Jump to content

K20D or D90 ????????????


b_bagley

Recommended Posts

As someone who has been away from photography for quite a while ( last decent camera was a Cannon 35mm from

the early 80's ), AND knowing this is a Pentax forum, I was interested in ya'll's opinion. I only had a couple of lenses

with the Cannon and doubt they would work with the modern day digital SLRs so there is no incentive to get a

Cannon. Having read and shopped, it has come down to these two. I enjoy shooting people and landscapes mostly

but would also like to try my hand at some sports as well. I realize that these posts are frequent and take some

effort to respond to so I thank you for your efforts in advance

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 61
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I understood that to be the case, but how do the Pentax lenses compare with the Nikon lenses? Having no lenses of

either kind, I will have to build my set up from scratch and would prefer to have to buy things once ( even if it proves

to be more expensive [ within reason of course]). The things that attract me to the Pentax are the SR system,

backward compatibility, and weather seals. My questions are more or less peforformance related. If you put both

cameras in the average Joes hands, which would consistently yield the superior image?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Robert, I think both cameras are very good. The Pentax is weather-sealed which means you can shoot in mist/light rain with

no ill-effects. The Nikon is not. Nor does the Nikon have in-body stablization which means you will fork over a pretty penny

paying for VR lenses for the Nikon. The Nikon has video-mode that may come in handy.

 

My advice to you is to consider the lens lineup of both systems. Pentax has high-quality, lightweight, reasonably priced

prime lenses in spades. Do you like shooting with primes? Go with Pentax. However, Nikon has some absolutely amazing

zoom lens (at amazing prices!) so if you like zooms, put together some lens kits from each maker to see what your potential

future costs may run.

 

The Pentax camera are a great value compared to Nikon and Canon for those people willing to live with their strengths and

limitations. You certainly pay a premium with N&C because they are the "big two".

 

If you haven't already read the Canon 50D review on the dpreview website. They compare both the K20D and the D90 to

the camera being reviewed so that you can see the IQ differences (if any).

 

Good shooting!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bob...Thanks i'll tell Jordan that,those kinds of comments always make her giggle....

 

Bob...I have shot the last 2 yrs plus with the Pentax *ist and a $100 lens,Thats the cost of it NEW!!!...The 18 to 55.....I did recently upgrade....When people say Pentax is not professional i ask them to tell me what image of mines not professional...And some,viewing it on line will say oh that looks fragmented,or her arm is out of place or its crooked by 1/32 of a inch....But the bottom line is when i set up at a show people see my work and go "WOW".....I have sold a number of prints of my landscape stuff and of young Jordan...These are 12 by 18 images and when people view my work theres no shortage of compliments.....

 

My point in saying all of that is this....If you go Pentax you will save a LOT of money over Nikon and Canon and can STILL come out with the exact SAME quality results and the guys who KNOW cameras and own Nikons and Canons dont argue that.....The only step up Pentax has not made is the FFS....I would say because of the FFS the Nikon D700 is a better camera then the K20D but too its a hell of a lot more....

 

K20D is rock sold...As is the *ist and i have the images to prove that....On the lens side like i said...My images were shot with a $100 18 to 55....That limits me a LOT but it in no way kept me from getting great images.....

 

Image attached....Jordans favorite shot of all time....The BIKE in this image,same as before...Is a $50,000 custom build.....Jordans build is custom too in that she works out every day and does NOT eat fast food....Shot with the Pentax *ist and the cheapest lens possibel...18-55 5.6....<div>00RQR9-86539784.jpg.6f526726f6f7a939a3b5b6cdba0d9452.jpg</div>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A long time Nikon shooting friend of mine recently went into digital and for a D80 over the D90 because of the great deals now available. He already has some good fast zooms, although not yet much zoom in the way of tele. And he has the fine Nikon 300mm AF-S f/4. He did not feel the added fps shooting speed or live view was enough, or the movie clip mode was good enough, to warrant the added expense, otherwise the two cameras are similar in build quality and resolution. It has been noted the D90 tends to over expose just slightly to achieve yet lower noise at higher ISO, but can more often blow out highlights.

 

Both the D90/D80 are exceptional compact models for unusually fine control layout and features. The K20D is not a compact model, though moreso than the Nikon D300 it competes with. The K20D control layout is excellent plus. So one factor is whether you prefer more compact design. The weather-resistant Pentax K200D is a very fine choice also.

 

For several weeks, I lent my friend a compact Pentax K100D and a couple of lenses. He loved the quality, feature set, and especially the built in SR. He said he got many shots he couldn't have without the SR. He bought the Nikon 18-55 VR kit lens with his D80 deal. He is very happy with his purchase, but he wishes Nikon had the built in SR instead of the VR lenses, so his very fine other lenses would have that advantage. He bought his D80 kit package from B&H for $650!

 

Pentax has recently added new lenses in the tele range, a 60-250mm f/4, and a 300mm f/4 which has received very good test reviews. Sigma offers a 300mm f/2.8 and a fine 500mm f/4.5 for Pentax

 

Nicholas is right. Check out the lenses and see if Nikon has some that would meet a special need for the particular shooting you do. And the D90 offers slightly greater fps shutter speed at full image quality, and low noise imaging at ISO 3200 but with some detail loss. Otherwise, for other extraordinary features like SR, the super fast and efficient Hyper System and ultra fine, ultra compact Limited series of prime lenses, and great value, I highly recommend Pentax.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well i didnt mean it in a rude way..i was not sure the intent of his comment,could be interpited as inappropriate...Shes a really sweet girl,her jod is at times to look smoking hot and people often judge and misjudge her by that.Which is common in the modeling industry...

 

If he gets the Pentax he'll get image just as good as ant Nikon or Canon...Thats the bottom line...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

B Bagley, as far as the quality of the Pentax lenses, I think they're fine. Pentax was the company that invented SMC,

super multi-coating; they've also made many camera innovations over the years. Technologically speaking, the other

companies have been riding on Pentax's coattails for some time. Like, fifty years.

 

Over the years, I have only come across one dud lens that fit my Pentax, and it was made by a low-quality third party

manufacturer. I don't doubt Canon and Nikon each have good lenses made for their cameras; there's no way those

companies could charge that much if they were cranking out broken equipment at those prices.

 

Overall, I'd say that the lens quality is so good that if you come across someone who says another company's is better,

I would challenge to see those test results and images taken with both sets of lenses, scrutinized with the naked eye.

Someone may have a hair's worth of advantage, but as competitive as the industry is, someone would have to show me

or explain to me under what conditions those differences would be noticeable.

 

The weather seals are a good point. I know they work because I was recently taking waterfall photos close enough to

some rapids to get splattered pretty much all the time. Not a bother to my film cameras, but when you think about the

micro-voltages it takes to run a very small and sensitive on-board computer, the other companies must be insane not to

put a simple gasket near the critical seals in the chassis. Avoiding the consumer complaint hotline calls alone is

probably worth the overhead to put in weather seals. Yet, a big corporation like Canon or Nikon or Leica will indeed

market a camera without them.

 

The weather seals aren't a carte blanche license for underwater photography, but they're a good idea when you consider

that one glob of spit's worth of water could probably permanently trash the on board CPU in most DSLRs. Companies

that don't use them in their camera designs must either have really good housings in other respects, or no care about

answering destroyed equipment complaint calls.

 

I prefer Pentax, but am willing to concede that other manufacturers are doing a great job. Meanwhile, I think feature-

wise, that there is a trend for longevity with the mere structure of Pentax cameras that's not there with the higher priced

brands. Anything electronic is, to my mind, a plastic box of junk just waiting for the trash. Not a good mindset to be in

for cameras. As expensive and as infrequently used as a camera is (even a pro will only actually press the shutter for a

tiny fraction of the business day, on average, over a year), as infrequently used as cameras are, customers deserve

some basic longevity and structural integrity that goes with their purchase. It will, in the long run, make you a more

satisfied user.

 

Imagine, for example, if it would have been possible to go out and buy a new, updated camera body, and use it with that

old Canon lens you have. It would have cut your refitting costs almost in half. Yet, with the larger companies, they just

want you to pay out again.

 

How many defunct short tele zooms does it take to work as paperweights on your desktop? I recommend the Pentax instead of another

soon to be thrown away hunk of high-quality optics.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Shake reduction. You mentioned the shake reduction. I'm a film luddite who only picked up a digi-cam to appease the

plaintive cries of women in the area. They wanted color; they wanted digital; I wouldn't have changed if it hadn't been for

their complaining. I would have, in the past, immediately dismissed the whole concept of shake reduction if someone

had told me about it.

 

Turns out I found out about shake reduction by purchasing a camera with it built in. I went ahead and flipped the switch

and tried it out. It works great. It'll get you a handheld shot in those slower iffy light conditions that would have been

just borderline for required tripod use with film. Okay, so now consider this.

 

Imagine you're the guy who's going to put shake reduction into cameras. Based on industry trends, we see that there

are two major ways comapnies have solved this problem. One is Nikon style. They come up with some

electromechanical wizardry that stabilizes the image. This circuitry is apparently mated to the VR lens itself. Okay,

now imagine that, after you've invented this stuff, you have to cram it in the lens and sell it to people. Physically, there's

only so much space in the lens barrel to begin with; and it's a thin cylinder shape you have to work with; and, you've got

to build it in there every time because your design is predicated on the concept of interchangeable lenses.

 

I'm saying that the Nikon model of VR is bad for the consumer's bankbook because it is an inherently high-overhead

solution for the company. Those big bucks will be passed on to the consumer as the equipment rolls down the factory

line.

 

Meanwhile, back over at Pentax, it looks like the shake reduction is primarily a software fix. You've got a camera body,

an imaging sensor (c. 24mm) and some software. As hard as it might be to statistically resolve the math problems with

just software, it looks like that's what Pentax did. I'm no engineer, and I don't know much about camera construction,

but I worked in a factory long enough to recognize that Pentax's solution is lower overhead than the lens-based VR

systems.

 

For example, you would only buy it once per camera body. Next, it's probably cheaper for a camera factory to flash new

code into a chip or rearrange a board in the camera to update the shake reduction technology as the camera models

evolve over time. Meanwhile, fewer moving parts means fewer relays and switches to break down. Every one of those

electromechanical systems that supercharge some lens assembly is one more set of parts to wear out and break down.

 

Have you ever seen a camera repair shop tech look you in the eye and try to tell you that overhauling a 20 year old

robotic lens is a good idea? They'll tell you to trash it, I'd bet, and get a new one. Even if they were willing to fix it,

where would they get the right parts?

 

The in-camera shake reduction is a better investment than another lens luxury system that does the same thing.

 

You don't have to take my word for it. Just ask yourself. Take a look at the camera reviews; get a look at the cameras

you want to buy. Then, when you do, ask yourself, "How is this thing made? And, if I made it, what about this design

would bill me into oblivion? Would I have built this thing to basically last, or to convince someone to buy another one

later?" Those are the kinds of things I think about; my answers and opinions are sometimes wrong, but if you think

about a manufacturer's decisions about overhead when it came to building a camera unit, you'll see trends evolve that

say a lot about their relationship with customers.

 

Good luck. I recommend the Pentax. That D90 is probably a good camera, but I'd go with the Pentax. J.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"but how do the Pentax lenses compare with the Nikon lenses? Having no lenses of either kind,"

 

Shooting both Nikon and Pentax, but preferring Pentax, I can honestly say that Pentax glass is as good as you can

get. That doesn't mean it's vastly better than Nikon, but while they both probably have lenses that trump one

another, Pentax glass is simply second to none.

 

I mostly built and will continue building my Nikon system for professional sports coverage. Pentax gear does just

fine for kids sports and many pro sports, but Pentax never has designed a sports minded camera, and so it was

easier for me to just go a 2 system route. I currently don't own a Nikon lens shorter than 70mm and don't expect to.

 

My opinion is most people buy what they want in the end, and personally I don't care what you buy. However, I

hate misinformation. So many people shooting Nikon and Canon are misinformed about what the competition offers. I

was at a rally race last weekend, and a guy says to me, "i'm still shooting film, and a little torn between Canon

and Nikon digital, but I'm leaning Canon since they still have the best/fastest AF system." I chuckled and said,

"actually no, Olympus does." Anyway, he countered that Olympus bodies were weird. Point being most people get

caught up in what they want to believe, not what reality is.

 

I will just say that the 16-50 DA* weather sealed, and the 50-135mm DA* weather sealed are as good of

professional quality 2.8 zooms as you will get, after you factor in the current prices, they are downright filthy

against the competition. The 14mm 2.8 is one of the best fast digital wide angles on the market (according to one

of our well respected pros and a featured Pentax photographer...Godfrey). The 50mm 1.4 was rated as the best 50mm

in PopPhoto recently. The 35mm 2.0 is tack sharp wide open, has excellent flare control, and honestly blows the

pants off anything Nikon makes in that range. And the 12-24mm f/4 outperformed Nikons 12-24mm f/4 (as did the

Tokina 12-24mm f/4).

 

Then of course the Limited primes. I'd love to compare them to Nikon or Canon, but of course Nikon and Canon

don't make those types of lenses. And I'm sure you will find VERY VERY VERY few people who don't like the

Limiteds, or find the quality and attention to detail refreshing. My 21mm DA is one of my favorite lenses, as I

am sure my 15mm DA Limited will be when it is released in the spring/summer 2009.

 

Finally, Pentax used to have to apologize for not offering longer glass, but in the last year post Hoya merger,

the company has pretty much rolled out a respectable long lens lineup which includes consumer (or I prefer to

refer to them as travel lenses) and pro quality faster glass. These include the 200mm 2.8, 300mm f/4, and

60-250mm f/4 weather sealed lenses, and a 55-300mm f/4-5.8 (great little travel lens).

 

So as far as lenses, I think you shouldn't have to worry.

 

If you want or need weather sealing, Pentax has Nikon beat. If you want to build a lens lineup from quality

legacy glass and still get SR/VR, Pentax has Nikon beat. Of course there are areas Pentax falls short to Nikon,

but quality and backwards compatibility of lenses is not one of them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"If you put both cameras in the average Joes hands, which would consistently yield the superior image?"

 

Sorry I didn't see the second post or I'd have integrated it into the first...

 

Neither.

 

That simple. When every generation of cameras came out well back into the film days, the advertisements promised better photos, but the reality was center weight metering and aperture priority from the 1980s was as good as it got for automation.

 

The rest is up to you.

 

I can assure you that no matter what camera you give me (provided it's suited for that use at hand) I will be able to make equally good images. I don't care if it's Canon, Sony, Nikon, Pentax, Olympus, Leica, old Minolta digitals, a $40,000 Hasselblad medium format DSLR system, etc.

 

I've personally never seen a person on these forums instantly get better with a new camera, and I can doubly say that for my real life acquaintances. Yeah, if you are at the top of your game, the difference in 10ms in camera reaction time can probably be the difference. But for Joe average the best thing to do is get a decent camera, a few decent lenses, some good photo processing software, and just work on your photography day by day.

 

Maybe I'm weird but the day a camera can make all the decisions and take the photo I want is the day I toss my camera gear in the trash. I enjoy the challenge, and the fact that I will never master it because if by chance I master an aspect there are hundreds more sub fields of photography that I can begin to learn.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Robert, I think both cameras are very good. The Pentax is weather-sealed which means you can shoot in mist/light

rain"

 

the Pentax with a DA* lens is fully weatherproof, which means if you so desire, you can shoot in a monsoon with

no ill effects. And yes, I have shot in pouring rain with my K10/K20D and a 50-135mm DA*. Kinda cool really, as

I've never been one to put the camera away because of mist or light rain, but I've NEVER just left my camera out

in 45 minutes of pouring rain. And I've always accepted the fact that I might damage my gear. Which is why I

prefer old K mount and M42 glass on a relatively cheap film body up till recently. Nothing like knowing that even

if you destroy your 28mm f/3.5 M42 and MX, you are out $150 tops, but I gotta say, never lost a camera or lens.

 

I have, and if need be will continue, with the K10/20D with the confidence that it's not going to fail under any

weather conditions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for the info Justin. I'm pretty satisfied with the set-up I have at the moment. But I am finding for the wedding

stuff, that seems to be coming my way more often, that I need faster lenses. Mainly for the DOF control that I miss

with the 16mm-45mm F4.0 ED/AL and 50mm-200mm F4-F5.6 ED that are the center pieces of my set at the

moment. So your detailed post is a real help.

 

Erik, for what it's worth, I like the shot of Jordan in the purple dress (the first in this post) the best of all you've

posted. I guess I'm getting old or my wifes work in the fashion industry has rubbed off on me as I prefer the look of a

beautiful woman with more clothing on rather than less. I like the line all leading to Jordan and the bike as well. Well

done.

 

If I might, I'd also like to comment on what could be interpreted as inappropriate or not. I teach martial arts and have

done so for many years. As I teach my students, the very first and most important rule of martial arts is, "Don't Be

There".

 

If you don't deal well with snakes don't step into a pit with poisonous vipers. If you do so expect to be bit by one of

them. If you prefer not to be robbed don't walk alone through the seedy district of any major city at 2:00 in the

morning. If you do expect to be robbed by someone.

 

I guess what I'm trying to say in a round about way is: if one were, by nature and good conscience, offended by

an "inappropriate" reaction (Please, I'm not implying that there were any, this is for future reference only!) to a photo

of a scantily clad beautiful woman on a tricked out motorbike then don't put the photos out there for the world to

see. "Don't Be There!"

 

Rest assured, be it right or be it wrong, there will be a snake that will bite and a robber that will rob.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Scot...Now this is no referance to the comment Bob made.....Scot,i understand that Jordan will get a certain amount of comments from people who are on a much lower level....Some of it i just let go like the "wow shes got big tits"...Its like really,you think i dont know this?...Shes actaully aware of it too...its like wow you have a knack for stating the obvious....But what your saying is because a girl is sexy she should expect a multitude of disrespectful or crude comments...I agree to a point..Some times i react to them,some times i ignore them...Most of the time i am glad that i am not like that nor have i ever been.....You'd think i'd be use to it...I mean you come try shooting with her in public some time...We literally had a train come to a complete stop once....She waved and he sounded the air horn..Her first shoot when she was 15 in a small town 3 times cars stopped right in the middle of the road...It is so bad that i have instructed her when shooting in public shes not to look in the direction of anyone calling out or anything like that.Every time we shoot in public theres 5 or 6 times we have problems with people and thats not even when doing any glamour...I just know that one of these shoots shes going to cause an accident...

 

On my Myspace i have no one other then other photographers and models,its not a issue there...

 

I agree with you to a point....Its just too bad people can not be respectful...Really it shouldnt be an issue.....

 

Seem like a nice guy Scot....Nice to meet you an thanks for the thoughts =)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for the well tought out responses Justin, Definitely gave me useful information to help in my decision.

 

Erik my comment on your model was in no way meant to be disrespectful. Not sure how it was construed to be,

What I said was that if she was my women I could never deny her anything hence the bankrupt comment. Anyway,

my apologies nonetheless if I have offended.

 

I am sorry I am late in reponding as I was at a college football game and didn't get in till late.I did speak with an old

friend who works in the information office of the university. He threw one more choice in the ring. Supposedly there is

a Cannon getting ready to be realeased that has a video mode that utilizes the AF lenses. AND I think he said it had

a full size senor.Oh well, I guess one would wait forever if he waited to have the latest technology.

 

I sincerely appreciate ALL the responses and will continue to read and respond in case anyone else would like give

their opinion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some cameras have GPS someone was telling me...Regaurding the video mode...Thats just getting away from photography...it will be nice for some people...But i mean soon cameras will have web access on them...You'll have people posting to the forum from their camera....Someone told me "i can crop a image on my camera...Thats why i have a computer.And you have to consider your PAYING for all these extras that are NOT photography...I'm glad Pentax does not have all the additional things..For myself,i want a camera that i can take a decent image with...Amazing thats all i want...I dont want to make movies,crop images or surf the web...I want to take pictures...<div>00RR1R-86811584.jpg.50481f56ac961b3ddb1a5122cb948ecb.jpg</div>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



×
×
  • Create New...