|
martolod
|
 |
« on: July 13, 2009, 05:29:46 PM » |
|
i'm going to be in a position to update my DSLR...
now i had a look at the the nikons and whatever else is out there but...
considering the stable of K lenses i have i am interested in the new Pentax K7.
the only toss up is going to be the lens 17-70mm in either pentax or sigma.
the pentax lens is about $200.00 but constant f ....
to my mind ..it's digital!...and i feel that has negated a lot of the issues around iso vs aperture.except when you want a certain depth of field, but is it worth the extra money?
opinions?
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
shadowfox
|
|
« Reply #1 on: July 14, 2009, 12:42:57 PM » |
|
If I were in your situation, my wallet says Sigma, my heart says Pentax, my eye/brain probably can't tell the difference  Two hundred difference is quite steep. I'll probably get the Sigma for now, and save for one of those DA* lenses in the future. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Kin Lau
|
|
« Reply #2 on: July 14, 2009, 01:10:04 PM » |
|
My wife has the Sigma 17-70/2.8-4.5, and it's a very nice walk-around lens. We find the range and macro feature very useful.
The Pentax version sounds like it's very well built with the silent motor (SDM) and what seems to be weather sealing.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
I started with nothing... I still have most of it.
|
|
|
|
martolod
|
|
« Reply #3 on: July 18, 2009, 04:42:13 AM » |
|
the Nikon D5000 with the twin lens kit is also a possibility
i had a look at one today...sweet hardware.
but the lenses feel cheap. hardly no weight in them
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
LarryD
|
|
« Reply #4 on: July 18, 2009, 04:48:50 AM » |
|
My heart says Nikon F5 ... oops sorry my heart spoke before my brain.. wrong thread. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Film photography and the Soviet Union are not dead. Just downsized.
|
|
|
|
sandeha
|
|
« Reply #5 on: July 18, 2009, 05:28:44 AM » |
|
The specs of the K7 have a lot going for it, though not enough for me to upgrade from the K10 which I'm still fine with. Zooms? In a word ... OOF ... and you get what you pay for.  |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
LarryD
|
|
« Reply #6 on: July 18, 2009, 05:33:38 AM » |
|
While I am here is Pentax ever going to make a Full Frame? Anyone have a tinkeling thought on this? I have both Nikon Glass and So many Screw and K mounts I could fill a church with but If and I say IF!!! I ever go digital it has to be full frame.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Film photography and the Soviet Union are not dead. Just downsized.
|
|
|
|
martolod
|
|
« Reply #7 on: July 18, 2009, 05:49:21 AM » |
|
a full frame pentax would be a dream come true.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
LarryD
|
|
« Reply #8 on: July 18, 2009, 05:54:41 AM » |
|
a full frame pentax would be a dream come true.
Other than Nikon and Canon who makes a Full Frame Digital SLR? Is this like the 70's when The little guys made the innovations that the big guys used? Pentax tried to make a Pro system but though it was nice it was a little to little too late with some nice added features. Then the AF Revaluation hit and all bets were off then again it was Canon and Nikon. Many camera makers just went away ... it left us with 3 and Pentax was still in 3rd place. will the pull off a Wii? |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Film photography and the Soviet Union are not dead. Just downsized.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Kalkadan
|
|
« Reply #10 on: July 19, 2009, 04:19:43 AM » |
|
Marto
>>i feel that has negated a lot of the issues around iso vs aperture.except when you want a certain depth of field, but is it worth the extra money?<<
I'm not familiar with the Pentax or Sigma glass. However, if you can stretch for it, I would say go for the wider max. constant aperture lens. It is amazing how often you will be in a situation where you just must have 2.8 at all focal lengths on the zoom.
And - again, if it's possible - go for a lens that will be able to be used on Pentax FX. Just as a matter of logic and marketing it seems inevitable that all the majors will offer full frame within, say, the next two years. You will want it.
Dan
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
martolod
|
|
« Reply #11 on: July 19, 2009, 04:53:27 AM » |
|
thanks dan for the advice .
stretching for the extra dollars is not an issue, it was a question of value for money as opposed to function.
i still have not quite decided between nikon and pentax.
the nikon is nice ; i am yet to get my hands on a k7 to ha a play with.
on balance i probably will go the pentax with a constant f lens.
....possibly
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Kalkadan
|
|
« Reply #12 on: July 19, 2009, 04:58:04 AM » |
|
Marto
I don't know the K7, but this just caught my eye over on the Leica users forum - from a bloke named Jono Slack in the UK -
a comparison of pixel density:
Canon G10: 34mp / cm2
Olympus E_P1 5 mp / cm2
Leica M8 2 mp / cm2
Pentax K7 4 mp / cm2
Looks like the K7 should perform pretty well in the IQ stakes.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
martolod
|
|
« Reply #13 on: July 20, 2009, 11:39:20 PM » |
|
i just had a looksee at the K7 at a store in town.
it's a nikon canon killer.
for what it has it is superb value for the equivalent nikon/canon.
think K20 on steroids...and then some.
i think i know which way i'm going to swing..... :p
i used one of my own lenses to have a play;
the lens that was on the camera was the kit 18-55mm WR lens.....now that is a gorgeous piece of glass.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
LarryD
|
|
« Reply #14 on: July 20, 2009, 11:41:37 PM » |
|
I am glad you are a swinger.. I hope it works out for you. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Film photography and the Soviet Union are not dead. Just downsized.
|
|
|
|
