[K-9]

Rumors says its the same sensor of the 70D. Nevertheless Canon is behind in terms of sensor quality now and i can imagine 7d mk2 competing K5 in terms of IQ.


I never liked Samsungs to be fair, always trying to target non-photographers and way to expensive gear in my opinion. Although i am not very familiar with current lens lineup of NX, i am pretty sure it lacks quality glass.

Lacks quality glass?? That's a false statement, if ever I've heard one. Samsung arguably has the best prime glass lineup for a mirrorless system. See the list below.

Their primes are crazy cheap:

10mm f/3.5 299 USD
16mm f/2.4 236 USD
20mm f/2.8 277 USD
30mm f/2.0 236 USD
45mm f/1.8 265 USD
85mm f/1.4 800 USD


With a really fantastic body, like the NX-1, that's a pretty nice kit.

[top-quark]

The target buyer of the 7DII is the wildlife or sports photographer that can't afford to put the glass they need on the 5dIII or the 1DX. For that shooter, Pentax isn't a consideration, nor is Samsung.

Don't think that cost is an issue for this market - wildlife / sports is a cost-no-object pursuit. From what I've seen for many users the 7D (and in the near future Mk II) is a very deliberate decision since it is, in effect, a 1.6x teleconverter with no aperture loss.

[RyanW]

Don't think that cost is an issue for this market - wildlife / sports is a cost-no-object pursuit. From what I've seen for many users the 7D (and in the near future Mk II) is a very deliberate decision since it is, in effect, a 1.6x teleconverter with no aperture loss.

I'm not so sure, sports and wildlife shooters that have the cost is no object are shooting 1DX and 5D3 with long fast glass from what I've seen. They probably use a crop body as well, but their go to camera is a FF. Birders might be the exception.

The advanced hobbyists flock to APS-C because they can't afford good glass beyond 400mm. They like the 1.6 teleconverter as you say.

[Miguel]

I'm not so sure

As a sports and wildlife shooter, I am quite sure. I use both the 7D and the 5DMK3. The former for reach which generally pertains to birds, and the latter for superior AF. If the sport I'm covering is super-fast paced, then the better FPS rate of the 7D makes it valuable as well.

With the forthcoming release of the 7DMK2, I have read that a fair number of 1DX shooters will be picking it up for both the advanced AF and the increased FPS rate (as well as the reach). Also the relatively smaller size is attractive. And the new flickering light management doodad will be of interest to indoor sports shooters. The camera will be a huge seller; I'll pick one up sooner or later.

Regardless of the above points, the K-3 isn't a competitor really. Sure there are some overlapping functions, and they are both APS-C, but for sports and wildlife the available selection of K-mount lenses is diminishing from already slim pickins which is not very attractive to new customers. To me, most of the Pentax DLSR products are marketed to existing Pentax owners or a few demographics in Japan.

M

[northcoastgreg]

That Samsung NX1 is looking to beat both the K-3 and the 7dii if it lives up to it's claims.

Even if the Samsung NX1 does beat both the K-3 and 7dii in terms of numerical specs, that will a pyrrhic victory for Samsung. Samsung simply doesn't have the lenses to compete with the 7dii in sports and wildlife photography. No 70-200 f2.8, no 200 f2, no 300 f2.8, no 400 f2.8 (not to mention all the long superteles and all the legacy sports and superteles lens that you have access to in Canon land). And while Samsung may have a number of the basics covered in their lens lineup, they still can't match what Pentax offers, particularly in the weather sealed department. Regardless of specs, the K-3 is easily the better system field camera. If you're a pragmatist and/or old school photographer (and many serious amateurs and pros fit these categories), the Canon 7dii will look far more appealing to sports and wildlife shooters, and the Pentax K-3 will be the better option for field work. Samsung is competing against Sony and Panasonic for the techie crowd that's eager for access to the newest, most exciting tech, regardless of practical considerations or old school ideals.

[normhead]

As a sports and wildlife shooter, I am quite sure. I use both the 7D and the 5DMK3. The former for reach which generally pertains to birds, and the latter for superior AF. If the sport I'm covering is super-fast paced, then the better FPS rate of the 7D makes it valuable as well.

With the forthcoming release of the 7DMK2, I have read that a fair number of 1DX shooters will be picking it up for both the advanced AF and the increased FPS rate (as well as the reach). Also the relatively smaller size is attractive. And the new flickering light management doodad will be of interest to indoor sports shooters. The camera will be a huge seller; I'll pick one up sooner or later.

Regardless of the above points, the K-3 isn't a competitor really. Sure there are some overlapping functions, and they are both APS-C, but for sports and wildlife the available selection of K-mount lenses is diminishing from already slim pickins which is not very attractive to new customers. To me, most of the Pentax DLSR products are marketed to existing Pentax owners or a few demographics in Japan.

M

With them about to release a new 70-200 with an image circle big enough for in body image stabilization in an FF, you could be wrong. As far as I know, there is nothing like the FA*250-600 in Canikon land to this day, so I guess it depends on your perspective.

[Miguel]

With them about to release a new 70-200 with an image circle big enough for in body image stabilization in an FF, you could be wrong. As far as I know, there is nothing like the FA*250-600 in Canikon land to this day, so I guess it depends on your perspective.

Norm, your response is indicative of why Pentax is a weak solution for the sports and wildlife shooting market.
-The fabled 70-200 is not a real product being sold. What was shown at Photokina was a prop: a real looking lens case sealed under glass with a vague caption. Probably had a couple of mason jars inside.
Comparing a prop to say the Canon 70-200mm f2.8 II IS, which is considered the best zoom ever made, is, well both an act of faith in Ricoh, and just silly string.
Both Sigma and Tamron have discontinued their 70-200mm f2.8 offerings in K-mount. That doesn't send a particularly strong message of confidence to potential brand changers.
-RE: the 250-600mm, sheesh, this hasn't been made in over 20 years. While nostalgia for the glory days of Pentax is a fun exercise, it doesn't help get actual new and modern functioning product into shooters' hands.
To answer your question, well both the Tamron 150-600mm (which I own) and the forthcoming Sigma 150-600mm in two versions (which are offered for pre-order on retail sites) encompass that focal range quite well. Having used the FA 250-600mm I'll say that the optics are good, but at 12 pounds it's a tripod only affair which limits real-life sports and BIF use.I've handheld the Tamron for 90 minutes of soccer and over a 4 mile birdwatching hike. Also, power-zoom is a charming concept from 20 years ago that simply cannot keep up with active sports, BIF and modern predictive AF systems.
Instead of a heavy, storied and very expensive relic from that past, I think most Pentax shooters would be better served by simply having access to a modern 400mm affordable prime and a superzoom in the 100-400mm range. That may also make the brand more attractive to "defectors."

M

[normhead]

While I appreciate your skepticism, I don't share it. By the way, where did you here the Tamron 70-200 is discontinued for Pentax? I look on line and I see it available from multiple sources. It's probably the most available discontinued lens I've ever seen if it is discontinued. The 100-to 400, 70-200 are both on the road map, it would almost seem like you are trying to get in your last licks before they become available. And given that in the review I posted, both the Nikon 70-200 and Tamron 70-200 scored very well against the Canon you opinion of the canon 70-200 doesn't seem to be universally held, at least not by anyone with all 3 lenses in their hand.. You're not becoming one of those Canon guys that just repeat the mantra are you?

So, as far as I can tell, you're just blowing smoke....

Comparing a prop to say the Canon 70-200mm f2.8 II IS, which is considered the best zoom ever made, is, well both an act of faith in Ricoh, and just silly string.

By whom? Some Canon rep?
Check out this guy...

You Tube

You Tube

No where does he mention this Canon superiority thing, despite having the lens in his hand and testing it?
If Tamron can build a 70-200 roughly equal to the Canon and Nikon I'm sure Pentax can. Whether or not Canon or Nikon can build a DA*60-250 is a valid question here if we are going to start talking abut who can build what.

So you own the Tamron 150-600 but you go on about the superiority of Canon glass... so your reason for going Canon over Pentax is you can buy Tamron glass? Interesting.. but makes no sense. I've seen guys using the tamron 150-600 on Nikon FF cameras, they were getting images similar to me and my A-400, except I was shooting 5.6 and they were shooting 6.3. Hey, nice lens, but I'd be happier with a 300 and 1.4 TC on APS-c. It would be faster.

Am I starting to get through here. There are lots of reasons why what you're saying does' make any sense, and why I don't even want to go down the road you're gone down...

[Miguel]

Nice dodge Norm.
The topic here is whether Pentax is or can be competitive with Canon & Nikon for sports and wildlife shooters. Unless one thinks that lens roadmaps can be mounted on a camera body, I'd put forth that the answer today is no.

M

[normhead]

Nice dodge Norm.
The topic here is whether Pentax is or can be competitive with Canon & Nikon for sports and wildlife shooters. Unless one thinks that lens roadmaps can be mounted on a camera body, I'd put forth that the answer today is no.

M

Lets see, what have you dodged here... the discontinuation of the Tamron which as I pointed out is available from at least 7 sources., the superiority of the Canon 70-200.. funny how those who start winging accusations around are often hiding behind them...

I shoot side by side with wildlife shooters all the time. I do just fine. Competitive, absolutely. Believe it or not, my DA* 60-250 performs at a level very close to anything out there. And when I nail focus, it's often better. If I'm there, I get as good images as they do.

If I shot all sports or all wildlife professionally, I might have a camera dedicated to those pursuits, and it wouldn't be a Pentax probably. But as landscape shooter who occasionally shoots wild life, I can say with authority. it isn't like you say. It's very rare in shooting wildlife that Pentax AF is inadequate, and often when it is, everyone else's is inadequate as well. Last winter shooting a Snowy owl I was in and out in about 20 minutes and had a number of awesome images. The Nikon and Canon guys, seemed to be having a lot more trouble. When i showed them my pictures one of them said "lucky you." You're giving too much weight to this AF thing. So I can use my "slow " DA* 60-250 for wildlife. Not only that I get great results form my A-400 with manual focus. Your smugness is completely unfounded. Being a sports photographer is more than just buying a Canon and shooting a few frames. The guys i know who are good, could shoot with brownies. They have gear suited to what they do, I have gear suited to what I do, I don't want what they have, and they don't want what I have. There are whole threads here with photos shooting sports with Pentax gear. I guess they haven't read your opinion and have no idea how wrong they are to be doing so.