Pentax K10 or Canon 5D, 40D

[myloveaiza]

Hi to all...
I want to get a new camera kit soon, no later than March 2008, and I mention this because a heard that the Canon 5D is going to change soon on 2008 as well.
First... I would like to tell that my main subject to photo is action Telephoto shots, generally of Dogs hunting, or any game like ice hockey, basket Ball etc.. Not too much, I don't need those Paparazzi big lenses, just one that can approach to the subject maybe 10 to 12 times.
And my other main is People, portraits, in natural backgrounds, full shots of groups, etc... mostly without flash in natural light conditions and for large prints.
My original idea was to buy a 5D, but I heard that is going to change soon so I am waiting, also a friend told me that the 40D will be better because some lenses issues, the faster burst mode (5 per second on the 40D vs 3 per second on the 5D). I mentioned him about the 12MP in the 5D and the full frame sensor. So... in this particular case what is worthy?
12MP vs Faster Burst Mode
Later... I found the Pentax K10d, which seems to be a very good SLR, 10MP like the 40D, I don't know about the burst mode, dust protection, etc... Plus I can get the pentax and maybe two lenses by the price of the Canon.
So... What do you all suggest?
Thanks in advance. Keep the learning up.

[Photo-John]

I think this is a no-brainer. If you're going to be shooting hockey and basketball, the EOS 40D is the right thing to do. You need the speed. The K10D is a very nice camera. I've used it and it's great. But the 40D can shoot a very, very fast 6.5 frames-per-second. And if you want to capture action on the rink or the court, that frame rate is going to make a difference. I don't think you're going to see any real benefit from the 5D, unless you really want the full-frame sensor. And I think full-frame isn't as important as a lot of people make it out to be. As for getting the K10D and more or better lenses - that is another good strategy. You just need to decide which is more important to you - speed or lenses. It's a tough call and one that only you can make.

Two other issues I'll throw into the mix for you. The EOS 40D will absolutely have better image quality and auto focus performance than the Pentax. Not that the Pentax is bad on either count. But the Canon is better. On the other hand, the Pentax has built-in, sensor-level image stabilization. That means you can shoot handheld at slower shutter speeds. With Canon you'll need to buy IS lenses to get that particular feature.

Still, out of those three cameras I'd definitely go with the EOS 40D. Hands-down. No choice. If you didn't need the speed and you were going to be doing more outdoor photography, I might lean more towards the Pentax because of the excellent weather-resistance (the 40D has it, too) and the buiilt-in image stabilization. But for hockey and basketball the 40D is the best choice. Usually I would be a bit more diplomatic. But when it comes to action, you can't mess around.

More questions? Fire away!

[myloveaiza]

Thanks Photo-John for your reply, very instructive and useful...
Before going for the 40D I just want to be sure about something that you mention about the lenses stuff and the Image stabilization.
Canon lenses need to be IS, so they are a little more "pricy" than the Pentax ones, right?
Petax has the Stabilization build in so any Pentax lens will work.
However... about the speed, I am winning 5fps vs. 3fps, will I miss that moments on the sports and Dogs with that difference?
Can this be "compensate" with the quality of the lenses? For instance I can get a very nice Telephoto Pentax lens that will allow me to get further subjects for less Canon price, BUT I just will need to be very aware of the exactly moment right? And If I chose Canon, maybe I can't get an awesome lens but will be easier to get the shots?
One more question... I haven't use either camera, so I don't know the exactly limitations of the burst mode, the camera that I have right now has the limitation of 15 frames in a row.
Do any of these cameras have something similar, maybe than will be useful to know and decide.
Thanks again.

[Photo-John]

I think you understand pretty well. Canon's IS lenses cost more than a comparable Pentax lens. But the Canon is faster and the image quality is also better - if you leave out the camera shake factor. I think the speed is critical for the kinf shooting you're going to be doing. You can only predict the action so much - especially with a sport like hockey. When a player is going in for a shot you want to be able to just hold down the shutter realease and get a burst. in my experience, 3 FPS doesn't actually turn out to be very fast. Five FPS is sort of the entry level for a true action camera. And dogs aren't that cooperative - at least not in my experience. Speed will count there, too.

[jeffp]

you can also consider a nikon camera. the new D300 that is starting to ship to stores can reach 8 fps with the battery grip, and 6 without. but the real advantage with the D300 will be the autofocus system. it has a pro level AF system in a consumer body/price. its more expensive than a 40D but less than a 5D.

[Photo-John]

you can also consider a nikon camera. the new D300 that is starting to ship to stores can reach 8 fps with the battery grip, and 6 without. but the real advantage with the D300 will be the autofocus system. it has a pro level AF system in a consumer body/price. its more expensive than a 40D but less than a 5D.

The EOS 40D has an excellent auto focus system and I doubt he'd have any problems with it. But if we're going to be suggesting cameras that aren't quite out yet, I'd recommend taking a look at the Olympus E-3 DSLR. It has built-in image stabilization, a weather-resistant body, and claimed fastest auto focus available. I got to play with it at the Olympus E-3 introduction and I was really impressed. If I was investing in my first system, I'd be looking hard at the Olympus right now.

[myloveaiza]

Woww...
Thank you guys for this postings, I went to the olympus website and the E3 seems like a very particular and nice camera, it also is a little more expensive than Canon but quality and performance seems to be on the best as well.
I still not decide, I think i will wait until next year to see if I renew my contract with the hockey and dogs events, or if I go to another projects more portrait oriented like glamour, modeling or fashion, I just receive a notice yesterday that seems to be a nice opportunity on this field as well.
Thanks again for this posting and if you remember an important issue about a camera or something related with this doubts that I brought to this forum please keep me posted.
I think the only "to say" on this thread will be to enumerate some online resources with more details about cameras. I normally use dpreview.com but this one doesn't have still the deep review for the Olympus. Maybe in some deep area of this website we can find more info about this cameras side by side.
I will let you now at the beginning of the year for which camera I decide and hope to tell a valid Why...
God bless you, have a great holidays...

[Photo-John]

Happy to help.

The Olympus E-3 isn't actually available yet. So there are no real reviews for it yet. But I did get to play with it at the intro event and I'm pretty familiar with the Olympus system. You can read my two part Olympus E-3 DSLR preview in our articles section:

Olympus E-3 DSLR Hands-On Preview >>

Keep us posted on what you decide. And let us know if you have more questions. Check back for an Olympus E-3 review, too. We should have a review camera pretty soon.

[gryphonslair99]

From what you are describing the 40D makes the most sense. The 5D is great landscape nature and portrait camera, but 3 fps is just to slow for sports. 6.5 fps is decent and I am quite satisfied with it for both indoor and outdoor sports. If you truly want the best of both worlds IMO then the 1DMIII is the way to go but it is $4000 + for a body. The 40D has the newer sensor and processor than the 40D and the low light/high ISO capabilities are very close.

As for glass, if you want reach you need good glass. I guess that translates to Paparazzi glass. A great camera with poor glass will take poor pictures. A fair camera with great glass will do everything the camera is capable of. I have seen some fantastic stuff from an Rebel with good L glass attached. Good glass, taken care of will last a lifetime. For sports you also want fast glass. Hockey, volley ball, basketball etc. is not too easy to shoot with a f3.5 to f5.6 telephoto zoom lens. Just too slow to give you the shutter speeds you need. On the other hand, an f2.8 or faster lens can do wonders indoors. My basketball, volleyball kit is pretty much the 85mm f1.8 and the 135 f2.0L. I have used my 70-200 f2.8L in some indoor venues that have the lighting to allow it, but they are few and far between.

Fast glass has another advantage when it comes to portraits. Fast glass means a shallower depth of field, which translates to bokeh. It is much easier to get pleasing bokeh with a good piece of fast glass.

IS is nice if you need it, but for sports it is not of much use. Fast shutter speeds freeze action. IS lets you hand hold in low light when there is little or no movement by the subjects. The new generation of IS can be helpful when panning such as at an auto race. But for the most part it is not much use for sports. For portraits, a tripod is better than IS. Of course if you are shooting something like a wedding, a tripod is not practical, but for general portrait photography nothing beats a good tripod.

As for the Olympus, I am not a fan of the four thirds system. I shot some of their film cameras a few years ago and they were pretty decent, but the four thirds sensor is just a bit small to me.

Don't overlook Nikon, The new generation of Nikon cameras seem interesting. I shoot Nikon bodies and glass for 30 year when I was shooting film. When I switched to digital I went Canon as I shoot a lot of what you are expressing interest in. If you go with either Canon or Nikon you can hardly go wrong. Not that Sony, Pentax or Olympus don't make decent cameras. But their lens lines and accessories are much more limited than either Canon or Nikon.