Canon or Nikon or Pentax

Hello.. I currently have a Pentax K10D camera, nothing special in the way of glass, and I am trying to decide to upgrade to the Canon 5D Mark II or the Nikon D700 or even the Pentax K7. Here are some of the questions I have been thinking about...maybe someone can help.

Pentax - Not sold in Utah anymore (atleast not that I can find). I have larger hands and they reduced the size of their camera so the K7 is smaller than the K10D. Glass is harder to come buy and more expensive

Canon/Nikon - They are pretty much the same camera, minor differences and different brand, but both are full frame sensor, good in low light, fast for sports, and have alot of glass available.

I was wondering if I could get everyone's thoughts on the subject. Thank you.

6 in 1. I think between the two Canon/Nikon, Canon offers a slightly better cost to value. Why not put Sony in the mix? The A850/900 is the direct competitor to the two you listed.

Depending on what gear you've already accumulated, I would just stick with Pentax, you know the system, you have the gear - divorcing yourself from lady Pentax would probably be a costly move, then readjusting and re-acclimating to a new system. They do have less lens, but Pentax does have good coverage across the focal length spectrum. What specifically are you wanting for a lens that you cant find with Pentax?

Further - the best way to shop for high dollar photo gear is online anyway, why spend an extra $300 on sales tax?

Just more availability for camera's, accessories (batteries, speed lights, super telephoto lenses, etc) Buying online just takes too long. :-D I guess I am impatient. More than anything, if I do upgrade to the Pentax K7, I want to be able to see how one fits in my hand, and there aren't any shops I can do that with. There is also the issue with autofocus.... I need one that focus' quickly

I didn't realize you couldn't buy Pentax in Utah. That would concern me, too. For what it's worth, we haven't been able to get a high-end Pentax SLR for review since the K10D. It makes you wonder if they're able to produce enough. And I completely understand you wanting to try it on for size before you buy. Personally, I like cameras small. I don't have small hands, either. But I carry them on the bike and skis a lot, so smaller and lighter is better. I think I'm in the minority there, though.

It's a tough call between the Nikon D700 and Canon 5D Mk II. I haven't used the D700, but I'm really impressed with the D5000 and the D90 and I have one pro friend who just switched from Canon to Nikon for the D700. He wanted full frame and good low light performance (they pretty much go hand in hand) but he didn't want huge files and he didn't want to pay for video.

The 5D Mk II is an awesome camera. I really liked it when I reviewed it (my Canon EOS 5D Mark II pro review). But it is a lot of money and you will pay for the pleasure of using it with more storage, slower file transfers and more processing time. That said, image quality and low light performance are excellent. Still, if I had no investment in Canon, I think I'd go with the Nikon. Everyone wants more resolution. But most people don't need 20+ megapixel files. And I sure don't want to deal with them all of the time. The D700 is a more practical choice, I think.

Back to the Pentax now. If you don't have a real investment in Pentax glass and you really want full frame, then by all means, look elsewhere. But I always encourage people to question their motives when they want to switch to full frame. Maybe you've already done this. But ask yourself if you really need full frame, if it's really going to add anything to your photography. If you can't honestly answer yes, then save some money and get a crop sensor camera. As much as I liked the image quality from the 5D Mk II, I don't need it. It's not the difference between making money and not making money for me. For me, smaller and faster is more important. That might not be the case for you. I don't know. But weigh it out carefully and be honest with yourself. I think a lot of people want full frame cameras just because. They've been told they're better and they believe it without really thinking about why. They are better in some ways. But that doesn't mean they're the best way for you to spend your money.

Oh yeah, the K-7 looks like a sweet camera. I want someone to get one just so I can check it out :D

I don't have too much of an investment in Pentax. I haven't been able to find enough Pentax glass to purchase, so I have off brands of glass which have worked for what I have needed. I guess one of the things that really worries me about Pentax is that you can't buy one from a store in Utah...only from the NET. Ritz (Inkleys) was the last seller in Utah and they have completely dropped the Pentax line of cameras, glass, etc.

So with the upgrade to a new camera, I think I am going to go with one I can get help for, buy accessories for here in Utah and with the upgrade I am thinking a full-frame camera so I don't have to upgrade the body for years and can just upgrade glass.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tumber

....
So with the upgrade to a new camera, I think I am going to go with one I can get help for, buy accessories for here in Utah and with the upgrade I am thinking a full-frame camera so I don't have to upgrade the body for years and can just upgrade glass.

---

That's two statements that you've made that I don't agree with.

- The first was when you said that the Canon 5DMk2 and the Nikon D700 were about the same camera. One is optimsed for low-light sports and the other is intended for more sedate activities like weddings. And you included in your list the Pentax K7 which is rather different as well. What are your real needs? What are you going to shoot? Are you sure you really need a pro camera?

- The second - don't keep the body for years and upgrade the lenses. Technical obsolescence means you tend to change bodies evry 2-4 years, but the glass stays. To get the most out of today's cameras you need the best glass so don't settle for less.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tumber

...

So with the upgrade to a new camera, I think I am going to go with one I can get help for, buy accessories for here in Utah and with the upgrade I am thinking a full-frame camera so I don't have to upgrade the body for years and can just upgrade glass.

---

Regardless of the system, purchase the best lens you believe you will want 'first'. In this digital day and age it appears that body upgrades may be far more frequent than ever.

I used one film body, a Nikon F2A Photomic, for a quarter of a century. There was a second F2 body that I had that had far more use than most people would ever give one and it was a 'backup' and it stayed with me for nearly 20 years before I sold it

I've bought and used far more DSLR bodies in slightly less than a decade from each of the two major (Canon and Nikon) players, than I did 35mm and MF combined in the previous 20+ years. Not every upgrade is needed or wanted but some are worth trying. I've also sold most all of those DSLR bodies, rented them, returned them, or gave them away too!

I'm still using Canon glass that originally was purchased for use with a EOS 1v film body. Now for one Rebel DSLR I rarely ever mounted anything other than a kit lens as it was a backup to a backup and used to teach or hand to someone to use for the day. Great camera, but just like buying film at the grocery store, a necessity.

Do think about your long term needs, but a great body many be hampered slightly with slower focusing and less than the best possible lens on occasion. Admittedly I've mounted a $100 lens on an $8000 body (a 50/1.8 II on a EOS 1Ds Mk II), and that is an unusual exception.

Handling a body may be your best idea as many of the lower cost bodies from various makers are fine performers. Those bodies will make great photos and if they support a great lens, well the lens output will only be improved by a new body, but not the other way around. An adequate lens is always going to be just adequate.

Do consider what you may need with flash control and systems at some point in the future. There is a world of difference with the various DSLR systems and after this past summer I think it is getting wider. Different manufacturers are doing various things and it is apparent that not all flash for Digital is created equal in the camera! One more reason to consider the need for body upgrades in the not distant future.

Best wishes and let us know, with samples too, what you choose!

I absolutely love the 1080p HD video the 5D Mk II shoots, Stunning. I mean, my first camera was a pentax. I loved it. But given the choice, the 5D Mk II does it solid for me. The glass is the best out there save one - Nikon.

- The first was when you said that the Canon 5DMk2 and the Nikon D700 were about the same camera. One is optimsed for low-light sports and the other is intended for more sedate activities like weddings. And you included in your list the Pentax K7 which is rather different as well. What are your real needs? What are you going to shoot? Are you sure you really need a pro camera?

To be honest...yes there are some minor differences between the two. I have done alot of research on the cameras and yes the Pentax K7 is a different animal than the first two. I may have a pentax, but that doesn't make me not be able to read and not be able to compare features of cameras. My real needs...Well.... I actively shoot sports, paintball in particular as well as basketball and football. I also do candid shoots at events, as well as portraiture photography. So moving to a full frame/pro camera would be a step up and wonderful thing.

While I do have money invested in my camera and leses, I already have a buyer, should I choose, for my glass they are willing to pay $50 less for each lense than I paid for them and $100 less than I paid for the camera, so I am not losing too much money. So for me to switch it would be easy to do. I just don't know what direction I want to go... Nikon or cannon, or do I want to save money and stay with Pentax?

*edit - whoops nevermind,

Quote:

---

To be honest...yes there are some minor differences between the two.

---

12 Mpix fx sensor vs a 21 Mpix, the differences are very far from 'minor'. If, for example, you want huge ISO flexibility, then the D700 would be the obvious choice, if you wanted huge resolution, then the 5D (or the A900) would be the obvious choice. Does your shooting habits involve you staying under ISO 800 90% of the time? Do you do major cropping, print large sizes?

Yes I stay below ISO 800 almost all of the time. I don't print alot of large prints and I don't usually do alot of croping.

Touche on the Mpix...I hadn't even been thinking of that portion of the equation, but all the other features like color, white balance, AF, glass, ISO etc. and in these things they are fairly evenly matched. Both have things that they are better at and also worse at and neither is blowing the other away on the features it is better at....except maybe the Video on the 5D.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tumber

Yes I stay below ISO 800 almost all of the time. I don't print alot of large prints and I don't usually do alot of croping.

Touche on the Mpix...I hadn't even been thinking of that portion of the equation, but all the other features like color, white balance, AF, glass, ISO etc. and in these things they are fairly evenly matched. Both have things that they are better at and also worse at and neither is blowing the other away on the features it is better at....except maybe the Video on the 5D.

---

The D700 has state-of-the-art AF which is useful for sports. The D700 does better high ISO than the 5DMk2 - you don't use it right now but once you have the possibility you tend to use higher ISO's for sports.

The D700 is more forgiving in terms of glass - the 5DMk2 with 21MPix is getting to the limits of today's optics.

Looking at your requirements I don't see any reason to go full-frame. If I were you I would look also at the Nikon D300/D300s and the Canon 7D. These are excellent action cameras and you there is a wide range of excellent lenses for the smaller format as well as the lenses for full-frame. Plus - they're cheaper.

i just bought a D700 and it does great in low light. on my website are pics of a band that i took at between iso 5000 and 6400 with no noise. I dont use video but i think its a good option but will use up any mem on cards though