Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
03-19-2009, 02:21 AM   #196
Veteran Member




Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Durban, South Africa
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,051
QuoteOriginally posted by Ash Quote
Looks like a touch of fill light with the on-board camera flash, well balanced with the background.
The kit lens really is a good performer.
Thanks - yes you are quite correct - the day was thinly overcast hence fill flash (dialled to -2)

Dylan

03-19-2009, 08:49 AM   #197
Veteran Member
rfortson's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Houston TX
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,129
QuoteOriginally posted by Ash Quote
Looks like a touch of fill light with the on-board camera flash, well balanced with the background.
The kit lens really is a good performer.
First, nice portrait, Dylan.

Ash, I agree with you about the kit lens. I just bought a *ist DL kit with the kit lens, and I had forgotten (1) how nice the DL is for a small SLR, and (2) how nice and light the kit lens is.
03-19-2009, 09:04 AM   #198
Veteran Member
jct us101's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Rohnert Park, CA
Posts: 3,695
You forgot (3) how it equally compares to a Canon 5D + 17-40L
03-19-2009, 01:25 PM   #199
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
Pentaxke's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Belgium
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 415
QuoteOriginally posted by Marc Sabatella Quote
The point, again, being that your initial characterization of Nikon as producing all these great zooms while Pentax has nothing in comparison was rather misleading. The 24-70 is the only one of the three lenses you mentioned where is indeed fair to say Pentax has nothing currently available that is comparable.
Euh,

Marc, that was not me, if you look at the post above...

I was only saying that Nikkors are not worth the trouble, sth I learned by just buying a Fuji...

03-19-2009, 01:31 PM   #200
Pentaxian
Marc Sabatella's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Denver, CO
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 10,686
QuoteOriginally posted by Pentaxke Quote
Marc, that was not me, if you look at the post above...
You're right, of course - I guess the letters "ke" in both of your names confused me :-)

QuoteQuote:
I was only saying that Nikkors are not worth the trouble
I have no personal experience to contradict this, but I've seen enough favorable reviews of Nikkor lenses to suggest that they do make some really good ones and some less good ones, just like Pentax or anyone else.
03-19-2009, 01:45 PM   #201
Forum Member




Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: OH, USA
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 77
Take a flying leap! Otherwise stick with what you know. Are you that good?
03-19-2009, 02:16 PM   #202
Veteran Member
benjikan's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Paris, France
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 4,312
QuoteOriginally posted by lapeen Quote
My best friend recently got a nikon d90 and I am in love. She is able to get so many shots that I could never get with my k100d. I had been feeling frustrated and limited with my camera even before she got the d90 as my daughter has become a cheerleader and my camera REALLY struggles in the low/crappy light of school auditoriums and I have to either accept a lot of grain or motion blur. Examples Our family and friends also do a lot of evening activities and hanging out and the d90 captures those moments with ease. Last night she had her ISO at 2000 and the pics were bright and crisp and not at all grainy.

And I know that it's gimmicky and a bit of a controversial "issue" ...but it was pretty fun last night to be able to snap great photos, and then when someone was attempting to dance like Beyonce, be able to switch over to video and take a little movie The movie thing is NOT a deal breaker for me... but it is kind of fun!

I pondered going for the k20d so that I could keep my lenses... and I do love being a Pentaxian, but I have been told that the k20d won't make me happy and do what I want it to either. Looking at the ISO tests on DPreview and other sites seems to confirm this.

I know that none of us have crystal balls... but as I am no urgent rush to get new gear, do you think I should wait awhile and hope that Pentax comes out with a camera that makes me squeal
Ummmmm.........Do you honestly think that if you get a Nikon, Canon, Sony, Panasonic or Pentax or what ever, that it will have an effect on the outcome of your images?

All of the above brands are quite capable in cataloging a photo and all are quite good at 1600 iso for a A3 print.

If you feel psychologically more comfortable with a Nikon, go for it. You don't want to upset your comfort zone.

Ben
03-19-2009, 03:29 PM   #203
New Member




Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Bodø
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 5
D90 vs K20D

K20D is way better camera than the D90 no question about it

03-19-2009, 10:03 PM   #204
Inactive Account




Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: San Diego, California
Posts: 441
QuoteOriginally posted by Pentaxke Quote

Do you mean the freakin' expenssive but mediocre 17-55? Or by any chance the still freakin' expenssive but still more mediocre 18-200...? Like I said above, I have tried various Nikkors now, and every each and one of them peforms, optically speaking, less than their Pentax counterpart... Maybe I haven't tried enough? Maybe I had lemons (in which case Nikon has a serious problem in the QC department...?)

I finally set for a 16-85 and a 60 micro Nikkor, but please, spare me the phrase 'Nikkors are best', as a DA 16-45 and FA 50 macro easily outperforms the two...
This is simply ridiculous. I've owned both Pentax and Nikon SLR systems. I had two different Pentax DSLRs, three Pentax film bodies and over two dozen Pentax lenses over the past twenty years including the original M* lens, DA* lenses, DA Limited lenses, FA Limited lenses, etc. I currently own a Nikon D80 and a D300, and seven Nikon lenses including the 17-55mm f2.8, the 70-200mm f2.8, the 60mm f2.8 D Micro-Nikkor, the 105mm f2.8 VR Micro-Nikkor, etc.

Both the Pentax and Nikon lenses produce fine images. The Nikon 60mm macro produces images that are just as good as my Pentax DFA 50mm macro; the Nikon 105mm macro produces images just as good as my Pentax 100mm smc-A macro; my Nikon 17-55mm f2.8 DX outperforms my Pentax DA 16-45 f4 in just about every respect: one full stop faster, far less CA, faster and quieter AF, better contrast and color saturation. The Nikon 70-200mm VR is simply in a class by itself: it outperforms my Pentax DA* 50-135mm and has 50% more reach. Yes, the Nikon gear is more expensive and heavier to carry. But it doesn't disappoint in either optical or mechanical performance, especially the pro level gear.

I do like the Pentax Limited prime lenses. and a combination of the new 15mm, the 35mm Macro, and the 70mm would be ideal for travel photography. Nikon doesn't have anything that matches that level of performance in a compact, light but still well-constructed package. I lighten the load by leaving the f2.8 zooms at home when traveling, but I miss the Pentax compact size. (Actually, my Pentax LX camera and three prime lenses is what I take to travel as light as possible.)

Pentax and Nikon both make some very fine lenses and cameras. Your blanket assertion that every Nikon lens is inferior is contrary to the experience of millions of other users. If you can't get good results with any Nikon lens, then it clearly indicates that there is something wrong: either with your old Fuji S3 camera or with the operator.

QuoteOriginally posted by Pentaxke Quote
(I am only speaking of optical quality - sharpness, vignetting, CA, ed all - because I couldn't care less how fast the thing focusses...)
That's fine for you. However, those of us who shoot sports action and indoor events need fast and accurate AF. When I switched from Pentax to Nikon, it made a huge difference. Instead of about half of my sports action photos being out of focus with Pentax, only about 5% are out of focus with Nikon. Many photos from school events and concerts were out of focus with Pentax; almost every picture from school events and concerts with the Nikon are in focus. Better AF (and higher frame rates), better noise performance at high ISO, and superior TTL flash performance are the areas where current Nikon DSLRs outperform current Pentax DSLRs.

Last edited by GaryML; 03-19-2009 at 10:34 PM.
03-20-2009, 03:15 AM   #205
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
Pentaxke's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Belgium
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 415
QuoteOriginally posted by GaryML Quote
This is simply ridiculous. I've owned both Pentax and Nikon SLR systems. I had two different Pentax DSLRs, three Pentax film bodies and over two dozen Pentax lenses over the past twenty years including the original M* lens, DA* lenses, DA Limited lenses, FA Limited lenses, etc. I currently own a Nikon D80 and a D300, and seven Nikon lenses including the 17-55mm f2.8, the 70-200mm f2.8, the 60mm f2.8 D Micro-Nikkor, the 105mm f2.8 VR Micro-Nikkor, etc.

Both the Pentax and Nikon lenses produce fine images. The Nikon 60mm macro produces images that are just as good as my Pentax DFA 50mm macro;
Well, *nearly* as good, with a bit of CA to bode. Actually, this is, by now, the only Nikkor that I am confortable with. But even then, the FA 50 macro is better by a margin.

QuoteOriginally posted by GaryML Quote
the Nikon 105mm macro produces images just as good as my Pentax 100mm smc-A macro;
No experience with the Nikkor 105. Then again, the price and (more importantly) the dimensions are such I wouldn't even consider it...

QuoteOriginally posted by GaryML Quote
my Nikon 17-55mm f2.8 DX outperforms my Pentax DA 16-45 f4 in just about every respect: one full stop faster, far less CA, faster and quieter AF, better contrast and color saturation.
Define color saturation...
In fact, this has been a discussion over on another (Dutch) discussion forum, where I asked what I was doing wrong. I have used two different copies and while I admit that 'it's not bad', it certainly isn't € >1000,- worth optical performing either. It has better CA and that is about it, al the rest is in favour of the Pentax. Like I said: I couldn't care less about focus speed, because that doesn't make it a stellar performer. I am not going to make that whole discussion again, suffice it to say that people over there where first aggressive against me because I had the guts to question a Nikkor, but after the long discussion we put the 17-55 against the Sigma 17-70, which was an easy homerun for the Sigma...

QuoteOriginally posted by GaryML Quote
The Nikon 70-200mm VR is simply in a class by itself: it outperforms my Pentax DA* 50-135mm and has 50% more reach. Yes, the Nikon gear is more expensive and heavier to carry. But it doesn't disappoint in either optical or mechanical performance, especially the pro level gear.
I haven't got any experience with the DA* and if you are happy with the 70-200 VR, all the better for you, but a stellar performer the Nikkor is not...

QuoteOriginally posted by GaryML Quote
Pentax and Nikon both make some very fine lenses and cameras.
Amen to that...

QuoteOriginally posted by GaryML Quote
Your blanket assertion that every Nikon lens is inferior is contrary to the experience of millions of other users. If you can't get good results with any Nikon lens, then it clearly indicates that there is something wrong: either with your old Fuji S3 camera or with the operator.
I didn't say that *all* Nikkors are bad, I was just saying that I am not impressed about the optical performance of the Nikkors I used... Big difference. On the other hand: the plain fact that people are happy with the Nikkor 18-200, leaves me to think that maybe my expectations are too high. Then again: why wasn't I disappointed with none of the Pentaxes...?
03-20-2009, 06:36 PM   #206
Veteran Member
joele's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,309
QuoteOriginally posted by Pentaxke Quote
No experience with the Nikkor 105. Then again, the price and (more importantly) the dimensions are such I wouldn't even consider it...
Owned it sold it and much prefer the Sigma 150mm macro, though I prefer that over any Pentax options too.

QuoteQuote:
I had the guts to question a Nikkor, but after the long discussion we put the 17-55 against the Sigma 17-70, which was an easy homerun for the Sigma...
Well I have used the Nikkor and owned the Sigma 17-70 in two mounts and currently use the Tamron 17-50/2.8.. personally for the money the Tamron tops the lot as it is on par with the nikon optically IMO, much cheaper but lower build quality.. The Sigma is a lovely lens but behind both optically near wide open (which is what matters as most lenses are good at f8).. To be fair I would put the Tamron and Nikon ahead of the Pentax 16-50/2.8, but maybe my shooting buddy and I both got bad samples so hard to say (though that is a problem in itself).. I am just a big fan of the Tamron at the end of the day for that focal length and apeture, though Christie (the other half) still uses and swears by the Sigma 17-70mm.


QuoteQuote:
On the other hand: the plain fact that people are happy with the Nikkor 18-200, leaves me to think that maybe my expectations are too high. Then again: why wasn't I disappointed with none of the Pentaxes...?
meh, people are happy with the Sigma and tamron super zooms too, just different requirements..


Comparing almost any camera or lens from one brand to the other you will find advantages and disadvantages of each choice for different people..
03-21-2009, 09:14 AM   #207
Inactive Account




Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: San Diego, California
Posts: 441
QuoteOriginally posted by Pentaxke Quote
On the other hand: the plain fact that people are happy with the Nikkor 18-200, leaves me to think that maybe my expectations are too high. Then again: why wasn't I disappointed with none of the Pentaxes...?
I never cared for super-zooms, as there are too many compromises in performance. The Nikon 18-200 is no exception: lots of distortion at the wide end, soft at the long end, and slow, slow, slow. But if you like the convenience of this sort of lens then the Nikon probably performs well in it this class. "People are happy" with the Pentax/Tamron super-zooms also, and they have the same performance compromises.

If you are displeased with your Nikon lenses, why not just sell them and get something else (e.g., Sigma in Nikon mount), or dump the Fuji body also and get Pentax, Canon, Olympus, Panasonic, Leica, or whatever you want? There are lots of alternatives, and selling camera gear is easy in this Internet age. When I was unhappy with Pentax, I simply sold the equipment with only a modest loss and moved on. (I also tested the Nikon gear before selling the Pentax, so I wasn't just jumping around at random.)
03-22-2009, 07:35 PM   #208
Junior Member




Join Date: May 2007
Location: Boulder, CO, USA
Posts: 28
Maybe this question is better asked on a Nikon forum than on a Pentax forum.
03-22-2009, 11:21 PM   #209
Veteran Member
OregonJim's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Willamette Valley, Oregon
Posts: 1,329
QuoteOriginally posted by Pentaxke Quote
On the other hand: the plain fact that people are happy with the Nikkor 18-200, leaves me to think that maybe my expectations are too high. Then again: why wasn't I disappointed with none of the Pentaxes...?
That's funny - I had pretty much the same observation to make, but you beat me to it! The Nikkor 18-200 was the last lens I bought before switching back to Pentax. I was less than impressed with it, though the wife is happy enough with it now. I've seen both good and bad reviews of nearly ever lens I've ever researched, regardless of brand. It's when they're *all* good (or all bad) that I start getting suspicious...
03-23-2009, 01:19 AM   #210
Veteran Member
ftpaddict's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Yurp
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 4,669
QuoteOriginally posted by jedperkins Quote
Maybe this question is better asked on a Nikon forum than on a Pentax forum.
They've never even heard of Pentax.
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, d90, dslr, fun, iso, k20d, lot, love, movie, nikon, photography
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Equivalent of Pentax primes on Canon and Nikon FF systems dexmus Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 2 10-01-2010 11:16 PM
I'm Switching to Nikon . . . Blue Pentax DSLR Discussion 23 06-27-2010 12:54 AM
For Pentax users who changed systems or thinking about switching rustynail925 Pentax DSLR Discussion 34 03-04-2010 01:22 AM
Nikon and Pentax - Question on Flash systems comparison VAV Flashes, Lighting, and Studio 9 08-13-2009 07:24 AM
ProMaster 70-300 - seeking Image quality opinions RoxnDox Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 3 06-26-2007 12:38 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 07:10 PM. | See also: NikonForums.com, CanonForums.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