Question
Apr 12, 2012 00:44:47 #
MT Shooter wrote:
I feel that the consumer DSLRs of today have reached parity across the market. Nikon, Canon, Sony, Pentax, Sigma, Olympus, they all make very comparable bodies. The differences in them comes mostly in lens selection and each manufacturers support structure.
Once you get into the Pro model line-ups, its really a 2 camera market, and has been for decades if you just look at the 35mm type of SLR (DSLR) bodies.
Once you get into the Pro model line-ups, its really a 2 camera market, and has been for decades if you just look at the 35mm type of SLR (DSLR) bodies.
Exactly!!!
Back when I shot 35mm film, Nikon and Canon ruled neck & neck with Pentax, Minolta, Olympus, Konica, etc coming in at a close second. Remember, this was back at a time when lenses were getting a lot of hand polishing & fitting. Nowadays, with CAD-CAM and EDM technology, there's little difference between the major brands with respect to the hardware. It comes down to the software and service support structure. Pentax makes a great product, but as has been pointed out elsewhere in this thread, it's the eye behind the lens that makes the shot.
PD
Apr 12, 2012 01:16:49 #
It's not in eye of the beholder. . it's in the eye of anyone who isn't blind. . . .posting that Pentax is that same as Nikon or Canon is like saying a YUGO is the same as a Mercedes-because they are both automobiles. . it makes no sense and it isn't the truth. There is good and there is bad. . .and there is levels of quality.. ..to continue to say there isn't is insulting and just wrong. . . . sorry. .. . I make my living in this business and there is a difference. . . a HUGE difference . . . .I am sorry this hurts someones feelings, but its the truth . . sorry :thumbup:
Apr 12, 2012 14:37:04 #
Nobody is saying Pentax is the same as Nikon-Canon. Sorry! Your the one saying Pentax is garbage. Sorry! Nothing here is hurting my feelings. Sorry! I own Nikon equiptment. Sorry! Maby your right, there's good and bad. Sorry! I think you should call Pentax right away and tell them to take those cameras off the market right away. Sorry! Their nothing but garbage! So Sorry!
Apr 12, 2012 15:51:03 #
There YOU go again, put words in my post that don't exist.
I never once said Pentax was garbage. But it is absolutely inferior in every aspect when COMPARED to Nikon or Canon, which is what the original poster was inquiring about. Sorry :thumbup:
I never once said Pentax was garbage. But it is absolutely inferior in every aspect when COMPARED to Nikon or Canon, which is what the original poster was inquiring about. Sorry :thumbup:
Apr 12, 2012 16:00:29 #
If you might venture away from the Pentax, do yourself a favor and look at the Sony Alphas. The A55 was Camera of the year in 2011 and they can use the old Maxxum /Minolta lenses which are still bargains on Ebay.
Also, since the stabilization is built into the body, you can buy the less expensive lenses without it.
Just my humble opinion as a new DSLR user.
Also, since the stabilization is built into the body, you can buy the less expensive lenses without it.
Just my humble opinion as a new DSLR user.
Apr 12, 2012 16:13:27 #
The Sony got rave reviews due to it advanced sensor ( the Nikon D4 uses a version of this sensor technology with a few engineering teaks from the Nkon people). The in-camera stabilization is really a non-factor because once you have a shutter speed at 1/500 or faster it has no effect on the shot you are taking. This may be helpful to those of you who hand held portrait shots or landscape shots but for sports action shots it is a non starter.
I may have been misunderstood. I am not saying Pentax is "garbage", but original issue in this thread was if Pentax was on the same level as Nikon/Canon. . and with all due respect to anyone who has a Pentax, the Pentax is not on that level. That doesn't make the Pentax bad, but when you are comparing it against the best camera technology on the planet, it just doesn't compare. Its all good, but some are just better than others. :thumbup: :thumbup:
I may have been misunderstood. I am not saying Pentax is "garbage", but original issue in this thread was if Pentax was on the same level as Nikon/Canon. . and with all due respect to anyone who has a Pentax, the Pentax is not on that level. That doesn't make the Pentax bad, but when you are comparing it against the best camera technology on the planet, it just doesn't compare. Its all good, but some are just better than others. :thumbup: :thumbup:
Apr 12, 2012 19:53:06 #
Guys, guys, guys (& gals)...
Remember, this is a photoblog dedicated to those of us who have a love for the art!
Let's make a deal. I won't spit on your Mercedes & you don't spit on my Yugo. Both of us agree not to spit on the other guy's Ford, Chevy, Porche, Bentley or whatever.
I still agree that MT is right in regards to manufacturing parity among camera makers. If one company makes a "cheaper" product compared to their competitor, it's a marketing choice, not a technical limitation. Given the automation involved with elctronics these days, if one camera is better than another, it's probably a deliberate choice by the company to target a particular market segment, not because they don't know how to build a better mousetrap.
Glass is glass and the ultra dispersion coatings used to reduce chromatic aberation, edge-to-edge sharpness, etc, add a small overall cost to the lens. Producing good quality elements is a lot easier & cheaper today than it was when I was shooting film. I had Minolta gear at that time & was perfectly happy with it. Would I have taken Canon or Nikon in exchange? In a heartbeat! Heck, if pigs could fly, I'd have been using Hasselblad. But there was always that pesky pricing structure.
Today, features such as sensor pixel size, chip processor speed, weather sealing gaskets, IS and all the rest start to add to base price. The Yugo will still get you to the grocery store (assuming it's running).
Since I got back into photography about ten years ago, I've been firmly in the Canon camp. I currently have a 5D MK II, a 50D and an old 20D and I have a decent collection of EF-L and ES lenses.
I also have a Sony NEX-5N and am chomping at the bit to receive my NEX-7. To be honest, I'd put my 5N with the Zeiss 24mm f1.8 up against my 5D with the 24-70mm f2.8L in just about any situation. It's that good. As someone else pinted out here, Sony makes quite a few of the sensors that go into Nikons, but I wouldn't want to put my NEXs through a year and a half of Vietnam warfare either (GREAT story NGC!).
Having said all this, I still feel that "It IS in the eye of the beholder". I've seen mediocre photographers with camera bags full of primo equipment continue to take mediocre photos. I've also seen photographers that have "the eye" use mediocre equipment to produce outstanding images. Put me behind the wheel of a NASCAR vehicle costing boku bucks at the Daytona 500 & I'll still probably hit the wall on the first turn. Equipment, good or bad, doesn't work by itself. Sure, budding novices always want to start off with top shelf gear but untill they know if they enjoy photography, they have to adhere to some realistic cost constraints.
Maybe Pentax or Sony don't rate quite as high as Nikon or Canon in terms of mechanical build, but that doesn't make the many great photographs taken with them worth any less. At the same time, so-so shots captured with "bigger" name brand equipment aren't better because of it.
Just an opinion, not trying to raise any neck hairs.
PD
Remember, this is a photoblog dedicated to those of us who have a love for the art!
Let's make a deal. I won't spit on your Mercedes & you don't spit on my Yugo. Both of us agree not to spit on the other guy's Ford, Chevy, Porche, Bentley or whatever.
I still agree that MT is right in regards to manufacturing parity among camera makers. If one company makes a "cheaper" product compared to their competitor, it's a marketing choice, not a technical limitation. Given the automation involved with elctronics these days, if one camera is better than another, it's probably a deliberate choice by the company to target a particular market segment, not because they don't know how to build a better mousetrap.
Glass is glass and the ultra dispersion coatings used to reduce chromatic aberation, edge-to-edge sharpness, etc, add a small overall cost to the lens. Producing good quality elements is a lot easier & cheaper today than it was when I was shooting film. I had Minolta gear at that time & was perfectly happy with it. Would I have taken Canon or Nikon in exchange? In a heartbeat! Heck, if pigs could fly, I'd have been using Hasselblad. But there was always that pesky pricing structure.
Today, features such as sensor pixel size, chip processor speed, weather sealing gaskets, IS and all the rest start to add to base price. The Yugo will still get you to the grocery store (assuming it's running).
Since I got back into photography about ten years ago, I've been firmly in the Canon camp. I currently have a 5D MK II, a 50D and an old 20D and I have a decent collection of EF-L and ES lenses.
I also have a Sony NEX-5N and am chomping at the bit to receive my NEX-7. To be honest, I'd put my 5N with the Zeiss 24mm f1.8 up against my 5D with the 24-70mm f2.8L in just about any situation. It's that good. As someone else pinted out here, Sony makes quite a few of the sensors that go into Nikons, but I wouldn't want to put my NEXs through a year and a half of Vietnam warfare either (GREAT story NGC!).
Having said all this, I still feel that "It IS in the eye of the beholder". I've seen mediocre photographers with camera bags full of primo equipment continue to take mediocre photos. I've also seen photographers that have "the eye" use mediocre equipment to produce outstanding images. Put me behind the wheel of a NASCAR vehicle costing boku bucks at the Daytona 500 & I'll still probably hit the wall on the first turn. Equipment, good or bad, doesn't work by itself. Sure, budding novices always want to start off with top shelf gear but untill they know if they enjoy photography, they have to adhere to some realistic cost constraints.
Maybe Pentax or Sony don't rate quite as high as Nikon or Canon in terms of mechanical build, but that doesn't make the many great photographs taken with them worth any less. At the same time, so-so shots captured with "bigger" name brand equipment aren't better because of it.
Just an opinion, not trying to raise any neck hairs.
PD
Apr 12, 2012 20:05:11 #
Sorry, but you do a disservice to answer a black and white question with a grey answer. JMHO. . . :thumbup:
Apr 12, 2012 22:21:40 #
Pepper wrote:
Do they still make the YUGO?
Semprasectum wrote:
Is the YUGO as good as a Mercedes?
Nikon and Canon are generations ahead of Pentax. . . from the professional grade DSRL. . .D3s/D4 . . . as for the non professional, I guess you could make an arguments they are all pretty much the same, but why would anyone purchase a Pentax when they could get the same quality Nikon/Canon. . .?
Nikon and Canon are generations ahead of Pentax. . . from the professional grade DSRL. . .D3s/D4 . . . as for the non professional, I guess you could make an arguments they are all pretty much the same, but why would anyone purchase a Pentax when they could get the same quality Nikon/Canon. . .?
Do they still make the YUGO?
Didn't they stop making that when the one got blown off the Mackinaw Bridge some years back ?
Apr 12, 2012 22:32:06 #
Semprasectum wrote:
There YOU go again, put words in my post that don't exist.
I never once said Pentax was garbage. But it is absolutely inferior in every aspect when COMPARED to Nikon or Canon, which is what the original poster was inquiring about. Sorry :thumbup:
I never once said Pentax was garbage. But it is absolutely inferior in every aspect when COMPARED to Nikon or Canon, which is what the original poster was inquiring about. Sorry :thumbup:
IF a pro took the 3 cameras ( Pentax, Canon , Nikon ) with say a sigma lens like a 70-200 2.8 , Made the same shot with all three , would there be that much difference in the images ? I am asking about the the crop sensors . Not the top of the line 5k bodies .
ca
Apr 13, 2012 02:01:29 #
Starting back in 1968, I have purchased Pentax, Mamiya, Nikon and Canon cameras. All my cameras have features I like, that's why I bought them. Do your home work and research what's out there. Go to the camera stores and hold the cameras in your hands. Don't purchase based on who gave the best argument on the Hog.
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.