I can't decide: Nikon or Pentax

[Ivonna]

Now I feel like the starving mule standing between 2 piles of perfectly nice hay trying to decide which pile to eat from.

For all of you Pentax people - The local shop has just put on clearance the K10D with a kit lens for the same $499 price as the new K2000 (which they don't have & I haven't seen yet). It's the store demo model. The Pentax line doesn't sell very well there as they also only have the K100s ($349 in the box) & it seems they don't plan to carry the newer models. I would need to buy most future accessories online.

The entry level Nikons in the same price bracket are $450 to $550 (D40 &D60) with the kit lens, but Nikon stuff is everywhere.

Common sense? is telling me to get the Nikon and buy some nice lenses with the cash I have leftover. The lenses will eventually keep their value more than the bodies & if I get serious about photography there will always be an upgrade path available.

On the other hand, I played with the Pentax K10D yesterday and it will do so much more (but with a huge learning curve) than an entry level Nikon that I am really tempted by it. Stabilized body, dust reduction, & weather sealed as well as able to use every lens ever made by Pentax. I think the K2000 although new, sounds more basic.

They are very different cameras, but I like them the same amount for very different reasons. Any pros or cons you can throw at me either direction will be totally appreciated.

[Franglais]

Don't be tempted by clearance sales. You said it yourself - your local shop is cutting down on Pentax. Think where you will be in two years. You said it yourself in your last post "I want to have no equipment regrets, but that's hard when you're new"

Make a list of what your needs are today and what you are likely to need for the future. Then look and see if your brand can fit your needs.

I don't particularly like to criticise Pentax or anybody else for that matter. Pentax have had a lot of success with the K100 and K200, judging by the number I see out in the streets.

Personally I stick with the number 1 or 2 in the market. In 10 years time I'm sure they will still be there. For what it's worth, here's my experience:

1973: Bought a Pentacon SLR with Pentax screw-mount lenses. A technical dead end but it was cheaper than big names like Nikon
1974: Bought a Rollei SL35 SLR in a clearance sale. I thought it was great. Carl Zeiss lenses. Then Rollei went bankrupt
1976: Getting a bit fed up with SLR's I bought my first Leica rangefinder. Happy
1984: Rangefinders are restricting for holidays, portraits, etc. Bought a Canon FD SLR. Some time after Canon made the FD cameras and lenses obsolete when they brought out the EOS range. Got fed up with SLR's again
1999: My Canon FD gear was starting to be unreliable. Finally went over to Nikon

[Ultra Magnus]

Don't be tempted by clearance sales. You said it yourself - your local shop is cutting down on Pentax. Think where you will be in two years. You said it yourself in your last post "I want to have no equipment regrets, but that's hard when you're new"

Make a list of what your needs are today and what you are likely to need for the future. Then look and see if your brand can fit your needs.

I don't particularly like to criticise Pentax or anybody else for that matter. Pentax have had a lot of success with the K100 and K200, judging by the number I see out in the streets.

Personally I stick with the number 1 or 2 in the market. In 10 years time I'm sure they will still be there. For what it's worth, here's my experience:

1973: Bought a Pentacon SLR with Pentax screw-mount lenses. A technical dead end but it was cheaper than big names like Nikon
1974: Bought a Rollei SL35 SLR in a clearance sale. I thought it was great. Carl Zeiss lenses. Then Rollei went bankrupt
1976: Getting a bit fed up with SLR's I bought my first Leica rangefinder. Happy
1984: Rangefinders are restricting for holidays, portraits, etc. Bought a Canon FD SLR. Some time after Canon made the FD cameras and lenses obsolete when they brought out the EOS range. Got fed up with SLR's again
1999: My Canon FD gear was starting to be unreliable. Finally went over to Nikon

Too funny- it's like you got beat and battered into conformity!

I went Sony, and hope they last in the DSLR world, but unlike you, I'd probably jump to Nikon in far fewer steps...

The economy and the slow release of pro lenses has me concerned...

BM

[Anbesol]

Too funny- it's like you got beat and battered into conformity!

I went Sony, and hope they last in the DSLR world, but unlike you, I'd probably jump to Nikon in far fewer steps...

The economy and the slow release of pro lenses has me concerned...

BM

They are growing very well, and have transformed the small digital Minolta base to something much larger, very late into the DSLR scene - thats quite a feat. Plus, their Zeiss AF glass will certainly have them endure and last through even the toughest competition as far as professional scrutiny goes. Considering this, and the fact that they are the number one OEM supplier to Canon and Nikon, and the worlds biggest digital sensor provider. Sony isn't going out for a very very long time.

Having said that, *all* of the current DSLR manufacturers have a solid and long standing history.

[gryphonslair99]

They are growing very well, and have transformed the small digital Minolta base to something much larger, very late into the DSLR scene - thats quite a feat. Plus, their Zeiss AF glass will certainly have them endure and last through even the toughest competition as far as professional scrutiny goes. Considering this, and the fact that they are the number one OEM supplier to Canon and Nikon, and the worlds biggest digital sensor provider. Sony isn't going out for a very very long time.

Having said that, *all* of the current DSLR manufacturers have a solid and long standing history.

Zeiss glass, like all other is only as good as the specifications call for. Zeiss makes great glass and stinkers as do all manufactures. Some of the Zeiss stinkers just don't bear the Zeiss name on the end of the barrel.

Sony does provide Nikon with some of their sensors. Canon manufactures their own.

[Ivonna]

Don't be tempted by clearance sales. You said it yourself - your local shop is cutting down on Pentax. Think where you will be in two years. You said it yourself in your last post "I want to have no equipment regrets, but that's hard when you're new"

Make a list of what your needs are today and what you are likely to need for the future. Then look and see if your brand can fit your needs.

Well, it wasn't -just- the clearance price, but I admit to liking a bargain. The K10D results looked to have very nice detail that the entry level Nikons didn't match. I compared reviews & test data and it scored very well in the under $1000 USD range of cameras. But, the K20D that replaces it didn't seem worth the upgrade and there seems to be nowhere else to go with it at the present time.

In the end, the Nikon does make more sense. Sometimes I just need to step away and look at the long range and not get wrapped up in what looks good at the time. Thanks for sharing your advice & your experience.

[Ivonna]

Too funny- it's like you got beat and battered into conformity!

I went Sony, and hope they last in the DSLR world, but unlike you, I'd probably jump to Nikon in far fewer steps...

The economy and the slow release of pro lenses has me concerned...

BM

I started with a used computer from Radio Shack, followed by an Atari, then my favorite Commodore 64, followed by several brands of PCs, before coming around to the Apple - which has been available in some form the entire time - and in about the same timeline as Charles. Clearly, I wouldn't say I was beat & battered into conformity! I choose what worked for me, my paycheck, and my situation at the time. I've actually had toasters with a better record of longevity & usefulness. Invest in toasters - not technology

I'm only on my third digital P&S, a Sea&Sea with 7mp - so any DSLR will be welcomed.

[gryphonslair99]

Now I feel like the starving mule standing between 2 piles of perfectly nice hay trying to decide which pile to eat from.

For all of you Pentax people - The local shop has just put on clearance the K10D with a kit lens for the same $499 price as the new K2000 (which they don't have & I haven't seen yet). It's the store demo model. The Pentax line doesn't sell very well there as they also only have the K100s ($349 in the box) & it seems they don't plan to carry the newer models. I would need to buy most future accessories online.

The entry level Nikons in the same price bracket are $450 to $550 (D40 &D60) with the kit lens, but Nikon stuff is everywhere.

Common sense? is telling me to get the Nikon and buy some nice lenses with the cash I have leftover. The lenses will eventually keep their value more than the bodies & if I get serious about photography there will always be an upgrade path available.

On the other hand, I played with the Pentax K10D yesterday and it will do so much more (but with a huge learning curve) than an entry level Nikon that I am really tempted by it. Stabilized body, dust reduction, & weather sealed as well as able to use every lens ever made by Pentax. I think the K2000 although new, sounds more basic.

They are very different cameras, but I like them the same amount for very different reasons. Any pros or cons you can throw at me either direction will be totally appreciated.

Unlike a P&S, you are not buying a camera here. You are buying a system. The heart of the system is of course the camera body, but that is just a small part of the overall system. Lenses and accessories are a large part of the final make up of any SLR/DSLR system.

With that in mind you first need to define what form(s) of photography you are interested in. Once you know the direction you wish to go, it is time to learn what refinements in the body and what lenses and accessories are necessary to get where you want to go. The body captures the photograph, but the quality of the glass you choose can play a big factor on the technical quality of the photographs you take. Depending on your budget you would be wise to put a majority of your money into glass rather than body. Bodies come and go, but good glass, if cared for will last for many many years.

With this knowledge you are ready to look at the systems you are interested in and make you decision. Unlike a point & shoot, once you start down the SLR/DSLR path the expense can mount. As you discover your potential you discover that there are more choices available to make it easier to get the results you desire. So part of that planing should include budget, not just for now, but for the future. Good luck and enjoy that new system, which ever you choose.

[Ivonna]

Unlike a P&S, you are not buying a camera here. You are buying a system. The heart of the system is of course the camera body, but that is just a small part of the overall system. Lenses and accessories are a large part of the final make up of any SLR/DSLR system.

With that in mind you first need to define what form(s) of photography you are interested in. Once you know the direction you wish to go, it is time to learn what refinements in the body and what lenses and accessories are necessary to get where you want to go. The body captures the photograph, but the quality of the glass you choose can play a big factor on the technical quality of the photographs you take. Depending on your budget you would be wise to put a majority of your money into glass rather than body. Bodies come and go, but good glass, if cared for will last for many many years.

With this knowledge you are ready to look at the systems you are interested in and make you decision. Unlike a point & shoot, once you start down the SLR/DSLR path the expense can mount. As you discover your potential you discover that there are more choices available to make it easier to get the results you desire. So part of that planing should include budget, not just for now, but for the future. Good luck and enjoy that new system, which ever you choose.

Very nice post. And yes, I'm skimping a bit on the camera body to get a couple of nice lenses, because I do know the kit lens isn't going to take me where I want to go. I've learned quite a bit from this site & others, so I feel pretty confident I'll make a good decision. However, I think it may be awhile before I'm brave enough to post a pic. There's some fabulous photographers here from what I've seen on the user galleries.

[Franglais]

Well, it wasn't -just- the clearance price, but I admit to liking a bargain. The K10D results looked to have very nice detail that the entry level Nikons didn't match....

It seems surpring to me that the K10D delivers better detail than the Nikon D60. They have exactly the same 10Mpix image sensor (made by Sony, like most of the sensors used in the industry). The image processor in the D60 is more recent than the one in the Pentax. Are you sure you weren't comparing the D40 (6Mpix)?

Digital cameras evolve rapidly. Every two years there is a new industy-standard sensor, which is first released by manufacturers in their top-of-the-line models then progressively rolled out in the lower ranges. After two years it arrives in the entry-level models. The image processor is just as important but that is unique to each manufacturer. It contains all the know-how of the manufacturer to transform the signal from the sensor into the image you see. The image processor changes about as often as the sensor, but unlike the sensor it is rolled out in all new models once available. Hence my surprise

So models quickly become obsolete. That doesn't stop them taking great pictures but people want to upgrade for better performance. Right now in the Nikon forum we have a D80 user (same sensor as the K10D and the D60) who is asking himself if he should get a D90 or better glass to do photos of his grandson's nighttime baseball games

[Anbesol]

Zeiss glass, like all other is only as good as the specifications call for. Zeiss makes great glass and stinkers as do all manufactures. Some of the Zeiss stinkers just don't bear the Zeiss name on the end of the barrel.

Sony does provide Nikon with some of their sensors. Canon manufactures their own.

Sony provides Nikon with nearly every one of their sensors, Canon only manufacturers their own for their DSLR line, Sony provides their point and shoot sensors. Trust me, Sony is far and away the largest Sensor provider in the world.

Zeiss isn't run-of-the-mill. They don't make a bad lens, and they have the most solid reputation as being the sharpest, with best color reproduction and the best distortion control, and their new line is the very best of the best with flare control. Not saying that Nikon or Canon lens don't compete, just trying to illustrate that a solid company like Zeiss won't just throw several top-specced lens into a dying brand, clearly they considered Sony a worthy enough system to invest in. And if its good enough for Zeiss, its good enough for me.

[Dougjgreen]

Sony provides Nikon with nearly every one of their sensors, Canon only manufacturers their own for their DSLR line, Sony provides their point and shoot sensors. Trust me, Sony is far and away the largest Sensor provider in the world.

Zeiss isn't run-of-the-mill. They don't make a bad lens, and they have the most solid reputation as being the sharpest, with best color reproduction and the best distortion control, and their new line is the very best of the best with flare control. Not saying that Nikon or Canon lens don't compete, just trying to illustrate that a solid company like Zeiss won't just throw several top-specced lens into a dying brand, clearly they considered Sony a worthy enough system to invest in. And if its good enough for Zeiss, its good enough for me.

That USED to be true, when Zeiss manufactured all of their own lenses - maybe 35 years ago. But since they have licensed their brand to numerous others, their brand name now appears on everything from the world's finest medium and large format lenses to mediocre kit lenses on point and shoots. Every brand out there can be found on great lenses, and on cheap junk, and Zeiss is no exception. They may have fewer of the latter, but they certainly are not immune to it. The fact is, Sony has more money than Zeiss could ever dream about, and what it took for Zeiss to give their brand name over to Sony for it's use was simply a big enough chunk of that money. Sony is surely not a dying brand, make no mistake, Zeiss did not really have much say in that - they just saw more money than they had ever seen before coming their way - and thus, Sony had the license to the Zeiss brand. And it's funny how a lens that used to be a Minolta lens may have undergone no changes at all, other than to be wearing it's 4th brand in the past decade, and now, presto, has a Zeiss badge.

[Anbesol]

And it's funny how a lens that used to be a Minolta lens may have undergone no changes at all, other than to be wearing it's 4th brand in the past decade, and now, presto, has a Zeiss badge

If you are referencing the 85 f/1.4, look a bit closer, Zeiss uses 8 elements in 7 groups, Minolta used 7 elements in 6 groups. Sony is the one rebadging Minolta lens...

The only 'cheap' stuff Zeiss name appears on is the Sony point and shoots, and for the size of the lens, they perform pretty well also. They don't make anything 'cheap' for a DSLR.

[Dougjgreen]

If you are referencing the 85 f/1.4, look a bit closer, Zeiss uses 8 elements in 7 groups, Minolta used 7 elements in 6 groups. Sony is the one rebadging Minolta lens...

The only 'cheap' stuff Zeiss name appears on is the Sony point and shoots, and for the size of the lens, they perform pretty well also. They don't make anything 'cheap' for a DSLR.

I was referring to the "Zeiss" lenses on Sony's point and shoots. Where did I ever mention the 85mm f1.4?

[gryphonslair99]

Sony provides Nikon with nearly every one of their sensors, Canon only manufacturers their own for their DSLR line, Sony provides their point and shoot sensors. Trust me, Sony is far and away the largest Sensor provider in the world.

Zeiss isn't run-of-the-mill. They don't make a bad lens, and they have the most solid reputation as being the sharpest, with best color reproduction and the best distortion control, and their new line is the very best of the best with flare control. Not saying that Nikon or Canon lens don't compete, just trying to illustrate that a solid company like Zeiss won't just throw several top-specced lens into a dying brand, clearly they considered Sony a worthy enough system to invest in. And if its good enough for Zeiss, its good enough for me.

First since the OP was speaking of DSLR's the reference to the point and shoot market is useless in this thread. Were not talking about point and shoots, just DSLR's

Secondly, Zeiss like any other manufacturing company, including obviously Sony, makes their proprietary line of equipment. Some top notch glass in their line. They also stay in business by being a jobber for other for other companies making elements and lenses under other names, sometimes making reference to Zeiss as a component in the product and sometimes no reference to them at all. They make to the specifications that the companie desires to meet a certain price point. Basic Economics 101 if you plan to stay in business. Even before the current economic situation.

[Ivonna]

It seems surpring to me that the K10D delivers better detail than the Nikon D60. They have exactly the same 10Mpix image sensor (made by Sony, like most of the sensors used in the industry). The image processor in the D60 is more recent than the one in the Pentax. Are you sure you weren't comparing the D40 (6Mpix)?

Yes, but I think I see where you are coming from. I was using the camera comparison feature from the beta-version of a website (I think HQ in France) that uses raw sensor-based measurements prior to any digital processing to make it's comparisons & ratings. I think it may not be correct to mention the website on this forum?

Also, read some other evaluations which compared the Canon & Nikon camera processors stating that they remove noise during in-the-camera processing, but also a bit of detail in doing so. Pentax reportedly had a more "hands-off" approach to noise in their camera's processor that left the detail - but that likely makes post-processing a bit more work for the photographer?

I think I understand this to some point, but I'm not sure how one would get noise out while post-processing without removing some detail also. It's late here, so I'll see if I made any sense in the morning.

[Franglais]

Yes, but I think I see where you are coming from. I was using the camera comparison feature from the beta-version of a website (I think HQ in France) that uses raw sensor-based measurements prior to any digital processing to make it's comparisons & ratings. I think it may not be correct to mention the website on this forum?

Also, read some other evaluations which compared the Canon & Nikon camera processors stating that they remove noise during in-the-camera processing, but also a bit of detail in doing so. Pentax reportedly had a more "hands-off" approach to noise in their camera's processor that left the detail - but that likely makes post-processing a bit more work for the photographer?

I think I understand this to some point, but I'm not sure how one would get noise out while post-processing without removing some detail also. It's late here, so I'll see if I made any sense in the morning.

A site that tries to measure the signal coming off the processor before treatment is into electronics, not photography. Same with removing detail with noise - what counts is what the end results looks like. The more recent the image processor, the better the compromise.

Bear in mind that noise only becomes a problem when you start using high ISO's i.e. you're photographing in dark conditions or you need to freeze action. It looks like multicoloured film grain right in the finest detail of the image and there is nothing you can do manually to remove it. You can buy software like Noise Ninja that tries to remove it automatically but again it's a compromise between removing noise and removing detail.

The software might do a better job than the camera, however. Here's a test that I made last night on my D60 at 3200 ISO.

1. Whole picture of packing ready to go on holiday (sorry about the mess)
2. A 200% blow up of the JPG as it came out of the camera
3. Same 200% blow-up taken from the same image in RAW converted to JPG with Nikon NX2 on my PC in postprocessing

Both are good (I remember what 1600 ISO film was like..) The RAW version is slightly better

[Anbesol]

First since the OP was speaking of DSLR's the reference to the point and shoot market is useless in this thread. Were not talking about point and shoots, just DSLR's

Lol what a cop-out, I was talking about the standing of Sony as a Company, their being the number one sensor provider in the world does impact their standing in the industry.

[gryphonslair99]

Lol what a cop-out, I was talking about the standing of Sony as a Company, their being the number one sensor provider in the world does impact their standing in the industry.

Your unbridled love of Sony aside, what has and of this got to do with the OP's question desiring a bit of help choosing between a Nikon DSLR system and a Pentax DSLR system. The OP narrowed their choice down to the two systems they stated and requested help in making a decision between the two.

The real cop-out here is trying to turn the OP's thread into a Sony commercial.

[Ivonna]

A site that tries to measure the signal coming off the processor before treatment is into electronics, not photography. Same with removing detail with noise - what counts is what the end results looks like. The more recent the image processor, the better the compromise.

Bear in mind that noise only becomes a problem when you start using high ISO's i.e. you're photographing in dark conditions or you need to freeze action. It looks like multicoloured film grain right in the finest detail of the image and there is nothing you can do manually to remove it. You can buy software like Noise Ninja that tries to remove it automatically but again it's a compromise between removing noise and removing detail.

The software might do a better job than the camera, however. Here's a test that I made last night on my D60 at 3200 ISO.

1. Whole picture of packing ready to go on holiday (sorry about the mess)
2. A 200% blow up of the JPG as it came out of the camera
3. Same 200% blow-up taken from the same image in RAW converted to JPG with Nikon NX2 on my PC in postprocessing

Both are good (I remember what 1600 ISO film was like..) The RAW version is slightly better

You know, I can understand when you explain something, but when I start reading how the scores on the DxO Labs’ image quality database were created, my head starts to spin. I thought it was the sensor plus in-camera electronics minus optics without using the camera's bundled software. They say they measure a digital camera's RAW image quality when they give it a numeric score - but, not the "overall" digital camera's image quality and they explain that to various degrees, but perhaps I'm not getting it.

I can hardly tell the difference between the two 200% blow-ups. I think the D60 & especially the D90 show a great photo right out of the camera. By the way, I picked up a Nikon 60mm at a store closing, so I'm "married to my system" now. Too bad I still need a camera, they sent their Nikon cameras to another store I think.

Have a great holiday Charles, you've been a great source of information and now I have a great lens sitting on my mantle - thanks for suggesting that. I think I'll quit reading all those test sites and just get a camera and start trying to get some decent photos next!

[gryphonslair99]

You know, I can understand when you explain something, but when I start reading how the scores on the DxO Labs’ image quality database were created, my head starts to spin. I thought it was the sensor plus in-camera electronics minus optics without using the camera's bundled software. They say they measure a digital camera's RAW image quality when they give it a numeric score - but, not the "overall" digital camera's image quality and they explain that to various degrees, but perhaps I'm not getting it.

I can hardly tell the difference between the two 200% blow-ups. I think the D60 & especially the D90 show a great photo right out of the camera. By the way, I picked up a Nikon 60mm at a store closing, so I'm "married to my system" now. Too bad I still need a camera, they sent their Nikon cameras to another store I think.

Have a great holiday Charles, you've been a great source of information and now I have a great lens sitting on my mantle - thanks for suggesting that. I think I'll quit reading all those test sites and just get a camera and start trying to get some decent photos next!

If you do not mind ordering on line there are two places that I am familiure with that have good prices and are trustworthy. I know there are others but these are the only two I have any real experience with.

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/
http://www.adorama.com/

[Anbesol]

Yeah I guess I did sort of run on a wild tangent there. I remembered it being more relevant than it actually was,:idea:

Sorry Ivonna

[Ivonna]

gryphonslair99 - no, I don't mind ordering online at all. The selection is way better than any shop here and the prices look very good.

Anbesol - no worries, I have posted on a scuba forum and an artist's forum for several years before this and it seems any thread that goes longer than a couple of days or posts eventually goes off topic. Human nature, go figure.

I'm quite happy to have found this little community. I'll be lurking about and soaking up information like gravy on a 50 pound biscuit

[Franglais]

...
I can hardly tell the difference between the two 200% blow-ups. I think the D60 & especially the D90 show a great photo right out of the camera. By the way, I picked up a Nikon 60mm at a store closing, so I'm "married to my system" now. Too bad I still need a camera, they sent their Nikon cameras to another store I think.

Have a great holiday Charles, you've been a great source of information and now I have a great lens sitting on my mantle - thanks for suggesting that. I think I'll quit reading all those test sites and just get a camera and start trying to get some decent photos next!

Welcome to the Nikon group!

You're right, there is hardly any difference in the 200% images posted here, I can see slightly more at home in ACDSee which "improves" the images a bit. It's pretty unusual to see any difference between a difference in detail between a RAW converted into JPG and a JPG done out of the camera.

DXO Labs is serious. I'l have to look at their site - when I get back. I'm off to the airport right now.

One last word - it is the AF-S version of the 60mm that you've bought, and not the old version?

[Ivonna]

One last word - it is the AF-S version of the 60mm that you've bought, and not the old version?

No, for better or worse, I have the old version. AF 60mm f/2.8D rather than the new AF-S.
A bit less distortion, an extra inch of available working distance from the object & the front element sits deeper into the lens - almost like a built-in hood. The new version's front element is much more exposed & lacks an aperture ring as well. Many of my "subjects" are sterling silver and such, so lots of reflections to deal with & I didn't think the new version was necessarily a better choice for me.

I'll likely use tripod & manual focus for all of the macros even if I do decide to splurge for a body with a motor. The DOF seems quite shallow with this lens.

I still want a not too heavy or expensive walk-around lens for general use, considering the AF-S 18 to 105 VR or 135, perhaps as an included kit lens with the camera, or I'll else I'll need to just purchase them separately. That should be enough to keep me busy for awhile!