Nikon or Pentax?

fallbayuk

fallbayuk

fallbayuk

Associate
Joined
7 Nov 2003
Posts
1,057
I know this is probably a no brainer for most of you. I'm in the market for my first DSLR and the general consensus (from what I can gather) is to go Nikon or Canon. I've read a lot of good things about the Pentax K-30 and at present this is my first choice, primarily due to the performance and features available for quite a bit less wonga than anything else I can find.

However, I've also heard that the second hand market is better for Nikon lenses. I wouldn't be looking for anything more than the kit lens and a zoom lens if/when I take the plunge, so is it that big of a deal if the second hand market for Pentax lenses isn't as good? As long as I got decent lenses from the start would it matter?
 
Unless you have a very specific reason then there just isn't a point straying outside Nikon or canon really. You might think you save a little on a camera body, but that soon disappears paying more for lenses, or not finding the lens you want second hand, or finding the 3rd part manufactures neglected Pentax.

Pentax bodies are feat, as are there lenses. But then so are Nikon, and I just don't see any vantage.
What is is about a k30 that is so important to you that you don't get in a Nikon d7000. Will you really make full advantage of those features, do you even know what difference it will bring to your photography.
 
Pentax offers a good deal on their camera's. They have to because else no one would invest in an inferior system otherwise.

The fact they haven't got a body with a 35mm sensor, meant I wouldn't consider them when I was getting into photography as there was no upgrade path from APSC.

Allot of their lenses look like they need updating, does Pentax have the resources to update them? or rather Ricoh committed enough to put some serious cash into Pentax to make them competitive from a performance standpoint, rather than just discounting their bodies.

Pentax does have tangible advantage imo, in body stabilisation without a translucent mirror sat in front of it.
 
D.P. said:
Unless you have a very specific reason then there just isn't a point straying outside Nikon or canon really. You might think you save a little on a camera body, but that soon disappears paying more for lenses, or not finding the lens you want second hand, or finding the 3rd part manufactures neglected Pentax.

Pentax bodies are feat, as are there lenses. But then so are Nikon, and I just don't see any vantage.
What is is about a k30 that is so important to you that you don't get in a Nikon d7000. Will you really make full advantage of those features, do you even know what difference it will bring to your photography.
Click to expand...

The K30 is weather sealed which I found appealing, uses the same sensor as the D7000 and as stated is cheaper with the kit lens than the D7000 body alone. Plus body stabilised. Main reason is budget really, not because I think it's a better camera. But like you said the availability of lenses may outweigh the initial saving, which is why I'm a bit confused.
 
fallbayuk said:
The K30 is weather sealed which I found appealing, uses the same sensor as the D7000 and as stated is cheaper with the kit lens than the D7000 body alone. Plus body stabilised. Main reason is budget really, not because I think it's a better camera. But like you said the availability of lenses may outweigh the initial saving, which is why I'm a bit confused.
Click to expand...


D7000 is weather sealed, and is a more robust body all round if that is important to you.

On the Nikon front have a look at the D5100, it is much closer to the k30 in specs and much cheaper. K30 with 18-55 kit looks to be 500 quid, the D5100 + 18-55 is 400 quid. I know what I would choose.

The Pentax k5II is really the competitor to the Nikon D7000. The K5II+ 18-135 kit lens is 840 quid, the Nikon D7000 + 18-105VR kit lens in 767 quid. SO actually as far as I can tell, pentax is a lot more expensive for the same type of camera.


A stabilised sensor is nice, but then then in-lens stabilization is nicer (stabilises viewfinder, auto-focus sensor, metering sensor), all the kit lenses come with stabilization and contrary to internet myth in-lens stabilisation is actually very cheap.
Actually, some of the VR lenses are cheaper than non-VR lens, e.g. the 18-55mm VR is 71quid, but the non-VR 18-55 is 79 quid.
Nikon 55-200mm Non-VR is £169.99 but the Nikon 55-200mm VR is cheaper at £143.99.

So actually, the evidence is it is cheaper to buy a lens with VR than not....
 
There are enough lenses for most people, and there is a whole host of legacy glass to choose from as well, though one area that Pentax do lack in is fast glass below F1.4.
For 90% of people, it is a good system that is getting better and the limited lenses are a joy..

Long term you want to spend your money on glass, not bodies, but to learn photography on a DSLR and then decide what you want to do 2-3 yrs down the line, then the K30 and 2 kit lenses is a good choice and you can then decide later on how serious you want to get without losing too much cash or having to outlay too much either..
Weather sealing and stabilization are great to have at that price and the stabilisation will work with any lens you attach.

Im biased as I have a K20D and will be buying a K30 in a couple of weeks
 
surely you would be covered for most normal situations by pentax glass, the niche stuff like tilt shift, hooooge tele or super wide angle is damn expensive whatever brand
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom