Nikon and Canon and Pentax

[mountainvisions]

Noise on the K10D?

<P>

Not at ISO100 (or 200 or 400 or 640)!

<P>

Renato is correct, photos don't always show the truth but here's an example of ISO 100, essentially straight from the camera, processed via silky pix with noise reduction set to 0. Imported to CS for sharpening and border. Thats about it. Where is the noise, look at that detail. ISO 100 25 second exposure f/16. Bogen tripod, cable release, mirror lockup. Pentax FA35 2.0

<P>

<a title="The Stars Shine Brighter Over The Empire State" href=" ><img src="http://static.flickr.com/171/478132957_aeccfa3ee9_d.jpg" border="0"/></a>

<P>

The problem is, people are expecting ISO100 results at ISO 1600.

<P>

Having a film background, I never really felt cameras should be silky smooth at ISO1600 or even 800 for that matter.

<P>

Spending years shooting K64, Velvia 50, Kodak Elite Chrome 100, Sensia 100, and my favorite Provia 100F. I have to say getting to ISO 400 and still having clean shots is truly amazing for me.

<P>

Perhaps I'm stuck in the past, and I can understand how people who started on digital don't understand why there is a quality difference in ISO's, but ISO 100 with SR is the equivalent of ISO 400 (or higher) with other systems and ISO 400 is the equiv of ISO 1600 or higher with other systems.

<P>

Now I agree, you can't always compensate with SR. For sports for instance only high ISO is going to get sharp shots, but as Godfrey noted, the exposure latitude is more to blame than the noise itself, nail the exposure and get lower noise, blow it, blame the camera (which unfortunately is partly to blame).

[zane1664879013]

Great images have nothing to do with the brand of camera.

 

http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/notcamera.htm

[DWScott]

To the OP -- I have seen many good and many bad photos from all of the brands.

 

But I too noticed that when I REALLY liked a photo, it was either shot on MF Velvia 50, or a Fuji S2 or S3. I think that the colour rendering and tonality of DSLRs do differ, in the same way that different film and different lenses have an influence.

 

But I also think that I might enjoy the work of photographers who gravitate to these tools. The Fujis earned a reputation as good landscape and portrait cameras, and those are kinds of photography that I enjoy looking at. A highspeed Canon sportshooter probably isn't shooting the kind of images I enjoy.

 

But if you dig enough, there are exemplary photographers working with every brand. Including Pentax.

[dogbert]

True the camera does not matter, but there is a reason why Canon and Nikon have most of the market, and it is not to do with marketing but economies of scale and convenience.

 

Sell enough cameras and lenses and you can offer a complete system. Canon offers over 50 lenses, three flashes, and a host of add ons such as grips, remote controls, etc, etc that are always available. Pro shops will generally stock the majority of this stuff, so its easy to get, anytime.

 

If one of Canon or Nikon make a breakthrough such as image stabilisation, or USM lenses the other will follow within a year, so you will never be behind the competition for long. Its taken Pentax 20 years to come up with USM technology!

 

Basically it is far more convenient to be in either Canon or Nikon's system, if you have a variety of needs, or you are not sure how your needs/wants might develop. They have a complete system, which is always and everywhere available. Try getting a 100 macro, a 200 mm prime or even a stock standard 70-200/2.8 zoom in Pentax at the moment. They make a fisheye zoom, but do not have a decent fast portrait lens at the moment!

[mountainvisions]

But Geoff Canon is 2 years behind Pentax in image stabilized primes and wide angle zooms!!

 

Tick...Tock...Tick...Tock

 

And where is Canikons Fisheye zoom? You could argue both ways, right?

 

Some might find more use in a fisheye zoom than a 200mm 2.8. Personally, having a 80-200 that I rarely use for more than sports I can't say it's a necessary lens. A 70-300 4-5.6 works quite well.

 

My point isn't really to prove brand superiority it's to prove that camera systems are thankfully different from lenses to bodies to features within.

 

Pentax has stayed profitable and alive by not battling with the other brands and doing it's own thing.

[dogbert]

Canon makes 300, 400, 500 and 600 IS primes as well as a 24-105/4 IS, 28-135/3.5-5.6 IS, 18-55/3.5-5.6 IS, 17-55/2.8 IS and 17-85/4-5.6 IS zooms, so I think they have both primes and wideangles covered, though I agree in-body IS is for most people the more useful system (thoguh not necessarily technically superior).

 

"Pentax has stayed profitable and alive by not battling with the other brands and doing it's own thing."

 

Agreed and that is why Pentax suits photographers that want to do their own thing (just so long as it is also happens to be what Pentax is doing at that particular point in time) - if you are into macro at the moment you are out of luck.

 

"Personally, having a 80-200 that I rarely use for more than sports I can't say it's a necessary lens. A 70-300 4-5.6 works quite well."

 

A 70-200/2.8 lens is a stock lens used by sports, photojournalists, papparazzi and wedding pros, which combined make up about 98 per cent of professional photographers.

 

You are not selling your 70-200 so I suspect you do see its uses. As for the 70-300 working quite well, all I can say is being with Canon or Nikon means not having to make such compromises - which is why 98 per cent of pros are with Canon and Nikon.

 

Pros don't want to rely on ebay or third party glass to build a system.

[renatoa]

Geoff, let's see my take about the wondeful Canon system.

 

18-55/3.5-5.6 IS and 17-85/4-5.6 IS are lemons for snapshooters which any serious photographer don't think to put on his camera. The Pentax 18-55 + SR rules them any moment, any situation.

All the others are insane lenses for the 1% of the market I will detail below, no moment I would think to spend money on such things.

None of them can give me what 50/1.4 stabilised offer!

 

"...used by sports, photojournalists, papparazzi and wedding pros, which combined make up about 98 per cent of professional photographers. " - this is a mantra I hear every day and it seems almost nobody is aware those 98% of pro are 1% of the manufacturers revenue, and even less because many of them are PAID TO EXHIBIT gear on stadiums, and not use them efectively !

Sales numbers shows that for every 10 bodies in the xxxD series sold, Canon sell only one body in the xxD series! And similar, for every 10 bodies in the xxD series sold, they sell only one body in the xD series ! So one 1Dxx for 100 * xx0D ! Where do you think money comes? How many xxxD series owners will fit on their bodies 70-200/2.8 lenses? I know more people who sincerely believe such gear will make them better photogs than people who really needs and use

it effectively.

 

"...why 98 per cent of pros are with Canon and Nikon. " They are there because marketing depts negociated with their agencies ! Not because they realy need that gear and believe is useful ! And when these expensive machines begin to have glitches and not deliver, then the troubles begin to appear... see the recent Mk III AF issues propagating up to the big agencies upper management.

 

And... after all... is this a pros forum ? :)

[mountainvisions]

Renato, I agree.

 

Geoff makes some good points but for the most part the system failures really only effect pros, and pros, if they were shooting Pentax already have the glass.

 

It's assumed that NO working pros shoot Pentax 35mm. It's also assumed that no pros shooting Canikon use 3rd party glass. Both assumptions are a complete falicy. My guess is it's only a few percent but still there are some pros who do shoot pentax, and almost all pros have 1 lens from a 3rd party. It's been covered before but most salaried photographers at papers or magazines actually use the magazines/papers gear. Why? well a few reasons 1) it's smart to not destroy your own gear 2) more importantly, there is some belief and legal precedent that if you shoot an image on the equipment provided to you that the paper owns the image rights.

 

I had most of the glass I needed from the late 90's. And back then it was readily avail. Quite frankly I am amazed at how fast it dried up. Really in less than 2 years and before the K10D came out at that.

 

I do find the 80-200 2.8 useful but, I sometimes still get paid to work and if I'm getting paid, I prefer to have that extra stop or two. When traveling I typical am willing to give the stop up for lighter camera bag, and hope I get by. I also will find the 50-135 2.8 useful as well. But I still shoot "consumer" glass quite a bit more than the big light gathering fast zooms.

 

There was a time when I thought breaking my back carrying really big lenses would make me more of a photographer, then one day I realized, these people who believe big glass is required for a good shot are nuts (exceptions being sports/fast action in lower light).

 

If an F/4 or 4.5-5.6 (i much prefer fixed apertures to variable) will work I carry that. Smaller, lighter, more fun and less work to carry. IMO, no reason to make work turn into hard work.

 

BTW, I don't consider the Canon super teles primes. In reality they are but lets face it no one is carrying a 300 or 400mm 2.8 around the streets taking candids. And as long as we are talking "pros" most pros turn the IS off on that 400mm 2.8 anyway because for sports you need at least 1/500 second, and that thing is usually tripod mounted.

 

The general population, if they are being brutally honest and realistic, would/will find a 35mm IS lens far more useful than a 300mm lens. Likewise for me, I find a 20mm IS lens far more useful than a 400mm IS.

 

But I do understand not everyone has the same needs. There are different styles of photography.

[henkc]

This is a very strange debate. In part it is the usual fanboy stuff you see on other forum sites ;-) and in part a bunch of possibly insecure people justifying the choice that they have made to themselves.

 

The basis for my decision to go with Pentax involved checking what I could afford, looking at features (in-body SR is nice) and then picking up a few cameras and feeling how they handled. This way I ended up with a K100D.

 

As for the system, I can get whatever I think I may need for the Pentax system, including some of the fine 3rd party glass out there (Zeiss is also a 3rd party), and can use some of the old MF lenses which I had stuck away from my film days.

 

As for which lenses pros will or won't use, statements like:

"18-55/3.5-5.6 IS and 17-85/4-5.6 IS are lemons for snapshooters which any serious photographer don't think to put on his camera"

are, to my mind total cr@p. Given a choice and an unlimited budget, there are much nicer lenses available, but I'm sure there are some seriously good images being produced with these lenses.

 

What has really come as a pleasant spin-off to my decision is the opportunity to put my SMC-M 28mm f3.5 onto the K100D. The decision to stick with a modernised version of the K-bayonet does open up opportunities for using interesting older Pentax lenses. As a pro, the time spent in tracking these lenses down really doesn't justify the images and fun they produce.

 

For myself, I don't for a moment believe that my choice of camera brand has made much difference to my life one way or the other.

[14mm 2.8l]

I'd say camera brand choices made a difference in my life and my wife's life. 20 years ago when we got together I was clueless about photography and bought my wife a minolta point and shoot autofocus camera. We took nice images but nothing exceptional. Over the years that passed I've bought into and used canon's old FD film system with an array of "pro" lenses. There is an image quality difference between a 300mm 2.8 & 400mm 2.8 to some variable aperture zoom. Until you've used Canon big white paint tele's you'll never see the difference for yourself and thus its likely easy to for some to say theres no improved image quality versus their own zoom based kit. And then one could further rationalize that since pentax offers no fast pro telephoto lenses they are not necessary.

 

I find it odd when you go to pentax usa website they list several lenses as being available. So who's the dealer I can contact to buy a FA 80-200 2.8 AF? Heck you can't even buy one from Pentax website but they still list it as current. Why does pentax list so many lenses on their website that have been discontinued and no longer available? Even the FA 200mm 2.8 and FA 300mm f4 are shown in K10D brochure and these were deleted from the system long before K10D issued last November 2006.

How about the FA 250-600mm, why the heck does Pentax website show this lens as current?

 

Any rumors on 12mp cmos sensor K10D replacement yet? Whats the official status of the 4 year overdue medium format digital system? Anyone heard about the overdue release of roadmapped 200mm 2.8 SDM or 300mm f4 SDM? Where's the 60-250mm SDM thats further overdue? Instead we get a tamron clone for an issue price thats $100 above tamron and a waranty thats 5 years shorter. Silliness or progress, you decide.

 

Pentax is a fine system if you are willing to hunt ebay and your local market for used lenses. Other than cloning a current model tamron superzoom what else has Hoya issued since they bought out Pentax? You could say Grand Prix K10D and K100D Super and neither are more than simple slipstream improvements and one was just cosmetic.

 

I like pentax because I own a nice array of lenses. If I were starting out with nothing pentax, then pentax would not make my top three brand choices for October 2007.

 

Anyone notice the 200mm f4 ED Pentax macro sell on ebay last week for $2100? Is this used 200mm pentax macro manual focus lens really $900 better than a brand new in the box canon eos L-Series version which includes autofocus funtion?

 

2008 will be a great year to observe what pentax can actually do after being completely bought out by Hoya. And thats the same Hoya that said upfront before the buyout they didn't value the pentax dslr imaging division but instead wanted to buy pentax for their medical imaging equiptment division.

 

Lindy

[mountainvisions]

<p> </p><q>This is a very strange debate. In part it is the usual fanboy stuff you

see on other forum sites ;-) and in part a bunch of possibly insecure

people justifying the choice that they have made to themselves.</q><br /><br />Hmm, always an interesting perspective, even if it lacks originality.<br /><br />In a sense everyone has to justify their choices, afterall, you have a choice! Why did you make it? <br /><br />Why did you choose the Defender over the FJ40? Jeep over Early Bronco? Why did you choose the Samsung TV over the Sony Wega? Is there a reason you think Coke is better then Pepsi? What about Feathered Friends sleeping bags, are they really better than Western Mountaineering bags? Only in photography is this so called justification considered insecurity, yet this sort of stuff goes on on every BBoard on the net from 4 wheeling to climbing (which crag is the best, which route, who has better rock climbing the eastern US or the western US?) to paddling to quilting to dog training (which dog is the best?) to fishing to trail running (which shoes, which heart rate monitor, which trail?). How about audiophiles, do you think they don't have boards like this and post where they justify going with Athena over Klipsch or Denon over Yamaha? <br /><br />To me that statement is the biggest copout, again, whats the title of the thread? It's asking essentially why you chose (perhaps not this thread, but 10 others a week), and where the photographers are who are shooting a particular brand.<br /><br />Fan boys? Well you should like the gear you use, and in a sense that makes everyone a fanboy. No gun to anyones head, actually, if anything those that shoot the "other brands" actually made the choice to do so out of their free will. Very few sales people "force" you into Leica, Minolta, Pentax, Sony, Contax, etc. <br /><br />So now the question becomes why did you make that choice? What appealed/appeals to you?<br /><br />Where I disagree though, in more than opinion, is the security issue, if you haven't noticed, perhaps you are new to the boards, typically the insecure people brag how they "tried" brand C or D or E but had to sell it because it wasn't brand A or B and it just couldn't give them the results. <br /><br />The secure people on the other hand, just go out and use whatever they are happy using. <br /><br />Lets face it, 90% of the questions on this board have nothing to do with photography, only which gear is better, and how far behind a roadmap is. After that there are a few "malfunction" issues that are almost always human error and not a failure of equipment.<br /><br />And every now and then, 1 in 10 questions, there is a photography question. <br /><br />So without the insecure justification and the fanboys, there would be no discusion, no photo.net, no DPreview.com forums, no forums at all. <br /><br />Then how would we kill time during the work day? Really that is the pressing question!!!<br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br />

[pgavalis]

I have learned that if I submitted this question, or my original, my answers/replies would be pro-whateverforumIpostedin. My original question in this thread has been answered, I think, since it does make sense and was a factor I never considered. Maybe I should re-ask my original, since now I am leary about a limited supply of lenses Pentax has to offer (and I think Justin is trying to bully me).

 

What I like MOST: people/streets/portraits.

 

What I will do and like: sports/nature/travel/studio (macro,etc)/PS.

 

What I have: cheap tripod/laptop/desktop/epson 1280/scanner/patience/nightmares of Justin's responses.

 

What I want: DSLR and whatever lenses I can get by with to cover my current interests and budget.

 

What I don't have: brand loyalty/lenses/fear of Justin.

 

What I can spend: $1000 or less.

 

What I have held/played with: Oly 510/Pen K10/Nikon D80/Canon 40d.

 

What I narrowed it down to based on all of my above except for the 'held/played' and Justin's scare tactics and unbiased opinion of his last name vs. my career choice: K10 or 510.

 

Time frame until next lens/camera purchase: 2 years, assuming I follow my gradual/realistic curve to 'success'.

 

If any of you decide to even respond to this unoriginal and insecure question that probably NOW belongs in a different forum, PLEASE try to keep it 'real' and don't counter each other's opinions... even though I/we sometimes enjoy it. There are hundreds of debate-able threads out there and like most (or just the Type A) 'enthusiasts' I am REALLY struggling with this decision.

 

Thanks a ton for all your contributions so far. I've read every one of them twice. Pete.

[elnoralouisa]

Ok, if it only between those two cameras, only thing against the 510 is I had a 500, and rumor has it still same problem. It is horrible in low-light like even a lamp in a house. Will search for ever. I have used the K10D in low-light, no light (wedding reception), and it's great.

[pgavalis]

Thanks Debbie! It is not JUST between those two, maybe I should have added I prefer to purchase New and Now. I compared just about everything on just about every website. I know, I know, I should compare with actual use/prints but I don't have that luxury. I narrowed it to those because I think they will suit my needs. If there is another system/line/brand out there that I can get this month, for my $1000, I am all ears. Thanks for your quick and respected opinion.

[14mm 2.8l]

The $1,000 you want to spend is critical to you choosing k10D. Now if you wanted to drop $5,000 over next two years then that would elicit a different response from me. K10D is the best dslr available for $699. With $300 left for glass I'd say the 16-45mm would be your choice when its got a $100 rebate attached to it. rebates just ended and normally another would launch right away, but not this time. I own neither of these items but many have said nice things about both. This would cover your landscape imaging goals.

[zane1664879013]

Again - your camera doesn't matter. Really - IT DOESN'T MATTER.

 

Buy one you're comfortable handling, get a couple of decent lenses that cover the focal range you're interested in, get a decent flash, and learn to use them. Quit obsessing over gear. It will take you YEARS to exhaust the capabilities of a digital SLR. Just get on with it, take some pictures, and start down the learning curve.

 

If you insist on a recommendation: Pentax K10D, 18-55 kit lens, 360FGZ flash, a couple of 1 GB flash cards, and 8 NiMH cells with charger. With a little more cash, buy a 28mm/1.8 or 30mm/1.4 Sigma prime lens, or the Pentax FA 50/1.4. If you don't mind manual focus, you can find some Pentax -A lenses and use those with full functionality on the K10D.

[pgavalis]

Zane, thanks. I anticipated the "get over it already" comments and duly noted. Your recs. (non-brand specific) are what I am looking for. Thanks a mill. Pete.

[dogbert]

Agreed your camera does not matter. Given the number of things you are interested in you should probably think of buying into a system that you can build up over time, though your budget does not really allow for much.

 

I agree with Lindy, if you are spending $1000 and that is all for the next five years then the K10D and 1 lens is probably the way to go. If you are thinking of spending $5000k over the next 3-5 years, then Canon or Nikon will be far more convenient. Again not becuase they take better pictures. Beware photography is addictive and you may find yourself buying more over the next few years, even though you have only set your budget at $1000

 

If I were building a two lens system for travel, my preferred option would be Canon 400D, with EF 10-22, and 24-104/f4L but that's $2K worth. Alternatively a Pentax K10D, with a Sigma 10-20, and either the 16-50/2.8 or 16-45/4 with an optional cheap 50-200 added on could work well - again it is a bit beyond your budget.

 

Sports - you definitely want to be with Canon or Nikon. Canon AF is the fastest and there is a huge choice of USM equipped sports oriented lenses. Canon's AF and USM technology is the reason 80 per cent of sports and pj shooters choose Canon. Don't take my word for it, read Ken Rockwell's site (and he is a Nikon fan). However good sports lenses typically start at around $1000 and the sky is the limit. The exception is the Canon 70-200/4 L - no IS and and only f4, but is is very sharp, quick accurate AF and only around $600.

 

Street shooting - a K10D with some of their limited primes would be a great setup.

 

Macro - I don't think Pentax makes a 100 macro lens at the moment, so it is either Canon or Nikon or Pentax with third party glass. BTW the Canon 100/2.8 macro USM is a great lens, with a superb build allowing FTM focussing and the USM works very fast and the AF is quite accurate even for macro work. Third party macros are normally pretty good to, but typically lack fast accurate AF with FTM focussing.

 

Portraits - you want a fast prime or two. The Canon 85/f1.8, is very sharp, very fast AF and only $330. In Pentax you would be limited to buying either manual focus stuff of ebay (and anything as fast as f1.8 is gonna cost a lot more than the Canon 85/1.8) or one of their limiteds which, while very nice, will be slow and more expensive than the Canon 85/1.8. You wil get SR with Pentax, however and you could get by with a cheap and good Pentax A or M 50/1.4, but you would be limited to manual focussing.

 

If you want to do all of what you suggest, with only 1 lens and stay close to $1000, my suggestion would be Pentax K10D, with Sigma 18-50/f2.8 macro. It is a lens that is kind of fast enough for portraits, can kind of do macro, will be sharp enough and covers the standard zoom range - though it is too short for most sports. Be aware that it is a compromise lens compared with having a macro lens, plus a sports lens, plus a portrait lens, plus a couple of travel zooms.

[charles_dennison]

Here is a shot with a Pentax MV.

[mountainvisions]

Pete you are giving me too much credit!! I only replied to your original post, the other replies were to other replies...

 

But you are right, on any forum the people shooting that forums brand will be pro that brand...goes back to my fanboy comment in the last post.

 

Now give me you're lunch money, or I'm going to give you an atomic wedgy!!! Got it!

[dogbert]

"What has really come as a pleasant spin-off to my decision is the opportunity to put my SMC-M 28mm f3.5 onto the K100D."

 

I use my old Pentax glass on a Canon 350D via a focus confirmation adapter. It works great, except the body does not control the aperture. I thought about getting a K100D, but in the end I have found I have pretty much the same functionality with a Canon body and adapter.

[henkc]

<i>"Lets face it, 90% of the questions on this board have nothing to do with photography, only which gear is better, and how far behind a roadmap is. After that there are a few "malfunction" issues that are almost always human error and not a failure of equipment.</p>

 

And every now and then, 1 in 10 questions, there is a photography question."</i></p>

 

Let's face it. This is a "gear oriented" forum, being the forum for the discussion of Pentax equipment. Since so little of the discussion revolves around photography, it illustrates just how irrelevant the choice of brand is to the finished product.

[mountainvisions]

Henk,

 

I assumed this was a photography forum for Pentax users but now you are telling me that it's a gear forum?

 

It would seem to some degree photography techniques are relative to the brand you are using.

[pgavalis]

I may be a new 'paying' subscriber to this site but it was my understanding that this forum, meaning "Pentax", was for anything pertaining to Pentax, which includes the equipment, techniques, opinions, troubleshooting, critiques, reviews, help, etc.

 

This site IS 'gear oriented', as is just about every thread in every forum on this site. Maybe not the initial thread or question, but somewhere, somehow, the gear ends up as part of the discussion....whether it be the memory card, flash, tripod, camera, lens, settings, editing software, printer, paper, scanner, ink, monitor, cropping, etc., etc. When is the last time you checked the 'details' or 'more properties' tab on any photo or included it in any your own photos? Why? Why read any camera reviews or post any opinions on them? You feel like capturing an image...what do you grab? A: your gear.

 

"Photography" has three main elements and ALL are necessary AND relevant: light, subject matter, and a recording medium (aka, GEAR). Take away any ONE and you essentially have nothing. So to pose a question about "photography", (taking away the gear), would mean to only ask about the lighting and subject matter. And, in most situations, unless you strictly shoot outdoors and without artificial light, your forums would dwindle down to the best time of day to take a photo and/or positioning of your subject matter relevant to your light...because anything other than available natural light, is gear.

 

Anybody who HAS offered an opinion about what gear I should get based on my $$$$, I thank you. I am fairly certain that at one time or another, every single person on this site has pondered his/her gear. The next time one of your buddies or family members asks you what kind of camera you use or what gear to get, just tell them "it's not relevant".