[wolfier]

No. Those who chose a Nikon would always get a Nikon and those who chose a Canon would always get a Canon, or whatever their friends recommend.

I doubt the relative minor difference in price, purpose, specs, etc. would be enough to sway anyone from one brand to another.

A comparison with the K7 at the bottom of the article

Is the new Canon EOS 7D a Nikon D300s killer? | Digital Cameras & Camcorders | ZDNet.com

KP

[pingflood]

No. Those who chose a Nikon would always get a Nikon and those who chose a Canon would always get a Canon, or whatever their friends recommend.

I doubt the relative minor difference in price, purpose, specs, etc. would be enough to sway anyone from one brand to another.

That's completely untrue. Go hang out on on the forums the pro photographers frequent and you find people switching back and forth quite often. There's still enough difference in the systems to warrant doing so. People switch to Canon for certain superteles, to Nikon because the 1D III AF issues pissed them off, etc.

[Rich_A]

I would propose that switching camera systems because of a new body coming out is the worst error to make. Bodies are going to change every 12 months nowadays. If you don't have what you want at the moment, then just be patient. If you can't find the lenses that work for you, however, this makes much more sense to change systems in my opinion. Pentax offers lenses that other manufacturers simply can't touch, I'm speaking of the limiteds and the DA* line of lenses. If you don't care for these lines, then Pentax doesn't necessarily win out in a spec-battle. I prefer to take photos than sitting around fretting about which camera has better Live View mode while held upside down in a tunnel underneath a major body of water. Who cares who edges out a few extra megapixels or who has one extra frame per second?! If the lenses don't meet your needs - switch systems. Otherwise, be patient and take photos.

[PolishMike]

and the DA* line of lenses.

What's so special about the DA*s? I can't think of a single one where the other manufacturers don't offer a similar proposition.

[aleonx3]

What's so special about the DA*s? I can't think of a single one where the other manufacturers don't offer a similar proposition.

Except for Tokina, is there a canon or nikon version of the 50-135mm f2.8?

[Rondec]

I think that Pentax has the fullest line of APS-C oriented lenses. If you are looking at moving to full frame, then this may be irritating, but that is what they have created. The 16-50 and 50-135 weather sealed lenses are part of this, as is the 60-250 f4.

[*isteve]

That's completely untrue. Go hang out on on the forums the pro photographers frequent and you find people switching back and forth quite often. There's still enough difference in the systems to warrant doing so. People switch to Canon for certain superteles, to Nikon because the 1D III AF issues pissed them off, etc.

Crap way to run a business.

[yeatzee]

That's completely untrue. Go hang out on on the forums the pro photographers frequent and you find people switching back and forth quite often. There's still enough difference in the systems to warrant doing so. People switch to Canon for certain superteles, to Nikon because the 1D III AF issues pissed them off, etc.

Dont forget their "super macro" beast, and great macro flash. If only pentax made similiar lenses/flashes

Thats the only reason I would ever ever buy a canon..... I'd still go dual systems if I did though.

[Rich_A]

What's so special about the DA*s? I can't think of a single one where the other manufacturers don't offer a similar proposition.

I wouldn't compare the Canon version of "weather proofing" to what Pentax offers. Canon provides a rubber gasket around the camera mount... not all of their L lenses even have true weather sealing.

I'm not talking just about the focal lengths here. That's not really the point. If I just wanted a 17-xx lens, I could buy a Sigma or a Tamron. The Pentax DA*'s are built to withstand significant rain and extreme conditions. That might not be a big deal for you but I shoot in the backcountry a lot and this is a huge deal for me.

Canon makes great glass, for significantly more money. The Canon 70-200mm f/4 IS is just over $1000 and the Pentax (which I can attest is just about as sharp with better weather sealing) comes in at under $800. You get another stop of light with the 50-135mm and it's the same lens when compared to what the 70-200mm was designed for, namely a "light weight" full frame portrait lens. Want an f/2.8 portrait lens for the Canon? With weather sealing? Hope you have around $2000 for the Canon 70-200mm f/2.8 IS. I'll take a Pentax K-7 and a 50-135mm for the same price and shoot all day in the rain, thank you very much

[PolishMike]

Thanks for the insight from you all. I think the Da*s' (well that's awkward to pluralise...) reputation is somewhat marred by the 16-50 and its QC issues. Oh, and the failure-prone SDM on both that and the 50-135. And the stream of horrible reviews. You can see why one's confidence falters.

I mainly just wanted reassurance that I'm with the right system
My faulty 16-50 is getting back from repairs on Tuesday and I'm very much considering a 50-135 next (the Sigma 70-200 being the other contender). I'm afraid the price points are not looking so good if you're in the UK like me

I still don't buy the "most complete APS-C system" angle though. AFAIK, for most lenses outside the truly wide angle, making two separate designs for FF and APS-C would be counter-productive - don't the 50-135 and 60-250 just barely vignette on FF film? Pentax's lens selection is reasonably limited compared to the bigger players, which is understandable. Isn't any full-frame lens going to be better on APS-C, what with the higher MTF, smaller distortions and less vignetting towards image center? The only advantage of designing crop-specific lenses seems to be weight/size , and last time I checked my 16-50 was still quite the chunker.

But to contribute to the original discussion - I just never got along with Canon - looking at some of their bodies literally makes me uncomfortable (horrible recessed shutter button, that strange huge rear dial everyone seems to love so much) and I just prefer Nikon's approach. Having said that, the 7D does look mighty nice, feature-wise. D300s killer, maybe not. I do think it will take some sales away from the K-7, because not only are all the "important" numbers bigger, but Canon has much more weight to throw around. To the consumer (who ignores in body SR, weathersealing, ergonomics, lens compatibility and all those other things which make such a real-world difference), the K-7 is just barely on par with the "old" 5D.

[nostatic]

Canon makes great glass, for significantly more money. The Canon 70-200mm f/4 IS is just over $1000 and the Pentax (which I can attest is just about as sharp with better weather sealing) comes in at under $800. You get another stop of light with the 50-135mm and it's the same lens when compared to what the 70-200mm was designed for, namely a "light weight" full frame portrait lens. Want an f/2.8 portrait lens for the Canon? With weather sealing? Hope you have around $2000 for the Canon 70-200mm f/2.8 IS. I'll take a Pentax K-7 and a 50-135mm for the same price and shoot all day in the rain, thank you very much

Actually it was the 70-200/f4 IS that tipped the scales leading me to order a 5Dmk2 last week. It reminds me a lot of the 50-135* that I have, and while the Pentax is f2.8, I'll be shooting the Canon on a FF so that should be a wash (ie slower glass but cleaner hi iso, DOF about equivalent)..

The bottom line is that FF and APS-C are different beasts, and if you're going to try and compare the FF will lose out on size/weight. No hiding place from physics. I think the K7 spanks the 7D pretty well on most accounts, especially when you factor in price. The only advantage for the 7D is if you want to have a second FF body.

And yes, both Canikon 70-200/f2.8 lenses are expensive and very big/heavy. The 50-135* is an awesome lens (at least mine has been) and should make more people consider a K7 if they need tough/weathersealed.

[wolfier]

I should be more specific when I spoke of "people". I just ran into a few D700 and 5DII users tonight. None of them are pros and all of them would do just as well with what they shoot with a D50 or a 350D. These are the non-pros - which makes up of 80%+ (from my limited sampling!) of who buy D300 and probably a 7D. They behave in the manner I described. To some people, sadly, a DSLR is a status symbol, not a tool. Much like an iPhone to them.

Pros know what they want and jump systems for various reasons (usually, esoteric lenses on Canon and AF speed/flash photography on the Nikon), or own multiple systems, without a doubt.

That's completely untrue. Go hang out on on the forums the pro photographers frequent and you find people switching back and forth quite often. There's still enough difference in the systems to warrant doing so. People switch to Canon for certain superteles, to Nikon because the 1D III AF issues pissed them off, etc.

[wolfier]

Dont forget their "super macro" beast, and great macro flash. If only pentax made similiar lenses/flashes

Thats the only reason I would ever ever buy a canon..... I'd still go dual systems if I did though.

Are you talking about the 60mm dental macro? There are other reasons too...such as the 200/2, 400 DO, 85/1.2, 14, 17 TS/E or 24 TS/E...each costs an arm or a leg

[yeatzee]

I was refering to the Canon MPE-65..... 1-5:1 magnification....

[pingflood]

I was refering to the Canon MPE-65..... 1-5:1 magnification....

Yes, that is one sweet macro lens.

I didn't say superteles would be the ONLY reason people jumped ship, just one of them. The tilt-shift lenses are pretty outstanding as well, for instance...