[Okami]

Nikon D700 $2600
Nikon 12-24 $1000
Nikon 24-70 VR $1500
Nikon 70-200 VR $1600

Total $6700

Isn't the fact that you are comparing a $2600 camera with a $900 camera a testament to how great a value and camera the K20d is?

I spent two fashion weeks being teased by the rest of the group as always (Only Pentax shooter there) but that quiets down a whole lot once they see my shots. Not to mention the fact most of them are just kidding around considering they know it's the lenses and photographers that matter more.

In the end you have to ask yourself what are you shooting that a k20d cannot do? I mean seriously. Unless you have money to blow there is no reason I can think of that you would max out the capabilities of it and need to spend another 1800$ (on body alone) for your pictures. Have most of the spec watchers even bothered to print any of their work to see output comparisons?

[Duplo]

Nikon D700 $2600
Nikon 12-24 $1000
Nikon 24-70 VR $1500
Nikon 70-200 VR $1600

Total $6700

the 12-24 would be a rather unwise choice for the D700 as it is an APS-C lens, the 14-24 would be the one you are looking for, so add7-800 USD.

Isn't the fact that you are comparing a $2600 camera with a $900 camera a testament to how great a value and camera the K20d is?

I agree it is a foolish thing to compare the two and I agree the K20D is very much great value for money. I mean it is able to run with a D300 from an IQ point of view from what I have heard and seen to it. and that is not a small achievement IMHO.

However, the comparison is much more a testament to lack of knowledge from the ones doing the comparison and expecting them to come out equal.

I spent two fashion weeks being teased by the rest of the group as always (Only Pentax shooter there) but that quiets down a whole lot once they see my shots. Not to mention the fact most of them are just kidding around considering they know it's the lenses and photographers that matter more.

Lenses and cameras alike IMHO... a photographer up to the job is mandatory regardless of gear used.

In the end you have to ask yourself what are you shooting that a k20d cannot do? I mean seriously. Unless you have money to blow there is no reason I can think of that you would max out the capabilities of it and need to spend another 1800$ (on body alone) for your pictures. Have most of the spec watchers even bothered to print any of their work to see output comparisons?

If the K20D is enough to get the job done I agree.

However that does not make it equal to the high end C and N bodies.
I do not think Pentax have ever claimed it to be or intented it to be either.

In fact pentax claims that their next camera body will be equal to the current 35mm digital offerings in terms of IQ and that is IIRC a quote from a pentax interview.

Now when the K30D comes out, will you then tell me that it is no better than the K20D?
and that you really do not need higher IQ than you already have and that it makes absolutely no difference in prints?
Personally I think you will magically find a use for it and enjoy it.

[marcdsgn]

It's a long time since I visited this thread.

Revisiting it briefly to confirm what I expected to find from the results of our photographer's first few outings with the D700: Mainly that it's larger sensor hasn't provided any marked improvement to images that we send for four-colour offset reproduction.

This said, we haven't published any of the images larger than A4-format at this stage.

A nagging issue we have found with many shots, regardless of the camera model (although we are talking about a variety of Nikon models) is that it is very hard - relatively speaking - to achieve rich earthy tones in our press files. Colours at the blue/ purple/magenta end of the spectrum are very dominant on the digital files. By contrast, scans of our Ektacrome trannies provide a much richer and faithful representation of true colours.

So perhaps there is more need to improve colour-capture, than to increase sensor size.

[asw66]

It seems to me that Pentax/Hoya's strategy here is the classic Japanese business strategy: wait for the pioneers to spend the big bucks on R&D, then enter the market as it starts to mature with a product that reflects the lessons learned from your competitors' experiences.

Who here doubts that there will be a Pentax FF one day? The only question is when.

The Pentax FF will arrive when the technology matures a little more and the prices for FF systems begin to approach the market-share sweet spot. That's almost certainly less than five years away; possibly as soon as two.

In the meantime, the K-7 has been very intelligently optimised to take advantage of APS-C's relative advantage in terms of compactness, which is enhanced by Pentax's traditional strength in primes and their new-found enthusiasm for weather sealing.

[dylansalt]

It's a long time since I visited this thread.

Revisiting it briefly to confirm what I expected to find from the results of our photographer's first few outings with the D700: Mainly that it's larger sensor hasn't provided any marked improvement to images that we send for four-colour offset reproduction.

This said, we haven't published any of the images larger than A4-format at this stage.

A nagging issue we have found with many shots, regardless of the camera model (although we are talking about a variety of Nikon models) is that it is very hard - relatively speaking - to achieve rich earthy tones in our press files. Colours at the blue/ purple/magenta end of the spectrum are very dominant on the digital files. By contrast, scans of our Ektacrome trannies provide a much richer and faithful representation of true colours.

So perhaps there is more need to improve colour-capture, than to increase sensor size.

An excellent statement which made me go through my 35mm slides with the likes of Kodachrome 25, Ektachrome, Fuji Velvia - projected at 3mx2m - absolutely no contest and in fact the 6x6 slides (YashicaMat 124g) thrash digital and anything I have seen from FF sensors.

So yes I reckon Colour Capture & Dynamic Range equal to that of slide emulsions would be incredible.

Dylan

[Wheatfield]

It's a long time since I visited this thread.

Revisiting it briefly to confirm what I expected to find from the results of our photographer's first few outings with the D700: Mainly that it's larger sensor hasn't provided any marked improvement to images that we send for four-colour offset reproduction.

Is your photographer using high ISO? This is where the D700 and it's ilk will make a difference over a cropped frame camera of similar pixel count. If your photographer is shooting at any ISO below ~800, it's not surprising that you aren't seeing any real improvements due to the larger sensor, since you aren't pushing the limits of the smaller one.

[slrl0ver]

I would also assume under sports or high-movement situations, the D700 would pull ahead of everything except a 1D-series type Canon.

Could be wrong though, I've never used a D700 (yet) or a K-7.

[Wheatfield]

I would also assume under sports or high-movement situations, the D700 would pull ahead of everything except a 1D-series type Canon.

Could be wrong though, I've never used a D700 (yet) or a K-7.

The D700 runs circles around the K20, both in terms of AF speed and responsiveness.
This is what you get when you spend 2.5K for a camera vs. 1K.
I just took delivery of my K-7 today. My initial impression is that the AF speed has been improved for screw drive lenses, I'm not certain that the SDM lenses are working any faster though. My camera came with a nearly dead battery, so by the time I got an SDM lens on the thing, I also had to put AA alkalines into the grip. It's nice that the camera will work with them, but I'm not about to test operational speeds running it on AA alkalines and think I'm getting solid data.

[Ash]

It's still unfair to compare the D700 with either the K20D or K-7.
Different league of camera - better off comparing them to the D300.
Would be interesting to see your satisfaction with the K-7, wheatfield.

[slrl0ver]

Hi Ash,

It's still unfair to compare the D700 with either the K20D or K-7.
Different league of camera - better off comparing them to the D300.
Would be interesting to see your satisfaction with the K-7, wheatfield.

Nikon did something smart and put their best AF system into all their upper-level cameras. D300, D700 and D3/D3x have the same 51-point AF. Pentax and Canon would be wise to learn from this! The Nikon Multi-CAM 3500 (FX for D700/D3, DX for D300) handles AF, AE and WB. So more than likely, the AF/AE performance of D700 & D300 will be the same.

Of course, such an "advanced" AF system might be overkill for a lot of people (perhaps myself included). AF/AE aside you could be completely right and the D300 might be more meaningful to examine.

Regardless, I'm still very interested in Wheatfield's comparison of a D700 to a K7 however "unfair" it might be. I found a lot of Wheatfield's other commentary on Pentax useful.

- slrl0ver

[Ash]

Well, what I'm saying is that if you are into comparing such an advanced camera as the D700 with a prosumer K20D that's a third of its price, then you'll find the D700 trumping the K20D in every facet - hands down. I'm not sure Pentax will 'learn' from Nikon AF systems - they're doing a decent job with the market position they're in (hardly the grandeur of Nikon or Canon). Slower, yes, less accurate, no. Once one knows how best to use Pentax AF to maximise sharp results, then there'll be few applications where that Pentax user will not get a shot that the Canikoners get.

The D300, as a DX cam does still have an advanced AF system that easily beats any Pentax AF, though in most other aspects both are quite comparable.

Go and try a D700/D300 out in your local store, and see the differences yourself.

[slrl0ver]

Ash,

I think its easy for us to bin things into price levels and say "for this price, this is acceptable". If it works in your advantage, i.e. Pentax bodies are image stabilized vs. more expensive optical stabilization for Canon/Nikon, do you fail to list it as a pro, if someone asks? Or weather sealing of Pentax vs. most other dSLRs? Ability to use old lenses?

Specifically, about AF, I think the point was the level of sophistication in the newer Nikon AF, not just the speed. If you need to track moving objects or capture anything with really high-speed, it's very possible a lesser AF system (Pentax or other) will fail or may not work with the desired framing. In fact, even Canon's 5D.MK2 flagship has a very poor "dynamic" AF "system, I think the K7's will beat it, despite the >2x cost of the 5D. Only the end-user can deem what set of trade-offs are acceptable or not, but not discussing it means people like me who WANT to know the limits of all of these cameras miss out from those who are willing to share and use the equipment.

For a different perspective, I'm considering the K7 and D700. For me, the D700 advantages are FF and better AF/AE system; the detractors are price and inability to use older lenses. However, price NOT withstanding, the other differences such as responsiveness or shutter lag aren't that critical *to me* since I don't feel they would limit me. So I'm keen on hearing if someone found the K7's AF limited them in a situation I could relate to.

Finally, the topic of this thread is D700 vs. Pentax, so I think it's acceptable for us to explore this question here. This is a Pentax forum and I respect that and respect Pentax, but we should be open minded and willing to acknowledge factual pro's and con's.

[Ash]

No worries mate.
I can only give you my own opinion.
The question of whether any of these cams are 'pro' or not isn't the issue at all. Some consider the K20D a pro model, some don't. What defines it as one or not? To me, I don't care. It's a great camera, pro or not.

I agree with you that the D700's far superior - if you've got the money, then go for it. You won't be disappointed. K-7's great also, IMO, but I wouldn't hold my breath with its AF performance comparatively. SDM AF is said to be similar in speed with the K20D and K-7. Low-light performance will be the next determinant...

We'll have to wait and see from those who've tested the K-7 under low light with and without SDM lenses as to its performance...

[Samsungian]

D700 uses Nikon Ai glass, made from 1977, AiS glass from 1981, along with all AF versions to present day. Theres a 32 year range of usable glass with D700.

1976 back to 1959 Nikon Non Ai glass you cannot use on D700. Is this 33 year old to 50 year old unusable glass a real setback when considering a D700? I've got 5 Nikon AiS that I use with my D700. They are entered into the camera so I capture full metadata. Idiot focus light works and as a bonus it has left and right arrows to tell you which direction to turn the focus ring to achieve focus. You can only load 9 older lenses into it. I've got my 300mm 2.8, 420mm f4, 600mm 5.6, 8mm f2.8 and 85mm 1.4 are programed into the first 5 slots. I close down the aperture on any and that modified aperture info is automatically captured in metadata too. Pretty Sweet & Quite handy. I have zero regrets adding D700 this year, my first nikon camera purchase.

Ash,

I think its easy for us to bin things into price levels and say "for this price, this is acceptable". If it works in your advantage, i.e. Pentax bodies are image stabilized vs. more expensive optical stabilization for Canon/Nikon, do you fail to list it as a pro, if someone asks? Or weather sealing of Pentax vs. most other dSLRs? Ability to use old lenses?

Specifically, about AF, I think the point was the level of sophistication in the newer Nikon AF, not just the speed. If you need to track moving objects or capture anything with really high-speed, it's very possible a lesser AF system (Pentax or other) will fail or may not work with the desired framing. In fact, even Canon's 5D.MK2 flagship has a very poor "dynamic" AF "system, I think the K7's will beat it, despite the >2x cost of the 5D. Only the end-user can deem what set of trade-offs are acceptable or not, but not discussing it means people like me who WANT to know the limits of all of these cameras miss out from those who are willing to share and use the equipment.

For a different perspective, I'm considering the K7 and D700. For me, the D700 advantages are FF and better AF/AE system; the detractors are price and inability to use older lenses. However, price NOT withstanding, the other differences such as responsiveness or shutter lag aren't that critical *to me* since I don't feel they would limit me. So I'm keen on hearing if someone found the K7's AF limited them in a situation I could relate to.

Finally, the topic of this thread is D700 vs. Pentax, so I think it's acceptable for us to explore this question here. This is a Pentax forum and I respect that and respect Pentax, but we should be open minded and willing to acknowledge factual pro's and con's.

[Wheatfield]

D700 uses Nikon Ai glass, made from 1977, AiS glass from 1981, along with all AF versions to present day. Theres a 32 year range of usable glass with D700.

1976 back to 1959 Nikon Non Ai glass you cannot use on D700. Is this 33 year old to 50 year old unusable glass a real setback when considering a D700? I've got 5 Nikon AiS that I use with my D700. They are entered into the camera so I capture full metadata. Idiot focus light works and as a bonus it has left and right arrows to tell you which direction to turn the focus ring to achieve focus. You can only load 9 older lenses into it. I've got my 300mm 2.8, 420mm f4, 600mm 5.6, 8mm f2.8 and 85mm 1.4 are programed into the first 5 slots. I close down the aperture on any and that modified aperture info is automatically captured in metadata too. Pretty Sweet & Quite handy. I have zero regrets adding D700 this year, my first nikon camera purchase.

You make an excellent point. I was a pretty early adopter to Pentax DSLR. I bought an *istD 20 minutes after it became available to me at my local pusher, and have only shot a few rolls of film since.
Prior to my DSLR, I shot 35mm film with a fleet of 3 LXen. I owned two AF lenses, a 28-70 f/4 that came with an MZ-5 camera when my father passed and an FA77/1.8 that I actually didn't like very much.
Since aquiring my first DSLR, I have pretty much replaced every focal length that I used on 35mm with an equivalent angle of view AF lens for my DLSRs, and I have come to love my 77.

I guess my point, if I have one, is that it is all well and good to be able to shoot older glass, but at some point there is a tendency to buy glass that takes full advantage of the abilities of the camera body.