Originally posted by Steve Beswick Ok, but do you seriously think the D40 and kit lens is as good as a k-x with it's kit lens? Somehow i doubt it. A 6 megapixel camera, on todays market? ISO 1600? Pathetic. That's not even considering all the lens limitations the D40 imposes. Even Pentax ditched the 6 MP sensor a few years back.
Who said anything about a D40? it's a 3 or maybe even 4 years-old body... not exactly a competitor for the just recently released K-x....
K-x b.t.w is a lot of camera for the money paid, but once you start looking into more serious than a kit-lens glass, you gonna start scratching your head... and your wallet... 750-800$ for a used 77ltd, when both CaNikon's 85/1.8's sell for 350-400$... wtf? I've just sold a DA 12-24 for 700$CAN, while i've paid just over 300$ for the same Tokina lens in Nikon mount... wtf? and the list can go on forever... At the end, a CaNikon body is a bit more expensive to buy in than Pentax body... but what you save on the body, you gonna loose on every serious piece of lens... I could've probably lived with that, but it's the image output that turned me down....
Originally posted by pingflood Speaking of ergonomics, I played with a D300s recently and perhaps my mind has been fogged by years of Canon use but man, that camera did NOT feel good in any way. I keep hearing about the wonderful Nikon ergonomics, but it just felt clumsy and awkward.
It's just you being used to Canon.... as a long time Pentax and relatively long time Nikon user, Canon's ergonomics pisses me off big time... Can't find sh#t... blaming stupid Canon engineers and marketing people... Takes 8 fingers on every hand to do anything that makes sense...
Originally posted by stevebrot There is a difference in image processors, even when shooting RAW. You can see the difference between brands. Most people don't even think about it when they are looking at different cameras, but should be a consideration. One of the main criticisms of digital as opposed to film is the lack of choice in regarding to rendering. Can you imagine buying a camera and being locked into one type of film with its set of characteristic strengths and limitations forever?
For example; I shoot a fair amount of stream and waterfall photos (you shoot what you have a lot of) and there is another local photographer whose work I truly admire. She shoots Olympus, but frequently goes out "on safari" with a couple of Nikon and Canon people. All three shoot the same subjects and all three come back with totally different looks. I have tried to emulate her look/feel on the same subjects with my K10D in PP, but with only limited success. Her Oly seems to punctuate the warm tones in a landscape scene while the K10D portrays more accurately, but with less punch. (If interested, here is a
LINK to her Flickr stream.)
I would suggest that anyone considering purchase of a new body do a search on Flickr and look at the full gamut of other people's results before buying. If nothing you see reflects your vision or your style, you should look elsewhere.
Steve, you're quite right on that one... And I had to start working with Pentax files again to realize that... I much prefer Nikon's output... just a personal preference... I'm not saying Pentax is bad, just different...
These works from the Oly-user are awesome b.t.w.... but i believe that there's a lot more involved than just a straight out of the camera JPGs....