I'm very disappointed with the noise performance of the K7. And despite the $880 (employee discounted) price tag, I might not pick one up.
I might get a D700. I have zero Nikon gear and I have ~$3000 in Pentax gear.
The D700 is full framed - it has spectacular noise performance and a brilliant and reliable autofocus system. That's all I want. But $3000 for the body and many thousands more for a new lens collection.
Are the lenses you have for Pentax full frame? If so, you can use them with a slight but irreversible modification on EOS bodies, and the 5D2 is a higher resolution body than the D700 with perfectly reliable autofocus. I personally can't stand Nikon ergonomics and interfacing, but each to their own. Both systems do well, on the one hand, you have a million and one legacy lenses in native mount, on the other, you can adapt almost any lens you want to EOS mount very easily.
"What should I do?" Obviously depend on what you can afford to do. Before deciding on Nikon or Canon because of a body I'd suggest that you look at which brand has the best lens for the type of shooting that you do. The next body will alway be released in a year but the lens are what you will be holding onto.
I should make this clear: I am not jumping ship to Nikon, I'm jumping ship to the D700. Yes, some of you will roll your eyes at that, but my photography is currently being limited by the bodies I'm using. When they nail the focus, my lenses are great and sharp, but it happens too rarely. I throw away half of my photos to missed focus and ugly noise.
Justin: My two 50mm lenses are full frame, none of the others are - so that option, despite being a good idea, is not worth while for me. The 5D2 is an impressive beast, and I would not be unhappy to own one at all, but I need low-light, high-iso performance. 12MP is far more than enough for me. I also dislike Nikon's button layout and menu system, but it's something I can learn to get used to.
dada: I cannot afford a D700 plus full set of lenses all at once, but I can get a basic lens and use it to earn the rest. Just like I did with my K10. I've got about 3 grand in cash, plus I might be able to sell my Pentax gear for just over $1600. I work in a camera shop and am able to easily borrow any lenses I need for a shoot. As for which brand has the best lens for what I need - they both have great lenses of all types. Neither brand would leave me high-and-dry in terms of lens choice.
It seems to me that you know exactly what you want to do, DD. I have a question, though. You work in a camera shop, and value your 3000$ worth of Pentax equipement at 1600$. Even counting that your K10 body isn't worth that much any more, that is a fairly steep discount/loss for you. Probably more than you would have lost on quality Canon/Nikon glass. So the longer you wait, the worse your problem is going to get IMHO
You're correct, philber, I do know what I want to do. I'm just not entirely sure it's wise to do it.
I concede that I embellished a little when quoting the value of my gear - $700 of it is my general lighting equipment. I don't believe my lenses are depreciating that badly. The 16-45 f4, the 100mm f2.8 macro and the 50-135 f2.8, for instance, are excellent pieces of glass that still sell for a good amount used.
I need a spare $10,000 cash in my pocket. Then this decision would be so much simpler.
In my humble opinion you really should jump ship to a platform rather than a camera. Consider the platform as a whole, not just noise etc of just one camera, as you remain stuck with it for years. This was something that has obviously gone wrong with your choice for Pentax as it doesn't live up to your needs/expectations.
In this consideration you should really take into account all the aspects of choosing for a platform: performance and range of the camera's, the lenses and the prices. Canon offers a wider range of lenses, and some lenses live up to your needs more than others. Nikon has great lenses in its lineup and if they meet your needs you should still consider the price that comes with it.
I guess what I'm trying to say is that you shouldn't stare blind at performance of a camera, the choice should be more something like: will the brand meet my expectations in a few years time and offer new camera's and lenses that suit my needs by then.
P.S. If you need low-light, high-iso performance then whats wrong with the 5dII??
biotar wrote:
In my humble opinion you really should jump ship to a platform rather than a camera. Consider the platform as a whole, not just noise etc of just one camera
I'm kind of joking when I say it's only for this particular body. I am impressed by both Nikon and Canon's consistently good performance in all areas over the years. I also believe that both brands have much, much more than enough lens selection for me. I don't require anything special. Give me a fun rectilinear wide angle lens, give me a good 50mm, give me a good fast telephoto. Done. That's all I need. I know both brands can adequately provide those things for me.
It would be a grave mistake to presume the low-light ability of the D700 is better than the 5D II. The Canon's far greater file size goes a long way to mitigate its slightly inferior per-pixel signal-to-noise ratio. Scale to the same size either way, and the files are almost identical in terms of low-light performance, but the Canon files are hugely superior sub-ISO-800 by virtue of its major resolution advantage.
Also, with regard to AF performance, I may be able to help clarify your expectations of both: I shoot the 5D II and D700 side by side. Initially, I swapped some Canon kit for the D700 because I was tired of missing shots with the 5D and was under the impression that the Nikon's AF was the top gun for all missions. I quickly found I was wrong.
In fact, the only reason to keep the D700 is that it tracks fast-moving subjects a little better, and Nikon's 85mm f1.4 is a smarter tool for real-world wide aperture work than the 5D II/85L. Ironically, in this specific scenario, I would be better off with the Sony and the Zeiss 85/135 lenses, but the ability to swap all the Nikon lenses between both cameras is a real budget-saver. And when Nikon gets round to putting the D3X sensor in a D700-class body, the sheer wondrousness of the Nikon 14-24 might pull me back to Nikon.
Regardless, you should know that in really low light, the Canon's AF is significantly swifter and more accurate than the D700. And if the camera is moving (ie, for a quick-fire grab shot), there's little to choose between them. Only if the camera is static or slow moving, and there is a need to track rapidly moving objects within the frame, does the Nikon AF prove superior in use. If you load the grip with appropriate power, it also has a few extra FPS, but these advantages have quite specific, limited application. The Nikon's ability to find eyes rather than noses is endearing, though.
The Nikon also shines in low-light wide angle scenarios that require AF - again, a pretty small situation sub-set. The 14-24G is much better than anything Canon has and the 85/1.4 is a sweet combination of speed and quality; on the flip side, Canon's 85/1.8 is very fine, and just as rapid; and the 85L is optically better and 'faster' in light gathering (though no other) terms - plus their 70-200/4 IS cannot be beaten. Both are clear steps up from the Pentax.
The fact that your FF lenses can be adapted to the Canon might swing it . . .
Well, if Pentax isn't working out as a tool for your photography, what good is it to keep it? I think the d700 sounds like the camera for you. A used 5D is another option but it's AF won't be as good but may be fine for your needs matched with a nice USM AF motor lens.
My biggest problem with Pentax is really the community it seems who uses them. I know that sounds really bad but when I had owned a K10D and brought the noise banding issue to forums I was warned by previous posters that I'm about to get flamed and I did. Most pentax people seem to be content with "ok."
Pentax makes some nice limited lenses in the way Zeiss makes nice nikon manual focus lenses but in terms of a peice of modern photographic equipment? No. The community at large it seems for pentax however isn't demanding the improvement so they aren't getting it.
You should check the sony a900. full frame with in-body stabilizer, and dust removal, quite simmilar with your pentax if you are used to it. and the price tag not far from d700.
A note on the Pentax community. Pentaxforums is awful. If you want the sane side of the community, join the PDML instead, it's much more relaxed and flame wars only start based on complaints about the lack of an Aperture Simulator ;-)
That said, the K-7 is reportedly a large improvement over the earlier bodies in terms of speed and responsiveness.
As to the system, Pentax's DA* lenses are extremely good, the zooms are among the best available crop-specific lenses and the three primes are frankly even better. The bodies offer a different mix of performance than Canon or Nikon, but also offer a typically lower price. If you don't need all out AF speed or FPS, the Pentax bodies are quite competitive compared to other crop bodies (even with regards to noise, although Pentax biases towards maximal detail rather than maximal noise reduction at higher ISO's).
yido wrote:
Well, if Pentax isn't working out as a tool for your photography, what good is it to keep it? I think the d700 sounds like the camera for you.
Sound and logical. Cameras and lenses are just tools and one should use the one which fits his/her needs most.
Also Pentax CANNOT be that far behind with releasing an FX camera. That being said I think hands down the D700 is better in low light: AF and noise. It's AF is hand over fist better than the 5D or 5D2.
TWoK wrote:
Also Pentax CANNOT be that far behind with releasing an FX camera. That being said I think hands down the D700 is better in low light: AF and noise. It's AF is hand over fist better than the 5D or 5D2.
Don't expect an FX Pentax anytime soon. Pentax's lens production has been a major bottleneck for them for years now and they have next to no FX lenses in production anymore (just the two D-FA macros, the 50/1.4 and the three FA Limiteds, although the three DA* primes do cover FF unofficially as does the DA70 and DA40 Limiteds). Pentax isn't going to bring out a body if they've got no glass for it and no capability of producing the needed lenses.
I wonder twok if Pentax is not chancing it and deciding to skip FF. Its that their new lenses all seem to be geared for the crop. I have to admit, that slowly I'm liking the 1.5 and 2.0 crop of the Oly to the degree that I wonder if the FF lenses and their size are worth it.
I was really intrigued by the K7 I have to say. Pentax simply marches to a different drummer. I've sold off all my Nikon gear, not that it was in any way other than fantastic (the D700 especially) but simply because I'm kind of tired of the same ol' and am looking for something light and compact.
I settled on the rebel (you can all stop laughing now ) because simply as one who could has not got one single Pentax lens, I didn't want to go through that expensive part. But pentax with the K7 seemed exactly what I was looking for. I wound up with the Rebel xsi because I have a 70-200 f 4.0 is and my daugher liked the rebel. The rebel suited her because she is left eye dominant and likes to use the back button for focus.
So now I'm in the canon camp. Hypocrite that I am I just ordered a 5Dmkii even though I suspect it will be a large let down from the D00. But canons f4 longer lenses should take the sting out of it a bit.
But you know what .... what I secretly can't stop wanting is the K7 or when the panasonic get a few more revisions under its belt.
I think (and hope) that the K7 brings new life to the old brand. It is worth checking out before jumping ship. They don't do noise reduction in camera, but I've always found that I get the best results out of noise ninja anyways. May be worth the try?
With the Pentax glass ... have you considered the Canon 40D. You should be able to use your Pentax glass on it with adapters (instead of a permanent mod). I realize the 40D is a crop camera, but as an adjunct to your Pentax system, the 40D could help. You simply use a wider lens than you may have otherwise chosen. Granted you'll ultimately be restricted on the widest end, but you still would have your Pentax for that. You could also consider an EOS 1 Series (think AF system ... I've chosen the 1D MKII 1.25x crop) with a 1Ds or a 5D to get FF.
For the $$$ of a 40D (et al) vs. a D700 you could also pick up some AF Glass for the 40D to complement your Pentax Glass that you'll be using manul focus. Keep your Pentax Glass till Pentax bodies catch up. Then you can either keep the 40D as backup, or move it on.
hubsand wrote:
Also, with regard to AF performance, I may be able to help clarify your expectations of both: I shoot the 5D II and D700 side by side. Initially, I swapped some Canon kit for the D700 because I was tired of missing shots with the 5D and was under the impression that the Nikon's AF was the top gun for all missions. I quickly found I was wrong.
...
Regardless, you should know that in really low light, the Canon's AF is significantly swifter and more accurate than the D700.
TWoK wrote:
...
That being said I think hands down the D700 is better in low light: AF and noise. It's AF is hand over fist better than the 5D or 5D2.
The D700 feels faster to me than the 5Dmkii that I recently tried ... but all in all .... it makes no real difference.
Likely the lens makes more difference than two bodies so close.
Yes, some of you will roll your eyes at that, but my photography is currently being limited by the bodies I'm using. When they nail the focus, my lenses are great and sharp, but it happens too rarely. I throw away half of my photos to missed focus and ugly noise.
) because simply as one who could has not got one single Pentax lens, I didn't want to go through that expensive part. But pentax with the K7 seemed exactly what I was looking for. I wound up with the Rebel xsi because I have a 70-200 f 4.0 is and my daugher liked the rebel. The rebel suited her because she is left eye dominant and likes to use the back button for focus.