K20D vs D700?

danielchtong · 05-09-2009, 01:20 PM

Originally posted by reknelb

D700 $3,000
5dmkII $2,700
K20d $670

Prices from BH Photo

Originally posted by HermanLee

Recently I got to play with a Nikon D700 and a Canon 5DM2 in the store when originally I was just going to test a DA*50-135.

I asked the salesman to put on a prime glass for D700 and he put on an 85mm/1.8.
My K20D has FA 43 Ltd on it.,

I think a lot of people have commented on it.
I would rather use the car analogy. In terms of price difference, it is almost like Herman was testing drive a Corolla in a car showroom and afterwards he also did a BMW 7 series sportcar or an Audi v8.

Daniel

robgo2 · 05-09-2009, 02:04 PM

Originally posted by distudio

I think the point is that SR is of course no direct substitute for faster shutter speeds (knowing that I have a less expensive system doesn't make me feel better about not getting the shot). The great thing about the Nikon 700 (regardless of price) is that you can have a faster shutter speed and SR (if you can afford it). As Pentax users we can only drool.

I'm not sure that I agree with this. I like to think of SR as a substitute for a tripod, and it has enabled me to get some phenomenally sharp shots at surprisingly slow shutter speeds. It might actually be possible to get a better hand held image with a K20D at ISO 400-800 than with a D700 at ISO 3200. Just speculating, of course.

Rob

distudio · 05-09-2009, 02:16 PM

Originally posted by robgo2

I'm not sure that I agree with this. I like to think of SR as a substitute for a tripod, and it has allowed me to get some phenomenally sharp shots at surprisingly slow shutter speeds. It might actually be possible to get a better hand held image with a K20D at ISO 400-800 than with a D700 at ISO 3200. Just speculating, of course.

I agree in part, it's also likely provided me with more opportunities but it's never saved me when I've needed a fast shutter speed in order to freeze the subject, ie low light concert shooting.

Marc Sabatella · 05-09-2009, 03:27 PM

Originally posted by distudio

I agree in part, it's also likely provided me with more opportunities but it's never saved me when I've needed a fast shutter speed in order to freeze the subject, ie low light concert shooting.

I find both fast shutter speeds *and* SR help in concert shooting. I spend a lot of time with focal lengths of 100mm and above, and shutter speeds of 1/30" or so (f/2.8, ISO 1600). With the DS, I'd say that of the pictures that didn't work, half failed because of subject motion, and half because of camera shake. With the K200D, it's basically 95%/5% - camera shake has been all but eliminated as a point of failure for me.

robgo2 · 05-09-2009, 03:28 PM

Originally posted by distudio

I agree in part, it's also likely provided me with more opportunities but it's never saved me when I've needed a fast shutter speed in order to freeze the subject, ie low light concert shooting.

Yes, for freezing motion, you need a faster shutter speed, and that is one area where FF offers a real advantage. Still, it is possible that advancing technology will improve high ISO performance of APS-C sensors to a level that is quite satisfactory except in extreme circumstances.

Rob

robgo2 · 05-09-2009, 03:31 PM

Originally posted by Marc Sabatella

I find both fast shutter speeds *and* SR help in concert shooting. I spend a lot of time with focal lengths of 100mm and above, and shutter speeds of 1/30" or so (f/2.8, ISO 1600). With the DS, I'd say that of the pictures that didn't work, half failed because of subject motion, and half because of camera shake. With the K200D, it's basically 95%/5% - camera shake has been all but eliminated as a point of failure for me.

Low light concert photography is something that I never do, nor do the vast majority of photographers, I should think. But for that special need, FF may be the way to go.

Rob

distudio · 05-09-2009, 03:39 PM

Originally posted by Marc Sabatella

I find both fast shutter speeds *and* SR help in concert shooting. I spend a lot of time with focal lengths of 100mm and above, and shutter speeds of 1/30" or so (f/2.8, ISO 1600). With the DS, I'd say that of the pictures that didn't work, half failed because of subject motion, and half because of camera shake. With the K200D, it's basically 95%/5% - camera shake has been all but eliminated as a point of failure for me.

Subject movement is by far the source of my failed concert images and most of my concert images were shot with my old *ist D. My most published image was shot on the *ist D at: Shutter speed: 1/25.00 F-stop: 2.4 ISO speed: 800

I rarely go above ISO 800 because of the limited saturation latitude and limitations for colour correction at higher ISOs, granted the K20D is a bit better but it still offers nowhere near the capabilities of a camera like the D700 under similar conditions.

distudio · 05-09-2009, 03:49 PM

Originally posted by robgo2

Low light concert photography is something that I never do, nor do the vast majority of photographers, I should think. But for that special need, FF may be the way to go.

Rob

There are plenty of instances that I can think of where SR is less of an advantage than usable high ISO, eg natural light hand held macro shooting, dance floor shots (particularly when a flash is inappropriate). I guess a a great many photographers expect very little from their gear (WRT low light performance) and will resort to flash support as soon as the sun is low, I prefer to avoid the use of flash (for aesthetic and practicality reasons) if at all possible.

Marc Sabatella · 05-09-2009, 04:18 PM

Originally posted by robgo2

Low light concert photography is something that I never do, nor do the vast majority of photographers, I should think.

If you think of concert photography in the classic, literal sense, I'm sure you're right.

But think in terms of a parent watching their child in a school play or similar performance, or graduation, or a wedding, and you see the basic principle isn't quite so specialized.

Quote:

But for that special need, FF may be the way to go.

If you don't mind the size and price, sure. For my purpose, having a nice small and inexpensive APS-C camera with a nice small and inexpensive fast prime is a much more attractive proposition. And I find that having SR is wonderful thing.

Now, if you can can count on getting 100% camera-shake-free shots at 135mm (say) and 1/30", great, you don't need SR. But few of us have hands that steady, or are shooting in situations where using on tripod or monopod would be possible/desirable. I've certainly managed my share of sharp pictures at surprisingly low shutter speeds without the benefit of SR - but I've paid for it with lots of shots that show camera shake. Shooting at shorter focal lengths, that isn't such a problem, but it is at and above 100mm.

stevebrot · 05-09-2009, 07:00 PM

Originally posted by danielchtong

I would rather use the car analogy. In terms of price difference, it is almost like Herman was testing drive a Corolla in a car showroom and afterwards he also did a BMW 7 series sportcar or an Audi v8.

Using the car analogy, I think it would be more like driving up in a Mazdaspeed 3 and comparing it to the BMW 3 series. Similar size cars, similar horse power, different drive layout (FWD/RWD), way different price point, and surprisingly similar performance and driver experience. They differ significantly at their performance limits for handling, but what do you expect? After all, they are different.

Steve

(Not surprisingly, you probably won't see this performance match-up in any car magazine in the near future...)

(BTW...I drive a Mazda 3 and own a K10D. I respect both the Nikon D700 and the BMW 3 series, but neither makes sense to me economically at this time

)

stevebrot · 05-09-2009, 07:06 PM

Originally posted by Marc Sabatella

(in reference to the D700)...
If you don't mind the size and price, sure. For my purpose, having a nice small and inexpensive APS-C camera with a nice small and inexpensive fast prime is a much more attractive proposition. And I find that having SR is wonderful thing.

Mark,
This is probably the best rational for purchase of a current Pentax APS-C dSLR that I have read. Relatively compact cameras and lenses coupled with a great price point and the advantage of in-body SR. It is not the ultimate solution, but for many users, it is a near perfect tool at a price that many can manage. Bravo!

Steve

danielchtong · 05-10-2009, 07:19 AM

Originally posted by stevebrot

Using the car analogy, I think it would be more like driving up in a Mazdaspeed 3 and comparing it to the BMW 3 series. Similar size cars, similar horse power, different drive layout (FWD/RWD), way different price point, and surprisingly similar performance and driver experience. They differ significantly at their performance limits for handling, but what do you expect? After all, they are different.

Steve

Originally posted by reknelb

D700 $3,000
5dmkII $2,700
K20d $670

Prices from BH Photo

3 to 4 times of Mazdaspeed 3 is in BMW 5 or 7 series already. The comparison ( of D700 $3,000 vs 5dmkII $2,700 vs K20d $670) has almost zero relevance at all.

Daniel

Wheatfield · 05-10-2009, 08:56 AM

Originally posted by danielchtong

3 to 4 times of Mazdaspeed 3 is in BMW 5 or 7 series already. The comparison ( of D700 $3,000 vs 5dmkII $2,700 vs K20d $670) has almost zero relevance at all.

Daniel

Well kids, we've moved this one into apologist territory.
It's been a slice.

stevebrot · 05-10-2009, 11:14 AM

Originally posted by danielchtong

3 to 4 times of Mazdaspeed 3 is in BMW 5 or 7 series already. The comparison ( of D700 $3,000 vs 5dmkII $2,700 vs K20d $670) has almost zero relevance at all.

Daniel

Your point is very well taken. The K20D is possibly not in the same class as the D700 much as the Mazda 3 5-door is not in the same class as a 5 or 7 series bimmer. (Room for 4...ha! ha!)

I was figuring most things equal except for price. The entry ticket for a nicely equipped BMW 3 series is only about 2 times that of the Mazda. (Depending on day of the month and how hungry the salesman is...). I chose the Mazdaspeed 3 because it is extremely high value for a small performance sedan. I compared it to the BMW 3 series because that was Mazda's performance target.

Steve

(repeat three times..."Cars are not Cameras"...)

chhayanat · 05-10-2009, 11:37 AM

Originally posted by stevebrot

Your point is very well taken. The K20D is possibly not in the same class as the D700 much as the Mazda 3 5-door is not in the same class as a 5 or 7 series bimmer. (Room for 4...ha! ha!)

I was figuring most things equal except for price. The entry ticket for a nicely equipped BMW 3 series is only about 2 times that of the Mazda. (Depending on day of the month and how hungry the salesman is...). I chose the Mazdaspeed 3 because it is extremely high value for a small performance sedan. I compared it to the BMW 3 series because that was Mazda's performance target.

Steve

(repeat three times..."Cars are not Cameras"...)

I used a Nikon D700 yesterday. Certainly the K20D is not in the same league as the K20D, nor should it be given the differing design objectives (I was using the Samsung GX20 as well). However, having looked through a Nikon F2AS with the Nikkor AI-S 105/2.5 in a camera shop last week(after a gap of nearly thirty years, Hongkong in 1981) I have to say both the DSLRs paled in comparison with the view through the peerless DP12 viewfinder.

05-09-2009, 02:04 PM	#47
robgo2 Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: New Mexico Photos: Albums Posts: 1,125	Originally posted by distudio I think the point is that SR is of course no direct substitute for faster shutter speeds (knowing that I have a less expensive system doesn't make me feel better about not getting the shot). The great thing about the Nikon 700 (regardless of price) is that you can have a faster shutter speed and SR (if you can afford it). As Pentax users we can only drool. I'm not sure that I agree with this. I like to think of SR as a substitute for a tripod, and it has enabled me to get some phenomenally sharp shots at surprisingly slow shutter speeds. It might actually be possible to get a better hand held image with a K20D at ISO 400-800 than with a D700 at ISO 3200. Just speculating, of course. Rob Last edited by robgo2; 05-09-2009 at 03:23 PM.

05-09-2009, 07:00 PM	#55
stevebrot Otis Memorial Pentaxian Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Vancouver (USA) Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 42,007	Originally posted by danielchtong I would rather use the car analogy. In terms of price difference, it is almost like Herman was testing drive a Corolla in a car showroom and afterwards he also did a BMW 7 series sportcar or an Audi v8. Using the car analogy, I think it would be more like driving up in a Mazdaspeed 3 and comparing it to the BMW 3 series. Similar size cars, similar horse power, different drive layout (FWD/RWD), way different price point, and surprisingly similar performance and driver experience. They differ significantly at their performance limits for handling, but what do you expect? After all, they are different. Steve (Not surprisingly, you probably won't see this performance match-up in any car magazine in the near future...) (BTW...I drive a Mazda 3 and own a K10D. I respect both the Nikon D700 and the BMW 3 series, but neither makes sense to me economically at this time ) Last edited by stevebrot; 05-09-2009 at 07:08 PM.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
D700 winning me over...	JohnBee	Canon, Nikon, Sony, and Other Camera Brands	25	04-20-2010 08:54 AM
Going up against a D700!!	Torphoto	Pentax DSLR Discussion	19	12-29-2009 10:59 AM
a900 vs d700 vs 5d2 and then K20D?	vitalsax	Pentax DSLR Discussion	9	12-19-2008 12:36 PM
Pentax K20D vs Nikon D700 at The Online Photographer	cateto	Pentax News and Rumors	19	12-13-2008 06:39 AM
Nikon D700 vs. K20D	Michaelina2	Pentax DSLR Discussion	12	12-01-2008 02:30 PM

05-09-2009, 01:20 PM	#46
danielchtong Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Toronto Posts: 885	Originally posted by reknelb D700 $3,000 5dmkII $2,700 K20d $670 Prices from BH Photo Originally posted by HermanLee Recently I got to play with a Nikon D700 and a Canon 5DM2 in the store when originally I was just going to test a DA*50-135. I asked the salesman to put on a prime glass for D700 and he put on an 85mm/1.8. My K20D has FA 43 Ltd on it., I think a lot of people have commented on it. I would rather use the car analogy. In terms of price difference, it is almost like Herman was testing drive a Corolla in a car showroom and afterwards he also did a BMW 7 series sportcar or an Audi v8. Daniel

05-09-2009, 02:16 PM	#48
distudio Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Sydney Photos: Albums Posts: 450	Originally posted by robgo2 I'm not sure that I agree with this. I like to think of SR as a substitute for a tripod, and it has allowed me to get some phenomenally sharp shots at surprisingly slow shutter speeds. It might actually be possible to get a better hand held image with a K20D at ISO 400-800 than with a D700 at ISO 3200. Just speculating, of course. I agree in part, it's also likely provided me with more opportunities but it's never saved me when I've needed a fast shutter speed in order to freeze the subject, ie low light concert shooting.

05-09-2009, 03:27 PM	#49
Marc Sabatella Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Denver, CO Photos: Gallery Posts: 10,685	Originally posted by distudio I agree in part, it's also likely provided me with more opportunities but it's never saved me when I've needed a fast shutter speed in order to freeze the subject, ie low light concert shooting. I find both fast shutter speeds and SR help in concert shooting. I spend a lot of time with focal lengths of 100mm and above, and shutter speeds of 1/30" or so (f/2.8, ISO 1600). With the DS, I'd say that of the pictures that didn't work, half failed because of subject motion, and half because of camera shake. With the K200D, it's basically 95%/5% - camera shake has been all but eliminated as a point of failure for me.

05-09-2009, 03:28 PM	#50
robgo2 Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: New Mexico Photos: Albums Posts: 1,125	Originally posted by distudio I agree in part, it's also likely provided me with more opportunities but it's never saved me when I've needed a fast shutter speed in order to freeze the subject, ie low light concert shooting. Yes, for freezing motion, you need a faster shutter speed, and that is one area where FF offers a real advantage. Still, it is possible that advancing technology will improve high ISO performance of APS-C sensors to a level that is quite satisfactory except in extreme circumstances. Rob

05-09-2009, 03:31 PM	#51
robgo2 Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: New Mexico Photos: Albums Posts: 1,125	Originally posted by Marc Sabatella I find both fast shutter speeds and SR help in concert shooting. I spend a lot of time with focal lengths of 100mm and above, and shutter speeds of 1/30" or so (f/2.8, ISO 1600). With the DS, I'd say that of the pictures that didn't work, half failed because of subject motion, and half because of camera shake. With the K200D, it's basically 95%/5% - camera shake has been all but eliminated as a point of failure for me. Low light concert photography is something that I never do, nor do the vast majority of photographers, I should think. But for that special need, FF may be the way to go. Rob

05-09-2009, 03:39 PM	#52
distudio Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Sydney Photos: Albums Posts: 450	Originally posted by Marc Sabatella I find both fast shutter speeds and SR help in concert shooting. I spend a lot of time with focal lengths of 100mm and above, and shutter speeds of 1/30" or so (f/2.8, ISO 1600). With the DS, I'd say that of the pictures that didn't work, half failed because of subject motion, and half because of camera shake. With the K200D, it's basically 95%/5% - camera shake has been all but eliminated as a point of failure for me. Subject movement is by far the source of my failed concert images and most of my concert images were shot with my old ist D. My most published image was shot on the ist D at: Shutter speed: 1/25.00 F-stop: 2.4 ISO speed: 800 I rarely go above ISO 800 because of the limited saturation latitude and limitations for colour correction at higher ISOs, granted the K20D is a bit better but it still offers nowhere near the capabilities of a camera like the D700 under similar conditions.

05-09-2009, 03:49 PM	#53
distudio Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Sydney Photos: Albums Posts: 450	Originally posted by robgo2 Low light concert photography is something that I never do, nor do the vast majority of photographers, I should think. But for that special need, FF may be the way to go. Rob There are plenty of instances that I can think of where SR is less of an advantage than usable high ISO, eg natural light hand held macro shooting, dance floor shots (particularly when a flash is inappropriate). I guess a a great many photographers expect very little from their gear (WRT low light performance) and will resort to flash support as soon as the sun is low, I prefer to avoid the use of flash (for aesthetic and practicality reasons) if at all possible.

05-09-2009, 04:18 PM	#54
Marc Sabatella Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Denver, CO Photos: Gallery Posts: 10,685	Originally posted by robgo2 Low light concert photography is something that I never do, nor do the vast majority of photographers, I should think. If you think of concert photography in the classic, literal sense, I'm sure you're right. But think in terms of a parent watching their child in a school play or similar performance, or graduation, or a wedding, and you see the basic principle isn't quite so specialized. Quote: But for that special need, FF may be the way to go. If you don't mind the size and price, sure. For my purpose, having a nice small and inexpensive APS-C camera with a nice small and inexpensive fast prime is a much more attractive proposition. And I find that having SR is wonderful thing. Now, if you can can count on getting 100% camera-shake-free shots at 135mm (say) and 1/30", great, you don't need SR. But few of us have hands that steady, or are shooting in situations where using on tripod or monopod would be possible/desirable. I've certainly managed my share of sharp pictures at surprisingly low shutter speeds without the benefit of SR - but I've paid for it with lots of shots that show camera shake. Shooting at shorter focal lengths, that isn't such a problem, but it is at and above 100mm.

05-09-2009, 07:06 PM	#56
stevebrot Otis Memorial Pentaxian Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Vancouver (USA) Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 42,007	Originally posted by Marc Sabatella (in reference to the D700)... If you don't mind the size and price, sure. For my purpose, having a nice small and inexpensive APS-C camera with a nice small and inexpensive fast prime is a much more attractive proposition. And I find that having SR is wonderful thing. Mark, This is probably the best rational for purchase of a current Pentax APS-C dSLR that I have read. Relatively compact cameras and lenses coupled with a great price point and the advantage of in-body SR. It is not the ultimate solution, but for many users, it is a near perfect tool at a price that many can manage. Bravo! Steve

05-10-2009, 07:19 AM	#57
danielchtong Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Toronto Posts: 885	Originally posted by stevebrot Using the car analogy, I think it would be more like driving up in a Mazdaspeed 3 and comparing it to the BMW 3 series. Similar size cars, similar horse power, different drive layout (FWD/RWD), way different price point, and surprisingly similar performance and driver experience. They differ significantly at their performance limits for handling, but what do you expect? After all, they are different. Steve Originally posted by reknelb D700 $3,000 5dmkII $2,700 K20d $670 Prices from BH Photo 3 to 4 times of Mazdaspeed 3 is in BMW 5 or 7 series already. The comparison ( of D700 $3,000 vs 5dmkII $2,700 vs K20d $670) has almost zero relevance at all. Daniel

05-10-2009, 08:56 AM	#58
Wheatfield Moderator Join Date: Apr 2008 Location: The wheatfields of Canada Posts: 15,981	Originally posted by danielchtong 3 to 4 times of Mazdaspeed 3 is in BMW 5 or 7 series already. The comparison ( of D700 $3,000 vs 5dmkII $2,700 vs K20d $670) has almost zero relevance at all. Daniel Well kids, we've moved this one into apologist territory. It's been a slice.

05-10-2009, 11:14 AM	#59
stevebrot Otis Memorial Pentaxian Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Vancouver (USA) Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 42,007	Originally posted by danielchtong 3 to 4 times of Mazdaspeed 3 is in BMW 5 or 7 series already. The comparison ( of D700 $3,000 vs 5dmkII $2,700 vs K20d $670) has almost zero relevance at all. Daniel Your point is very well taken. The K20D is possibly not in the same class as the D700 much as the Mazda 3 5-door is not in the same class as a 5 or 7 series bimmer. (Room for 4...ha! ha!) I was figuring most things equal except for price. The entry ticket for a nicely equipped BMW 3 series is only about 2 times that of the Mazda. (Depending on day of the month and how hungry the salesman is...). I chose the Mazdaspeed 3 because it is extremely high value for a small performance sedan. I compared it to the BMW 3 series because that was Mazda's performance target. Steve (repeat three times..."Cars are not Cameras"...)

05-10-2009, 11:37 AM	#60
chhayanat Senior Member Join Date: Nov 2008 Location: The Cow Belt Photos: Gallery Posts: 173	Originally posted by stevebrot Your point is very well taken. The K20D is possibly not in the same class as the D700 much as the Mazda 3 5-door is not in the same class as a 5 or 7 series bimmer. (Room for 4...ha! ha!) I was figuring most things equal except for price. The entry ticket for a nicely equipped BMW 3 series is only about 2 times that of the Mazda. (Depending on day of the month and how hungry the salesman is...). I chose the Mazdaspeed 3 because it is extremely high value for a small performance sedan. I compared it to the BMW 3 series because that was Mazda's performance target. Steve (repeat three times..."Cars are not Cameras"...) I used a Nikon D700 yesterday. Certainly the K20D is not in the same league as the K20D, nor should it be given the differing design objectives (I was using the Samsung GX20 as well). However, having looked through a Nikon F2AS with the Nikkor AI-S 105/2.5 in a camera shop last week(after a gap of nearly thirty years, Hongkong in 1981) I have to say both the DSLRs paled in comparison with the view through the peerless DP12 viewfinder.