[Marc Sabatella]

The reason I want more pixels is finer detail

I think you missed the point. The D700 doesn't have *more* pixels than Pentax cameras - it actually has fewer than the K20D. It has a few more than the K10D, but the difference in *insignificant*: a few percent in each dimension. What is significant about the D700 isn't the *number* of pixels - it is the *size* of the *bigger* pixels, because it is FF as opposed to APS-C. Bigger pixels are good, but they don't matter a whit when it comes to detail for what you are talking about. The main advantage to bigger pixels is high ISO noise, which shouldn't be an issue for you because you shouldn't be using high ISO in the studio setting. So you really wouldn't see any difference here.

By all means, make the change if you like, but you really should try to understand the technical issues here if you want to be able to take advantage of your tools to take better pictures. As it is, you'd be trading one set of tools for another, but without understanding how to take advantage of them, you won't be getting better results. And conversely, if you do learn to take advantage of the tools you have, you can get better results without switching systems. I know this isn't the answer you want to hear, but it is the truth as I see it.

the image you get with the standard dslr is not as detailed as you would get with film, and this is well known

Actually, it isn't well-known at all - there is considerable debate on this topic. Most people who have performed controlled tests seem to find that somewhere between 6 and 12 megapixels, digital starts beating 35mm film in resolution.

[krypticide]

I upgraded from a K10D to the K20D a few months ago. The shutter is definitely quieter on the K20D, and also softer sounding. Less metallic impact.

I think I like the shutter sound on the Nikon's the most. And by Nikon, just the D300 and the D700 which I got to experience because my cousin has one. I've only seen cheaper Canons, and their shutters sound too much like toys though they also seem to be softer.

Shutter sound hasn't been an issue except when trying to take surreptitious pictures. I have a wedding coming up, and I expect the shutter to be an issue during very quiet parts of the service, but I don't think any other DSLR would actually be less noticeable in those situations.

As for brand, I feel a sense of pride knowing I picked Pentax over Canon and Nikon. If anything, I see a Pentax shooter and I immediately give them brownie points because it's much more likely that they're a good photographer that knows what they're doing. Most Canon and Nikon users just saw an ad and bought it thinking they'll get great pictures without any other skills. Obviously, that's not everyone but it's much more likely than with a Pentax shooter.

The only disadvantages I see for Pentax is shooting sports with high fps and long lens selection and super high ISO with the full frame D700 or 5DMkII. Oh, and the CLS flash systems.

But you certainly have to pay through the nose for all those features...

P.S. Please take a look at some of my gallery images and keep in mind I've only been taking pictures for a little over a year.

[kevbirder]

Be careful about the 'more pixels is better' idea as this is not really true any more as DSLRs are reaching the limit of lens resolutions.

If you have older 35mm lenses then you could get more resolution by having a full frame sensor, because then you are capturing the full picture that the lens was designed for and not cropping some of it off as the current Pentax range all do.

If you are using lenses designed for the smaller sensor digitals, then once you get to the resolution of a K20D, there isn't really any more picture to be had and making the pixels smaller is not going to help.

If you really want more resolution, say for a wall sized poster and you are doing static work, try using a longer focal length lens and taking several pictures to cover your subject and then stitch them together. It's not for everyday use, but that way you can get more detail in your picture than any other way.

[er1kksen]

Be careful about the 'more pixels is better' idea as this is not really true any more as DSLRs are reaching the limit of lens resolutions.

If you have older 35mm lenses then you could get more resolution by having a full frame sensor, because then you are capturing the full picture that the lens was designed for and not cropping some of it off as the current Pentax range all do.

If you are using lenses designed for the smaller sensor digitals, then once you get to the resolution of a K20D, there isn't really any more picture to be had and making the pixels smaller is not going to help.

If you really want more resolution, say for a wall sized poster and you are doing static work, try using a longer focal length lens and taking several pictures to cover your subject and then stitch them together. It's not for everyday use, but that way you can get more detail in your picture than any other way.

Be careful with that, it's a popular idea but the fact is most of the lenses we're working with today can still benefit from pixel densities a good bit higher than we have today. A sensor that can do away with the AA filter and oversample lens detail (higher resolution than any lens) would in fact be ideal, but a writer on the Online Photographer recently worked out that that would require a sensor of about 400(!) megapixels with a bayer sensor design... don't expect to see that any time soon. Until then, though, higher-resolution sensors will return higher image quality at optimum settings (sharp lenses at wide, non-diffracted apertures) and at least equal performance to their predecessors in less-than-optimal conditions. The real question here is not really how much more image quality they can produce, but how much do you really need. Are you going to print 30x40 on a regular basis? No? Then you probably don't need 20+ megapixels...

[Timtast1c]

just got a K20d and a Pentax DA 55-300 today. no matter what lens is on either camera the shutter is much quieter on the 20D than on my 10D

[KungPOW]

For what its worth my K100D was lounder then my K10D. I understand the K20D is even quieter. I expect the next Pentax will be quieter still.

My loudest camera is a Canon EOS-1n
Quietest is my Yashica Minister III. I type louder then that shutter.
Favorite shutter is the "ting" of my LX. Love that titanium shutter.

If the Pentax is not working for you, try another camera maker. See if you can rent a camera and a lens for the week. Borrow a friends. You might find the shutter is quieter, but you can never find the exposure lock button. Or it might be the change you need.

[EricT]

I think you missed the point. The D700 doesn't have *more* pixels than Pentax cameras - it actually has fewer than the K20D. It has a few more than the K10D, but the difference in *insignificant*: a few percent in each dimension. What is significant about the D700 isn't the *number* of pixels - it is the *size* of the *bigger* pixels, because it is FF as opposed to APS-C. Bigger pixels are good, but they don't matter a whit when it comes to detail for what you are talking about. The main advantage to bigger pixels is high ISO noise, which shouldn't be an issue for you because you shouldn't be using high ISO in the studio setting. So you really wouldn't see any difference here.

She does mention 24 MP, which the Nikon D3x has. Price? $8000...

[pingflood]

She does mention 24 MP, which the Nikon D3x has. Price? $8000...

For studio use, just get the A900...

[WMBP]

I have both the K10D and K20D here. I put lenses on them of similar size. I took the grip off the K20D (I have only 1 grip). I set both cameras to 1/250th sec shutter speed. And I put them both down on the wooden countertop in my kitchen so I could press the shutters without accidentally muffling one camera's sound because I had to hold it in my hand. And I clicked the shutters over and over. I moved 'em around. Finally I did try picking 'em up and holding them closer to my head so I could listen very carefully. I held each camera in both hands.

If you listen carefully, there is definitely a difference between the K10D's shutter and the K20D's. But I'm not sure it's a difference in loudness. The K10D's shutter - well, MY K10D's shutter - has a somewhat "sloppier" noise and it's also a bit lower in pitch. Lower in pitch would suggest to me that, in some venues at least, the K10D's sound would be LESS noticeable than the K20D's.

That's what I hear when I listen carefully. I will say however that I shoot very often with both cameras, moving from one to the other. And I'm often shooting in church or some other venue where I'm a bit sensitive about the sound of the shutter. And I never notice the difference in shutter sound when I'm shooting. I certainly have never considered it a reason to favor one camera over the other.

I don't have a K100D or K200D for comparison. I do recall someone pointing out in this forum a long time ago that the K10D's shutter sound is somewhat muffled by the weather sealing. That sounds entirely plausible, exactly what I would expect. In the list of 100 reasons to prefer a K10D or K20D over a K100D or K200D, the muffled and therefore quieter shutter would be somewhere around #97.

If you want a quiet camera, get something else. The Panasonic Lumix LX3 looks like a good camera and I am pretty sure that, because it's not really an SLR, it doesn't actually have a physical shutter slap noise. In other words, it's silent. Not sure about this, but I think the Olympus digital SLRs can be used in a way that obviates the shutter noise.

Will

[cpopham]

She does mention 24 MP, which the Nikon D3x has. Price? $8000...

Down here in NZ, a D3X goes for about $17,250.00 NZD. This is about 29% of the average househouse income. (And once you remove tax, very close to $8k US)
(It's also more than many people spent ON THEIR CARS)

Good thing it's a business asset for some people I guess...

I do recall someone pointing out in this forum a long time ago that the K10D's shutter sound is somewhat muffled by the weather sealing. That sounds entirely plausible, exactly what I would expect.

I noticed this with the 16-50 on a K100 - the weather sealing in the lens / sheer amount of glass seems to muffle the shutter noise somewhat.

[Emotive45]

Within our work we have been trained to shoot in RAW and get the best resolution on images we can possibly get. Disagree with me all you like. I am trained by the best and this is what they're teaching. They are professional photographers and have had years of experience. Working with a low resolution where it comes to selection is bad at best... I used to do it...in first yr they had us working in JPEG all the time. When we moved to RAW I therefore saw the difference in what I could achieve. I can actually see a visual improvement in my work. As for knowing little with regard to photoshop, if you consider living and breathing photography and photoshop for the past two yrs as having little skill, then I suppose your right. Most of my time has been spent in it and we're taught different ways of achieving selections or doing anything in the program. This is on top of our own personal research. I am a Scott Kelby fan and have learned from the best as far as I'm concerned in that sense as well as having hands on 5 days a week in study fro experts. It doesn't get much better than that... in fact I expect it given I pay the fees I do to learn. High res has always been better IMO and I wouldnt go back in any case because there is something far more dealin in RAW than resolution. The ability to recover tones in an image that is perhaps slightly over exposed or under exposed is FAR better in RAW than you would get from a JPEG.

I advise you to Google the following:

Why shoot RAW?

Tonal range in RAW?

Why professionals shoot in RAW?

Get a larger stick in your camera and quit the JPEG stuff if you want to be professional. I doubt you wil look back either.

[Emotive45]

and I don't want a lecture about how I should be shooting at the correct exposure. If you read enough about RAW, you'll know it is actually better to slightly over expose in shoots in any case for PP.

FACTS TAUGHT US:

The reason why we have been trained to deal with RAW files or TIF when working PP:

If you keep opening up a JPEG, adjusting it and working on it in photoshop the resolution deteriorates. You need to do some research on this, but basically that is why professional photographers work in RAW and TIF only until they have done and finished PP with an image. Then and only then do they size it to the size they require the final size to be and save it as a lower resolution and they BACK UP the larger finished file also to disc for ANY future work they need to do on i should they need to come back to it. Research it. Any of those words I gave above post will get you results.

[pingflood]

and I don't want a lecture about how I should be shooting at the correct exposure. If you read enough about RAW, you'll know it is actually better to slightly over expose in shoots in any case for PP.

FACTS TAUGHT US:

The reason why we have been trained to deal with RAW files or TIF when working PP:

If you keep opening up a JPEG, adjusting it and working on it in photoshop the resolution deteriorates. You need to do some research on this, but basically that is why professional photographers work in RAW and TIF only until they have done and finished PP with an image. Then and only then do they size it to the size they require the final size to be and save it as a lower resolution and they BACK UP the larger finished file also to disc for ANY future work they need to do on i should they need to come back to it. Research it. Any of those words I gave above post will get you results.

Not sure what posts above set off this series of ranting, but what you're stating here isn't exactly anything not known to anyone with even minor knowledge of digital photography. Since a jpeg gets re-compressed when saving it makes no sense to keep re-saving it. However, if you have a good quality jpeg as base material you just open it, save it as a psd or tiff, and voila -- no more deterioration from here on.

The main advantage of raw files is not resolution (and honestly, you'd have a hell of a time telling the difference between what started as a raw and started as a jpeg there) but having access to all the sensor data so you can make the choice as to how to treat it rather than relying on the software to come up with a decent 8-bit representation of it.

As for skills and knowledge, what ultimately matters is the final print. Whether you achieved it through years of schooling or years of experience doesn't matter one bit.

[ghost]

just to give you a visual of what a pentax shutter looks like in slow motion=

K200D shutter video on Flickr - Photo Sharing!

Reasons to keep pentax= click me!

You seem to have your mind set, so what are you still doing here? Your pictures are great but you keep questioning your choices. do what makes ya happy.

[Jasvox]

To be honest, the sound a shutter makes is pretty much the least of anything I think about when it comes to photography. I can pretty much guarantee I would never suffer from "shutter should" envy if I was surrounded by others with other makes.

Posing should be for the models, not the photographers.

Jason