semilog
curmudgeonly optimist
The K-x was the first Pentax with a Sony sensor, and the first one with a "really killer sensor." If you knew about the K-x, you expected that the K-5 was going to rock.
The K-7, K10, K200 etc. used Samsung sensors. Not in the same league.
PentHassyKon
Established
Just to add that for M42 lenses there is an adapter that will be reqd - M42 to Pentax K.
This capability as well as in-body shake reduction was one of the allures for me when I decided to spring for a digital SLR. Some folks have even modified their Leica R lenses and Olympus OM to Pentax K mount (leitax.com).
semilog
curmudgeonly optimist
So what? With fantastic high-ISO capability and in-body IS (another advantage of the Pentax), where is the benefit of fast wide angle lenses, anyway? IMO, this is a highly overrated issue.
You should re-think this. There are good reasons to shoot film vs. digi (I mainly use film for my own personal work), but this is not one of them.
ALL digital capture requires a lot of processing of the file, both upstream and downstream of writing a RAW file.
Similarly, ALL analog emulsions perform very complex transformations of the "data" hitting the "sensor." (E.g., nonlinear characteristic curves; skewed spectral responses; edge effects and acutence; reciprocity effects; etc., etc., etc. -- and all this is just for B&W film!). The only difference is that the transformations done by silver halide emulsions are less transparent to the user, and hence closer to "magic." Take another look at Adams's The Negative and The Print. You'll find that both volumes are almost entirely dedicated to performing complex transformations on the image data.
I can tell you that for scientific work (my day job), digital capture has totally replaced film in most fields because digital output is FAR closer to "the truth" than film ever was: more linear, simpler noise signature, etc.
If a lens designer can correct brutal defects like astigmatism, coma, spherical aberration, field curvature etc. at the expense of some geometric distortion or chromatic aberration that are easily and accurately deconvolved post-capture, that is a good thing! It can mean an overall optical system that is smaller, lighter, easier to manufacture and has higher overall performance. Again, that is a good thing.
The Panasonic 20/1.7, which requires post-capture geometric distortion correction, is a spectacular case in point. Compare size, price, and performance to the new Nikkor 24/1.4.
Last edited:
Pablito
coco frío
shyoon
Well-known
Would I be right in assuming that the D7000 and the K-5 use the same Sony sensor? Either way, they are both incredibly impressive cameras.
ebino
Well-known
That Nikon D7000 is so tempting, but then if D7000 is like that, what would D400 be like!
monochromejrnl
Well-known
D7000 also has 100% VF coverage
In-body IS - Pentax + (but most useful for long lenses since the high ISO performance is so good it reduces the need to shoot at slow speeds/relative to focal length)
Weather Sealing - Pentax + (nice to have but hardly a determining factor for which to get unless you're shooting in harsh weather conditions)...
Price in Canada (list)
Pentax K-5 (body only) - $1599
Nikon D7000 (body only) - $1279
ISO performance (based on DXO testing for what it's worth) is splitting hairs...
I don't agree that it's apples and oranges (http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/compare_post.asp) ... the D7000 blurs the line between consumer/hobbist and pro-sumer dSLR since it also accepts Nikon AI lenses...
As a potential buyer, I'm certainly considering both. I have Pentax legacy glass and previously owned a D200 with lenses.
Last edited:
Frank Petronio
Well-known
It's a nice camera for sure but I am disappointed not to see any nice 35mm range prime lenses other than the 21/3.2 pancake.... kind of lopsided not to have a couple of matching lenses to compliment it as Leica replacement.
Frankly I still have 6mp Nikon D70 images in my portfolio and they hold up fine at normal sizes so what's the rush? Each generation buys you another stop and half of usable ISO speed and otherwise they just get more complicated and full of feature-creep. I almost feel like picking up a new used D70s because it is so damn simple, it feels like the digital M3.
I like it though. New model introductions mean that I can buy good cameras for peanuts: a D70 for $175, a D80 for $300 or D90 for $600 -- and beat them into the ground like they were meant to be used. And at least Nikon has decent inexpensive fast primes like the $100 50/1.8D, the $200 35/1.8 AFS DX, the $250 used 24/2.8D -- I only wish they kept introducing more lenses like these.
That's all you really need. A new K5 or D7000 won't do much more for ya.
Frankly I still have 6mp Nikon D70 images in my portfolio and they hold up fine at normal sizes so what's the rush? Each generation buys you another stop and half of usable ISO speed and otherwise they just get more complicated and full of feature-creep. I almost feel like picking up a new used D70s because it is so damn simple, it feels like the digital M3.
I like it though. New model introductions mean that I can buy good cameras for peanuts: a D70 for $175, a D80 for $300 or D90 for $600 -- and beat them into the ground like they were meant to be used. And at least Nikon has decent inexpensive fast primes like the $100 50/1.8D, the $200 35/1.8 AFS DX, the $250 used 24/2.8D -- I only wish they kept introducing more lenses like these.
That's all you really need. A new K5 or D7000 won't do much more for ya.
deirdre
Well-known
There's also a 55mm f/1.4 and several others in the f/2.x-f/4 range, but too few that are fast enough for my taste.
Pablito
coco frío
unless you do a lot of low-light work.
kshapero
South Florida Man
I read that the D7000 has weather sealing.
Jamie Pillers
Skeptic
Sorry, I meant to say "high image quality" wide angle lens? For example, the only thing close to a highly rated Nikon wide angle lens for their DSLRs that I could fathom spending $$ for is the AF-S 35/1.8. On their APS-C models this equates to a 52mm FL field of view. The only other option these days is the new 24/1.4 that goes for a cool $2500... USED!! And that lens, on an APS-C is a 42m FL. The only way I can get, say, the equivalent of a 28mm FL on a camera with an APS-C sensor is to find a 18 to 20mm lens... or one of those big zoom lenses. And, by the way, when you use a 20mm lens as a proxy for a 30mm lens, you in fact get the visual characteristics of a 20mm lens!
And regarding the processing that goes on inside a micro 4/3 camera.. I wasn't thinking of color, noise, etc.. I was thinking of the distortion correction the camera software has to do to make the output files look reasonable. Maybe that's OK and I'd never notice it, but at this point that sounds a bit radical for an old film camera guy like me. I mean... how would you feel if Leica told you that their next digital M corrects all imperfections of your beloved Noctilux or Summilux or whatever. This striving for the perfectly accurate (?) image file leaves me feeling a bit like "So What??"
And regarding the processing that goes on inside a micro 4/3 camera.. I wasn't thinking of color, noise, etc.. I was thinking of the distortion correction the camera software has to do to make the output files look reasonable. Maybe that's OK and I'd never notice it, but at this point that sounds a bit radical for an old film camera guy like me. I mean... how would you feel if Leica told you that their next digital M corrects all imperfections of your beloved Noctilux or Summilux or whatever. This striving for the perfectly accurate (?) image file leaves me feeling a bit like "So What??"
kdemas
Enjoy Life.
Jamie- If you can stand a zoom the Nikkor 14-24mm is an outrageously good lens. Big, big big but it can, and does, stand with or above any prime in the range (SLRs).
I sold mine as the exposed front element scared. The crap out of me
I sold mine as the exposed front element scared. The crap out of me
semilog
curmudgeonly optimist
It is a newer approach, but the point is that optical design is FULL of trade-offs. Push one aberration here, another one pokes out there. If you loosen the constraints on geometric distortion (an aberration that looks odd but removes little of the image data), you can focus your optical design efforts on the aberrations that really mess up IQ. Again: this means fewer, simpler lens elements, resulting in less expensive, smaller, lighter lenses that have excellent performance. A good thing.
Frank Petronio
Well-known
Or just accept some noise. Look at all the people shooting grainy high ISO film on this forum.
Why is grainy film good and noisey digital bad?
Pablito
coco frío
I don't know, what's the right answer?
If you don't like noisy digital you are going to look for ways to minimize it. If you like noisy digital or you don't mind "accepting" it, then no problem, more power to ya.
Jamie Pillers
Skeptic
Hi Kent,
Damn... that's one mongo lens! Wouldn't want to drop on my foot! And you probably need one of those headlight grills from a Range Rover to protect that front element!!
Hope to see you at HCB. Question: If he were around today, dooyou think he would have 'gone digital' early? Or waited for the M9?
Damn... that's one mongo lens! Wouldn't want to drop on my foot! And you probably need one of those headlight grills from a Range Rover to protect that front element!!
Hope to see you at HCB. Question: If he were around today, dooyou think he would have 'gone digital' early? Or waited for the M9?
ChrisN
Striving
Not even a teeny little regret about the LX?
I'll buy one once the rush dies down and the prices drop to a sensible level. With the promise of the improvements achieved in the K-5 I've bought a DA15/4 lens (while the Aussie dollar is strong against the USD) to round out the collection. The K20D has served me well for a few years, and indeed its only failure has been banding in long-exposures (> 1 min.). The K5 has apparently fixed that issue, and the other improvements are very nice to see too.
Totally agree about the need for a modern 35mm-equivalent lens, and preferably in something more compact than the FA35/2. I'm lucky to still have the Pentax-A 24/2.8 lens I bought a few years ago from Kim Coxon, which serves very well on both film and digital bodies.
The K5 makes sense for me because I like the system and already have a set of very good lenses. But we should remember that the job of reviewers and testing websites like DxOmark is to draw ever-finer distinctions between cameras and make a big fuss about them. Fantastic that the K-5 makes the #6 slot in their overall rankings (including several medium-format cameras!) and tops all the other APS-C cameras, but really, any of the top 20 cameras will make perfectly adequate photos, if that's what you want a camera for.
Harry Lime
Practitioner
The D7000 is weathersealed and has 100% frame coverage.
It does not have in-body IS.
http://dpreview.com/previews/nikond7000/page2.asp
Harry Lime
Practitioner
The K-5 looks like a very nice cameras. Relatively compact and it appears to get about 14EV of range at iso 80. That's pretty impressive in anyones book...
My main beef is that I don't believe there are any fast, manual focus lenses available for it (35 /50mm equivalent), although some of the limited edition Pentax glass looks very nice (but a little slow).
Perhaps you can use some of the older Pentax glass, but I'm not sure how well they play with the metering system...
If I was in the market for this sort of camera I would probably go for the D7000, since I already own some Nikkors and have a soft spot for Nikon's ergonomics.
Let's face it. The digital camera market is maturing rapidly in terms of sensor performance. Low and mid end cameras are starting to deliver performance that just a few years ago would have been unheard of even in the top end models.
As for Leica making a camera for anyone but the well heeled...., forget it.
It's not going to happen.
In the meanwhile I'm waiting to see how this shapes up:
http://finepix.com/x100/en/top.html
My main beef is that I don't believe there are any fast, manual focus lenses available for it (35 /50mm equivalent), although some of the limited edition Pentax glass looks very nice (but a little slow).
Perhaps you can use some of the older Pentax glass, but I'm not sure how well they play with the metering system...
If I was in the market for this sort of camera I would probably go for the D7000, since I already own some Nikkors and have a soft spot for Nikon's ergonomics.
Let's face it. The digital camera market is maturing rapidly in terms of sensor performance. Low and mid end cameras are starting to deliver performance that just a few years ago would have been unheard of even in the top end models.
As for Leica making a camera for anyone but the well heeled...., forget it.
It's not going to happen.
In the meanwhile I'm waiting to see how this shapes up:
http://finepix.com/x100/en/top.html