Moving away from Pentax... Canon, Nikon or Sony?

[An Exception]

And yes, th sweet spot agument is not fully correct but it is a fcat that most lenses tend to have softer edges so when you use such lenses on a FF camera and the image is displayed at 100%, as in you printed to the largest size possible at 300DPI you will notice softer edges than if you used the lens on a crop sensor

No this is wrong. Yes we all know and agree lenses have sweet spots. Where I disagree is with the notion that the corner sharpness is better on crop sensors due to falling within the sweet spot.
You are not taking into account the area advantage of FF sensors that allow it to utilise a larger surface area of the lens.

Note: only in exceptional circumstances where the lens has positively crap performance in the corners relative to the center, is this not the case.

There are lot's of sources showing this, but below is a nice visual representation.

http://www.dpreview.com/lensreviews/nikon_50_1p4g_n15/4

As for the other stuff you'v said about new tech being able to close the difference between full frame and crop. Your point is really apples and oranges. Canon's sensor tech has barely improved since the 40D, yet Sony has made big strides. To be an apples to apples comparison you should compare current tech, with current tech of the same manufacturer.

 

[Richdog]

Really loving the D7000 so far!

So much easier to handle and control than my old Pentax K20, not to mention in terms of the control interface and UI... feels like it's always been in my hands!

 

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

Really loving the D7000 so far!



So much easier to handle and control than my old Pentax K20, not to mention in terms of the control interface and UI... feels like it's always been in my hands!

Did you have a look at the Pentax K5 or K5 II and lenses like the 16-50MM/F2.8 WR?? I have been looking at the D7000,K30 and the K5.

I actually know someone who changed over from the K20D to the K5,and it is a far better camera in every way.

The package really stood up well to the fine sand in Africa as the combination is weathersealed. For around £1250(16-50MM F2.8) it does not look too bad at all.

OTH,I might wait and see what the next generation of cameras will bring though.

 

[Logsi]

Sony users always bring up the in body IS feature. My rebuttal is that an IS built into the lens is always better one built in the camera.

Nope. In short.

IS in lens sucks compared to sensor IS. I've owned a A77 and the sensor IS in that camera was superb. The 24-105 IS sucks hard in comparison. I could literally be shaking the camera on the A77 and it will still be a clear shoot, this can't be said for the 24-105. Plus...it's silent. The IS motor noise is annoying.

I've never understood your hate for Sony cameras and Nikon for that matter. They make great innovative cameras unlike Canon who continue to shaft their pros who, stupidly, blindly follow them.

 

[D.P.]

The main advantage of in lens IS/VR is it helps stabilises optical viewfinders, stabilizes the image on the AF sensors and stabalises the image on the metering sensor.

The best senosr based IS is still a little behind the capabilities of in lens IS.

Logsi, the Is in the canon 24-105 is relatively old. Try one of the latest Canon or Nikon lenses, nothing in the sensor based world can compete.


Saying that, there is an obvious advantage of sensor based IS for lenses without stabilisation.

 

[An Exception]

http://photographylife.com/lens-stabilization-vs-in-camera-stabilization

 

[An Exception]

^^^
Op already got his camera.

Really loving the D7000 so far!
So much easier to handle and control than my old Pentax K20, not to mention in terms of the control interface and UI... feels like it's always been in my hands!

 

[King Damager]

Oops

I've drunk a bit, and am not quite with it...

Glad you're enjoying the D7000 though. Certainly a solid choice, and you'll be able to take some nice photos with it

kd

 

[Alpherah]

The main advantage of in lens IS/VR is it helps stabilises optical viewfinders, stabilizes the image on the AF sensors and stabalises the image on the metering sensor.

The best senosr based IS is still a little behind the capabilities of in lens IS.

Logsi, the Is in the canon 24-105 is relatively old. Try one of the latest Canon or Nikon lenses, nothing in the sensor based world can compete.


Saying that, there is an obvious advantage of sensor based IS for lenses without stabilisation.

Indeed, the new Nikon 70-200 F/4 is supposedly viable hand-held with a shutter of 1/5th of a second with VR enabled at 200mm.

 

[Richdog]

Did you have a look at the Pentax K5 or K5 II and lenses like the 16-50MM/F2.8 WR?? I have been looking at the D7000,K30 and the K5.

I actually know someone who changed over from the K20D to the K5,and it is a far better camera in every way.

The package really stood up well to the fine sand in Africa as the combination is weathersealed. For around £1250(16-50MM F2.8) it does not look too bad at all.

OTH,I might wait and see what the next generation of cameras will bring though.

Yup I have all the kit so of course I looked at all Pentax solutions, hence why I wanted to get away for them!

The K5 is nice (certainly better than the K20 but what do you expect, it's miles newer), but not as good AF (it has known issues especially in low light) as the D7000, and certainly not as well featured barring in-camera IS. The K5-II is a cynical excuse for a minor revision and (imo) crazy price tag with an upgraded AF system that is only marginally better than the SAFOX on the K30. The D7000 is the better camera.

I just don't see a future in Pentax, the company is struggling, and judging from the R&D news coming out of it after the merger with RICOH it's not going to produce anything spectacular in the near future, and nothing that I would consider upgrading to had I bought a K5. Nikon however is a different story, with some great FF options and certainly more goodies on the horizon.

Put simply, I feel that the D7000 at the current price blows away anything Pentax and Canon have out at the moment even 2 years after it's introduciton.

^^^
Op already got his camera.

I think that little nugget got lost in all the long-winded debate above.

 

[Logsi]

Saying that, there is an obvious advantage of sensor based IS for lenses without stabilisation.

What about camera roll rotation?

I shall try some newer IS lenses as the 24-105 I have is shocking.

 

[An Exception]

^^^
My biggest issue with lens IS would be the bokeh deterioration.
From a sample another user posted, it also looks like it creates softness and weird ghosting with faster shutter speeds. Remembering to keep turning the IS on/off on varying light conditions would be a pain.

 

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

Yup I have all the kit so of course I looked at all Pentax solutions, hence why I wanted to get away for them!

The K5 is nice (certainly better than the K20 but what do you expect, it's miles newer), but not as good AF (it has known issues especially in low light) as the D7000, and certainly not as well featured barring in-camera IS. The K5-II is a cynical excuse for a minor revision and (imo) crazy price tag with an upgraded AF system that is only marginally better than the SAFOX on the K30. The D7000 is the better camera.

I just don't see a future in Pentax, the company is struggling, and judging from the R&D news coming out of it after the merger with RICOH it's not going to produce anything spectacular in the near future, and nothing that I would consider upgrading to had I bought a K5. Nikon however is a different story, with some great FF options and certainly more goodies on the horizon.

Put simply, I feel that the D7000 at the current price blows away anything Pentax and Canon have out at the moment even 2 years after it's introduciton.

The problem is I know people with both of them,so this is why I am swaying between both ATM. I have seen amazing pictures from both cameras,and that includes work that has won awards.

I might wait another year and see what is out. I expect the companies will all eventually transition to the 24MP APS-C sensor from the current 16MP one. TBH,the A77 might actually do the trick,but I am not entirely sold on the electronic viewfinder it has,and the camera itself.

Moreover,the whole 35MM frame sensor thing does not really bother me that much for the stuff I want to do,where it is not really an actual advantage ATM IMHO. Its the whole medium format against 35MM debate,or even the 6X7 against 6X4.5 debate,etc, again.The thing is though unless you already have invested in decent 35MM frame lenses,you will still probably ditch your APS-C frame lenses anyway.

Pentax and Olympus have been predicted to fail for the last 30 years though,just like so many companies. Looking at how massive companies like Kodak and Nokia have collapsed so quickly after being top of the world,and how some smaller companies actually survived,TBH,I am not going to get over worried about things.

 

[Richdog]

The problem is I know people with both of them,so this is why I am swaying between both ATM. I have seen amazing pictures from both cameras,and that includes work that has won awards.

Well, the Pentax K-5 and the D7000 both have exactly the same sensor, so of course they both take great pictures. My point was that the sensor on the Nikon is wrapped up in a superior package in terms of overall features and usability.

Pentax and Olympus have been predicted to fail for the last 30 years though,just like so many companies. Looking at how massive companies like Kodak and Nokia have collapsed so quickly after being top of the world,and how some smaller companies actually survived,TBH,I am not going to get over worried about things.

Then go with whatever you prefer, but ive been a Pentax owner for years and have done a hell of a lot of research, and as such have no doubt whatsoever in my decision to spend no more money on Pentax. It just doesn't make sense to me.

 

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

Then go with whatever you prefer, but ive been a Pentax owner for years and have done a hell of a lot of research, and as such have no doubt whatsoever in my decision to spend no more money on Pentax. It just doesn't make sense to me.

I expect the D7000 and K5 II will be replaced/supplanted next year with 24MP models,so the K5 II at most is probably going to be short lived anyway. This is why I might probably wait another year. I am not in a massive rush,as hopefully I would have saved up more by then!!

 

[Demon]

Really loving the D7000 so far!



So much easier to handle and control than my old Pentax K20, not to mention in terms of the control interface and UI... feels like it's always been in my hands!

Congrats!

It's an amazing VFM camera at the moment, and I also find something nice about Nikon's ease of handling.. I think it either gels or doesn't with some people..

Enjoy!

 

[Energize]

Sony users always bring up the in body IS feature. My rebuttal is that an IS built into the lens is always better one built in the camera. It is designed purposely for that lens. Given the choice I rather have all these lenses to choose from than IS in my body. If push comes to shove, I will just get the Monopod out.

I wish manufacturers wouldn't put IS in many of their lenses, the difference in cost, size and weight of the lens between the two versions can be considerable and has led to me opting for older non-IS versions of lenses, with me shooting sport it's of no benefit whatsoever anyway. I also disagree that it's always better in the lens because lens based IS can't attenuate all types of camera movement whereas in-body can, so I would like Canon and Nikon to implement in-body IS.

 

[TheAnimus]

First off, discolsure, Cat did ping me this thread.

Well, the Pentax K-5 and the D7000 both have exactly the same sensor, so of course they both take great pictures. My point was that the sensor on the Nikon is wrapped up in a superior package in terms of overall features and usability.

This is actually not true.

Whilst both feature the same sensor, the K-5 is considered to be technically better thanks to the processing. I've spent enough time ranting about the maths of image processing over on another forum cat knows me on, I've learn't people don't care for it but here:
http://snapsort.com/compare/Nikon_D7000-vs-Pentax_K-5
You see the k-5 is better for image quality despite having the same sensor. There is a lot more to what makes a picture good thank a chunk of cmos! (hell they aren't even MOS any more). That result was based on testing by DxO.

It also achives better Dynamic Range, Colour Space Rendtion and ISO speed. Whilst been driven faster.

There is no objective way the package of sensor and control in the D7000 is better. However, the D7000 does use less power apparently, thou that could just be to do other things, I honestly don't know, but it is the only possible pro of their sensor package. In fact the K-30, which is half the price, has better image quality.

There is a lot wrong with being on Pentax, I really know that. The lack of any Pentax made tilt shifts, as mentioned against the sony there is really nothing to compete with the Canon 17mm TS. The closed I've seen in Pentax is 35mm. Also if video is your thing Pentax are apparently stubbern as a mule when it comes to supporting 24fps.

Also some of the talk of body stablisation vs in lens is a bit strange. Its about having the option. Flicking it on and off as required. For instance I use the in lens when at 500mm, yet the body when below 200mm. The talk about metering being effected is really far fetched, how small do you think the window/frame/bucket of a meter is? It really is quite wide. The idea of some photons been sent in a more straight fashion is theoretically possible at best. Then with focusing the same holds true, I mean, its a closed loop remember, Output/Input = Forward/(1-Loop) ergh, bad memories of three years of uni flooding back now for SI. If you think that stabalising will have an effect on that your really mistaking. The USM in the lens has inertia, the tiniest change is going to effectively oscilate where the focus wants to be. It's much better to have more cross detect points. Sadly this is something marketing appears to be ignoring, with more and more cameras having a host of single detect focus points.

 

[TheAnimus]

I wish manufacturers wouldn't put IS in many of their lenses, the difference in cost, size and weight of the lens between the two versions can be considerable and has led to me opting for older non-IS versions of lenses, with me shooting sport it's of no benefit whatsoever anyway.

This is something that I find myself doing. I was having a small discussion with my sisters boyfriend a few months ago, because he thinks I'm mad in buying DA* lenses, these are lenses which are designed for the crop-body of the pentax cameras (same size as nikon iirc, slightly larger than canon).

The reason is simple, travel. I'm 6"4, weighing 94kg at the moment. This means every gram starts to count if I'm flying with a friend in a C152, but also just when lugging everything. I recently realised I've no desire to go FF. I really enjoyed my time with the D800, but my immediate thought was just give it 3 years.

Why? Because compare the D3 to the K20D (they where about the same time) The K20D had awful noise by comparison, sluggish focusing in low light.... etc. The D3 was just much better. Fast forward 3 years and..... Oh. The K5 is very slightly better in low light. Now some of that is due to sensor size, some of it is simply price. Fast forward to today and you can get the K-30 for £300 (after cashback) which is in low light a much better camera than the full frame pro thing from 5 years ago.

However look at glass. A friend of mine collects primes for fun, half of them are broken, some of them russian copies, but he has a few Ziess that are cracking. Indeed his Hassleblad intended 80mm is still punching its weight with the lenses of today in terms of pure image quality and sharpness.

For christmas I'm lucky enough to have been given a FA 77mm f1.8. I'll happily make a prediction that there won't be a lens that is noticably better in 10 years time than that lens. Imagine what the body that you can buy for £300 will be like in 10 years time!

But then comes the rub, when bigger is worse. Depth of Feild. The Pentax-Q I bought it for a mad cycle trip I sadly couldn't get a visa for, I'm too fat to carry any extra weight going up hill, the plastic toy camera weighs pretty much nothing. In some low light environments its much better than my very expensive fast lens and prosumer body, why? DoF. I can shoot that at f1.2 and get far too much DoF, meaning it only has to do ISO 200. Meanwhile I need f7 with my APC-S, and probably f11 with the D800. Which is going to have less noise. The crappy toy camera, with horrible plastic lenses.

 

[An Exception]

That's cool, but your not making decisions based on fact. Niether the K5 or D7000 match or beat a D3 in low light, as in ISO quality is not even close. Also the D7000 does not focus as good in low light compared to a D3, so the K5 sure as hell doesn't either.
Dynamic range is a different story, and is due to Sony's process tech advancement. There is no guarantee Sony will continue at the same rate of progress.
Example, look at Canon's apsc's. They have seen barely any improvement since the 40D, sometimes going backwards compared with previous models such as with the 650D. Their FF's are also lagging but not as much.