[Prognathous]

nikon makes great cameras. they make great lenses. and they have a long and proud heritage. why not choose nikon?

Two reasons - (1) no in-body IS, (2) higher prices compared to the competition for both bodies and lenses.

Prog.

[séamuis]

Two reasons - (1) no in-body IS, (2) higher prices compared to the competition for both bodies and lenses.

Prog.

I wont go for sony just for SR. and sonys lenses and bodies are pretty high dollar as well, so its a moot point on price.

[Prognathous]

Most Nikon lenses are not stabilized, so in many cases you'll lose 2 to 3 stops just by choosing Nikon over brands that offer in-body IS. In some cases there are no F-mount third party stabilized lenses either. For example, you won't find a stabilized wide-to-normal f/2.8 zoom for Nikon at any price, while for A-mount there are two such lenses - Tamron 17-50/2.8 and Sigma 18-50/2.8. It's about time that Nikon release a stabilized version of their 17-55/2.8. Too bad that even if they do release such a lens, it'll cost an arm and a leg.

I agree that Sony lenses are not priced very attractively. However, there's one other brand (other than Pentax) that does offer in-body IS that does have some very cost effective lenses - Olympus. Their high-end lenses are indeed very expensive, but some of the mid and low end lenses offer a lot of bang for the buck. The 9-18, 70-300, 14-54/2.8-3.5, 55-200/2.8-3.5 and are good examples. You won't find stabilized Nikon equivalents anywhere near these Zuiko lenses. In fact, you'll be hard pressed to find non-stabilized lenses at this cost, let alone weather sealed ones (the 14-54 and 55-200 are sealed).

Prog.

[séamuis]

Most Nikon lenses are not stabilized, so in many cases you'll lose 2 to 3 stops just by choosing Nikon over brands that offer in-body IS. In some cases there are no F-mount third party stabilized lenses either. For example, you won't find a stabilized wide-to-normal f/2.8 zoom for Nikon at any price, while for A-mount there are two such lenses - Tamron 17-50/2.8 and Sigma 18-50/2.8. It's about time that Nikon release a stabilized version of their 17-55/2.8. Too bad that even if they do release such a lens, it'll cost an arm and a leg.

I agree that Sony lenses are not priced very attractively. However, there's one other brand (other than Pentax) that does offer in-body IS that does have some very cost effective lenses - Olympus. Their high-end lenses are indeed very expensive, but some of the mid and low end lenses offer a lot of bang for the buck. The 9-18, 70-300, 14-54/2.8-3.5, 55-200/2.8-3.5 and are good examples. You won't find stabilized Nikon equivalents anywhere near these Zuiko lenses. In fact, you'll be hard pressed to find non-stabilized lenses at this cost, let alone weather sealed ones (the 14-54 and 55-200 are sealed).

Prog.

3 things.


I don't use SR that often
I rarely use zooms
I use legacy glass.

for you not a good choice I guess. for me nikon is the best behind pentax.

[Blue]

I picked Olympus & Nikon because I like legacy glass and it is nice to be able to use it on my latest body. BTW, you left Leica off the list . . .

[Prognathous]

I picked Olympus & Sony because I like and it is nice to be able to use it on my latest body.

How do you define "legacy glass"? I think it's probably different than how séamuis would define it.

BTW, you left Leica off the list . . .

I didn't include brands that made (past tense) DSLRs but don't make any today. This is why Leica (with their R10 Digital and re-branded DIGILUX 3) and Kodak (with many different bodies) are not on the list.

You could argue that the announced S2 warrants Leica a spot, but I feel that like other MF cameras (e.g. those made by Mamiya and Hasselblad) the S2 can't be considered as a viable alternative to Pentax APS-C DSLR's.

Prog.

[Blue]

How do you define "legacy glass"? I think it's probably different than how séamuis would define it.

I actually bet there would be quite a bit of overlap in what I would call "Legacy" and what Seamuis would define it as. I know that he and I both consider Taks to be the gold standard for Pentax "Legacy" glass. He is also one of the few people on this forum that would pass over a "Mint" MX body for a "mint" Takumar. However, it is a lot like defining pornography.

I didn't include brands that made (past tense) DSLRs but don't make any today. This is why Leica (with their R10 Digital and re-branded DIGILUX 3) and Kodak (with many different bodies) are not on the list.

You could argue that the announced S2 warrants Leica a spot, but I feel that like other MF cameras (e.g. those made by Mamiya and Hasselblad) the S2 can't be considered as a viable alternative to Pentax APS-C DSLR's.

Prog.

Fair enough on that.

Also, I meant to say Olympus & Nikon since that is how I voted. I was thinking about Sony because of some old Minolta glass.

---

Last edited by Blue; 06-14-2009 at 11:22 AM.

[séamuis]

I actually bet there would be quite a bit of overlap in what I would call "Legacy" and what Seamuis would define it as. I know that he and I both consider Taks to be the gold standard for Pentax "Legacy" glass. He is also one of the few people on this forum that would pass over a "Mint" MX body for a "mint" Takumar. However, it is a lot like defining pornography.

absolutely, you are correct. (wow, you seem to know me rather well) I think the De facto definition for legacy glass in Pentax land (or any land for that matter) is, Takumar. so there would be overlapping in just about anyone's definition for legacy glass. however I also have a small collection of nikon F primes (non AI, and one that is a factory AI convert) gorgeous lenses.... their no Takumars but I do love them and thus would want a nikon body.

[Blue]

absolutely, you are correct. (wow, you seem to know me rather well) I think the De facto definition for legacy glass in Pentax land (or any land for that matter) is, Takumar. so there would be overlapping in just about anyone's definition for legacy glass. however I also have a small collection of nikon F primes (non AI, and one that is a factory AI convert) gorgeous lenses.... their no Takumars but I do love them and thus would want a nikon body.

I only have 2 canon lenses for my EOS 10s body. One is a EF 50mm f2.8 macro. The other is an FD 50 mm F3.5 macro with the authentic Canon FD-EOS macro adapter. That is my Canon "Legacy" glass.

[res3567]

Canon all the way! I own a Canon A2 with a Sigma 28-105. It was given to me by a relative as payment for shooting his wedding with his new Canon 30D.

My first real digicam was a Canon A40, follwed by an A75.

I also purchased a used Canon G3 as I still could not afford a DSLR at the time, but this cam is mighty close!

I also test drove a 5D at Best Buy this past Saturday. Damn!

But I have my Pentax goodies to shoot with so I will I am satisfied for what I shoot these days which really isn't nothing too professional, just my favorite hobby.

[fearview]

..probably Nikon..


well i have a Nikon FA now..

[Niki]

Mostly likely Nikon, but I cannot afford the Nikon I would choose.
Their entry level dslr's don't have the basics (such as in-body AF, I mean, WTH??) that I would like for spending that kind of cash.

[chalion]

My choice is: no choice. If I was forced to choose something other than a Pentax DSLR, i'd have to choose a Pentax Optimo PNS. Canon digital let me down, plus the rest of the list gives me no joy to use.

Of course, I would always use my Pentax ME and ZX-7.........................

[ballgofar]

I would consider all of them, as they all may have something to offer that others don't.

[Nass]

I had a Nikon FE2 back in the day (well still do actually but it just lies in a bag unloved and unused), I never had any complaints with it. So the first one I'd look at would be that just because of the good experience with it.