[lesmore49]

I'm the OP of this thread and I appreciate the thoughts of all those who posted. Lot's of stuff to think about.

Where I am now, after digesting all this info:

• I really like my Pentax + Sigma equipment. I think it compares very well with N+C.
• As mentioned before, I'm adopting a wait and see position on how all the camera makers do over the next 3-5 years. Including N+C.
• If some camera makers start to fall by the wayside, including Pentax, well then as my current Pentax equipment ages out or dies, then I will make a decision.
• Given the fact that I'm 65 YO, I figure that God willing I have 25 to 35 years (yes, I'm an optimist) left in this old body shell.
• If I find myself in the future, with Pentax not being viable and my Pentax equipment on it's last legs, than I will probably renew my equipment with either Canon or Nikon...the two big manufacturers.
• Given that Canon absolutely dominates, and probably will continue to dominate the market...than probably Canon will be the best choice, as I'm looking for a long term manufacturer, who will be able to survive in this era of rapidly changing camera company fortunes..

So keep what I have for as long as it lasts. When it goes....if it goes...than Canon ...maybe a 5D3 future equivalent...with one wide angle (17-40), one mid range zoom (70-200) and one super telephoto...such as a Sigma 150-500.

[Paul MaudDib]

• Given that Canon absolutely dominates, and probably will continue to dominate the market...than probably Canon will be the best choice, as I'm looking for a long term manufacturer, who will be able to survive in this era of rapidly changing camera company fortunes..

Define "dominates".

Canon is really a company with significant Inertia problems. They have a lucrative business producing cinema gear, and they're afraid to introduce features that might induce people to buy a $3,000 FF DSLR instead of a $30,000 cine camera. They don't release APS-C lenses that might induce someone to stay on a $500 body instead of moving up to a $2000-3000 FF body, etc etc. In many ways it's the same problem people point out about Pentax - go read the "50MP Sony FF Sensor" thread in the FF subforum. People's reaction? "Pentax will never release that if it might cut into sales of the 645Z".

Guess what, if you don't do it - someone else will. Canon has basically lost in the MILC market segment, the EOS M was a joke. And they're starting to get overshadowed in a lot of other market segments, because they are still trying to make money selling incrementally better versions of last year's product, rather than pushing new features and innovations.

I owned a Canon 40D once upon a time, and here's specific things that pushed me away from Canon when I upgraded.

• First, their "consumer-grade" lens lineup is a joke. They have the 50/1.8 and the kit lens and a few long slow zooms, and that's really it. If you want a fast normal lens, the cheapest thing Canon has is the 35/2 - used to run a cool $350. If you want a wide-angle lens, you have the kit lens or you spring for a 10-22 for >$500. Everything about the system is designed to keep pushing you to buy high-end lenses, or just switch to a full frame body and get a wider FoV. If you want cheap gear you're buying third party, and that negates the advantage of buying from a brand-name like Canon.
  
• In comparison - Nikon has the 35/1.8 DX for $180, Sony has the Sigma 30/2.8 and 19/2.8 for $100 a pop. There's cheap lenses for those systems that are good enough to do what I need, without costing a half grand apiece.
  
• Also, they've really fallen behind in high-end sensor quality. The D800 trounces Canon's best sensors (eg 5d3) by a significant margin. Canon's sensors have much higher noise, less dynamic range, and so on.
  
• Their low-end bodies are also subtly worse - everyone uses APS-C to mean a 1.5x crop factor, on Canon it's 1.6x. So maybe you were thinking that the 40/2.8 STM sounded like a good normal lens, 60mm equivalent isn't too long, right? Well, gotcha - on Canon that's a 64mm equivalent lens, which is getting very long to be considered a "normal". Same for the 50/1.8, which becomes a 80mm equivalent. Even a 35mm is a 56mm equivalent - that's the longest I can really consider as a "normal" FoV.
  
• Finally - I really like adapting old glass, particularly since the low-end selection was so thin, and Canon was the worst of all worlds there. If you buy a Pentax or a Nikon, you can get focus screens that will help you focus native lenses. On Sony, you can get focus peaking which will do much the same thing. On Canon, you have to manually stop down, which blackens the split prism, which throws off aperture-priority exposures, so you're shooting full-manual mode.
  
• Because of Canon's electronic lens control, this also applies to many third-party manual lenses too. If you buy a Samyang lens or a Zeiss ZE in EOS mount - you have manual stop-down IN ADDITION to manual focus, and the prism will still throw off your exposure. So you're really locked into a choice between Canon, Sigma, and Tamron if you want auto-aperture. You're literally better off buying the lens in Pentax or Nikon mount and adapting it - at least that way you can also buy a cheap film body (Pentax ME, Nikkormat) and have it work right on that body. When you start talking about how it's advantageous to buy lenses in other mounts for your name-brand camera, that's crazy talk. That's really when I knew I was done with Canon.

So - if you're set on a DSLR I think you should go Nikon or Pentax. If you want cheap, you can't beat Sony and a kit of the Sigma f/2.8 primes for the price - $500 out the door for a modern high-ISO capable 16mp body and a 3-lens kit (18-55, 30/2.8, 19/2.8) if you buy used. Or they're great for adapting cool old glass.

Give some thought to a Fuji mirrorless too. They've done a great job making bodies that are nice to use, they push out new features to their old cameras with firmware updates, etc. And their lens lineup is great too - fast, sharp, compact lenses.

I really wouldn't buy a Canon though.

[osv]

I don't know what's the cause, but I can see much more blur in the first of the four, the one with the Fotodiox OM adapter... second worst is the third picture (left-side wise), then the second and the best one looks like it's the one with four stacked adapters.
I'm only looking at the left side, here, so I guess that the decentering of the lens is partly compensated by the misalignment of the adapters (which happens to be the right way round )... it follows that the right side should be worse (and it seems to me than the right side in the picture with the four stacked adapters is the softest by a fair margin).

It surely makes for an interesting subject, and I wouldn't discard Cicala's lab tests as a purely academic exercise...

i agree with your assessment of first/worst on the left side... the "5610" number in the center was the focus point for all of these, and the first pic is probably the most poorly focused in the center... so it's out because of focus errors.

#2 is the best one on the right side(lettering on the fedex truck), and it's best, or maybe second-best, in terms of center focus... did center misfocusing affect the field curvature on both sides, for the better?

this lens cleans up dramatically on the sides, with a slight mis-focus on the center: Konica 24mm prime lens evaluation

#3 is second-worst on the left, like you said, but why so bad, when the center is close to being perfectly focused... but the right side isn't perfect either.

so yes, it doesn't refute what roger said, but it does introduce focusing as a very significant variable.

i measured all of my adapters with a micrometer, especially on the center portion, which determines how far away the lens is from the camera, and they were all equidistant against themselves... and close against each other, but that doesn't really matter.

thx for looking, i've gotta run this test again, but with better glass!

[Ayoh]

Get the Sony A7s. The camera gives me significantly better images (lower resolution aside) than anything pentax offers under 8k.
With the silent shutter and low MP density I can hand hold the camera at shutter speeds where the K cameras would result in a high percentage of blurred images due to the unreliability of Pentax SR system.

The viewfinder is more practical than OVF's as you do not have to shoot iteratively DSLR style where you shoot then look at the LCD screen correct settings and shoot again. In low light the viewfinder is many times more useable than an OVF.

You can also adapt a vast array of lenses to the camera and focus using the viewfinder very reliably and with speed.

The video capability is also incredibly impressive and is just in a completely different league than anything Pentax offers.

All in all, as sad as this may seem, I do not think I will be buying another Pentax DSLR in the future (indulging any full-frame models) as for my style of shooting I think they will be technically inferior to the next generation of full-frame mirrorless cameras from Sony. I think Ricoh's only hope for a prosperous future in full-frame cameras is a mirrorless system, a full-frame DSLR will be a failure as it will compete with entrenched Nikon and Canon systems, which will be superseded in the future by mirrorless systems due to technical superiority.

[osv]

And they're starting to get overshadowed in a lot of other market segments, because they are still trying to make money selling incrementally better versions of last year's product, rather than pushing new features and innovations.

well stated... that entire post ought to be a sticky on this forum.

when i shot video full-time, i was spending $3,200-3,400(?) a pop, for the best prosumer video cameras that canon had... i went through that four times... so with accessories, i probably spent $15k or more with canon.

they never excelled with innovation; the company culture was to play it safe, only offering small incremental updates, that grew very frustrating over time.

what they did well was identify a segment, then offer solid gear tailored to that segment, but at a high price... even today, i think that canon has the only hd video camera with 4-track recording, but it's way overpriced.

similar picture with their still camera gear... some of the best long glass on the market, but it's absurdly expensive.

with sony, i can use all that glass in manual focus mode, which actually works pretty well... it's the best of what canon offers, without the horrible ovf/mirror junk bodies.

---------- Post added 10-29-2014 at 03:44 PM ----------

All in all, as sad as this may seem, I do not think I will be buying another Pentax DSLR in the future (indulging any full-frame models) as for my style of shooting I think they will be technically inferior to the next generation of full-frame mirrorless cameras from Sony. I think Ricoh's only hope for a prosperous future in full-frame cameras is a mirrorless system, a full-frame DSLR will be a failure as it will compete with entrenched Nikon and Canon systems, which will be superseded in the future by mirrorless systems due to technical superiority.

x2 on all that.

why pay $1k more for a d810, that gives essentially the same pq as the a7r? and you are stuck with a dysfunctional ovf?

getting the nikon flash system is the only good reason that i can think of... most nikon glass is adaptable to e-mount.

the future is going to be 100% mirrorless, in part because it's much cheaper to manufacture and support than dslrs.

if ricoh/pentax puts an ovf on their ff camera, it won't sell.

[Christine Tham]

Define "dominates".

Thanks for a brilliant post. I enjoyed reading it immensely, and you have struck quite a few valid points. I agree with osv, your post should be almost required reading for anyone considering switching from Pentax to Canon.

However, in defence of Canon (I feel obliged to, because I remember years ago being criticised for being a "Canon fangirl" - by a forum moderator no less - even though at the time I didn't even own any Canon gear ..)

Canon has a wide array of lenses and a usable range of bodies (note I did not say state of the art). Traditionally, Canon has "dominated" the consumer and professional market. That picture is less clear now, and I can imagine a future where Canon is a "has been" so I wouldn't assume Canon will be there in the long term (at least, not with the same market presence as today).

Some interesting observations on my part: it is ridiculously easy to get Canon gear for cheap prices. So the RRP is not very relevant. Lots of good used Canon gear out there. Plus anyone who is more than a casual buyer can buy Canon at significant discount. I used to have access to Canon dealer prices for several years. Last year during Vivid Canon was selling all their gear at a very significant discount, even I was tempted. Even a casual buyer should be able to get 10-15% just by walking into JB Hi Fi or similar and negotiating (lots of guides on the Internet about what "magic" phrases you need to say to secure a discount).

Plus, Canon is showing signs of waking up from their deep slumber. The new G7X - uses a Sony sensor - who thought that would ever happen???

And the rumours that a high resolution mirrorless FF is "coming" - surely that is good news, even for Sony fans???

[Paul MaudDib]

Canon has a wide array of lenses and a usable range of bodies (note I did not say state of the art). Traditionally, Canon has "dominated" the consumer and professional market. That picture is less clear now, and I can imagine a future where Canon is a "has been" so I wouldn't assume Canon will be there in the long term (at least, not with the same market presence as today).

Absolutely, their high-end lenses are definitely great, just expensive for what they are. Once it's in your hand - nice glass.

Now, I also think that they haven't done R&D anywhere near as aggressively as say, Sigma, who is aggressively undercutting their prices with better products (35/1.4 Art vs Canon 35/1.4L and the 50/1.4 Art vs the 50/1.2L), and also coming out with innovative new products like the 18-35 f/1.8 and a rumored 24-70 f/2. Sigma also (no coincidence) is the one pumping out the cheap 30/2.8 and 19/2.8 primes I'm so fond of for MILCs.

Canon, meanwhile, brought us the 5th revision of a 24-70L-ish lens, and probably also about the 5th tweak of a 70-200 f/2.8: ish lens. Nice glass? Sure, but it's nothing really new and different. Is it that much better than the last revision? Meanwhile they've managed to crank the cost of their fast-normal lens to a full $600 by discontinuing the older version.

Also - the bodies that go behind the glass are what I really called into question. If they're moving to Sony sensors that will probably help a lot. So far they have stayed in house, and they've been behind.

---

Last edited by Paul MaudDib; 10-29-2014 at 06:19 PM.

[philbaum]

Plus, Canon is showing signs of waking up from their deep slumber. The new G7X - uses a Sony sensor - who thought that would ever happen???

And the rumours that a high resolution mirrorless FF is "coming" - surely that is good news, even for Sony fans???

I don't have an oar in Nikon or Canon waters, but i was struck by their interviews at Photokina. Canon announced plans for a large sensor mirrorless camera, while Nikon struggled to retract their foot from this mouth with regard to mirrorless. Pentax sounded like they had more of a plan than Nikon.

Than after Photokina, i bumped into some news article that said Canon was greatly increasing their investment in sensor technology to catch up.

With regard to Pentax, i agree with the comment below from osv and Ayoh, mirrorless FF is the way for Pentax to get a jump on the marketplace.

[rawr]

Mirrorless, IMHO, still doesn't cut the mustard for some shooting scenarios that are important in the marketplace. Like sports. Like low-light.

Think fast-paced rodeos in low evening light with an EVF, or a football game under poor stadium lighting, or birding at twilight, for example. Mirrorless video works, but action photography is a drag with mirrorless, even with good high-res EVF's like those Sony offers on my NEX. The EVF display gets all splotchy and noisy and just isn't as dynamic as you want it to be when tracking subjects. Unless tech like the viewfinder displays improve a lot, mirrorless isn't going to take over the camera world anytime soon. Pentax needn't rush into it with any FF.

[Ayoh]

Those are quite niche scenarios. In my opinion an advanced level mirror less camera like the sony a7s is a better tool for the generic shot. You have live preview of what the final image looks like, the viewfinder is more informative and practical, there's no shutter vibration or noise, the camera and lenses are more compact etc. and most critically there are fewer focus errors with fast lenses. With regards to low light you should look through the EVF of the A7s, the image is incredibly clear and noise free due to the full sensor readout. A scene in which even a full frame OVF would be very dim. Now this for now is unique to the A7s as other mirror less cameras use line skipping for liveview with lower light sensitivity. However I imagine this will be more common in the future.

Pentax should really not make a full frame DSLR as it does not make technical sense at this stage. They already have the K line with dedicated apsc lenses. They can make a full frame mirrorless with a lower cost. However I suspect they are afraid of competing directly with electronic giants the likes of sony which can have access to better in house sensors and processors. With a dslr they can utilise their mechanical design experience/advantage so they may go with that option and settle for offering just a niche option.

Mirrorless, IMHO, still doesn't cut the mustard for some shooting scenarios that are important in the marketplace. Like sports. Like low-light.

Think fast-paced rodeos in low evening light with an EVF, or a football game under poor stadium lighting, or birding at twilight, for example. Mirrorless video works, but action photography is a drag with mirrorless, even with good high-res EVF's like those Sony offers on my NEX. The EVF display gets all splotchy and noisy and just isn't as dynamic as you want it to be when tracking subjects. Unless tech like the viewfinder displays improve a lot, mirrorless isn't going to take over the camera world anytime soon. Pentax needn't rush into it with any FF.

[Paul MaudDib]

Mirrorless, IMHO, still doesn't cut the mustard for some shooting scenarios that are important in the marketplace. Like sports. Like low-light.

You Tube

You Tube

PDAF-sensor mirrorless is getting quite good. For example, the AF on the Panasonic GH4 and Sony A6000 is almost as good the flagship Nikon D4s DSLR. Not quite as good, but "close enough to be basically equal".

Meanwhile, in low light Contrast Detect AF has always had the edge.

Sorry, "mirrorless AF is bad" is a dumb meme based on the first generation of cameras where things hadn't been fully ironed out yet. The current generation are exponentially better, and are basically matching the performance of cameras that cost 3-4 times as much, even in those niche situations.

[audiobomber]

Mirrorless, IMHO, still doesn't cut the mustard for some shooting scenarios that are important in the marketplace. Like sports. Like low-light.

Think fast-paced rodeos in low evening light with an EVF, or a football game under poor stadium lighting, or birding at twilight, for example. Mirrorless video works, but action photography is a drag with mirrorless, even with good high-res EVF's like those Sony offers on my NEX. The EVF display gets all splotchy and noisy and just isn't as dynamic as you want it to be when tracking subjects. Unless tech like the viewfinder displays improve a lot, mirrorless isn't going to take over the camera world anytime soon. Pentax needn't rush into it with any FF.

As a K-3 and a6000 owner, I concur completely.

Those are quite niche scenarios. In my opinion an advanced level mirror less camera like the sony a7s is a better tool for the generic shot. You have live preview of what the final image looks like, the viewfinder is more informative and practical, there's no shutter vibration or noise, the camera and lenses are more compact etc. and most critically there are fewer focus errors with fast lenses. With regards to low light you should look through the EVF of the A7s, the image is incredibly clear and noise free due to the full sensor readout. A scene in which even a full frame OVF would be very dim. Now this for now is unique to the A7s as other mirror less cameras use pixel binning for liveview and lower light sensitivity. However I inagine this will be more common in the future.

Those may be niche scenarios, but I'm in the niche frequently. A DSLR can do it all, MILC cannot, it's as simple as that. MILC lenses are not more compact when you look at what is actually out there, especially from Sony. Pentax still offers the most compact lens line of any brand. If you're shooting with large lenses, small body size is a disadvantage.

The OVF/EVF debate will rage for a long, long time, I get on with the a6000 EVF, but I breathe a heavy sigh of relief when I raise the OVF after a series of EVF shots. I want to look through to the actual scene. Obviously YMMV, but for me, the advantages don't come close to the disadvantages. I don't believe an EVF will ever get there for me, and a lot of others. Maybe Hybrid VF's will be the future.

[rawr]

The A7 family, NEX etc seem to me more useful for a more considered style of shooting, not action with telephoto under less than ideal light. Maybe that's all about to change, but it hasn't yet. Part of the reason is not the sensors or EVF's or AF per se, but external factors like lens availability.

Meanwhile, the D750 is going gang-busters in the marketplace, cameras like the 7D 2 are back-ordered like crazy etc. People like what they are and what those cameras can do. So I think for the moment Pentax would do well to emulate more traditional camera styles like the D750 if they ever do go FF. Walk before they can run. Baby steps

[Tanzer]

While I agree that EVFs will get better, it is mostly because they have so much room to improve. I don't see why anyone should feel that they have to jump to some mirrorless camera today, since none of the mirrorless cameras are conclusively better than the mirrored DSLRs on the market. Of course it depends on what you are doing, but nobody can say today that one camera system is 100% better than some other camera system; they still compete and continue to do so.

Keep in mind that the lens mount is a gateway to selling you native lenses (for stability, AF, lens corrections, etc), and whether you go to mFT, E-mount, or even Q, those newer lenses will never ever be able to be mounted on any other body. This is a one-way trip through the gates. "But I am perfectly happy using my adapted glass." Well, you are aging as quickly as I am, and your eyes and hands won't be so good forever, and Sony and Panasonic know it. In the meantime, both mirrorless and mirrored cameras will continue to improve. So if you must choose today, choose wisely, and don't complain when Olympus or Canon or whoever comes out with a body that can do IBIS, dual-pixel AF with lenses that don't breathe, and/or real mechanical focus rings, and you are sitting there with your 2014 E-mount lens in your hand.

[lesmore49]

While I agree that EVFs will get better, it is mostly because they have so much room to improve. I don't see why anyone should feel that they have to jump to some mirrorless camera today, since none of the mirrorless cameras are conclusively better than the mirrored DSLRs on the market. Of course it depends on what you are doing, but nobody can say today that one camera system is 100% better than some other camera system; they still compete and continue to do so.

Keep in mind that the lens mount is a gateway to selling you native lenses (for stability, AF, lens corrections, etc), and whether you go to mFT, E-mount, or even Q, those newer lenses will never ever be able to be mounted on any other body. This is a one-way trip through the gates. "But I am perfectly happy using my adapted glass." Well, you are aging as quickly as I am, and your eyes and hands won't be so good forever, and Sony and Panasonic know it. In the meantime, both mirrorless and mirrored cameras will continue to improve. So if you must choose today, choose wisely, and don't complain when Olympus or Canon or whoever comes out with a body that can do IBIS, dual-pixel AF with lenses that don't breathe, and/or real mechanical focus rings, and you are sitting there with your 2014 E-mount lens in your hand.

Choosing wisely is good advice. But like the knight in Indiana Jones...I want to make sure I don't choose poorly.

That's why I'm waiting for a few years....hopefully at least 3-5 years. I think the camera biz is undergoing a huge seismic change right now. Maybe in 3-5 years we will see which companies are left, which aren't.

Paul made some very good points.

More food for thought.

Les the OP