[lesmore49]

No problem, here are my views:

Why Pentax?

1. Good optics (most in the past and some nowadays), superb SMC and flare control.
I have had Pentax for 40 + years, Leica for 25, Mamiya-Sekor medium format for 25 years...all great lenses. I have bought 3 new Pentax lenses in the past year or so (16-45, 55-300, 50- 1.4) and with my critical eye...I'm very pleased with the optics of Pentax...both new and old. I'm out in weather ranging from 40 C to -30 C ( I live in Western Canada) out taking pictures most days of the week. The K10D body and lenses continue to function in this extreme weather. I take pictures of wildlife and the AF works fine...the pictures themselves are extremely clear, colours pop...what's not to like. I'd rate the Pentax lenses as better than 'good'.
2. Good skin tone and favourable colours (K-m, not so for K20 IMO).I agree.

3. Solid build and good ergonomics for cheap bodies (always).
I got a good deal on my K10D body...wouldn't call it cheap...but a reasonable deal for an excellent camera.
Why Canon?

1. Choices! Most updated technologies, features and options!My K10D has so much newer technology, that I'm still learning all it's custom features, etc.

2. Far superb AF and more accurate AE metering.I don't know about that...I'm taking pictures of wildlife...they move fast...my K10D's AF keeps up with them easily....a startled deer....a flying woodpecker...if the AF can keep pace with wild birds and animals...geez...I would think everything else is a piece of cake. The metering on my K10D is fabulous...I switch on the move...depending on the situation and the metering is spot on (no pun intended). I meter through bush (spotmeter)and I'm amazed at the accuracy. As a guy who started metering using hand held Sekonic meters and gray cards...the K10D's metering system is great. I'm wondering if it's a question of my long experience learning how to use a system really well and understanding metering , without spending all my time reading about the latest technology.

3. Faster cameras (as always), shorter and even very short system time lag and system response which no Pentax body can ever catch up with (the system time lag of the "flagship" K20D is somewhat close to that of Canon's EOS1000D!(?)
(You can compare figures at the Imaging Resource and also here)

I dunno...out there in the forest...taking pix of wildlife...I've never felt the K10D's systems are 'second' best. They get the results and in spades....isn't that what photography is all about. Getting a top notch picture ?

[blwnhr]

Ok, but do they actually perform the function I mentioned (setting shutter speed automatically)? I browsed around online and kind of came to the conclusion that this feature is not available (comments on another forum where Nikon users envied that about Pentax). I'd love to be wrong about that.

I'll have a play with that after I've has some sleep, I've never used it personally so have no idea how it works, I just knew it existed. (Curiousity got the better of me when I saw these two green dots on my camera, haha). Generaly I just use the exposure meter to get a base exposure and tweak from there.

How is OK button + dial slower than ISO button + dial?

Taken out of context my friend. On the occasion when I had to change WB and ISO (both at the same time) quickly it is faster on the Nikon. I could see this being an issue if you were shooting weddings for example. Walk out of the church, go from artificial light to daylight, high ISO back to low ISO - this is very quick and easy to do on the Nikon.

I tell you one thing that really does annoy me about the D300, bracketing with auto-ISO on! It brackets the damn ISO, no the shutter speed or aperture. What's with that? First bracketed exposure I did I was trying to work out why the first shot was crystal and the last grainey...the last was ISO3200, lol.



Oh and @Ash. I am not trying to reduce this thread to a Pentax bashing exercise. From my experience (and I've been here a while) people get very defensive of Pentax, I'm just here to say I own/owned both systems and it's not all bad on either side of the fence.

[rfortson]

Does Pentax offer anything like CPS?

At the risk of wading into all the mud in this thread....(not you in particular, this thread in general)

Yes, Pentax does have a Professional Services Program, at least in the US. Of course, I'm sure it's not as extensive as the Canon program, especially given the relative sizes of the companies. But at least it's there.

Pentax Professional Services news release

[WMBP]

Today I went to inkley's pondering at lenses.

There wasn't much of a wide available selection, even knowing its a GIANT store I was in. They had endless selections in Sony, Nikon, Canon, etc... but pentax was very neglected.

These are tough times for bricks and mortar stores. For most of them, the only inventory that makes sense is the stuff that they know for sure they can sell, the stuff that their customers want to buy. That they don't carry Pentax does reflect the fact that Pentax is not a top seller (no news there). It does NOT mean that Pentax is no good.

If you use Pentax cameras, you need to get familiar with the big online stores: Amazon, B&H, Adorama (and Tamron4Less and Sigma4Less.com).

Talk me out of switching to nikon. What am I giving up?

You'll be giving up compatibility with all those old lenses. This is important for some Pentax shooters, although it means absolutely nothing to me, and may mean nothing to you.

You'll also be giving up the personal advantages of whatever you know now about Pentax. Nikon has its own history, its own quirks, compatibility issues, etc. This lens won't auto-focus on that camera - that sort of thing.

Pentax has some other distinctions - those pancake lenses, 14.6 megapixels, that nice red "Pentax" logo - but these aren't critical for most of us. I could easily live with 12 MP, and I don't own any pancake lenses. I might add here that if you give up the Pentax brand, well, you lose whatever good customer vibes you might have about the brand. Some people just like Pentax, end of story. That's fine, but if you're tempted to switch to Nikon or whatever, I guess your good vibe about Pentax isn't really a big factor in your thought process.

*

The main tangible or objective advantage of Pentax is the cost. Nikon doesn't have in-camera stabilization but of course it does have VR lenses and Nikon folks claim in-lens stabilization is superior - it just costs more. The Pentax K20D is really well built but you can get a well-built Nikon body, too, if you're willing to pay enough for it. Pentax primes are great - but Nikon (and Zeiss et al.) make some great primes for the Nikon mounts; and if you are interested in zooms rather than primes, well, you'll have a lot more choices if you're a Nikon shooter.

When you're wrestling with this temptation, I think it's really important to remember that one thing you won't get from Nikon is better photographs, not most of the time. Of course, the engineering differences aren't insignificant. If your livelihood depends on being able to shoot at ISO 6400 much of the time or to shoot 14 fps or having a 600mm zoom lens, well, perhaps you really do need to switch to Nikon or Canon. But for most photographers - most serious photographers and even most pros - these issues are NOT critical. "Nice to have" isn't the same thing as "must have to survive."

*

These threads arise fairly regularly here. I think I started one myself a year ago. More than once, I've said that if I win the Texas Lottery, I'm going to buy a Nikon system. Maybe I would, I mean, if I'm rich, why not?

But money isn't everything. Unless I win the lottery, I doubt I'm ever going to have the money to justify buying the latest $5K camera every time a new one comes out. I shoot weddings and portraits - as well as vacations and kids' sports - just fine with my Pentax gear. If I were a Nikon shooter, I certainly wouldn't be using a D3 ($4300 body only, from Amazon today), and I probably wouldn't even be using a D300 ($1500, body only). I'd probably be shooting a D90 ($890, body only), so I could spend more on lenses - and so I could afford to buy the D90's successor when it comes out. I only recently came to think about it this way, but it's made a big difference to me. Let's say you have $1500 a year to spend on photography. You're going to continue to get more for that $1500 if you're shooting Pentax than if you're shooting Nikon. And the less you have to spend, the more sense Pentax makes.

And even if I did win the lottery - say I had enough money to buy the top of the line cameras from Sony, Pentax, Nikon, Canon, Olympus - what then? Well, I might switch to Nikon. But perhaps I wouldn't. I'm comfortable with my Pentax system now and I'm taking some good photos with it. Why would I want a new system? There's always something better on the market and even if I had the money, I don't have the time to keep up with it all. I find it disconcerting even now to shoot with my old Pentax *ist DS because I'm so used to the ergonomics of the K10D/K20D. I'm a photographer, not a camera collector and not a hardware reviewer, so having the latest and greatest of everything would simply confuse me. Best to commit to something good and get comfortable with it. Ken Rockwell says that, although he can shoot with anything, unless he's really got a good reason to pick up something else, he picks up the Nikon D40 because he likes it. Me, I think he's a bit crazy and I wish I could get him interested in a Pentax K20D. But he's got a good basic point.

The more expensive Nikon bodies are good, better than the Pentax K20D in a number of respects. That's a fact. But it's not the body that takes the photo. Nikon lenses are NOT better than the best lenses you can get for your K20D. If you switch to Nikon, you'll soon find that you're lusting for the latest from Canon - or envying the latest innovations from Sony or Olympus or whoever's got something new and exciting. It's hopeless.

Will

[Marc Sabatella]

Taken out of context my friend. On the occasion when I had to change WB and ISO (both at the same time) quickly it is faster on the Nikon.

Sorry, I wasn't *deliberately* taking it out of context; I was just confused about what you were saying. Now I can certainly see what you mean. Although FWIW, I shoot RAW and haven't changed WB since sometime in 2007 :-). But then, I use the K200D which lacks even the OK+dial method of setting ISO, So no question, the D300 is an improvement over my camera, if not over the K20D, in that respect. If I were often shooting events that had me constantly going inside and then out, that might have been reason enough to have gone for the K20D. As it is, when this situation comes up (as it does only on occasion), I typically get lazy and try to shoot everything at ISO 400. I suppose if I weren't such an "M" mode junkie, I might try Sv in those cases.

[Marc Sabatella]

Well, weather sealing is tossed around a lot here, but without a weather sealed lens you're not going to have much use for it. Out of all the people raving about it, how many actually own a DA* or two?

I love my weather sealing despite not owning a sealed lens. The fact that sme water could *possibly* enter through the lens mount if you go out of your way not to be careful doesn't really diminish that value of seals everywhere else. I've shot in my share of bad weather with inexpensive lenses, and upon coming inside and inspecting the lens mount, I've never found any moisture. but I do try to be reasonably protective of it. The flash and grip both help protect it, but I use my hand too while shooting, and while not shooting, I keep the camera covered. No biggie.

[alderfall]

I live hours and hours away from a major airport, have one camera store in town which is really a studio with various odds and ends and haven't seen anything better than a kit lens for sale in the local paper, but I still chose Pentax. Really, with the availability of finding glass online, especially great used glass, I don't see how this even needs to be an issue.

Now, do I wish Pentax would throw millions into marketing? Sure, as long as it didn't influence their manufacturing or R&D.

But, as long as Pentax keeps making great bodies, excellent glass and it is financially feasible for at least 30% of potential shoppers out there, I say this is much ado about nothing (no offense to the OP).

Jason

[alderfall]

I second this... I shoot constantly on the wet, rainy and salty Oregon coast. Surf spray full of salt and what we locals call "sea slime" as well as 35 mph winds driving the spindrift right at us. I don't usually shoot with a sealed lens and yet have not had any trouble at all. Carry a dry cloth, and limit your exposure to falling directly into lakes or rivers.

Jason

I love my weather sealing despite not owning a sealed lens. The fact that sme water could *possibly* enter through the lens mount if you go out of your way not to be careful doesn't really diminish that value of seals everywhere else. I've shot in my share of bad weather with inexpensive lenses, and upon coming inside and inspecting the lens mount, I've never found any moisture. but I do try to be reasonably protective of it. The flash and grip both help protect it, but I use my hand too while shooting, and while not shooting, I keep the camera covered. No biggie.

[jct us101]

Pingflood:

You say that the 40D has some great long glass. Please explain why it's so great when it costs as much as the 40D itself. I know that you CAN afford these kinds of things (due to you having a 1DS II) but a lot of us aren't half as rich as you.

[palmor]

Pingflood:

You say that the 40D has some great long glass. Please explain why it's so great when it costs as much as the 40D itself. I know that you CAN afford these kinds of things (due to you having a 1DS II) but a lot of us aren't half as rich as you.

Any long good glass for Pentax is only marginally less expensive if at all (or if you can find it). Good long glass for ANY maker is $$ no matter what.



John

[Ben_Edict]

Any long good glass for Pentax is only marginally less expensive if at all (or if you can find it). Good long glass for ANY maker is $$ no matter what.

John

That is absolutely true. I think, the point, some posters want to make is different: people complain often and fiercely about the lack of some specialist lenses, i.e. the fast long glass and then always rave about the availability of these lenses in the CaNikon portfolio. Usually these are people, who would never buy this long, fast glass, as it is way beyond what they really use and can afford. Even if these lenses would be available from Pentax, they wouldn't buy it - but they take the opportunity to complain.

I see that all very differently: Photogs who need the long fast glass, have made there decision pro CaNikon long ago, as Pentax was even worse placed on that market three or five years ago. Pentax has made some progress, but less and slowlyer, than I wish for. But nevertheless the Pentax portfolio nowadays caters for probably 80% of all photogs and leaves a small percentage out in the rain. These NEED to buy elsewhere, the other MAY buy elsewhere.

All in all I find this discussion pretty pointless, as we have at least two parallel threads with basically the same topic and these are repetitions of what has been discussed over pages and pages already manyfold.

Ben

[WMBP]

Any long good glass for Pentax is only marginally less expensive if at all (or if you can find it). Good long glass for ANY maker is $$ no matter what.

John

John,

That's kind of true. It's possible to overemphasize Pentax's price advantage. It's also true that Nikon and Canon shooters have available some really pricey lenses that we Pentax users can't buy at all because they aren't sold (so being rich doesn't help). Finally, it's rather hard to make head to head comparisons because, well, you're comparing apples (lenses for Pentax) with oranges (lenses for Nikon or Canon). I don't know the lenses for Nikon very well and the variety of options can be confusing.

Still, the price advantage seems generally real. A couple quick examples.

The Tamron 70-300 lens I have for my Pentax camera is cheap: sells for about $130 now on Amazon. It's about the same price for Nikon. But on my Pentax body, that lens gets helped by in-body shake reduction. The same lens (I assume it's the same lens with a different mount) on a Nikon does not offer vibration reduction, so in the 150-300mm range - where I use the lens most - no image stabilization on a Nikon. To get a VR lens for this range, it looks like my best (most economical) bet would be a Nikon 70-300 lens that costs over $500.

The Pentax D FA 100 f/2.8 is selling now for $400. A Nikon 105mm f/2.8 VR lens whose quality looks comparable to the Pentax sells for over twice as much - between $850 and $900. (I find it difficult to know exactly what things cost with Nikon because B&H sometimes seems to list identical items for different prices.)

The Sigma 17-70 f/2.8-4.5 that I use for trips to the zoo and such (normal, daylight shooting) costs about the same in its Pentax-mount and Nikon-mount versions (around $330). But the Nikon version is not VR. (It is HSM, for what that's worth.) I've had trouble finding a comparable Nikkor lens. There's an 18-70 that looks decent and it's not much more expensive ($360 from B&H) but again, it's not VR. The Nikkor 16-85 is a VR lens and looks good; but it's not as fast as the Sigma, and in any case, the Nikkor 16-85 is over $600.

I'll skip the wide-to-normal primes because when the focal length is under, oh, 60mm, unless you're shooting in low light, image stabilization is simply less important. If I did all my shooting in good light and never needed a lens longer than 60-70mm or so, Pentax's in-body stabilization wouldn't matter nearly as much to me and the price advantage of the Pentax-mount lenses would begin to disappear because the non-VR Nikon-mount lenses aren't really that much more expensive than K-mount counterparts.

But I do a fair bit of shooting with telephoto focal lengths and I do a lot of shooting in low light. Perhaps I'm wrong but I don't think I'd want to shoot from much of a distance without stabilized lenses, not even if I found the money to buy a D300 with its better high-ISO performance.

Will

[Canada_Rockies]

You're also forgetting the Pentax FA 24-90, which in my opinion is one of the best walkaround ranges you can get. Great image quality for just over $300 is hard to get from CANIKON.

I have one. I use it on the MZ-S. It's a superb walk around. I love the 24mm end. I bought the DA* 16-50 for my k10d so that I would have that 24mm equivalent. I do miss the extra length at the long end, but no where near as much as I thought I would.

[palmor]

That is absolutely true. I think, the point, some posters want to make is different: people complain often and fiercely about the lack of some specialist lenses, i.e. the fast long glass and then always rave about the availability of these lenses in the CaNikon portfolio. Usually these are people, who would never buy this long, fast glass, as it is way beyond what they really use and can afford. Even if these lenses would be available from Pentax, they wouldn't buy it - but they take the opportunity to complain.

Yup, I agree. I was just pointing out that when you get to that long specialized glass there isn't all that much price advantage to Pentax. A FA*600 f/4 is just as expensive as the Canon model that has IS and that most users will never buy those lenses. I will say though when I'm out shooting birds/wildlife I am amazed at the shear number of Canon 500 f/4 and 600 f/4 that I see around.

The thing that would be nice if Pentax did have more of this glass and more pro photogs using it is it would be available for rent. I recently picked up anther brand camera to use for a specific need (one body, one lens) but I'm thinking about renting a long/fast piece of glass for it when I go to Yellowstone this summer.

All in all I find this discussion pretty pointless, as we have at least two parallel threads with basically the same topic and these are repetitions of what has been discussed over pages and pages already manyfold.

Ben

Couldn't agree more. It is the same old thing that pops up over and over

John,

That's kind of true. It's possible to overemphasize Pentax's price advantage. It's also true that Nikon and Canon shooters have available some really pricey lenses that we Pentax users can't buy at all because they aren't sold (so being rich doesn't help). Finally, it's rather hard to make head to head comparisons because, well, you're comparing apples (lenses for Pentax) with oranges (lenses for Nikon or Canon). I don't know the lenses for Nikon very well and the variety of options can be confusing.

Still, the price advantage seems generally real.

Will

Hi Will,
I agree 100% that the price/performance value of Pentax is higher then other makers (a lot of that to do with SR for every lens). I replied to that other thread because his example of long/fast glass is inaccurate. I'll be the 1st one to praise the virtues of Pentax and examples like yours are perfect, but I also try to be consensus of making comparisons that are accurate (again like you did)


John

[blwnhr]

I see that all very differently: Photogs who need the long fast glass, have made there decision pro CaNikon long ago, as Pentax was even worse placed on that market three or five years ago. Pentax has made some progress, but less and slowlyer, than I wish for.

Ben, this is why I changed. I've shot Pentax for 10 years (that's a fair bit when you're only 25, lol). Before I got my K10D I ordered a Sigma 70-200 2.8 (December 2006), the only option if you wanted a lens of this nature. I ordered it direct through the national distributor, it went onto back-order at the end of the month. In February 2007 I was told that Sigma had none left and they would try to find me one from another warehouse. I waited until May 2007 when I was told that no one had any and they would not be doing another production run until August. I ended up buying a different lens, simply because I needed a lens! I stuck with Pentax because everyone was saying "wait for these new DA*'s they'll be great", that were pushed back and back and back. In the end I just couldn't buy what I wanted when I wanted and this is a very important issue for a lot of people.

Not everyone wants to scour eBay and all the other auction web sites trying to find second hand lenses that suit what they want to do. I appreciate that these lenses are available, depending on what you want, but they are certainly very hard to find if you wanted to hold it in your own hands and not rely on an interntet description. I visited every camera store and every second hand store I could find over 3 years and found one Pentax lens...that was broken.

My point is, a lot of people like the security of buying something new. A lens (especially when you get up into longer fast zooms and primes) is an expensive item and I for one am not comfortable buying something sight unseen from an internet auction simply because that is the only option.