scene dependant, but the D3 has turned out to be a much better landscape camera than I had imagined when buing it.
Save for sheer resolution (Think MF here), it actually does very very well.
But no surprises there @ 5000USD it is expected.

I am not belittling the K10D, D300 or any other of the APS-C cameras, there is just a gap from what I have seen in my prints.

I think this is a fair stance. I understand that there is some benefit to be gained by the Nikon. People rave about the low light auto focus, and I've dealt with hunting and noisy pictures in the dark from my Pentax.

But, I still have some pictures that have come out extremely well, that have sold at art shows, and that keep getting me wedding jobs. The Nikon could make my life easier in a few of those situations, but I can't honestly say the photos would be discernibly better. In fact, I often find that an equipment limitation, like shooting at a fixed focal length rather than a zoom, forces me to be more creative and use my head more in the process.

It is lamentable that cameras have become more of a commodity with the digital age, but we can all also enjoy the fact that we shoot on equipment that would've been unheard of 10 or 15 years ago.

I did just fine with my K10D and even my DS sells a picture here and there, so I agree with you that they are not bad cameras at all, in fact quite the opposite IMHO.
My all time personal favourites are shot with all kinds of cameras, and the K10D was kapable of producing very very nice prints when not pushed outside its performance envelope, it still does.

My guess is that the additional dynamic range would be welcome when shooting weddings. think white dress vs black tux or no flash allowed chuches... at least that is what I hear from people shooting weddings with the D3/D700 comming from APS-C...
The big question is if the difference in quality will be enough to even out the cost differential. That is a very difficult question to answer and one that will probably have as many different answers as there are photographers...

I have shot things the last year, that I would not have thought possible a year ago, let alone 5... your last statement is one I agree with completely.

What I have written in this thread has not been meant as belittleing the Pentax cameras no way, for my personal fun shooting I still prefer my limiteds and they are invaluable when I have serious limitations on weight and bulk.
But I also stand by my comments about the difference in quality, but again I would be pretty disappointed if it was not so, just as I would be disappointed if a 20K MFD did not deliver more than any of the 35mm digitals out there.

[kenyee]

[QUOTE=Duplo;380517
smoother tonal graduations, the increased dynamic range and yes even at base ISO the lack of noice. the D3 files are almost too noise free.[/QUOTE]

No surprise at all to me. That's why bigger photosites are generally better. The new MF sensors sound like they have more DR than even current FF sensors

[marcdsgn]

Our company has just purchased the D700 for our field photographer at his request. Many of the pros re. this model cited on this thread are the reasons he cited to justify the investment, in particular the full-frame capacity. Prior to the D700 he has used the D300, D80 and a couple of Canons during the last few years.

His shots come via my studio for post-processing and editing prior to publication, so I get to inspect the comparisons, and despite the technical advances and greater specs of each new model, the final images that go to press show little if any improvement from earlier work.

Post-processing by its nature tends to pull all images either up or down to meet a specific standard for publication, so superfluous advances in image quality tend to be filtered out.

From a professional point-of-view, it's a little bugbear with me that there's too much investment in new bodies and not enough in other areas that would greatly enhance our images - lighting equipment for one, refresher courses in the principles of photography for another!

I'll be interested to see the first lot of shots come through, but I'm not holding my breath in anticipation of quality that surpasses previous images. Possibly we could sit the shots side-by-side with older images and spot definite technical improvements, but I suspect the differences will be wholly academic with little practical benefit to their end-use.

There is a point where advanced body specs pass the threshold of practical application, at which point the only avenue for improvement is via the photographer's willingness to advance their knowledge of photographic technique and hone their skills accordingly. The shots taken with our old Canons and D80 are still in circulation for repeat publication, as are our 35mm and medium-format trannies, and they still hold up against our more contemporary images.

Our images could be improved, but those improvements would be made via better lighting equipment, and pure inspiration on the part of the photographer. Full-frame may have definite advantages, but better quality of image could be achieved with far less investment than is currently required by purchasing full-frame technology.

[kenyee]

His shots come via my studio for post-processing and editing prior to publication, so I get to inspect the comparisons, and despite the technical advances and greater specs of each new model, the final images that go to press show little if any improvement from earlier work.

Marc,

What lenses did he use?
I'm curious if you were as impressed w/ the 24-70 as I was...