[jct us101]

Just give your money to me.

Problem solved.

[Rondec]

As for Canon v. Pentax a loose comparison starting with the Canon 200mm f/2.8 II is cheaper or the same price as the DA Star 200mm and the Canon is a wicked sharp lens which also fits under the 6" length limit of almost all major sports venues, the Pentax does not but in general they are both outstanding still the Pentax is hardly cheaper by any significant amount.

Next up is the Pentax DA Star 300mm f4 vs. the Canon 300mm f4 IS...both are about $1000 give or take $100...no savings since the addition of the HoyaTax. Advantage Pentax because, well, it is not white and my hands reject white lenses...hahaha....

The 60-250 f/4 is the same price or higher than the 70-200mm f/4 which is generally regarded as rivaling the sharpest L primes in that range, I see few to no examples of the 60-250 here or anywhere to not much to compare just yet.

The DA Star 16-50 is now street price of about $700 here Canon does not offer an L in the same range, the closest is The Brick, the 24-70mm f2.8 that chimes in at about a grand so a slight nod to Pentax even with the new pricing in that area. Both also suffer from a hot and cold rep out of the box and often seem to need servicing before even leaving the house.

Last the Pentax FA 77mm f1.9 Limited vs. the Canon EF 85mm f1.8. The price for the 77ltd is now priced all over the map anywhere between $500 up to $1,000 and the Canon 85mm f1.8 between $350-$450 and delivers as well as the 77ltd. And there is also the Canon 100mm f2 which is the same size and case as the 85mm and can be had under $400 new. 2-3 strides difference using a foot zoom to take the same shot.

And of you examine the current prices of the 55-135, the whole limited line and many other Pentax lenses they are not the same value as they were less than a month ago.

I have difficulty knowing what current rates for lenses are. Here in the US, the prices have gone up moderately, but the sky has not fallen yet. The comparisons are very difficult, because Pentax has optimized its line up for APS-C. However, it is obfuscating to compare a limited lens to the cheaply made 85 f1.8; it would be just as wrong to compare the FA 50 to the Canon 50 f1.2. These are perhaps similar lenses, in focal length and aperture, but that's about it.

It is odd to compare the 70-200 of Canon to the 60-250. The 60-250 is a 4x zoom, versus the more normal 3x of the Canon. The price for both is roughly 1200, although the Pentax is a little more, it also offers quite a bit more.

Pentax wants you to compare the 55 f1.5 to the Canon 85 1.4, the 50-135 to the 70-200 and so on and in particular, if you do this, the prices are still very reasonable, even with the "Hoya tax."

[brecklundin]

I spent some time compiling a list of lenses from Canon and from Pentax and an in-depth analysis explaining why, even though there are a *couple* of exceptions, the Pentax line is considerably less expensive than the Canon line, but I decided it was probably too long and too pedantic to be interesting. Suffice it then to say that I don't think many of your comparisons tell the whole story; as an example, Canon *does* make a 17-55 2.8, and it's $999 - and it's not an "L", while the 24-70 at Adorama is $1190. This suggests to me that a 16-50 "L" from Canon would be at least twice as much (the 24-70 is a 3x zoom, the 16-50 a 4x). The Canon 14mm f2.8 is $2020, while the Pentax one is $949. Another example - I don't think it's fair to compare a primarily polycarbonate lens (the 85 1.8) to the Limited 77 1.8, but you also can't reasonably compare it to the 85 f1.2L at $1800. Where there *are* comparable lenses, however, Canon is almost always more money.

This is not to suggest that I think Canon is bad equipment, nor that you couldn't piece together a fairly inexpensive system. I quite like them, and I shot Canon film equipment for many years. I think their design often warrants higher prices (like the 300 f4 with OIS, which , AFAIK, covers FF, right?). When someone asks me for advice on a camera system, I ask them what they will be doing with it, and make recommendations appropriately. I also tell them if they buy one of the major manufacturer's DSLRs, they'll have a good system, no matter which one they pick.

I have difficulty knowing what current rates for lenses are. Here in the US, the prices have gone up moderately, but the sky has not fallen yet. The comparisons are very difficult, because Pentax has optimized its line up for APS-C. However, it is obfuscating to compare a limited lens to the cheaply made 85 f1.8; it would be just as wrong to compare the FA 50 to the Canon 50 f1.2. These are perhaps similar lenses, in focal length and aperture, but that's about it.

It is odd to compare the 70-200 of Canon to the 60-250. The 60-250 is a 4x zoom, versus the more normal 3x of the Canon. The price for both is roughly 1200, although the Pentax is a little more, it also offers quite a bit more.

Pentax wants you to compare the 55 f1.5 to the Canon 85 1.4, the 50-135 to the 70-200 and so on and in particular, if you do this, the prices are still very reasonable, even with the "Hoya tax."

Hey Guys,

I just wanted to stop in and say I appreciate your comments and that we are having a genuinely good discussion about this sort of thing...I am enjoying it a lot. I see some valid points you make but also see some assumptions I have but to question. However, I had something kinda serious happen today and have to spend the next few days looking into it, a family issue and since I am the only person left in our family outside a convalescent care center, I am being forced to deal with some rather complicated and nasty issues. These will likely involve lawyers and a lot of very real stress. So, can we put the discussion on hold for a few days? I might even just suggest we have a thread of our own later. Like I wrote, it is a pleasure to discuss something like this without any histrionics just dispassionate analysis.

Anyway, I just wanted to post that so nobody felt I just *poof'd* on the discussion. In the mean time I'll be spending more time being silly to have somewhat of a getaway from what I will be dealing with over the coming weeks...I just am drained and do not have the energy to properly explain myself right now...I will say we sort of agree but not exactly if that makes sense?

[Photomy]

I believe Nikon focuses on image quality and related features first (AF, flash, etc), compactness does not really come into it. If you had the D700 and the 24-70 2.8 VR you would have as good and better in some cases, images than you will be able to deliver with your Pentax primes in the same range (16 thru 50).

"Nikon doesn't have any decent mid-telephoto that is sub 2k with SR."
The standard zoom above and the telephoto 70-200 2.8 VR are both priced under $2,000 and they both have SR. I guess you are looking for value priced telephoto with SR longer than 200mm? As to price, APS-C will win out in longer zoom range of course.

[jstevewhite]

Hey Guys,
However, I had something kinda serious happen today and have to spend the next few days looking into it, a family issue and since I am the only person left in our family outside a convalescent care center, I am being forced to deal with some rather complicated and nasty issues.

Hey, you have my best wishes for a rapid and positive resolution!

Anyway, I just wanted to post that so nobody felt I just *poof'd* on the discussion. In the mean time I'll be spending more time being silly to have somewhat of a getaway from what I will be dealing with over the coming weeks...I just am drained and do not have the energy to properly explain myself right now...I will say we sort of agree but not exactly if that makes sense?

Absolutely. Don't sweat it - do what you have to do to deal with the stress. It's a killer! Far more important than which camera brand to use!

[jstevewhite]

I believe Nikon focuses on image quality and related features first (AF, flash, etc), compactness does not really come into it. If you had the D700 and the 24-70 2.8 VR you would have as good and better in some cases, images than you will be able to deliver with your Pentax primes in the same range (16 thru 50).

Obviously "good" and "better" are subjective things, so I can't really take TOO much exception with what you say here. However, I will say that I would *hope like blue blazes* that the D700 would produce a better image, all things being equal, since it's nearly twice the price of the K-7, let alone the K20D's price now. Even so, is the image twice as good?

If you stay under ISO 1600, I don't think the Nikon images are *any* better, at least not in the "real world" of pixel-peeper.com. I know, I know, these aren't controlled laboratory tests, but I don't shoot in a laboratory, either. After looking at literally HUNDREDS of images side by side, I just don't see any significant difference that you can point to and say "Look, that's a full frame sensor/Nikon/Canon/etc". I've done the blind tests - resize everything to 12 MP and display onscreen with "Is this from a full frame" or "is this Nikon/Canon/Pentax"? I haven't found anyone yet who could successfully tell the difference. I'm thinking about putting such a poll online and inviting everyone to take it. Look at a picture, pick "full frame" or "aps/c"; then "pick manufacturer" in another cycle. I'm betting the results will be random.

I know most people think they can tell the difference. People always think they can tell the differenc. Several studies, however, show us that they usually can't.

[Rondec]

Hey Guys,


Anyway, I just wanted to post that so nobody felt I just *poof'd* on the discussion. In the mean time I'll be spending more time being silly to have somewhat of a getaway from what I will be dealing with over the coming weeks...I just am drained and do not have the energy to properly explain myself right now...I will say we sort of agree but not exactly if that makes sense?

Definitely hope that all goes well. Don't feel like you need to explain yourself at all. I think I understand where you are coming from -- just have a little disagreement. Look forward to seeing you on the forum again down the road when things have cleared up.

[pcarfan]

I believe Nikon focuses on image quality and related features first (AF, flash, etc), compactness does not really come into it. If you had the D700 and the 24-70 2.8 VR you would have as good and better in some cases, images than you will be able to deliver with your Pentax primes in the same range (16 thru 50).

"Nikon doesn't have any decent mid-telephoto that is sub 2k with SR."
The standard zoom above and the telephoto 70-200 2.8 VR are both priced under $2,000 and they both have SR. I guess you are looking for value priced telephoto with SR longer than 200mm? As to price, APS-C will win out in longer zoom range of course.

The 24-70 f2.8 does not have VR. It costs arround 1.8k. The cheapest ebay price for a D700 is $2,300, flash about $480. So, that kit will cost me ~ $4,600. Do you really thing that this lens will compete with the Pentax limiteds ? luckily, i am not looking for the highest IQ at all...I want a relatively compact package (no top end FF), with great IQ (not the ultimate), but want the best iso and AF performance possible given my constraints. This package certainly qualifies.

There was so much going through my head and I mis-wrote the sentence you wrote. I am aware of the 70-200 VR, even 200mm in FF is barely into telephoto range. i was thinking of replacing my sigma 100-300 or if I choose a canon system they have the 300 F4L IS. Nikon has no replacements.

It looks like, for my needs, I will need a FF and a cropped format camera for birding. I don't need the high iso for birding, but would really appreciate the AF tracking and speed. The D700 + 24-70/2.8 and the SB-600 flash will be perfect for me for my FF use. It is however takes up most of my budget and leaves the telephoto end open. Canon 50D is a fine compromise, but I just don't find the IQ from that comparable to the Pentax.

I think I will be happy with the K-7 and if and when the FF Pentax is released, I'll enjoy the iso improvements.

[Ash]

After looking at literally HUNDREDS of images side by side, I just don't see any significant difference that you can point to and say "Look, that's a full frame sensor/Nikon/Canon/etc". I've done the blind tests - resize everything to 12 MP and display onscreen with "Is this from a full frame" or "is this Nikon/Canon/Pentax"? I haven't found anyone yet who could successfully tell the difference. I'm thinking about putting such a poll online and inviting everyone to take it. Look at a picture, pick "full frame" or "aps/c"; then "pick manufacturer" in another cycle. I'm betting the results will be random.

I know most people think they can tell the difference. People always think they can tell the differenc. Several studies, however, show us that they usually can't.

Great point to emphasise.
dSLR image quality is getting that good now that one can hardly discern it coming from a $600 or a $3,000 cam.

Sure, this would be lens dependent, but that's when Pentax does shine - there are just so many quality lenses, prime and zoom, that great images can be churned out from just about any focal length...

[*isteve]

I have made the same calculations every time a new Pentax comes out to see if its worth staying put or moving on. Its very very hard to justify moving on when you have all the lenses you need, including all three FA LTDs.

Even if I sold those, plus two immaculate FA* teles and all my DA and DA* lenses, I could only afford a D300 with 4 equivalent zooms and 1 wide prime or a D700 and 3 zooms. Calculation is similar with Canon. Sony starts to look decent value for the A900, but I wont go back to proprietary hotshoes again!

So despite the doom and gloom from DPreview, I will stay but I will probably skip the K7 unless I get desperate and start doing weddings.

I have the opportunity to be some what frivolous with my next purchase of a DSLR, a macro lens and a flash. Could stretch it up to 4k. (Then I can sell most of my Pentax stuff and get another ~ 1,800 k), so a total of ~5.8k. This system will have to include a ring flash and a ~100mm macro.

I have everything I want in the Pentax system, but I wouldn't mind improved high iso performance and better low light and tracking AF. I know Pentaxian's may deny but the Canon 5D MKII and Nikon D700 FF camera's will do a better job than the K-7 in both aspects. Nikon has a better flash system as well. I want a relatively compact system, so no D3, D3X, 1D, 1Ds.

But, it is down right impossible to find quality glasses with SR in either system. There are no SR replacements for DA21, F28, FA43, FA77 and F135. Even if iso is 2-3 stops better, SR gets the 2-3 stops back and it is even playing field again. Nikon doesn't have any decent mid-telephoto that is sub 2k with SR. Also, 300mm is 450mm in the APS-C pentax, and the cropped DX format in the D700 is 5mp. The 5D MKII doesn't have a built-in flash, so not really compact in real life indoor use. So, as better as they are in iso performance, and AF, the systems just doesn't come close to what I can do with pentax.

So, even though I have a budget of up to 4k and even the desire to switch systems to improve iso and AF, I just can't find a compact system that is clearly better than the Pentax K7 and my list of lenses.

[Yohan Pamudji]

Good luck, brecklundin. Hope photography can be an outlet for you during these difficult times.

[Yohan Pamudji]

FF isn't the magic photography bullet. Neither are good lenses. Neither is a particular brand. Cameras and lenses have matured so much that there's not a whole lot of difference in image quality in most scenarios, even at pixel peeping levels. Image quality across the board is pretty similar as long as you're not pushing the camera to the limit. But there are scenarios where FF has inherent benefits over APS-C. It just so happens that most people don't shoot in such situations most of the time.

Example 1: low light photography. A 5DII will smoke any APS-C at ISO 3200 and above. Regardless of how usable you think any given APS-C is at high ISO, the 5DII is significantly better.

Example 2: portrait photography. If you're trying to take a portrait in a place with a busy background, FF affords you more background separation/blurring than APS-C.

If you can't see the difference between FF and APS-C, then you're not shooting in situations where FF is a benefit and FF isn't for you, so be happy with APS-C. Different strokes for different folks.



Back to the topic of replicating a Pentax system with a different brand, if you're into the compact aspect of Pentax (DA Limiteds) there's no substitute at any cost except Leica, at which point you lose autofocus so it's not an exact replacement. Micro 4/3 is coming along and could eventually be a real contender in the compact system market, but still has a long way to go to be a serious consideration as a main system. None of the other manufacturers give a rip about making smaller APS-C lenses that maximize the size benefits of the smaller sensor, more's the pity.

But if you don't care about size, Canon more or less has the lenses covered. I'd take Canon's lenses for what/how I shoot (more and better large aperture primes), but some might prefer Nikon's (better f/2.8 ultra wide angle and standard zoom). If you think Canon's stuff is big, get a load of Nikon's. They've really gone off the deep end of the size-be-damned pool. Their 24-70 f/2.8 is even larger than Canon's, and that 14-24 f/2.8 is massive.

[Cosmo]

Are you shooting sports/need long reach? I'd seriously consider Olympus, they all have in body shake reduction, very fast and accurate auto focus speed, plus they have a 2x crop factor, so the Zuiko 150mm f/2 becomes a 300mm f/2, and it's half the price of a Canon 200mm f/2. And there's also the Zuiko 300mm f/2.8 which becomes a 600mm f/2.8.

Olympus - Top Pro

The E-3 is weather sealed/rugged like the Pentax line up, and about half the price of a D700, would be easy to have dual system with Olympus.

[jstevewhite]

FF isn't the magic photography bullet. Neither are good lenses. Neither is a particular brand. Cameras and lenses have matured so much that there's not a whole lot of difference in image quality in most scenarios, even at pixel peeping levels. Image quality across the board is pretty similar as long as you're not pushing the camera to the limit. But there are scenarios where FF has inherent benefits over APS-C. It just so happens that most people don't shoot in such situations most of the time.

Example 1: low light photography. A 5DII will smoke any APS-C at ISO 3200 and above. Regardless of how usable you think any given APS-C is at high ISO, the 5DII is significantly better.

Absolutely, but with reservations. First, you're comparing a $1300 (MSRP) camera with a $3900 camera (amazon price). As I said, I would hope like crazy that it did *something* better. Second, the MkII, according to my Canon shooting buddies, is starting to pay the price for pixel density. If you crop it to 12mp (or 15, if we're comparing to K20D/K-7), its noise level is not noticeably better. This seems to be born out by my explorations on pixel-peeper.com, when I look at 3200/6400 images. Also, in side-by-side tests with a 5D mkII, the Canon gives its sensor MUCH more light at the same nominal ISO - that is, in bright sunlight, my K20D gave me 250@f16, the Canon said 180@f16. (sunny 16 tells us that in bright sunlight, ISO 200 should be 1/200@f16, right?) Half a stop more light makes a significant difference in final noise profile. It's also worth noting that Canon shooters that I know who decry ISO3200 as unusable on the K20D will use the Canon ISO12800 with noticeably more noise. I know, that's two stops - I'm just pointing out the confirmation bias, not pretending APS/C has equivalent low-light/high-ISO performance.

Example 2: portrait photography. If you're trying to take a portrait in a place with a busy background, FF affords you more background separation/blurring than APS-C.

Sure. I think FF offers you better bokeh, with the right lens, at about a one-stop advantage - that is, you can get the bokeh I get at f2 at f2.8 on FF, etc. Of course, DOF is constant per magnification, focal length, and aperture, independent of sensor size.

If you can't see the difference between FF and APS-C, then you're not shooting in situations where FF is a benefit and FF isn't for you, so be happy with APS-C. Different strokes for different folks.

Again, I agree. I'm just pointing out that I think far too much is made of FF over APS/C (and APS-H, for that matter). I constantly hear people say, "You HAVE to have FF if you're going to be serious about photography" and "If Pentax doesn't make a FF camera, they can't seriously expect to compete with Canon and Nikon". (Think RH). The difference between FF and APS/C, for instance, is *much less* than the difference between 35mm film and medium format film, (a comparison that exhibited the advantages you've mentioned about FF, but clearly, and at any level of enlargement and in any situation, all other things being equal) but the price difference is similar. And lest I be accused of simply defending Pentax, I'm actually recounting the reasoning that caused me to choose Pentax over Canon, as I was a Canon (and Hassy for MF ) film shooter. (I also like the images the Pentax DSLRs make more than the ones the Canons make, from an aesthetic standpoint, and I have always loved Pentax glass, even when I was shooting Canon - but there's nothing objective about THAT <g> ).

So yeah, I think FF is marginally superior to APS/c|h for certain applications, but in the way a given film might be superior to another, not the way medium format is superior to 35mm in film.

[Yohan Pamudji]

Just a few counterpoints from me, although we definitely agree on the broad strokes:

Absolutely, but with reservations. First, you're comparing a $1300 (MSRP) camera with a $3900 camera (amazon price).

Amazon is crazy high on the 5DII price. Everybody else is selling it for $2700.

Second, the MkII, according to my Canon shooting buddies, is starting to pay the price for pixel density. If you crop it to 12mp (or 15, if we're comparing to K20D/K-7), its noise level is not noticeably better.

Cropping down to a lower res might be valid if you're interested in per-pixel performance, but the real test (i.e. closest to how most photographers actually shoot) is by using the full resolution of both cameras. Example of real life application: say I'm taking a portrait with APS-C (1.5x), 85mm lens. To take the same portrait with FF and the same lens I'd get closer to fill the frame. So in real life scenarios you don't force both cameras to take shots from the same distance and crop down the FF to the level of APS-C. The only time per-pixel noise comes into play is if you're focal length and distance limited, i.e. you're already using your maximum focal length and can't get any closer, when chances are you'd have to crop with even an APS-C sensor let alone a FF.

Also, in side-by-side tests with a 5D mkII, the Canon gives its sensor MUCH more light at the same nominal ISO - that is, in bright sunlight, my K20D gave me 250@f16, the Canon said 180@f16. (sunny 16 tells us that in bright sunlight, ISO 200 should be 1/200@f16, right?) Half a stop more light makes a significant difference in final noise profile.

Yeah, Canon have definitely shuffled the ISO numbers around a bit. I think they used to be 2/3 stop over standard (is that right?), but recent cameras have had their calibration adjusted downward to be closer to accurate, although from your numbers they might've swung too far in the other direction. But you're right, it does matter and it can be misleading. The 5D vs. 5DII for instance--5DII looks like it's about 1 1/3 - 1 2/3 stops better than 5D, but after adjustment for ISO inflation is really only 2/3 stops better. That still puts it about 2 stops better than the best APS-C though, give or take (more "take" really; probably more like 1 1/2 - 1 2/3 stops).

It's also worth noting that Canon shooters that I know who decry ISO3200 as unusable on the K20D will use the Canon ISO12800 with noticeably more noise. I know, that's two stops - I'm just pointing out the confirmation bias, not pretending APS/C has equivalent low-light/high-ISO performance.

Really? That's nuts. I don't consider ISO 12800 usable on any camera to date.

Sure. I think FF offers you better bokeh, with the right lens, at about a one-stop advantage - that is, you can get the bokeh I get at f2 at f2.8 on FF, etc. Of course, DOF is constant per magnification, focal length, and aperture, independent of sensor size.

Right, but that's not how photographers actually shoot.

Again, I agree. I'm just pointing out that I think far too much is made of FF over APS/C (and APS-H, for that matter). I constantly hear people say, "You HAVE to have FF if you're going to be serious about photography" and "If Pentax doesn't make a FF camera, they can't seriously expect to compete with Canon and Nikon". (Think RH).

Absolutely. Too much hyperbole out there about FF being the magic tonic to take your photography to the next level.