Jumping ship

<p>Geoff,</p>

<p>I gotta disagree, again, your points are more marketing related.</p>

<p>It's like the ads, "we have more white lenses on the sidelines than anyone else."</p>

<p>While this is true, it's irrelevant to most people, but the mere fact of it sells cameras.</p>

<p>Choices are good, but the fact is hobbyist and semi pros (semi pros being stock shooters, and freelancers doing photography on the side, rather than as a core source of income) actually spend more money on gear and have higher margins than professionals.</p>

<p>As Peter noted most pros don't own a stable of lenses, quite the opposite. Most independent pros I have worked with were cheap bastards with taped up cameras, lenses, and a camera (or two) that is at least a generation old. Photography isn't about finding the lens with the best bokeh, or even creativity, it's purely about getting shots that pay the car and mortgage. That is not to say pros (independent or otherwise) don't also shoot for fun, but I have noticed many don't use the same gear for hobby.</p>

<p>Hobbyist, amateurs, semi pros, can be tricked into believing they need more or should want more. They also tend to collect more, and they of course buy more.</p>

<p>And Geoff, I really don't see where Canon compares to Pentax in many areas. There cameras are either huge or cheaply made, they make no compact lenses that aren't consumer junk, and 95% of Canon shooters don't own a lens that they can't get in current Pentax, or as a current Pentax variant (new with warranty). Pentax kit lenses have consistently won the kit lens shootout, and the weather sealed kit lenses again give value far beyond Canon. As far as build, stop by your local walmart, Canon Rebel + Kit lens feels like a non working mockup, but in fact it is a real live camera.</p>

<p>The problem I see is you are fixated on a Canon equivalent, but as stated above, IF Pentax were to fight head to head with Canon it would be gone.</p>

<p>What they need to do is fill the niche, and just keep plugging along. Yep, this isn't going to please you, or some disgruntled Canon shooter thrilled to death with his Canon options but tired of being jerked around by Canon.</p>

<p>As far as metal vs plastic. I admit I am biased towards metal, but gotta say, my 35mm f/2 was on par with anything Canon makes optically, and physically it was a very solid lens, it's actually the only lens I regret selling. However, I do love my 43mm Limited I bought with it, and I really can't justify two lenses so close together.</p>

<p>That said, almost every Pentax mount lens I own, Pentax or not, is metal or high end poly. My Sigma EX lenses are physically as good of lenses as I have seen built, no wobble or play anywhere in the mechanisms, I am fairly certain they are poly carb. To me it is more about tolerances and optics than the choice of material.</p>

<p>Even my old 28-70mm f/4, which when I bought it back in 1998 I'd have not guessed it would still be going strong in 2010. One of the best optics I own, zoom or prime. Sure enough it's plastic and still holding it's tolerances. My only complaint about that lens is the rotating front element. If not for that, I'd consider it one of the best compact zooms I have ever used.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>None of the lenses I listed, perhaps with the exception of the Canon 50 f1.8, I would regard as consumer junk.<br>

Have you ever handled a Canon 85 f1.8 USM? It has a better build than Sigma EXs of which I have owned three - upgraded them all over time for Canon Ls which are better again.<br>

Sure I agree with your points about the rebels and kit lenses, but that is one of the reasons I was hoping to jump ship to Pentax - the K7 is a body that really appeals to me. The trouble is that recreating my lens lineup in Pentax looks mostly like a downgrade to me.</p>

<p>I didn't say the Ls were consumer junk, or the non Ls were, just that the light and small lenses Canon makes were consumer junk. You know like the "pastic fantastic 50".</p>

<p>I have Nikkors, Pentax *, Limiteds, Pentax 645, M42 Taks, Voigtlander and Sigmas side by side, and I cannot pick a build that is superior. Actually, my old M42s are clearly the best built of the bunch, and then I'd obviously go with the Limiteds just because of the all metal build. I have a feeling you upgraded the Sigmas for more than shoddy build. I've got 3 EX lenses, and all of them are built like tanks. All but 1 was bought new, but all are at least 3 years old. No complaints.</p>

<p>I have not handled a 85mm 1.8 that I can recall. I have no desire too. If I were to sell off all my Pentax stuff I'd build out my Nikon kit some more. I do visit B&H a few times a year, and I play with all the cameras, as well as see the camera lineup at Best Buy and such. Canon never interest me from an ergonomic standpoint, and I see nothing convincing that says their lenses are better than Nikon. So I have a fall back option.</p>

<p>I am, however, not a Canon hater. I have always praised Canons compacts are top tier cameras. The G series was always very good, if not great, and I've owned 2 G series, and an A series. The old A series offered incredible control, and the S90 is a G11 in a smaller body (which makes me wonder if there is any reason at all to buy a G11)! I just don't like Canon SLRs, and I've been pounded with the 2 stop superiority thing for so long (which according to Andrew is now like 4 stops) that my anti Canon bias is largely a flinch mechanism.</p>

<p>Anyway, of the brands left, all can produce great results, but all won't suit everyone. I'm glad you like Pentax as an option, it just seems like it isn't in the cards.</p>

<p>You might be better off looking at Olympus if you stay below ISO 800, they have an interesting lens lineup, and the Micro 4/3s is interesting, but still too pricey, no optical VF, lots of issues I don't like. The K-7 now is superior to the E-3 but prior to the K-7, I always thought the E-1/E-3 were the leaders in the sub $1750 camera war.</p>

<p>YOU WILL BE SORRY:</p>

<p>Long, supertelephoto lens line up is a Canon strength. And thats real supertelephoto lenses, not extra reach telephotos via crop~magic math.</p>

<p>In Canon & Nikon forums people routinely post crisp birds in flight images instead of just posting images of birds sitting on a tree limb & looking pretty.</p>

<p>I have no regrets adding Canon and Nikon to my Pentax kit. I've always been impressed with gear owners who first cash out and then move to another brand. Thesedays we're lucky that we can recover most our prior equiptment costs. But you have to sell it all to recover the outlay.</p>

<p>I've been selling off my 8 year Pentax accumulation. Kinda sad to see things go, but I'm happy to recover most of the initial outlay, though after the fact, after I bought into Canikon Systems.</p>

<p>Out and about, I've run into more people who used to shoot Pentax than people who still shoot Pentax. I've yet to come across a current Pentax shooter in the wild. I'll likely run into my first Pentaxians in the wilds once I've sold off all my pentax gear ;^)</p>

<p>Thesedays, If I wanted a Better~Than~Pentax offers in 2010 Birds~n~Flight shooter kit I'd pick:<br />Canon 7D & 400mm 5.6L<br />If I needed image stabilization across a very handy range and at best bang for buck cost:<br />24-105mm f4 IS<br />Then if I wanted a third highly regarded lens to round out the kit:<br />70-200mm f4 IS</p>

<p>Then if I added a future purchase full frame to this kit, guess what, all three lenses are made for full frame !</p>

<p>Me? I added Canon and Nikon for full frame and specific lenses I choose that complimented my needs, wants & desires. Though I do consider the Canon 400mm 5.6L from time to time, and its a heck of a deal for $1,209 at B&H thesedays. Down from $1,329 X~Mas 2009. Instead my next lens purchase once all the Pentax gear has found new homes is Canon 17mm Tilt & Shift.</p>

<p>A Pentaxian in 2010 will most likely wait another half decade for Pentax to provide full frame digital, an optimized for digital sensors & speedy autofocus 400mm f5.6, and a ultrawide tilt shift lens. Heck its been 5 years since the 18mp 645D was announced at Tokyo Photo Imaging Expo set to launch "soon" Anybody here own a 645D ???</p>

<p>March 17th 2005 Kodak~Pentax 645D announcement:</p>

<p><a href="http://www.digitalcamerainfo.com/content/Kodak-Announces-18-Megapixel-Image-Sensor-for-Pentax-645.htm">http://www.digitalcamerainfo.com/content/Kodak-Announces-18-Megapixel-Image-Sensor-for-Pentax-645.htm</a></p>

<p> </p>

<p>I am sure Brad has made the correct decision for his own photography needs. But I must address some of the other comments here.</p>

<p>Three years ago I awoke from a long point-and-shoot coma and bought my first digital SLR. Pentax were the only firm to offer a small body with great ergonomics and in-body stabilisation... and for a great price. Canon, on the other hand, wanted to sell me a piece of plastic in the hopes of getting me to upgrade to the next piece of plastic and so on up to a decent camera. That is not an ethos I can live with. (Nor could I afford their decent cameras.)</p>

<p>Pentax seemed to be based on the way of the tortoise, slow and thoughtful. They are rarely first to adopt newer technologies but instead allow backwards compatibility with any old lens. This attracted me not because I had older glass (I didn't) but because of what it said about the firm. Besides, I am happy with manual focus and one aperture mode, though I have no issue with newer tech that serves a photographic purpose.</p>

<p>And then there were the lenses. I was lucky enough to make the right decision -- I bought the FA43 Limited soon after the K100DS. I really don't care if Photozone measures this to be only as good as a Canon lens. (Though, by the way, you cannot compare their tests across different sensors.) The lens is simply a joy to use! It brings back the spirit and love of photography. It makes me want to find someone interesting and take their photo. And that's what it's all about, folks!</p>

<p>Even if Pentax made only the FA Limited lenses and a single body, they would have the camera system for me. I feel the same way that Leica users do about their single body and Summilux. (In fact I believe my system is in many ways better and is certainly much cheaper.)</p>

<p>And here's a picture.<br /> <br /> <a title="Rolling dance performance" href=" title="Rolling dance performance"><img src="http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2776/4317528734_ca1520a206.jpg" alt="Rolling dance performance" width="500" height="333" /> </a><br>

K20D with FA77 in available light, 1100 ISO (but noise added deliberately).</p>

<p>Oh, and here's a bird:</p>

<p><a title="cardinal in Ontario garden" href=" title="cardinal in Ontario garden"><img src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3497/3858955563_44bc061f93.jpg" alt="cardinal with pretty background" width="500" height="500" /> </a><br>

K20D with DA 55-300m, just to prove I am sometimes a birder and use zoom lenses. :-)</p>

<p>just wanted to say that the cheap canons don't really compare to the Pentax limiteds in contrast, color (IMO of course) and build quality. the usm on the 28mm and 50mm are really nice compared to pentax, but the 28mm 1.8 doesn't resolve all that well and the 50mm 1.4 AF has a history of breaking down (my AF functioned fine though). <br>

I love L lenses (the 24Lv1 is probably my favorite lens because of it's speed and angle), but while they are faster they are a lot bigger...what I'm getting at is, saying one system is better than the other is a bit ridiculous. There are always trade-offs. </p>

<blockquote>

<p>what I'm getting at is, saying one system is better than the other is a bit ridiculous. There are always trade-offs.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Well said Russel, and I think what most of us are trying to say.</p>

<p> </p>

<blockquote>

<p>In Canon & Nikon forums people routinely post crisp birds in flight images instead of just posting images of birds sitting on a tree limb & looking pretty.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>That is a very strong statement, I wonder if the Pentaxians on the forum care to answer the challenge. Seems like you are saying Canon and Nikon birders are better? Or is it just that the gear they have creates better images? Maybe you can post a crisp bird in flight shot to show them what they should be striving for?</p>

<p>I'm probably not the only one who is sad you are selling off the Pentax gear though, your photos will be missed in the Photo of the Week threads, hopefully someone will fill the void.</p>

<p> </p>

<blockquote>

<p>That is a very strong statement. . .</p>

</blockquote>

<p>It’s an unserious statement at best, Justin. About as legitimate as one implying that professionals don’t use Pentax equipment.</p>

<p>Oy vey!</p>

<p>This thread was interesting, but I think we’re now dealing with the limits of some folks’ rhetorical skills more than any insightful analysis of the differences between camera platforms.</p>

<p>ME</p>

<p>I have to agree, Michael, but I hope you agree w/ ME that Javi's troll pic was the funniest thing you've seen on the forum in a while. (well, maybe just this thread, but still...)</p>

<p>7D images of Bird in flight, shot from a boat:</p>

<p><a href="http://canonfieldreviews.com/canon-7d-3-autofocus/">http://canonfieldreviews.com/canon-7d-3-autofocus/</a></p>

<p>I could post other links, but whats the point? Theres Art Morris Birds as Art site that has hundreds of birds in flight images from both Canon and Nikon gear owners. I've never seen a Pentax image at his site. Its an observation I've made in reading various canon and nikon gear forums where people routinely post their birds in flight captures, not just images of birds sitting pretty. </p>

<p>The original poster wants a Canon 7D, he says he wants Big Bird lenses, so people point out the joy of using Pentax Limited lenses and the joys of owning Sigma lenses to him. Anyone notice he already owns Sigma lenses?</p>

<p>I find threads like this in Canon and Nikon forums, I'm leaving one brand for another. No big deal, no impassioned pleas by the brand faithful. When Nikon finally added full frame dslrs alot of ex Nikon shooters who had moved over to canon then went back home to Nikon. No big deal. Thesedays its much more common to find photograhers who own both Canon and Nikon. For me its worthwhile to me to own both brands as each has its pluses. Canon has the edge over Nikon on supertelephoto lens selection and price, ect. Nikon has the edge over Canon on ultrawide glass, flash options, ect. </p>

<p> Justin, you added Nikon gear to your Pentax tools kit. Wasn't there a Limited lens, or a Sigma lens you could have bought instead of adding Nikon gear to your Pentax Kit?</p>

<p>Let's revisit what Original poster said in his 1st post:</p>

<p>I am sorry to announce that I am leaving the Pentax crowd and going to a Canon 7D. It was a difficult decision, especially given my investment in Pentax, and it was primarily driven by the availability of big bird lenses. I will be putting it all up for sale: K20, K10, DA*300, Sigma 50-500, (2) 540 FGZ flashes, Pentax 10-17, Pentax 18-85, Sigma 55-300 (?), battery grip Tamron 1.4x TC, Phoenix 2.x TC.<br />I've always enjoyed this group. I have visited the "other" group, trying to decide what to buy, and it isn't the same. Pentax people are different: in a good way.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>7D images of Bird in flight, shot from a boat:<br /> <a rel="nofollow" href="http://canonfieldreviews.com/canon-7d-3-autofocus/" target="_blank">http://canonfieldreviews.com/canon-7d-3-autofocus/</a></p>

</blockquote>

<p>I thought you could post some you have taken since you have the requisite gear.</p>

<p>It seems like shooting birds in flight with Canon gear is about as hard as cutting a skirt steak with a surgical scalpel, based on your initial post on the subject. I was hoping you could head out the back door and get a few shots for us?</p>

<p>It's always nice to see some first hand examples from the people making the statements, those are the people whom I tend to place value in their expertise.</p>

<p>Photography is an interesting thing, while theoretical knowledge is helpful, ultimately the image is what speaks. In an internet age, it's really not hard to let the image speak.</p>

<p>**I'm going to lock this thread, it's obviously degraded to the point that it no longer has to do with actual discussion and can only digress with the infiltration of uninterested parties.**</p>

<p> </p>