Nikon and Canon and Pentax

[pgavalis]

This post may upset a few people, Justin, no offense...but bear with me. I have

viewed hundreds of galleries/photographers on this site. I recently posed the

question about whether I should buy a K10d or E-510. I have tried both (in

store) and they both are great for the $$$ and I am still leaning towards the

Pentax.

 

I still have not made a purchase, yeah I know...but that is me, it's "how I

roll" so to speak. My hesitation is not necessarily an assurance of having the

best equipment for the money, resale value, and capabilities but after viewing

so many photograhers and checking the 'details' of the photo, I have found the

vast majority of the photo's I like, or the kind I would like to capture, tend

to be taken with a Canon or Nikon. I think my attraction to these photo

(grapher's) is not only the composition, but the detail and exposure/metering

(?) of them. Has anyone found this in their own experience? ie., favorite

photos taken with what seems to be the same equipment?

 

Now don't get all grumpy and start firing back about my "type A" traits, I am

not saying anyone with a Pentax system can't match the Nikon or Canon but I

have come across VERY few photos that grab me that are taken with a Pentax

DSLR. If anyone can point me to some photographers that you think do

outstanding portraits/people, streets, b/w...it would be highly appreciated.

 

Again, please don't take this as an attack against the skill level of you (and

me soon to be) Pentax owners. I know there is a learning curve to getting the

best results from any camera (and I am still on the flat end of the curve) but

this "coincidence?" is really bugging me. It's an honest question/opinion that

I have not been able to answer for myself so your input is requested. Thanks to

all, Pete.

[william-porter]

The majority of photos I like were taken by Nikon or Canon cameras, too. Considering that between them, Nikon and Canon account for something like 80% of all the photos being taken in the world today, that is hardly surprising. The majority of smart people I know are using Windows computers, rather than Macs. Does this mean the Mac is a bad computer? Not at all. It just means that Windows PCs are good enough computers for many smart people to use, and it reflects the fact that 90% of all the computers in the world are PCs rather than Macs. [Pulling the stats out of my head but I think I'm close enough for the purposes of this thread.]

 

There are, as far as I can tell, no truly BAD dslrs on the market now. Nikon and Canon sell some great equipment -- especially if you're willing to pay a lot of money. But there are lots of other good cameras on the market, made by Olympus, Pentax, Kodak, and others. So when you buy, you're not worrying too much about getting a bad camera. You're worrying about buying a system that you'll be happy with, for a price that you can afford.

 

If you want to make the safe choice, buy Nikon or Canon. If you want a Nikon or Canon that is truly as good as the Pentax K10D, you'll have to pay a lot more than you'll pay for a K10D now. But there's a serious advantage to having what the majority of other serious photographers have, and it may be worth paying for that advantage. In short, it's hard to make a bad decision here.

 

If you want to see some really good photos taken with Pentax equipment go here:

 

http://www.pentaxphotogallery.com/home

 

But don't make more of that site than is fair. The site proves that great photos can be taken with Pentax equipment. It doesn't prove that Pentax is photographically superior to top-of-the-line equipment from Nikon or Canon.

[Matt Laur]

Pete: As they say in the statistics and sciences worlds, correlation does not mean causation.

<Br><br>

If I can <i>also</i> paint with a broad, provocative brush (may I, without getting in TOO much trouble?), here's another perspective that might contribute to what you're seeing, in terms of tending to like the images that happen to have been captured on N/C cameras. The people who produce really quality work tend to have more of themselves invested in the process. Not just the capture of the image on the sensor, but the planning that goes into getting the shot, the choice and acquisition of tools that go into post-production of the image, and so on. That comes with lots of time and other ancillary costs. Seen in that context, the difference between a Pentax body and a Nikon or Canon body is pretty minimal.

<br><br>

To the extent that being THAT committed to producing really excellent finished work involves WAY more than simply the difference of an extra thousand dollars or so per camera and lens purchase, of course many or most such folks are going to err on the side of using the better, more flexible gear. Which isn't to say that Pentax doesn't make good, flexible gear. It's objectively not up to par with Canon or, now (mmmm, D3!) Nikon. And seen against the backdrop of the entire <i>way of life</i> and other sacrifices that often accompany what it takes to make those stellar images, the extra bump in the equipment cost is pretty inconsequential.

<br><br>

In other words: the better cameras aren't what make the better photographs (sure, it helps in some respects), but the better <i>photographers</i> frequently see no reason not to go ahead and have the better tools. These are not the same things.

[michael s.]

Hey Pete --<p>

 

I'm one of the guys who responded on <a href=http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00Mcyw>your earlier thread</a>, and I thought you'd be out snappin' with your new camera by now. :)<p>

 

While I have no strong opinion about which camera you should get, I do have a strong opinion that the quality of and improvement in your photography will have <i>much less</i> to do with the brand of gear you select than with your becoming familiar with whatever you do select.<p>

 

Over time, you'll get the sense of what <i>your camera does</i> under particular circumstances. That's important. <p>

 

Keep in mind also that Pentax and Olympus currently have a small collective share of the dslr market. This means you'll see far more photos taken with Canons and Nikons. Among pros the Pentax/Olympus combined share is even smaller, as neither currently offers a broad-based pro support network, and some would note that neither offers a up-to-date, pro-level dslr right at the moment. So if you're looking at photos taken by pros, odds are you're looking at photos taken with other brands of cameras.

[michael s.]

Should be: "... as neither offers <u>an</u> up-to-date pro-level dslr ... " <p>

 

I got interrupted a couple times as I was typing. I see we are saying some of the same things.

[pgavalis]

Wow. Lightning fast and incredibly helpful responses! The market share and shear volume of the Canon/Nikons in the world never occurred to me (brain freeze). Michael, I hear ya'. I wish I was to that point already myself. The goal was to sell my R1 which would cover the balance of my budget, and two failed sales later, I am still here (the downside to ebay).

 

Part of my struggle is the decision between holding off until I can afford to build on a system, as William pointed out, and just 'upgrading' from my R1. I also realized part of what William referred to after my post...the thought and process of setting up and taking a photograph and the elementary realization that most of what I have been doing is handheld 'snapshots', even if I put some thought into the composition, etc....it won't be on par with the photos I favor, unless I use the right tools and take the time necessary to produce the results I want.

 

A lot of this is just me talking out loud but I am very glad I asked and your input so far has been very helpful.

[jgredline]

I can only offer my own opinion based on my own amateur experience..

First I own a Nikon D40 and a D200...i Also own a Pentax k110d, and the K10D...The K10D is my favorite camera and it takes the best pictures..

I will tell you right now that there is a difference between good lenses and cheap lenses...With the Money you save buying a K10D you can by a real good prime lens that will walk circles around the Nikon stuff..I do not own anything canon, so I have no opinion on that...What most people don't realize is that the K10D is not a point and shoot SLR..You really need to go into the menu to fine tune and tweak it to ''your'' liking...One of the best upgrades one can do to the K10D is the additional battery grip with the battery...It balances the camera very well so when I use my 135-400 or my 50-500 I don't need a tripod to get perfect shots...The shake reduction works ''very'' well....To be honest my K110D is an equal to my D40...nO difference what so ever...

 

In addition, Pentax is coming out with a 12.2 MP early next year, and it will go head to head with the D300 and I can't wait....

[elnoralouisa]

A camera in the hands of a good professional will make a good picture. So, I guess you should go out and buy a Canon or Nikon. You have to go buy what camera is RIGHT for you. I have recently tried a Canon, and a Nikon, and came back to my Pentax. It's just the right one for me. My only concern with Pentax is having a K10D, I am at the end of the line, and possibly no future, so I am still out looking for a camera that is right for me, and has an upgrade. But I would not hestitate to get a K10D if your budget is low, and use it to its fullest.

[pgavalis]

Thanks Javier and Debbie. Debbie, I sensed a tad bit of sarcasm in there, good stuff. You hit on part of my decision making process, what camera is right for me? I think it will have to be the Pentax (but not in the 'awe shucks, I have to get a Pentax' sense) but because of the image stab. and I love to walk, stop, shoot, look, walk, etc. When I finally make the leap to do this for money, I will undoubtedly turn to one of the Big Two (or Three if Sony keeps it up).

[stemked]

After teaching MANY photography students my recommendation is get a solid tripod (and use it!), learn the rules of composition, be able to recognize what light makes a great image, and get good feedback on your work. My students brought a little of every kind of SLR and optics to class; I was always amazed at the quality of work they could deliver after being a bit mindful of the images they were taking.

 

Personally I'm happy with what I have gotten out of my Pentax system. If I had started with Nikon (which I have used at work) or Canon I'm sure I would have been happy with those systems. I would find a system I like and not fret about what brand.

[elnoralouisa]

Ok, saw your comment. Another thing to consider. The K10D is a heavy camera BUT the lenses are light! The Nikon and Canon lenses if you get into the IS lenses are very heavy. If you are doing alot of walking, and not just tripod stuff, you might want to consider that in your formula for the right camera. Ok, I HAVE to ask. You made a comment about Sony, but I see that is not on your list right now. Just wondering why?

[mountainvisions]

Hmm...Your asking why there are no good Pentax photographs. Hmm??

 

I suppose you've never picked up a National Geographic? Did you ever note that Pentax cameras took 1/4 the shots in most issues?

 

How about Outdoor Photographer? 1/4 of all pictures are Pentax!! Here is one you can look at pg. 72 August issue sandwiched right between 2 Canon EOS 1Ds Mark II photos. Pg 71, right behind 2 canon 1Ds photos. pg 70...How about pg 12 same issue, in the full page "Show case photos". So 7 photos that I was easily able to count in just 1 issue.

 

There was an article in Pop Photo last year that featured a climbing photographer who also used Pentax.

 

Equipment in all but the most extreme sense has no bearing on the output.

 

For instance, you note portraits, you can take the most amazing portraits with a film MF camera that has to be hand wound and has no automation. Have you ever seen Henry Bressons photographs, taken with a ancient Leica (of course Leicas are all ancient, isn't that the appeal)!! Seemed to capture the decisive moment quite a bit. Oh, he was using Leica and I never see leica in the photo credits (never meaning rarely). Who the hell shoots Leica anyway, their equipment must be crap compared to Canon and Nikon.

 

I don't take offense, I'm quite proud of my work with a 2003 Canon G3. Or a Kodak 7440. or HP850, or Olympus Stylus Epic with a roll of Provia 100F, so brand is meaningless to me. If someone paid for a Leica M7 right now for me, I'd go out and make great images using it and quite proudly. My loyalties aren't to a brand, only to quality equipment that allows me to create an image.

 

The bottom line is I could hand you a Canon 1Ds Mark III or a Nikon D3, or a 39MP Hasselba, and hand (one my idols) the late Galen Rowell a Pentax spotmatic, and he'd come back with better photos than you every time. Oddly, using Galen isn't the best example, he was possibly one of the biggest gear snobs on the planet. A Nikon fan boy till the end!!!! But to be fair, he took images far better than anything I've ever seen using cheap Nikon FM10s and other cameras that you or I might blame for not having all the bells and whistles. Rowell also said that he could do 90% of his photography with a 24mm lens and a telephoto. Again this goes against the common thought that you need lenses to fill every millimeter from fisheye to 1000mm or more. He practiced what he preached too.

 

Being fixated on the camera you use will not make you a better photographer, the only thing that will is practice and vision.

 

Why are there fewer Pentax images floating around? Market share, and the fact that Pentax believed that professional was medium format in the film age. Pentax decided (and wisely) to not battle Nikon and Canon and Minolta for the pro market in 35mm. Some might say it was stupid, but Pentax is still standing, and all through the pro battle produced cameras that had value for the money and simply worked well.

 

What I've preached on this site isn't brand loyalty but that too much is made of names, #'s and marketing. Pick up a camera take a little time to hone your craft, and make great images. If your stuff isn't as good as the guy next to you, take a look in the mirror and ask, am I doing the best I can? Did I work as hard as I could on this aspect of photography? Is it really the camera holding me back?

 

You should also be able to look at your photos and ask yourself what is lacking? Is the composition good? Would another brand enable me to compose better? Is the lighting good? Would another brand enable the suns golden rays to hit at a better angle for mid day shots?

 

You do realize that a 6MP camera can fill a full page in a magazine? That a 10MP camera can fill 2 pages? You also realize that below ISO800 all cameras are roughly equal when shooting RAW? So if you can print the photo large enough, and the images are roughly equal at a given size where is the difference?

 

Because if everyone is real honest, only a very small percent of the time did the equipment fail any of us, 99% of the time it was lack of skill, lack of preparation, and lack of vision that cost us a great shot.

 

My stance isn't that Pentax is better, or people that shoot Pentax are cooler, it's that brand superiority is about selling cameras, about pixel peepers, it's not about creating images. If you want to go from a button pushing monkey with the coolest gear, to a photographer who creates images then getting past marketing propaganda, #s on a spec sheet, and who has the most lenses at the Olympics, is going to be part of becoming better.

 

Justin

 

-------

 

http://blogspot.mountainvisions.com

[mountainvisions]

BTW, a few images I am quite happy with taken with 2003 era Canon G3.

<P>

<a title="Storm Clearing Over South Pond and Blue Mtn." href=" src="http://static.flickr.com/1186/766882947_4fca605717_d.jpg" border="0" /></a>

<P>

<a title="Mid Hudson Bridge At Sunset" href=" src="http://static.flickr.com/175/482283601_9be765de5b_d.jpg" border="0" /></a>

<P>

Don't want to leave out the fine people at HP, I'm happy with this one too taken on a ancient HP850 (4MP)...I gave it to my friend and climbing partner as an 8x10, looked pretty good.

<P>

<a title="Katahdin...Shall Remain the Mountain of the People of Maine!" href=" src="http://static.flickr.com/151/380121073_231e41e835_d.jpg" border="0" /></a>

[14mm 2.8l]

You shouldn't exclude any brand or current model from your hands on tests. Everyone has their pluses anbd minuses and if you wait the choices increase.

 

I handled a 40D Eos dslr yesterday and found I don't like the grip without its additional drive attached. This observation surprised me but thats what testdrives are all about. K10D body has a unique left side finger grip that no one else offers including K10D's cloned cousin Samsung GX-10. I may buy a K10D before they drop off the system due to the unique ergonomics and to see what all the hoop-la is about concerning the magical anti shake 10mp body.

 

Don't forget to price the available glass that fits your needs.

[pgavalis]

Justin, I surely hope you didn't take that to be a critique about your opinions or your work...afer reading some of your other responses it was moreso directed at you because I thought you were pro-Pentax...just fyi, and your reply was well done and appreciated.

 

Debbie, I put Sony on there because I really like the setup of the R1. The buttons and functions are right there where you (I need/want) them. It was easier to figure out than my old Rebel SLR. And when I saw the release of Sony's 700, I popped a couple more Tylenol.

 

Doug, you're right on it about the tripod and thought process. I know that is where (tripod use) I need to improve. I think my thought process is there, it's the 'bringing it to life' end of it that I want to conquer.

 

You are all great and I TRULY appreciate everyone's time and opinion. I am not a follower by nature, so I think I am going to stick with my original choice and be the best I can be with what I use. The market-share aspect never struck me...after 5 years of college, 45k, and a Marketing Major....pffft...what a maroon. But then again, I have probably forgotten more than a lot of people know.

[xpiotiavos]

Michael hinted at this, but but I think the reason you see more great photos from canikon rather than pentax goes beyond overall market-share stats.

 

The marketing boys at Pentax focus a whole lot more on the consumer and "pro-sumer" level, rather than the pro market. And as Matt explained (quite well), the best photographs are made by people who put the most of themselves into their work. It's no surprise that most of the worlds best photos come from pros, and considering that there are <i>very</i> few Pentax pros out there, it should be no surprise either that most of the worlds best photos are from canikon land.

 

 

On the other hand, with the pro market share stats in mind, it really does surprise me how many fantastic Pentax photos are floating around out there. To me, that's what gives the argument for pentax the most weight.

[mountainvisions]

I never took offense...i love a good debate!!!

 

I am pro Pentax because it works, but I'm pro any camera that works. I probably chirp more about the quality of Pentax because it would be a shame if it wasn't around. Sad to see any good imaging company go, but worse if it went for reasons that just weren't true. Minolta being gone hasn't benefited me a bit,they made great scanners!!

 

Be a real shame to see one go just because it didn't have the marketing ability of the bigger brands (i know, i know...hoya is huge and Pentax now has deep pockets, ok...but it takes a while to get marketing going).

[garydem]

i am going to echo some other repls. there are very few pentax pros out there, therefore there are a very small amout of pics available for commercial purposes.

on the subject of glass, pentax takes a back seat to noone. the better pentax glass, including the limiteds, are just about the best you can get. and would be a match for any nikon or canon. if you intend to travel with your photo kit then pentax can offer a physiclly smaller package. compare the siz of the pentax 50mmf1.4 or 35mmf2.0 or the 20mm f2.8 to the nikon and canon equiv. the pentax is simply smaller but gives nothing away in quality.in terms of shake reduction the pentax is in the body, you but sr once, with c&n you but it with every lens and pay again and again for the sr.

 

there are several reviewers who have already reviewed the k10d and said that you cannot get the same from n&c for the same money the n&c are more.

 

i have been shooting pentax since 1970, and am a amatuer, i can say that i would very probably buy the pentax again if i starting out from scratch. you simply cannot beat it for the money.

[JDMvW]

I started with Pentax, then went to Nikon, and finally to Canon in digital. In each case, the choice of camera was purely because of some technical tool or capability that I needed. Otherwise, I'd still be shooting Pentax. In taking pictures, I would guess that Ansel Adams would have turned out some terrific pictures with a Lomo--as he actually did do with Contax rangefinders (No, I am comparing a Contax to a Lomo). He's famous for his high definition large camera work, but he made that Contax sing. It's definitely the eye, not the camera that counts. Just the other day I saw some terrific pictures in a special on Cuban photographers (in and out of Cuba). They were taken with a 15-year-old Praktica, but they were fantastic. I'll bet you won't find many great shots taken with such a camera, just for the reasons pointed out above. The more cameras there are of a type, the more great (and awful) pictures that will be taken with them. Get the Pentax and don't worry about it, unless you have some special needs for a Tilt/Shift lens or some such device that is easier to find on some other platform.

[godfrey]

Pete,

 

If you like the look of a photograph made with a Nikon or a Canon lens and body, why not

just go buy one of those and and enjoy making photos with it?

 

I work with various different cameras and lenses. I can see differences between them.

Which is better than the other is unanswerable once you're at a certain level of

competence. Which you *like* more than other only you can answer.

 

The photographer is the greatest influence on the photograph.

 

Godfrey

[robert_nancarrow]

Pete, I've had digital cameras and lenses from most all the big names over the years, including the Sony R1 (nice camera) and the reason I now have the Pentax is the quality you get for the price. The cameras are well built and at a good price point and the lenses are just great and also quite reasonable compared to most other manufacturers. I think you may have considered going with the Sony A100 or A700 but when you look at the prices of their better lenses you realize that it would cost thousands just for a couple. Their 70-200 zoom is over 2000.00 and can't be better than the 1200.00 Canon 70-200 (non-IS). So I really feel you get the most bang for the buck with pentax, if only we could be sure of their future. Bob.

[renatoa]

Pete, my rendezvous with Pentax was when I need for a specific project to find the best ultra low light solution on the market available in a decent budget and without tripod.

My findings led me to the Pentax K100D + SR + 50/1.4.

Nikanon were excluded because they have no stabilisation in any fixed lens or zoom at this aperture, Sony/Minolta was excluded for the bigger price of the Zeiss 50/1.4 and the worse ISO 1600 performance of A100 at that times compared with the ISO 3200 of K100D.

Working with this system, after coming from Nikon and Sigma (Foveon) was a revelation for me, and finaly, after project finishes I kept it as my main system for all travel and non-daylight situations, where Foveon sucks.

What is more interesting is sharing a part of my lenses (with aperture ring) between the two systems, Sigma having a mount flange derived from Pentax.

[elnoralouisa]

I agree totally with the cheap 50 1.4 + SR, if only the noise factor wasn't there on my K10D. Is there any proof that the noise is less on the K100D? I have only been able to find less noise on a more expensive DSLR.

[renatoa]

Debbie, if you mean by proof pictures done in various ways and posted on Internet, this can be cheaty, if you don't know exactly how pictures are processed and you don't have 100% at least crops. Or better do yourself the tests.

I think a better proof is in physics. At sensor level the noise is a mater of pixel size and nothing else. All that follows, ending with the image that could please one and don't others, is a matter of processing, done either at sensor level, as for the CMOSes, or in the camera processor for CCDs or PC for both.

Or, the noise of the K100D pixel, and all the bodies using ye old venerable 6M CCD of Nikon D70 is the second after the Canon full frame sensors ranked by "Sensor Unity Gain", i.e. number of photons/electrons collected for a unit of a 12 bit data number.

 

http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedetail/does.pixel.size.matter/

 

I recommend you to read this reference article, and look where is located Nikon D200 on the "Sensor Unity Gain" graph (in the middle of article) D200 is the closest camera to K10D sensor behavior from those analysed in the article.

Then you can ask on a Nikon forum and get confirmaion that D40 (not D40x) the latest Nikon camera in current production still using the discussed 6M sensor has the lowest noise in all Nikon camera lineup, except the not yet released FF D3.

For me, having an exact science formation as basis, this proof that I can understand and evaluate is enough. All the rest of the processing claiming to output a cleaner image for a camera or other, for me is a form or image alteration... no, thanks, I prefer to make it myself if I want.

[godfrey]

Debbie,

 

The K10D and K100D produce very similar noise at ISO 1600 setting. What is different is that

the K10D's smaller photosite size means less exposure latitude, more accurate exposure is

required to obtain the same quality results.

 

Underexposure exaggerates noise.

 

Godfrey