[Yohan Pamudji]

Again, I remain puzzled - based on B&H prices yesterday, 7 out of 10 of the DA lenses I've bought over the past four years are cheaper now than when I got 'em. Where are the price increases people are talking about - am I living in an alternate universe (I hope so, since the price increase doesn't seem to have materialized here)?

Jer

21mm, 40mm, 70mm, and 31mm Limiteds are all more expensive than when I started looking at them in February. Considering that those are the only 4 lenses I was considering, Pentax are batting a thousand with their price increases as far as I'm concerned. Not a 40% increase or anything (probably more like 10%), but still.

[séamuis]

I also have a Nikon D700 and the auto focus speed is unreal compared to Pentax. Now I am waiting for my K-7 to arrive and look forward to comparing this with my Nikon. The nikon is very quiet as well... I bought it mostly for two reasons. The view finder (full frame) and low light focusing / high ISO performance for evening street shooting. Now if I could only afford the lenses, I would be good

how many camera bodies do you own mate? the list seems extensive.

[jacksonpritt]

Because the K-7 is the flagship. It SHOULD be comparable to other brands.
Plus from a lot of other reviews, I saw that the 5D mark ii had really SLOW focusing. whats the deal?

And it is comparable (or much better) to similarly-priced cameras from any other brand.

Comparing it to cameras that cost twice as much is flat out stupid.

[jacksonpritt]

Again, I remain puzzled - based on B&H prices yesterday, 7 out of 10 of the DA lenses I've bought over the past four years are cheaper now than when I got 'em. Where are the price increases people are talking about - am I living in an alternate universe (I hope so, since the price increase doesn't seem to have materialized here)?

Jer

Look at the DA* lenses.
They have all gone up in price about $75-$125.

[Sailor]

21mm, 40mm, 70mm, and 31mm Limiteds are all more expensive than when I started looking at them in February. Considering that those are the only 4 lenses I was considering, Pentax are batting a thousand with their price increases as far as I'm concerned. Not a 40% increase or anything (probably more like 10%), but still.

That doesn't seem too onerous to me. I paid 500 and 600 bucks, respectively, for my DA 21 and DA 70 in '06; today, they go for $430 and $490. I did get my DA 40 pretty cheap (about $210 after rebate in early '06) and the lens is signficantly more expensive today ($320) - but overall, I just don't see the reason for hysteria.

Jer

Look at the DA* lenses.
They have all gone up in price about $75-$125.

As I said in a earlier reply in this thread, I don't have any DA* lenses (too big and massive to be borne by my scrawny frame). But . . . are the increases you're describing really 40%?

Jer

[redpigeons]

Comparing it to cameras that cost twice as much is flat out stupid.

my Pentax kit cost me as much as a new 5D mk II with 24-70 L

instead I got k20D and 3 primes ... same thing

Pentax does not have an upgrade body and at the time K20D was the top.

so sure you cant compare it to a Pentax FF camera because it does not exist

as opposed to other on this site I ONLY have Pentax cameras

I have the k1000, MZ-7 and K20D , I love all of them and use it all the time.

I also know all 3 are not perfect (other then the K1000 that's a perfect camera )

so every body relax... its OK to criticize Pentax ... and as I always said I will keep asking for a FF Pentax and more lenses in production .

now if you really want to see some one complaining look for "RICE HIGH" Pentax blog

even the biggest Pentax fans have a right to complain, and we probably have that right more then any one else as we spending our hard earn money on our gear

[*isteve]

my Pentax kit cost me as much as a new 5D mk II with 24-70 L

instead I got k20D and 3 primes ... same thing

Pentax does not have an upgrade body and at the time K20D was the top.

so sure you cant compare it to a Pentax FF camera because it does not exist

as opposed to other on this site I ONLY have Pentax cameras

I have the k1000, MZ-7 and K20D , I love all of them and use it all the time.

I also know all 3 are not perfect (other then the K1000 that's a perfect camera )

so every body relax... its OK to criticize Pentax ... and as I always said I will keep asking for a FF Pentax and more lenses in production .

now if you really want to see some one complaining look for "RICE HIGH" Pentax blog

even the biggest Pentax fans have a right to complain, and we probably have that right more then any one else as we spending our hard earn money on our gear

Yawn.

[redpigeons]

Yawn.

fine what ever

I don't do that...

as I said before the thread was created out of or impulse response.
we can stop it right know

I apologize

[pingflood]

Yes, 5D (MkI or II, no big differences) is really slow to AF... compared to 1D series!

I will say that when using center point the 5D down to even the Rebel series focus incredibly fast compared to Pentax gear. The 1D series (I own one) is not much faster at all, but excels in tracking where the other ones fall flat comparatively.

[slrl0ver]

I've made all these these point before, not trying to sound like a broken record, but it's inevitable people will compare or comment on Pentax gear vs. other brands. This is a good thing, because it keeps one honest and avoids rabid, blind loyalty. If something is as good as you think it is, then it should stand up to scrutiny.

When a comparison works in favor of Pentax (i.e.) comparing weather sealing of Pentax vs Canon 5D/5D.MK2 does that not invite one to look at all the other features too? Can we only objectively compare cameras if they are equivalent or nearly equivalent in price?

Personally, I think the mature and professional thing to do is acknowledge the differences (pro's & con's) and perhaps qualify if that affects you or not. A real expert or seasoned veteran might comment "I deal with this perceived deficiency in this manner and it doesn't actually affect the final result". To me those are the gems I come here for.

Finally, if the next Pentax is as quick as the fastest Nikon or Canon, has equivalent or better image quality in all metrics, has the fastest, quietest, most accurate AF, would you NOT compare it to everything else out there? If it were priced like the existing K7 would you NOT buy it?

[dylansalt]

Respectfully, all the chatter about a 21MP FF sensor outresolving lenses is hogwash. Those lenses weren't even outresolved by the 10MP 40D sensor (1.6x crop), which has a smaller sensel size than the 5DII has. Theoretically the 40D is tougher on lenses in terms of resolution because of the smaller sensels, so if the 40D still gains from good glass then so does the 5DII. At some point we'll reach the limits of lens resolution, but we're not there yet.

And your response to this Luminous Landscape article would be interesting;

Resolution
There’s lots of it. Like really a lot. How much I doubt I will ever know, since few if any of Canon’s lenses appear able to feed this sensor the detail it is capable of devouring. Specifically, I was very disappointed in my choice of taking a 100-400mm zoom instead of a fixed 400mm f5.6. Fully 85% of my keepers from this lens were shot at 400mm. At that focal length, the 100-400mm simply doesn’t have the gas. Notwithstanding its branding as an “L” lens, it’s just not up to meeting the resolution challenge offered by the 5DII. The shots I produced in 2007 with the 400mm on a 1DsII show greater enlargeability. This is a serious let-down.

I was also disappointed by a lot of the shots taken with the 24-70 f2.8L under 50mm. The only lens which performed to the resolution of the camera was the 70-200m f2.8L, which is not surprising given its stellar reputation. But even then, I can’t help but feeling that a very aggressive anti-aliasing filter is at work. While the 5DII produced beautiful files, they lack the “bite” in the fine detail that a perfectly exposed Phase One files shows. While I have not examined any D3x files, I can say that the same is true for the Sony A900 in most instances.

What does all this mean? To be blunt, Canon needs to build a lot better lenses. And a lot of them.

Dylan

[Rondec]

Pentax definitely doesn't excel in auto focus. That doesn't mean that it is bad, it is just that in comparison, it isn't as good at tracking things as the competitors. For whatever reason, their focus seems to have been to keep lenses as small as possible and so that has driven their decisions to use the micro motors rather than ring type motors in the DA* lenses. I like them just fine, but certainly they are not speed demons.

I think the decision to keep auto focus in body for the primes is a wise one. Other than eliminating a little noise, there is no particular reason to have in lens motors on primes and it certainly would increase both the price and the size of them significantly. How you could get a pancake lens with in lens motor is beyond me.

[pingflood]

And your response to this Luminous Landscape article would be interesting;

Resolution
There’s lots of it. Like really a lot. How much I doubt I will ever know, since few if any of Canon’s lenses appear able to feed this sensor the detail it is capable of devouring. Specifically, I was very disappointed in my choice of taking a 100-400mm zoom instead of a fixed 400mm f5.6. Fully 85% of my keepers from this lens were shot at 400mm. At that focal length, the 100-400mm simply doesn’t have the gas. Notwithstanding its branding as an “L” lens, it’s just not up to meeting the resolution challenge offered by the 5DII. The shots I produced in 2007 with the 400mm on a 1DsII show greater enlargeability. This is a serious let-down.

I was also disappointed by a lot of the shots taken with the 24-70 f2.8L under 50mm. The only lens which performed to the resolution of the camera was the 70-200m f2.8L, which is not surprising given its stellar reputation. But even then, I can’t help but feeling that a very aggressive anti-aliasing filter is at work. While the 5DII produced beautiful files, they lack the “bite” in the fine detail that a perfectly exposed Phase One files shows. While I have not examined any D3x files, I can say that the same is true for the Sony A900 in most instances.

What does all this mean? To be blunt, Canon needs to build a lot better lenses. And a lot of them.

Dylan

You have to remember that LL tend to get a little over enthusiastic about the abilities of just about anything. Back in 02/03 one of the guys wrote enthusiastically about how the 3MP body they tested was higher resolution than 35mm film. They also claimed somewhere that the 50D body outresolves a lot of glass, something I have not found to be true either. There's a huge amount of detail in a 50D shot compared to a 20D shot (8MP) with the same lens. If their claims were correct I would not see that.

[pingflood]

I've made all these these point before, not trying to sound like a broken record, but it's inevitable people will compare or comment on Pentax gear vs. other brands. This is a good thing, because it keeps one honest and avoids rabid, blind loyalty. If something is as good as you think it is, then it should stand up to scrutiny.

When a comparison works in favor of Pentax (i.e.) comparing weather sealing of Pentax vs Canon 5D/5D.MK2 does that not invite one to look at all the other features too? Can we only objectively compare cameras if they are equivalent or nearly equivalent in price?

Personally, I think the mature and professional thing to do is acknowledge the differences (pro's & con's) and perhaps qualify if that affects you or not. A real expert or seasoned veteran might comment "I deal with this perceived deficiency in this manner and it doesn't actually affect the final result". To me those are the gems I come here for.

Finally, if the next Pentax is as quick as the fastest Nikon or Canon, has equivalent or better image quality in all metrics, has the fastest, quietest, most accurate AF, would you NOT compare it to everything else out there? If it were priced like the existing K7 would you NOT buy it?

There are *some* people who will claim that whatever Pentax does have is important, and whatever Pentax does NOT have is not needed for REAL photography (e.g. fast AF, more accurate metering...).

But most people are a little more objective around here, it's just a rather vocal minority that makes it seem otherwise.

[redpigeons]

Pentax definitely doesn't excel in auto focus. That doesn't mean that it is bad, it is just that in comparison, it isn't as good at tracking things as the competitors. For whatever reason, their focus seems to have been to keep lenses as small as possible and so that has driven their decisions to use the micro motors rather than ring type motors in the DA* lenses. I like them just fine, but certainly they are not speed demons.

I think the decision to keep auto focus in body for the primes is a wise one. Other than eliminating a little noise, there is no particular reason to have in lens motors on primes and it certainly would increase both the price and the size of them significantly. How you could get a pancake lens with in lens motor is beyond me.

I agree with you completely... and thanks for explaining this

if its lens size Vs. lens speed , I will choose size any day
this is the reason I choose Pentax in the first place, and this is the reason I love my Pentax kit

I only wish that with hoya, tokina, samsung ... I don't know... some how Pentax could make more FA lenses in production again