Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
07-25-2009, 06:14 AM   #61
Banned




Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Millstone,NJ
Posts: 6,491
Anyone who thinks the plastic 500D with Pentamirror is in the same class as the K-7 needs to stay with a P&S. Even my old Pentax *ist DS2 has a Pentaprism viewfinder.

07-25-2009, 08:43 AM   #62
Veteran Member
Torphoto's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Trinidad W.I.
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 620
QuoteOriginally posted by jogiba Quote
Anyone who thinks the plastic 500D with Pentamirror is in the same class as the K-7 needs to stay with a P&S. Even my old Pentax *ist DS2 has a Pentaprism viewfinder.
HAHAHAHA

lol

that made my day.
07-25-2009, 09:33 AM   #63
Veteran Member




Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Borås, Sweden
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 3,165
QuoteOriginally posted by jogiba Quote
Anyone who thinks the plastic 500D with Pentamirror is in the same class as the K-7 needs to stay with a P&S. Even my old Pentax *ist DS2 has a Pentaprism viewfinder.
And the K2000/K-m has a pentamirror.

The K200D has a pentamirror.

That doesn't make them less of a camera, just means the manufacturer wanted to save some money.

edit: purely image quality wise the 500D can put up a hell of a fight. The build and controls leave something to be desired, but there's nothing at all wrong with the files coming out of it.
07-25-2009, 09:44 AM   #64
Veteran Member
nostatic's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: socal
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,576
QuoteOriginally posted by pingflood Quote
edit: purely image quality wise the 500D can put up a hell of a fight. The build and controls leave something to be desired, but there's nothing at all wrong with the files coming out of it.
If you have to fight the camera to get the file, then it loses the fight imho. And I hate crappy build quality. I was rather taken aback by how much better built the K7 seemed relative to the 5Dmk2. I expected more from a $2.5K+ body.

But these are totally subjective criteria. Come to think of it, most all of this is. No wonder people can't agree

07-25-2009, 09:50 AM   #65
Veteran Member




Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Borås, Sweden
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 3,165
QuoteOriginally posted by nostatic Quote
If you have to fight the camera to get the file, then it loses the fight imho. And I hate crappy build quality. I was rather taken aback by how much better built the K7 seemed relative to the 5Dmk2. I expected more from a $2.5K+ body.

But these are totally subjective criteria. Come to think of it, most all of this is. No wonder people can't agree
Yup...

Remember the 5D II is all about the sensor. The closest thing price wise is the D700 -- you get much better build but half the pixels. Canon expects you to pony up for a 1DsIII if you want the awesome sensor AND the bulletproof build. Considering the cost of manufacturing those sensors, it's pretty impressive that they got the 5DII price as low as they did, and as you noticed, they had to cut some corners to make that happen. The AF system is still the same so-so one from the old 5D.

I too dislike poor build, but have been very pleased with the two 10Ds, 20D and 50D I've owned. Huge step up from the Rebels.

The K20D was an excellent camera build wise, though the GX-1S I had before then wasn't near as nice. Not bad by any means, but didn't have that "solid" feel to it.
07-25-2009, 10:09 AM   #66
Veteran Member
nostatic's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: socal
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,576
I totally understand building to a price point. But unfortunately many here do not. I would rather have less sensor and better build because in the end for most applications the sensor just isn't going to make a big difference (unless you live to pixel peep). But I have to hold the camera for every shot. It will be interesting now that Sony is in the fray as I think the a900 has a better build quality than the 5Dmk2 *and* you get the resolution. Competition is a good thing.

The k7 is built like a brick though - I was totally impressed with how that thing feels. The K20d is nice as well. It just comes down to "no free lunch" and people having to decide what is important to them.
07-25-2009, 10:15 AM   #67
Veteran Member




Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Borås, Sweden
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 3,165
Yup, Sony is definitely starting to make Nikon and Canon nervous, and that's a good thing! Canon was kind of slacking off lately, so we'll see if they start making a serious effort again.

If Sony can create a lens setup that is competitive with Canon/Nikon things will get really interesting... they have the money, the R&D, the resources to do it.
07-25-2009, 10:26 AM   #68
Veteran Member
nostatic's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: socal
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,576
QuoteOriginally posted by pingflood Quote
Yup, Sony is definitely starting to make Nikon and Canon nervous, and that's a good thing! Canon was kind of slacking off lately, so we'll see if they start making a serious effort again.

If Sony can create a lens setup that is competitive with Canon/Nikon things will get really interesting... they have the money, the R&D, the resources to do it.
Unfortunately the economy tanking isn't helping the R&D budgets. They currently have a few lenses that will arguably rival anything Canikon has (the Zeiss 17-35/2.8, 24-70/2.8, 84/1.4 and 135/1.8) but they will need to flesh that out. Some of the G lenses are highly regarded as well. But they are late to the party and have to make up time.

If I wanted to slog around a FF setup, I'd buy the a900 with 24-70/2.8 and 135/1.8. But it ain't small...the Zeiss lenses are tanks. I've been spoiled by Pentax ltd primes.

07-25-2009, 10:39 AM   #69
Veteran Member




Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Borås, Sweden
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 3,165
Yeah, current FF zooms are anything but compact. I am kind of used to my 1DsII+24-105, but when I took a picture of it next to my OM2 for a comparison I realized that it's pretty damn huge. Almost comically so.

I'd love to see some affordable superteles in the Sony lineup. Canon is refusing to release something between the 400/5.6 and 500/4 even though people are begging for something like a 500/5.6 with IS in the $2-2.5k range. Sony would have the in-body IS so should be able to be very price competitive as a system. They already have very very good AF so a nice crop body with stabilization and a 500/5.6 or so would make one killer bird shooting setup. The best I can come up with in the Canon lineup that's "affordable" is what I am using today (50D + 400/5.6) which runs around $2300 or so. I bet people would line up if Sony could have a body + 500/5.6 stabilized for say $3k.
07-25-2009, 10:42 AM   #70
Veteran Member




Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Colorado USA
Posts: 1,337
Sony is supposed to have a sub $1,000 Consumer Full Frame in the rumour mill:

Here's what I read:

"Whether you feel that video on DSLRs is an annoyance, a gimmick, or a real game changer, Sony are saying that it's going to be an essential aspect of DSLR design. [CNET]

It also emerges that Sony too are looking at the compact interchangeable lens camera market.

Meanwhile [PR] there is interesting talk of two Sony FF DSLRs this summer.

"two new full frame Sony DSLRs coming out this August 2009: one will be pro, above the current a900 model and another one that is suppose to be very cheap, under $1000."


Me? I'd say if Sony offers a $999 full frame dslr all the manufacturers will scramble. I think its quite possible they can offer a stripped down full frame dslr under 1k as they do make their own sensors, & most Nikon sensors, & they use to make all Pentax and Samsung dslr sensors. I think K2000, Km is still made by Sony and not a Samsung made item.
07-25-2009, 10:48 AM   #71
Veteran Member




Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Borås, Sweden
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 3,165
Yeah, a $999 full frame body would make quite an impact!

And judging by the registration distance on the Sony cameras it should be easy enough to mount M42 glass on it.

Maybe the Pentaxians can finally get their FF "M42" body that's affordable. (Though some would argue the classic 5D is it.)
07-25-2009, 10:58 AM   #72
Veteran Member
nostatic's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: socal
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,576
But what happens for glass at that point? Canikon (and to some extent Sony) have spent a lot of money on APS glass. I suppose they can do some trickery in firmware but then you lose the FF advantage. Do they then expand the lens offerings to include "cheap" FF glass? I don't see that. So then why does a $1K FF body become worthwhile from a biz perspective? How do you market it? Are you then hoping to sell a bunch of $1-2K lenses to go along with it?

Maybe it will be the start of the move away from APS to FF, but somehow I doubt that. I don't know that you can get a FF body nearly as small as an APS, so that'll always be an issue (witness the popularity of the G1 and now EP1). Or maybe APS will become a non-SLR sensor and the SLR will be mostly FF. It all just confuses me...
07-25-2009, 11:00 AM   #73
Veteran Member




Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Colorado USA
Posts: 1,337
Minolta AF or Sony has a 44.5mm sensor plane distance

so Sony full frame has another .5mm to work with the pentax m42 versus using a Canon 5D at 44mm. I've read some wide angle m42 have to get trimmed to work on 5D or trim the 5D mirror instead. Not something I've done , but what I've read. Here's a nice chart detailing film plane distances for various lens mount owners who like to adapt alternative mount lenses:

mounts.htm
07-25-2009, 11:08 AM   #74
Veteran Member




Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Colorado USA
Posts: 1,337
I'll guess Sony would consider $999 full frame a loss leader

,offered just to get new owners who'll then pay more for equivilent Sony mount lenses.

I've read the A900 is a loss leader, but at $2699 maybe they are not converting enough buyers into Sony mount, yet. At $999 there would likely be a big wave of new sony buyers.

Both A900 and Nikon D3x share same sony sensor. D3x costs almost 3 times the money the Sony a900 costs thesedays. Sony has proven they'll take a loss to compete in full frame marketplace.

As far as glass goes, my Nikon D700 uses aps-c glass but at only 5mp instead of 12mp. Canon put themselves in a corner as you cannot use aps-c glass on aps-h or full frame as it will not mount. Considering Canon abandoned FD mount at Christmas 1995 I am certain as time passes they'll abandon aps-c glass too. May take another 5+ or - years but it won't surprise me one bit when canon aps-c lineup gets discontinued.



QuoteOriginally posted by nostatic Quote
But what happens for glass at that point? Canikon (and to some extent Sony) have spent a lot of money on APS glass. I suppose they can do some trickery in firmware but then you lose the FF advantage. Do they then expand the lens offerings to include "cheap" FF glass? I don't see that. So then why does a $1K FF body become worthwhile from a biz perspective? How do you market it? Are you then hoping to sell a bunch of $1-2K lenses to go along with it?

Maybe it will be the start of the move away from APS to FF, but somehow I doubt that. I don't know that you can get a FF body nearly as small as an APS, so that'll always be an issue (witness the popularity of the G1 and now EP1). Or maybe APS will become a non-SLR sensor and the SLR will be mostly FF. It all just confuses me...

Last edited by Samsungian; 07-25-2009 at 11:14 AM.
07-25-2009, 11:11 AM   #75
Veteran Member




Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Borås, Sweden
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 3,165
QuoteOriginally posted by nostatic Quote
But what happens for glass at that point? Canikon (and to some extent Sony) have spent a lot of money on APS glass. I suppose they can do some trickery in firmware but then you lose the FF advantage. Do they then expand the lens offerings to include "cheap" FF glass? I don't see that. So then why does a $1K FF body become worthwhile from a biz perspective? How do you market it? Are you then hoping to sell a bunch of $1-2K lenses to go along with it?

Maybe it will be the start of the move away from APS to FF, but somehow I doubt that. I don't know that you can get a FF body nearly as small as an APS, so that'll always be an issue (witness the popularity of the G1 and now EP1). Or maybe APS will become a non-SLR sensor and the SLR will be mostly FF. It all just confuses me...
Well, Canon currently has 53 FF lenses, and something like 7 APS-C ones. They are pretty well invested in FF and that is clear from their lineup.

As for cheap FF glass, they do have quite a bit. Like the sub-$100 50/1.8, the 70-300 zooms, the 28-135 IS, etc.
Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
camera, canon, dslr, k7, million, pentax, photography, photographyblog, pixel, sum
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Switching to Canon 5D, advice needed on adapting Pentax lenses on canon camera hangu Photographic Technique 4 08-19-2010 09:09 PM
Pentax Kx - Canon EOS 500D dilemma DavoMrMac Troubleshooting and Beginner Help 12 02-02-2010 01:46 PM
For Sale - Sold: Pentax 55-300mm, Sigma 105mm Macro, Canon 500D Filter zinj Sold Items 2 07-28-2009 09:08 AM
Canon EOS 500D reveiw Pentax KM \ 2000 is better :) Adrian Owerko Non-Pentax Cameras: Canon, Nikon, etc. 5 05-25-2009 02:17 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 05:53 PM. | See also: NikonForums.com, CanonForums.com part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top