Discussion
Was shown one of these last night by a friend who loves "specs" if he was told it had 200000000000000000 pixels he would buy it !
firstly, the noise levels at high ISO was not very good. so much so i think at 1500 iso a Nikon D300 is better . The camera is far too small and the functions are far too complicated !
But this is my question
in a years time what will it be worth? shops seem only to want to trade the Nikons, Canons and leicas these days. I know a great shop in london that will not buy in a box fresh Olympus or Pentax
they show no interest in buying in these makes? for what he has invested he could have got a D700 Mint with 6 months guarantee and a better trade in down the line?
firstly, the noise levels at high ISO was not very good. so much so i think at 1500 iso a Nikon D300 is better . The camera is far too small and the functions are far too complicated !
But this is my question
in a years time what will it be worth? shops seem only to want to trade the Nikons, Canons and leicas these days. I know a great shop in london that will not buy in a box fresh Olympus or Pentax
they show no interest in buying in these makes? for what he has invested he could have got a D700 Mint with 6 months guarantee and a better trade in down the line?
square earth said:
Was shown one of these last night by a friend who loves "specs" if he was told it had 200000000000000000 pixels he would buy it !
firstly, the noise levels at high ISO was not very good. so much so i think at 1500 iso a Nikon D300 is better . The camera is far too small and the functions are far too complicated !
But this is my question
in a years time what will it be worth? shops seem only to want to trade the Nikons, Canons and leicas these days. I know a great shop in london that will not buy in a box fresh Olympus or Pentax
they show no interest in buying in these makes? for what he has invested he could have got a D700 Mint with 6 months guarantee and a better trade in down the line?
Mmmm... So. The noise levels at high ISO are not good. Well Cant say I have that problem. Do you own a D300 and have been able to do your own comparison ? firstly, the noise levels at high ISO was not very good. so much so i think at 1500 iso a Nikon D300 is better . The camera is far too small and the functions are far too complicated !
But this is my question
in a years time what will it be worth? shops seem only to want to trade the Nikons, Canons and leicas these days. I know a great shop in london that will not buy in a box fresh Olympus or Pentax
they show no interest in buying in these makes? for what he has invested he could have got a D700 Mint with 6 months guarantee and a better trade in down the line?
Here's a link I posted on another thread where a comparison is done between the K5, D700 and D7000. I certaintly dont think the Pentax embarrasses itself.
http://kimletkeman.blogspot.com/2010/11/pentax-k5-...
The Camera is far too small. Not for me. I have small hands.
The functions are far too complicated ? What functions are too complicated ? Coming from the highy regarded Pentax Kx I've not found anything complicated.
The D700 is far more expensive than the K5. My body and 18-55mm kit lens was £699. What lenses has he purchased at the same time to push the price up ?
RobDickinson said:
K5 used properly should slaughter the D300 in noise and dynamic range.
in like for like i was not impressed . ok the K5 goes a lot higher , but i was not impressed with it at all . It strikes me as a "numbers" camera. lots of 'specs" but really how good?as for the settings and menus etc, far too complicated ! Nikon is far superior
But the question is, what will they be worth in a year or so? i cannot see the trade touching them ?
Glass wise, he got 2 lens and forked out £1500 , Big lens make him feel macho !
nick heppinstall said:
Mmmm... So. The noise levels at high ISO are not good. Well Cant say I have that problem. Do you own a D300 and have been able to do your own comparison ?
Here's a link I posted on another thread where a comparison is done between the K5, D700 and D7000. I certaintly dont think the Pentax embarrasses itself.
http://kimletkeman.blogspot.com/2010/11/pentax-k5-...
The Camera is far too small. Not for me. I have small hands.
The functions are far too complicated ? What functions are too complicated ? Coming from the highy regarded Pentax Kx I've not found anything complicated.
The D700 is far more expensive than the K5. My body and 18-55mm kit lens was £699. What lenses has he purchased at the same time to push the price up ?
I had my D300 with me (35mm lens ) i find that i do not believe all the 'specs" of these newer cameras . its like a marketing game. Here's a link I posted on another thread where a comparison is done between the K5, D700 and D7000. I certaintly dont think the Pentax embarrasses itself.
http://kimletkeman.blogspot.com/2010/11/pentax-k5-...
The Camera is far too small. Not for me. I have small hands.
The functions are far too complicated ? What functions are too complicated ? Coming from the highy regarded Pentax Kx I've not found anything complicated.
The D700 is far more expensive than the K5. My body and 18-55mm kit lens was £699. What lenses has he purchased at the same time to push the price up ?
the files i took on raw using the same settings still made me prefer the D300
but my lens was a lot better , he should have bought better lens S/H !!
square earth said:
in like for like i was not impressed . ok the K5 goes a lot higher , but i was not impressed with it at all . It strikes me as a "numbers" camera. lots of 'specs" but really how good?
How did you compare? 100% zoomed in view on the LCD? I guess you dont know how wrong that method is..RobDickinson said:
How did you compare? 100% zoomed in view on the LCD? I guess you dont know how wrong that method is..
No AWB. Same settings his shortest lens point . tripod.
view files on my monitor (calibrated for my d300 , so not so fair !)
just found i preferred the nikon files so much more . Its the quality of the pixel i worry about , not how many there are etc !
At 10000 iso the pentax was no way as good as the funky new Sony NEX 5n with a nice prime lens on
None canon/ nikon DSLR's leave me feeling cold .
RobDickinson said:
That route lies single pixel cameras.
really? so how come a old DH2s with its small amount of pixels can still walk over certain cameras claiming more etc ? its all a silly game. Cram as much crap on to a ting sensor . it only works to a point after that they image quality gets no better for me.
Never have and never will fall for the marketing thats used in magazines and forums etc . I would much rather use a medium pixel count well matched to a good sensor that produces good files. And the D2 hs pixels where well regarded as been excellent .
What's your point?
Unhappy that your mate didn't follow your Nikon Fanboi-ism or something?
If only Canon were allowed to make digital SLRs there would be no innovation.
For example, Pentax have in-body shake reduction whilst Canon and Nikon make you buy expensive lenses to get the feature. Which is better? Not sure, but I do know it's good there's variety.
Who buys a camera with a view to what it's worth next year? The answer will be pretty much nothing, whatever brand you buy.
Lots of people like Pentax cameras, it'd be sad to see the market reduced to one brand (and it wouldn't be Nikon
)
I'll admit I have a Pentax, an iST - It's only 6M, but it takes good pictures and is about 5 years old. I've been toying with getting a higher pixel SLR and I'll probably get another Pentax when/if I do because I've got lenses which are 30 years old and use the K mount.
I'll probably keep the iST to have two bodies with different lenses on sometimes.
I've never bought a camera with an eye to resale value. Seems a crazy idea.
Of course, before I went digital, I'd had my 35mm SLR for 29 years
M
Unhappy that your mate didn't follow your Nikon Fanboi-ism or something?
If only Canon were allowed to make digital SLRs there would be no innovation.
For example, Pentax have in-body shake reduction whilst Canon and Nikon make you buy expensive lenses to get the feature. Which is better? Not sure, but I do know it's good there's variety.
Who buys a camera with a view to what it's worth next year? The answer will be pretty much nothing, whatever brand you buy.
Lots of people like Pentax cameras, it'd be sad to see the market reduced to one brand (and it wouldn't be Nikon
)I'll admit I have a Pentax, an iST - It's only 6M, but it takes good pictures and is about 5 years old. I've been toying with getting a higher pixel SLR and I'll probably get another Pentax when/if I do because I've got lenses which are 30 years old and use the K mount.
I'll probably keep the iST to have two bodies with different lenses on sometimes.
I've never bought a camera with an eye to resale value. Seems a crazy idea.
Of course, before I went digital, I'd had my 35mm SLR for 29 years
M
Edited by marcosgt on Monday 28th November 10:16
Gassing Station | Photography & Video | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff