Moving away from Pentax... Canon, Nikon or Sony?
- Thread starter Richdog
- Start date
Associate
- Joined
- 20 Sep 2012
- Posts
- 1,140
- Location
- Romsey, Hampshire
Have you got any Pentax kit you want to give a new home?
I can't figure out how to multi quote over pages.
So its sensativity/noise. Because as the other page said, dynamic range has improved. My point is:
DoF.
As I said, its about equivilent DoF.
The D3 has only a 1 fstop advantage. When you consider the crop factor this is negated heavily.
HOWEVER, when your in fact wanting the effect from a lower DoF, for those instances when 1.4 isn't small enough, and you can't simply use distance to get the desired effect, there is nothing that a crop body can do to beat the full frame.
However in those cirumstances surely a medium format is better.
Also, the point holds true don't we all agree, lets say instead of the D3 the 5D. Thats a 5 year difference. What have we seen in 5 years in lens technology? I'd argue the only advances have been in stablisation, most of the coating advantages are minimal and short lived.
Last edited:
The difference in IQ will be negligible or not be noticeable in the real world after you have processed the photos. the D7000 takes amazing photos, and I think you owuld be hard ushed to tell the difference if two post-processed photos were side by side.
When I say a better "package" I meant the D7000 is better to me in terms of body, handling and UI... I prefer it to the K-5 by a long shot. It just feels more intuitive already.
Last edited:
Ah with you, I thought you ment the sensor package!
When it comes to the IQ, yes and no, as always it is the weakest link that fails. If you've got some crap plastic on the front then yes you'll never see the difference! However my point is it is better. It also costs less. Has better weather sealing / build quality. Unless you want video stuff its just all round better... whilst costing a lot less.
However, the K-5 is irratatingly small I find.
But my point is that investing in glass is always a better return than investing in bodies. There is no way I'd recommend a K-5 to someone right now. The K-30 is £200 cheaper and quite frankly anyone buying a £500 budget DSLR who doesn't strongly consider one (ie good reason to not buy; because of dislike of holding it!) is really silly.
It's just the sensor package is not the same, it might start out life, but the cheaper pentax is better.
Not quite sure what you mean by that mate? Are you talking about the equivalent 135 format focal length in relation to FF, MF and crop? I don't get what you are saying about the ISO "only" being 1 stop better (which is massive btw). Theres a lot more to a camera than just ISO and image quality anyway, as the D3 has professional weather sealing, a kevlar shutter rated to 300k actuations and nearly 10x the battery life of that K-30 model. Also, 9 FPS 14bit RAW files and 11 FPS DX format 14 bit RAW files is another rather nice bonus.
Problem is, you are trying to compare apples to oranges when it comes to this as camera bodies serve specific purposes at varying price points. Look at the D3 vs a D800E for example; Would I use a D3 for landscape shots and get anywhere near the same result? Nope. However, would I use the D800E for sport and get anywhere near the same result? Nope...
Doesn't matter how old a camera is, it depends on what the features of performance of that camera offers for specific types of photography. No point trying to take a nice vibrant colour photo of fruit when you only own a leica M9 black and white model lol.
I disagree... if it's not noticeably different in IQ (it isn't imo, i've checked hundreds of comparisons) then what counts is the way the camera feels in your hands, the lens range, the future upgrade path, as well as the second hand availability etc.
Pentax just can't compete in that respect.
Soldato
- Joined
- 8 Aug 2010
- Posts
- 6,453
- Location
- Oxfordshire
If the lenses had smaller apertures. Interestingly allot of 35mm lenses actually have a large enough image circle to accept a DX medium format sensor similar to the Pentax 645D.
The Pentax isn't suitable as a general purpose camera though, and in terms of detail is out performed by a D800E, so it's a hard sell at best.
Digital sensors are a relatively new technology compared to lenses, so that is to be expected somewhat. However I expect most of the inovation to come from the glass itself, rather than coatings etc.
I'm can't remember I think Canon first introduced ED glass, but such technologies have the potential to dramatically reduce the size of lenses.
http://www.nikon.com/products/sportoptics/how_to/guide/fieldscopes/choosing/choosing_03.htm
I'v been saying this for a while. I think once 35mm becomes upper mainstream, I expect medium format to replace 35mm for most pro's. If this happens, I'll be keeping a close eye on Sony.
Then surely you'd be looking at a K-30, as impircally the difference between the K5>D7000>K30 is pretty muc the same. So a £300 device vs the £550 device. (I wouldn't recomend anyone buy a K-5 today unless they really needed some of the fringe functionality).
Feels in your hand is entirely subjective, and manafacturers change this over time, the same is true for lenses, myself I just don't like Canon's L stuff. It is also a valid reason for buying one system over another espesually at the lower end.
However second hand availability isn't a problem I've found in Pentax, I actually just bought as a Tet gift an old K-x so I'm fairly watchful of it.
But I would disagree with the upgrade path, because ultimately what is missing? What lens is there that you just can't find in Pentax? Sure the K-5ii is a damp squib, but so is the 7D/70D. Does that mean anyone should sell their canon kit?
I'm not saying to buy a 645D thou am I? I'm mearly saying if bigger = better, then why decide on 35mm? It requires to me an almost creationist level leap of faith to assume that something that was convient for film, just so happens, just by dumb luck, to be the perfect sweet size for digital. ********. Utter tosh. The point is there will be a sweet size for digital sensors, and I kinda think it might be smaller than APC-S! I know, burn me for saying this. But its due to how much DoF people actually want, certain manfacturing advances that make smaller censors more sensative and the fact we might actually, finally move away from Bayer patterning in a cost effective way (this will mean no longer favouring green so much, and vastly sharper grayscale).
No its mostly the coatings at the moment, the ED technology (or just DOE to use the generic term) of which you speak has been around since the days of telescope manafacturer when they used cast iron canon shots (really good mueseum for this in Venance if your gf is geeky that is) ground against the class, they could create the fisures with grit, but also a quick google (pdf: ) says that it was as far back as the 17th century! Sure we are getting smaller and smaller, cheaper too with improved QC, but ultiamtely glass isn't having any huge steps. There is however one area which is making stella improvements in lens technology.... The lens over the sensor. Each pixel on the sensor has effectively its own lens. The better the lens here, the less prone to detecting the split that creates CA the sensor will be. This is probably the area that will be most noticeable in the next 10 years.
As you say this is in a way due to the relative newcomers of digital imaging sensors. However lets not forget why they where invented. Americans wanting to snoop on Ruskies. Boy howdy did they fund the development of em. It's some 90 years+ old technology, that really advanced during the cold war. It's only in the late 90s we really saw any movement in this area. Let's also not forget that even in 2000 people where saying there was no future in digital, nothing will beat the quality of film, nothing has the fealing of kodachrome. Things change.
I don't see 35mm being around in 50 years, for anything but historians. I just can't see the balance of why its perfect. Medium format was prohibitively expensive back in the day due to reasons that simply don't exist now. When you look at say the 645D vs the D800E, if your in a simple studio environment, the 645D still has the edge on quality, even thou its really old technology. The D800E is much faster and a better all round camera, no doubt. However that does rather show my point about sensor size not being a direct improvement in IQ. This is what I'm trying to say.
I think we will see people go smaller, for economic reasons, for accuracy reasons (its easier with many materials to make them less prone to certain interferences at smaller size). Noise filtering can be improved by certain arrangments of silicon to detect scattering. A lot of this research will be driven by the mid end consumer market, love or hate the iPhone (I'm the latter) but phone cameras are now having more money spent on them, adjusting for inflation, than 5 years ago. There is a hell of a lot of research being done in this area.
So ultimately my point is this, if you've got the few k to spend, and you really care about IQ, then sure, grab your full frame kit, lug the extra weight etc. If your looking to be a 'higher end hobbiest' then its stupid to go for a system just because of FF support. Your lenses are bigger, heavier and more expensive, for a feature you might never need. In the case of OP its simply stunningly stupid to me to go in to debt for a body, which will be obsoleted in 3 years tops, and have a lens that can only be described as "meh" at best. To do that for the reason of future proofing is even more astounding to me.
I wouldn't look at Pentax K30, because as I have already said multiple times for the reasons laid out in the above posts, I wanted to move away from Pentax. There is only a £130 difference between a K30 and a D7000 body where I live, so to me the money is well worth it to me for the extra features like dual memory card slots and extra control dial etc, as well as imo a much better UI to work with.
My experience is different, but the second hand market for Pentax is much smaller than that of Canikon for obvious reasons.
Choice is what is missing for me. Nikon has a wider lense range, better second hand market, and better third-party support. I've been a Pentaxian for many years, so had enough time to form my opinions.
Not quite sure what you mean here, but I've never heard the Canon 7D described as a "damp squib" before, considering it's one of the highest rated DX DSLR's in existence...
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 8 Aug 2010
- Posts
- 6,453
- Location
- Oxfordshire
Maybe for you. I think it's best for you if I end the conversation here.
Yes, I'm saying at say 80mm you'll need a smaller appature to get the same DoF as the sensor size increases. This means that ISO sensitivity vs noise isn't as simple as just comparing that. Links in a chain.
Now your really missing my point. I have to point out that the k-30 has better colour depth, by 0.2 of a bit (wow kids, burn your awful old D3: sarcasm btw), and the sealing on the K-30 is damned good, thou I wouldn't treat one as roughly as I do a k-5.
The point is the 'gap' in quality between FF of 3-5 years ago and crop body of now is completely minimal in terms of pure IQ. Sure the FF are always going to be a more premium, but not because of the sensor size, because they charge a shed load more!
The D800 has a 'better' sensor thou, so in theory would be capable of better pictures, its only the bundling of the camera that has put such as shutter on it that means you wouldn't use it for sports right? (I know nothing about sports photography, not my cup of tea)QUOTE=James J;23408854]Doesn't matter how old a camera is, it depends on what the features of performance of that camera offers for specific types of photography. No point trying to take a nice vibrant colour photo of fruit when you only own a leica M9 black and white model lol.[/QUOTE]Again I'm not trying to have a religious war here, I've just been taking a lot of time to try and write reasoned, fact checked replies, which often take a lot of writing because I'm severly dislexic and have difficulty framing my thoughts in english.
What I'm trying to say is that we see such fast pace of improvement of sensors in bodies, we see no sign of that slowing do we? I'm constantly impressed by some of the new ideas and research papers. Haven't seen anything new in glass since some of the ideas of stabalising.
So that is why I don't mind buying a lot of glass which isn't FF. Also all of my glass holds / gains value nicely!
I say as an engineer that, not just for my applications. Why on earth would it be the perfect sweet spot? Only because of legacy glass. We are currently seeing more lenses been produced for APC, so don't you think that will change over time?
You also read the bit I put after that comment right? Where I explain why I think that will be right?
Its not "for me" its for the people making the things.
I also wounder why you say its best for me to end it? You make it sound like I'm being offensive
Caporegime
- Joined
- 9 Nov 2009
- Posts
- 25,434
- Location
- Planet Earth
You do realise why 35MM still cameras came into existence though??? 35MM film was adapted from cine film to fit into a still camera,since it meant the camera could be made smaller for travelling, compared to the larger film formats used in the still cameras at the time. 35MM film for the cine cameras originated from 70MM film stock AFAIK.
However,this is irrelevant to digital. The 35MM frame sensor is more a holdout from the film age,due to the large number of legacy lenses available at the time they were first introduced.
My background involves bio-imaging work,and even there photo-detector surface area is only one of many metrics which needs to be considered. In fact one of the major advances in use of sensors for bio-imaging in recent years was not even down to photo-detector area.
Last edited:
I don't know where your living, but the likes of SRS deliver to the UK via royal mail... So it is a £250 difference. However having dual dials and an interface you prefer is a very good reason for choosing a body over another, and dual slots would have saved me from a recent loss in my card collection! I'm just stating that you said the sensors were equal, they are not, one is worse, by a little margin, but by less margin, you could have the similar quality for nearly half. That means you have to be *really* wanting something.
In shops yes, the only place I know that really has any stock of second hand stuff near London, is in Watford, so its hardly common, however online its more about ratio of supply to demand. I would say that they are about the same in that.
It sounds like I'm hammering you, I'm not meaning to I'm just curious as to which ones.
So we'll at least agree the 70D is!
Caporegime
- Joined
- 9 Nov 2009
- Posts
- 25,434
- Location
- Planet Earth
It ****ed me off what Canon did by essentially splitting the 50D successor into two cash cows,ie, the 60D and the 7D.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 9 Nov 2009
- Posts
- 25,434
- Location
- Planet Earth
Repeat.
Soldato
- Joined
- 8 Aug 2010
- Posts
- 6,453
- Location
- Oxfordshire
I say as an engineer that, not just for my applications. Why on earth would it be the perfect sweet spot? Only because of legacy glass. We are currently seeing more lenses been produced for APC, so don't you think that will change over time?
You also read the bit I put after that comment right? Where I explain why I think that will be right?
Its not "for me" its for the people making the things.
I also wounder why you say its best for me to end it? You make it sound like I'm being offensive
Sorry bud, no offence meant by me either. The reason I said that is because I can't help but get the impression your defending APSC and calling it the sweet spot, just because Pentax doesn't have any competing solution to 35mm bodies.
You justify APSC's being the sweet spot due to manufacturing/yield advantages. Not long ago, I would have agreed, however 35mm can now be fab'ed with a single exposure process, thus greatly improving yields over earlier FF sensors that used multiple mask exposures. Sure APSC will always have a yield advantage due to more die candidates per wafer, but the gap has been drastically reduced. Maybe future sensor technologies will widen the manufacturing gap again, who knows.
Nikon made the mistake of not jumping on the FF bandwagon, apparently thinking ISO advancements would avoid the need for FF sensors, they failed to take into account the lure of increased DOF control that FF provides. When Canon released their 1D & 5D, Nikon (Pentax/others for that matter) were in trouble as many jumped ship.
If you look at the general market trend, iphones have killed the traditional compact market (a good thing imo). The emphasis is now on squeezing the largest sensor possible into the smallist possible body.
The marketing people are now advertising the bokeh advantages of larger sensors like the RX100 for example.
Sony has only just gone and squeezed a 35mm sensor into a compact sized body. Imo the RX1 is to Sony what the X100 was to Fuji.. a proof of concept. Apparently there is now rumour of other compact micro 4/3 manufacturers taking Sony's cue and now working on squeezing 35mm sensors into compact bodies.
As these larger sensor compact camera's (APSC/35mm) become the norm to the masses, I expect there to be allot of untapped demand from pros wanting an 'edge' over average Joe with his full frame point and shoot. I think we will see DSLR manufactures continue the trend of the rest of the market, and begin to squeeze MF sensors into 35mm sized bodies like Leica has already done.
Imo Sony is in the best position to make this move first rather than Canon or Nikon, and has a real opportunity to eat Canikon's lunch.
Personally I see 4 market segments over the next decade or two:
Consumer camera - Camera phone - Traditional compact sized sensors
Dedicated consumer camera - Compact form factor - APSC/35mm
Pro/serious enthusiast - DSLR - 35mm/48mm
Pro/niche - Large format
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 8 Aug 2010
- Posts
- 6,453
- Location
- Oxfordshire
The 60D is, haven't seen the spec's of the 70D.