Pentax K5 or Nikon D700 ?

[michellemandat]

<p>I own a Pentax K5 to do all sorts of pictures essentially static, landscape, nature, détails with macro lenses...<br>

Do I upgrade my stuff buying a Nikon D700 to do same work ?<br>

Thanks<br>

http://fre.pentaxphotogallery.com/artists/michellemandat</p>

 

[Wouter Willemse]

<p>If you need to ask whether a full frame camera is an "upgrade", usually it is not. The question you seriously need to ask yourself in this case are even more complex:</p>

<ul>

<li>What gain do you think you will see from getting a larger sensor?</li>

<li>What advantage would a Nikon camera and lenses have over a Pentax for you? Are there good quality equivalents for all your lenses available? Does Nikon make a lens that would benefit you a lot, that Pentax does not offer?</li>

<li>Can you sell off the Pentax gear at good enough prices to make the cost of switching systems bearable? Have you considered the cost of good quality full frame lenses for the D700?</li>

</ul>

<p>This is to say: there is nothing wrong with the Nikon D700 (I have one, and I have no desire for another DSLR seriously), even though it is an aging model now and not best-in-class anymore. It's a very solid allround performer, but it isn't cheap (and still isn't). If you do not have a sizeable collection of Nikon full-frame lenses of decent quality, there is very little benefit in a D700 over any high-end APS-C camera with good lenses, and that certainly includes the K5.</p>

[cyanatic]

<p>Michel -- From the Pentax side of things (I too use a K5), I agree with everything Wouter has said. If I were to switch brands, Nikon would be my choice, but I don't see where the D700 offers enough (or any) advantages over the K5. I've never used one, but I wonder if the D700 has an AF advantage over the K5 (I suspect it does, but I don't know firsthand). Native top end ISO for the D700 is 6400, K5 is 12800. Each can boost a notch higher. I can't speak to metering and color accuracy for the D700. Likewise for going up to 35mm format. If I were going to make a switch (and it's a costly one when you factor in lens investment and in-lens, rather than in-camera, shake reduction) it would be for a more major upgrade where I could see a distinct improvement in AF and ISO. That would mean a more current, and costly, offering from Nikon. (I liked the work in your gallery, btw.) Good luck with your decision.</p>

[dave_redmann]

<p><em>I ... do all sorts of pictures essentially static .... Do I upgrade my stuff buying a Nikon D700 to do same work ?</em></p>

<p>No, you'd downgrade. The K5 appears to have somewhat higher resolution and much higher dynamic range compared to the D700's. The D700's main advantages appear to be low-light performance and possibly an auto-focus system better able to keep moving subjects in focus (plus a bigger viewfinder). So unless there is some specific, important capability the D700 would give you over the K5, like the ability to use some particular lens that would really improve things for you, the change appears to be a mistake.</p>

 

[michellemandat]

<p>Thanks Wouter, Steve and Dave for your opinions. I keep my K5.<br>

Happy Christmas</p>

[laur1]

<blockquote>

<p>The K5 appears to have somewhat higher resolution and much higher dynamic range compared to the D700's. </p>

</blockquote>

<p>Note that K-5 offers a dynamic range advantage only at low ISO. Its main advantage is that it offers ISO 80, which few cameras have available. If you usually stop down, there is no advantage - from ISO 400 on, the D700 and K-5 practically have the same dynamic range.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Are there good quality equivalents for all your lenses available?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>That is the main aspect to consider for switching a system.<br>

<br>

Also, given all the changes happening in the industry, it is better to stick with what you have until you see more clearly where everyone is headed. Nikon might get into trouble given that their business is based on cameras and the market is shrinking.</p>

[dave_redmann]

<p><em>K-5 offers a dynamic range advantage only at low ISO.</em></p>

<p>Yes, but for pictures of essentially static subjects (which the OP specified), using the lowest setting makes the most sense. And there at their respective bases, if you believe DxO, the K5 has almost a 2 Ev advantage over the D700.</p>

 

[john_neller]

<p>The general rule is DX if you favor higher focal lengths, and FX for wide angle lenses. But of course, the quality of the cameras is paramount. I have no experience with the K-5, but I consider the D700 to be the best Nikon DSLR to date (for an amateur like me). It has a 12 megapixel sensor, and that is plenty. Another factor is that I have a lot of Nikkor lenses frpm the film era. A moderate number of megapixels means higher signal to noise ratio. I think 36 megs is silly. Another factor is that I am over 70, and don't foresee another DSLR in my truncated future.</p>

[Wouter Willemse]

<blockquote>

<p>Nikon might get into trouble given that their business is based on cameras and the market is shrinking.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Sorry, but this crystal ball "Nikon is in trouble" stuff that keeps coming around is kind of silly. This problem of a shrinking and shifting market is there for all manufacterers, and the fact that Canon and Sony have other divisions that can compensate losses of a camera division, does not mean they will be willing to do so. If anything, Nikon must carry on making cameras, some of the other might feel less obliged to do so. So basing any decision on this kind of fuzzy future predictions is really not very useful.</p>

[dave_redmann]

<p><em>A moderate number of megapixels means higher signal to noise ratio.</em></p>

<p>No, this is not correct. A moderate number of megapixels means a higher <strong><em>per-pixel</em></strong> signal-to-noise ratio. All else being equal--especially, for a given sensor size--by the time you scale a higher-resolution image down to the same resolution as a lower-resolution one, the two will have essentially the same signal-to-noise ratio. This is because as you downscale and thereby average/combine pixels, the strength of the signal increases faster than the strength of the noise. The noise is, for most practical purposes, random, and tends to get averaged out. So if you have three full-frame cameras with the same level of sensor technology, one 12 MP, one 24 MP, and one 36 MP, and you get an 11x14 or A3 print from each, the noise levels will be the same (or extremely close to the same).</p>

<p>On the full-frame Nikons specifically, DxO reports (http://www.dxomark.com/Cameras/Compare/Side-by-side/Nikon-D610-versus-Nikon-D800-versus-Nikon-D700___915_792_441) that the D610 (24 MP) and D800 (36 MP) are almost identical, and both <em>slightly</em> better than the D700 (12 MP, but significantly older) at any given sensitivity. And if you can use base--nominally ISO 100 in the D610 and D800 but ISO 200 in the D700--then the newer FF Nikons beat the D700 by 3.8 and 4.3 dB, which can be significant.</p>

<p>Going back to the Pentax K5, it is true that at, say, ISO 800, the Nikon D700, with its much larger sensor, will provide a better signal-to-noise ratio. But again, for the OP's static subjects, you can use the base--nominally ISO 80 in the Pentax and ISO 200 in the Nikon D700--at which point the Pentax actually ekes out a slight (0.6 dB) advantage in signal-to-noise ratio.</p>

<p>None of this is to disparage the D700, which was a superb camera for its day, and is still very capable. But given the OP's situation and requirements, it appears to have no major advantages, and some significant disadvantages, compared to the K5 the OP already has.</p>