Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
06-06-2010, 01:57 PM   #16
Otis Memorial Pentaxian
stevebrot's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Vancouver (USA)
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 42,007
QuoteOriginally posted by alexeyga Quote
... having processed more than 15k RAW files from my current Nikon gear over the last 8 months, K7's raws were a real... revelation... I simply didn't like the output...
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

06-06-2010, 04:20 PM   #17
Veteran Member
Steve Beswick's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Ontario, California
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,736
QuoteOriginally posted by stevebrot Quote
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
This is one thing I did not consider when I gave my earlier advice, and it is a good point. I'd even take it a bit further and say that it varies from camera to camera - my K10D renders the same scene very differently than my wife's K100DS. You can dial quite a bit of the difference out by changing the in camera settings, and you can tweak it further in PP, but it only goes so far. At some point the sensor and the camera are going to have their way. I'd even go as far to say that I have yet to see anything out of a K20D or K7 that looks like what I get from my K10. Honestly, even as much as I am displeased with the metering, I would never even consider upgrading from my K10D if I didn't have such a strong desire to play at a higher ISO. I just love the way it renders things.
06-06-2010, 09:39 PM   #18
Veteran Member
alexeyga's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Montreal, Canada
Posts: 838
QuoteOriginally posted by Steve Beswick Quote
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....

QuoteOriginally posted by pingflood Quote
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...

QuoteOriginally posted by stevebrot Quote
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....
06-07-2010, 01:40 AM   #19
Veteran Member
Steve Beswick's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Ontario, California
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,736
QuoteOriginally posted by alexeyga Quote
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....
Your argument will be valid when Nikon USA stops advertising it on their website as their low end model.

06-08-2010, 07:42 PM   #20
Veteran Member
joele's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,308
If your not a wedding portrait photographer AND you are looking at Canon I would suggest saving some money on the body and going for a 50d.. Great camera, dropping in price at the moment thanks to 7d, and I think for general use far more practical than a 5d.
06-09-2010, 12:45 AM   #21
Veteran Member




Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Borås, Sweden
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 3,169
QuoteOriginally posted by joele Quote
If your not a wedding portrait photographer AND you are looking at Canon I would suggest saving some money on the body and going for a 50d.. Great camera, dropping in price at the moment thanks to 7d, and I think for general use far more practical than a 5d.
Being a 50D owner, I'd say that for "general purpose shooting" the 50D is a good, solid, functional camera with an undeserved bad rep due to a poorly constructed review by DPreview. (And this camera really kicked off the whole comparing noise at 100% vs output size debate....)
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!
7d, canon, cost, lenses, macro, nikon, price, video
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 01:25 AM. | 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