|
Forum: Pentax DSLR Discussion
12-08-2008, 12:09 PM
|
| |
I loved the quote: "Nikon D3 (only 12.1 MP but close enough)"... :D
"Close enough" indeed!
I think the purpose of the thread was to demonstrate how much cheaper an APS-C setup is when compared to a FF one.... and, when you do the maths, it is!! :eek:
... at least if one considers that a 500f4 AFS-VR mounted on a D3 will give you the same images/possibilities as a DA 300f4 mounted on a K20...:cool:
|
|
Forum: Pentax DSLR Discussion
12-08-2008, 10:16 AM
|
| |
Errr, OK you're wrong, let me correct you... :D
First off, do you really think the K20 and D3 are comparable cameras? If so, please, try a D3 for 5 minutes...
Furthermore, your list of "equivalent" FF lense is deeply flawed to say the least, let's try this one, from the Canon camp (part of which I own):
K20D ==> 5D: 1699€
DA* 16-50mm f/2.8 ==> 24-105f4L IS: 939€ (equiv. 16-70f2.6)
DA* 50–135mm f/2.8 : €2,300 ==> 70-200f4L IS: 1049€ (equiv. 46-133f2.6)
DA* 300mm f/4 : €1,100 ==> 400f5,6L: 1200€ (equiv. 266f4)
DA* 55mm f/1.4 : €500 ==> 85f1.8: 370€ (equiv. 56f1.2)
TOTAL : €3,900 ==> TOTAL: 5255€
(I took the liberty of taking all the prices from the same online store for the sake of coherence give or take 100€ if you take kits).
So the FF equivalent kit comes up just under 35% more than the K20D kit... hardly 500%!
These setups are the closest you can get from an equivalence point of view and I can guarantee you that the 5D setup stil ends up with some advantages in AF speed and (and that's the most important, at least to me) IQ at all ISO.
More expensive? Yes but not by the margin you stated.
Worth it? For some people it might... for some others no.
|
