Nikon or Pentax?

[compuwar]

Sorry to disagree, with Canon you are paying for quality. Professional photographers care nothing for names as such, but they do care for quality.

How many Pro's use Pentax?

Dave (A professional photographer for 30 years)

Actually, you're mostly paying for marketing. Most pro sports/media photogs don't own their own equipment, and Canon spent multiple millions getting companies to switch over (I worked at Gannett for 8.5 years.) Canon is a business, and they're in business to sell. They make as many bad lenses as any other major manufacturer.

I've got a Pentax 67- I'll probably never shoot with it again, nor any of my 645s, the only film I'd consider shooting at this point is with my Canham MQC 5x7 view camera. If I shot weddings, it'd be with either a Pentax 645AF or the Mamiya equivalent, or possibly the FinePix S3Pro if I had to go with a small format body simply for the black/white clothing vs. the sensor's dynamic range.

As for the "how many" argument, the number of people who eat at a place like McDonalds doesn't automatically equate to it being exquisite cuisine.

How many computer professionals use Windows?

Finally, show me a professional photographer who couldn't get salable results from the Pentax. Personally, I think it's not a good overall strategic choice, but it doesn't suck.

I'm of the opinion that you're getting a better camera at a reasonable price with Pentax and Nikon (and Canon) are just filling up the low end with anything because they feel the need and hope that people will step up to their more expensive models.

Actually, it appears more like they're trying to lure point & shooters up to the place where they can sell more lenses. It's almost always easier/cheaper to upsell a current customer than to gain a new one, and lens lock-in is one way to do it.

I'm of the opinion that unless you need a particular feature (high speed, mirror lock-up or pre-fire...) the body really doesn't make all that much of a difference, and you really should be looking at the cheapest body you can afford and spend your real time/money on the glass.

 

[Buschmaster]

Actually, you're mostly paying for marketing. Most pro sports/media photogs don't own their own equipment, and Canon spent multiple millions getting companies to switch over (I worked at Gannett for 8.5 years.) Canon is a business, and they're in business to sell. They make as many bad lenses as any other major manufacturer.

I've got a Pentax 67- I'll probably never shoot with it again, nor any of my 645s, the only film I'd consider shooting at this point is with my Canham MQC 5x7 view camera. If I shot weddings, it'd be with either a Pentax 645AF or the Mamiya equivalent, or possibly the FinePix S3Pro if I had to go with a small format body simply for the black/white clothing vs. the sensor's dynamic range.

As for the "how many" argument, the number of people who eat at a place like McDonalds doesn't automatically equate to it being exquisite cuisine.

How many computer professionals use Windows?

Finally, show me a professional photographer who couldn't get salable results from the Pentax. Personally, I think it's not a good overall strategic choice, but it doesn't suck.

And on top of that, Nikon is owned by quite a bit more pros than Canon, correct?

 

[bousozoku]

Sorry to disagree, with Canon you are paying for quality. Professional photographers care nothing for names as such, but they do care for quality.

How many Pro's use Pentax?

Dave (A professional photographer for 30 years)

Yes, yes, you're claiming to be a professional photographer.

Have you never heard of medium format? Plenty of professionals use Pentax cameras before Canon had a decent camera to sell and they're still using Pentax.

 

[coldrain]

And on top of that, Nikon is owned by quite a bit more pros than Canon, correct?

Not correct at all. Most pros that use 35mm style SLRs use Canon. Nikon lost a LOT of customers the last 20 years or so. Minolta of course lost even more customers, not many pros used Minolta anymore the last decade or so.
Most pros that still use Nikon are people that have a background and therefore an attrachement with Nikon. It did not go well with Nikon at all, the new surge of DSLRs has given Nikon (and the whole SLR market) a boost.

Canon is by far the biggest player on the moment, followed by Nikon.

 

[compuwar]

And on top of that, Nikon is owned by quite a bit more pros than Canon, correct?

Not any more, Canon has the market share (it's a much bigger company with much more marketing muscle and the ability to support more niche products.) Nikon currently has the biggest growth though, so we'll see what the future holds.

Nikon's making a pretty good come-back, but it's really making it's growth in the upgrades from P&S crowd, first with the D70, and now with the D50 and D40. That's a sound business decision on their part, though I'd prefer to see VR added to the long guns first personally (but then I'd have to part with my 400 to get the new version, so maybe my bank account is happy it's not yet so.)

The real markets are amateurs and semi-pros. Though the in joke used to be that we let doctors buy Nikons so that there'd be an affordable used lens market. These days that tends to hold up well for non-doctors too- I don't think I've purchased a brand new lens for a camera in ~15 years.

Truthfully though it really doesn't matter which brand most pros shoot with, the market has lots of awesome cameras, and lots more awesome lenses. The really sad part is that most photographers basically suck and/or don't understand exposure (especially with digital sensors.) DPReview's forums are a great place to see how many people with $3000+ of equipment can't shoot to save their lives.

 

[compuwar]

The D80 does actually NOT have mirror lockup. It merely has an option to flip the mirror up half a second or so before exposure. And what advantages does a D80 have over an XTi/400D, besides the silly in-camera image editting and its spot metering (anyone who thinks you need spotmetering... doesnt understand exposure much).

Anyone who thinks spot metering is useless doesn't understand exposure at all. Funnily enough, all my Sekonic light meters have had a spot meter function. I don't see how you can place a particular item in a particular zone with either center weighted or matrix metering (both of which have their place, but neither of which replace spot metering.)

As far as mirror pre-fire vs. lock-up, they essentially serve the same purpose, though if you're shooting a static subject choosing when the noise from mirror slap gets made has some minor advantage. The D200 was the first time that Nikon offered MLU in a non-pro body, and if the D80 only gets pre-fire it's at least better than previous lower end amateur bodies.

 

[Irish Dave]

And on top of that, Nikon is owned by quite a bit more pros than Canon, correct?

Wrong ...... Nikon in the past had the Lion's share, things have changed.

Dave

 

[Irish Dave]

Canon is by far the biggest player on the moment, followed by Nikon.

Nice to see someone with sense and knows what is going on

Dave

 

[Irish Dave]

Yes, yes, you're claiming to be a professional photographer.

Have you never heard of medium format? Plenty of professionals use Pentax cameras before Canon had a decent camera to sell and they're still using Pentax.

My friend in my life as a pro I have used the following formats

35mm
645
6x6
6x7
5" X 4"

Oh yes, I remember seeing a pro using a Pentax ........... once, but i cant remember where, but i do remember it was about 20 years ago.

 

[BigPrince]

Irish Dave has given me advice in private and it has really helped me out the in the past. In my opinion he really knows what hes talking about.

 

[Irish Dave]

Irish Dave has given me advice in private and it has really helped me out the in the past. In my opinion he really knows what hes talking about.

Thank you my friend ........... now, how much do I owe you (lol)

Dave

 

[BigPrince]

Thank you my friend ........... now, how much do I owe you (lol)

Dave

Just paying you back for the help you provided me.

Even so, I have no expierence but know that Nikon is more popular and widly used then Pentax. My current camera is a Nikon Coolpix 3200 and it has served me well.

 

[Irish Dave]

Just paying you back for the help you provided me.

Even so, I have no expierence but know that Nikon is more popular and widly used then Pentax. My current camera is a Nikon Coolpix 3200 and it has served me well.

Pentax was used by some great photographers, particularly the 67, but that was many years ago.

As far as professionals go the only real choice is between Canon and Nikon. Both will do a good job although for the past 10 years or so Canon has been the choice of most professionals.

I had been using Nikon cameras and lenses for a few years ..... then Canon brought out the T90. I was so impressed by the handling and quality of the lenses I traded in all my Nikon gear and went Canon.

Dave

 

[ChrisA]

I'm looking for a DSLR. My parents have offered to get me one for graduation. I'm praying for the D80, but I may end up with the D40/D50 instead. I've looked at Canon, but aside from their prosumer models that are far out of my price range the bodies are way too small. I'm intrigued by Pentax's offerings though. How are they, in terms of bodies, lenses and accessories compared to Nikon? Am i just being cheap thinking of Pentax?

Every one of there beginner threads starts the same way -- asking about DSLR camera bodies. Don't worry about the body that is the least important part. You are buying a system. The system has a lens or maybe three of them, a strobe and a DSLR body. You don't buy this system all at once. But think about the system you'd like to own in three to five years. In five years you will replace the DSLR body. So you will keep the system for maaybe decades but the bodies get replaced.

Is Pentax cheaper than Nikon? I can buy a used Nikon 80-200 f/2.8 for $650. You might pay $800 more for a Pentax because there are not good used Pentax autofocus lenses around. Or maybe you'd like a 12-24mm lens. Does Pentax even make one at any price? So long as you plan 3 to 5 years ahead you'll be ok.

 

[ChrisA]

I always laugh at that comment that more pros use Canon.

1) OK assume it is true. But so what? Are you really going to buy the same camera the pros are using? No you are not. You see them on the sidelines of a pro football game shooting a 5D with white L-series lens so you think you will buy a Rebel and an 18-55m kit lens. That Rebel and kit lens have absolutely NOTHING in common with the camera those pros use except for the nameplate. It's like watching a NASCAR race and seeing a Ford win so you go out and buy a Ford Escort because a pro drivier won a race in a totaly unrelated car.

2) OK maybe you are going to buy a 5D. But are you going to do the same kind of work as the pro? If not why do you care what kind of equipment he uses if you will not be doing what he does.

3) Next -- What cameras do professionals really use? Only shorts, news and event photographers would use a small format DSLR or 35mm camera. The workhorse cameras are all larger. People who care about image quality will go for the largest camera that will do the job.

4) Why care about numbers. Who cares what most people use. More people drive used Hondas than drive new Ferraris. Most computer uses (including professional office workers) use use low-end PCs.

 

[Irish Dave]

I always laugh at that comment that more pros use Canon.

1) OK assume it is true. But so what? Are you really going to buy the same camera the pros are using? No you are not. You see them on the sidelines of a pro football game shooting a 5D with white L-series lens so you think you will buy a Rebel and an 18-55m kit lens. That Rebel and kit lens have absolutely NOTHING in common with the camera those pros use except for the nameplate. It's like watching a NASCAR race and seeing a Ford win so you go out and buy a Ford Escort because a pro drivier won a race in a totaly unrelated car.

2) OK maybe you are going to buy a 5D. But are you going to do the same kind of work as the pro? If not why do you care what kind of equipment he uses if you will not be doing what he does.

3) Next -- What cameras do professionals really use? Only shorts, news and event photographers would use a small format DSLR or 35mm camera. The workhorse cameras are all larger. People who care about image quality will go for the largest camera that will do the job.

4) Why care about numbers. Who cares what most people use. More people drive used Hondas than drive new Ferraris. Most computer uses (including professional office workers) use use low-end PCs.

I know people who are not professional photographers and use top of the range Canon and Nikon cameras. Why ? ... because they can and it makes them happy.

Many people who don't really need Mac Pro's and G5's use them. Why? ... because they can and it makes them happy.

A friend of mine has a top of the range sports car and he uses it mainly for going back and forward to work. Why? ......... Same answer as above.

Most people aspire to greater things ....... what's the harm in that?

Dave

 

[Abstract]

Yes, yes, you're claiming to be a professional photographer.

Have you never heard of medium format? Plenty of professionals use Pentax cameras before Canon had a decent camera to sell and they're still using Pentax.

I think if he didn't sound so biased, and did not give us his "Pro photographer for 30 years" schtick several times, I'd take what he says more seriously. It's not that I always disagree with him. It's how he says it that makes his words seem less than valuable.

And besides, the question was asked by a non-pro. A professional photographer (who's actually GOOD at photography) could produce great photographs using Pentax, so again, get something that feels good. You need to use this thing every time you take a photo. Do you really want a camera that's not as natural and intuitive to use?

And Nikon doesn't make the best supertelephoto lenses, and not for the lowest price, either. Lots of people have said this already. I don't think this makes Nikon inferior. It's just inferior to those who want super-telephoto. Again, I wouldn't choose a Canon over a Nikon for macro photography or landscapes. I have no reason to if we're talking about photographic quality or lenses.

The camera I'd use instead of a Nikon is a Fuji S5Pro, and it's essentially a Nikon D200 with a different sensor.

 

[Westside guy]

Wading in with a little trepidation here...

To some degree you have to think about economics here. Nikon and Canon are "safe" because you know they'll both be around for the long haul. There's been a lot of fallout in the DSLR market over the past year or two. Formerly big names like KonicaMinolta (who were two separate companies in the not-so-distant past) have dropped out of the DSLR market completely. Pentax might be in it long-term, but check to see if they're going to offer the range of lenses and accessories that the big two offer (I'm not saying yea or nay, I'm just saying look carefully). Check what the review sites say in terms of quality vs. cost. I know in earlier rounds, back when I was shopping, the *ist was considered overpriced for what it offered (I ended up getting the D70).

In terms of who's staying and who's going, you might find this opinion piece from Thom Hogan, interesting. It's from about a year ago. He got KonicaMinolta's demise right, and he didn't sound hopeful about Pentax. I'll be curious to see what he says about 2007 in the next bit. Of course he's a Nikon guy, so that'll put some people off right there.

 

[Pistol Pete]

And the D40 is even smaller !!!

Dave

wrong. D50 is Bigger.

 

[epicwelshman]

I admit that I am a newbie in the DSLR world, and I have made the mistake of asking about bodies rather than systems/lenses. However, I am fully aware that buying a body essentially locks you into a lens company. So basically I need help deciding between Canon and Nikon... I love Canon's higher end bodies and I love all of Nikon's bodies, but I barely know anything about their lenses.

 

[bousozoku]

I think if he didn't sound so biased, and did not give us his "Pro photographer for 30 years" schtick several times, I'd take what he says more seriously. It's not that I always disagree with him. It's how he says it that makes his words seem less than valuable.

And besides, the question was asked by a non-pro. A professional photographer (who's actually GOOD at photography) could produce great photographs using Pentax, so again, get something that feels good. You need to use this thing every time you take a photo. Do you really want a camera that's not as natural and intuitive to use?

And Nikon doesn't make the best supertelephoto lenses, and not for the lowest price, either. Lots of people have said this already. I don't think this makes Nikon inferior. It's just inferior to those who want super-telephoto. Again, I wouldn't choose a Canon over a Nikon for macro photography or landscapes. I have no reason to if we're talking about photographic quality or lenses.

The camera I'd use instead of a Nikon is a Fuji S5Pro, and it's essentially a Nikon D200 with a different sensor.

Well, that's the thing. How does it go? "He dost protest too loudly." It's as if the world was in complete darkness prior to his entry into photography. Poor Ansel Adams was too early for Dave's help. All those mistakes.

I suppose we should count Nikon number 2 because they don't have nearly as many refurbished parts as Canon does. Any day of the week, I can find a refurbished body or L-series lens but it's much, much more difficult to find refurbished equipment from any of the other camera makers. You'd think that they would not release a $6000 lens to the public.

I could swear that the original question was about the low end of the line and we know who is better there and it's not Canon and it's not Nikon because they're leaving out pieces to move someone up to a more expensive camera body.

 

[compuwar]

My friend in my life as a pro I have used the following formats

35mm
645
6x6
6x7
5" X 4"

Oh yes, I remember seeing a pro using a Pentax ........... once, but i cant remember where, but i do remember it was about 20 years ago.

Oh heck, that's no qualification. Before I sold a single print, I owned 1 35mm, 2 645s, 1 6x6, 1 6x7, 2 4x5s and 1 5x7 with a 4x5 reducing back. Back when the T90 came out, I wouldn't even touch 35mm film if I didn't have to, one of the 645s was my snapshot camera (Velvia for color, Delta 3200 at EI 800 in PMK for B&W.)

And Nikon doesn't make the best supertelephoto lenses, and not for the lowest price, either. Lots of people have said this already. I don't think this makes Nikon inferior. It's just inferior to those who want super-telephoto.

The camera I'd use instead of a Nikon is a Fuji S5Pro, and it's essentially a Nikon D200 with a different sensor.

1. Inferior is too much spin, the MTF charts really aren't miles apart (and are a slight win on the Nikon side for some of the big guns,) and I've never had anyone look at one of my prints and say "Hey! That'd look so much better shot with a Canon!" If there was that much difference and it was all Canon positive, nobody making money could have afforded NOT to switch.

2. Having owned 2 S2Pros and played some with the S3Pro, unless I was shooting weddings, I'd probably go with a D2xs. The prior Fujis were dog slow and the D200s battery system sucks compared to the D2 series.

I admit that I am a newbie in the DSLR world, and I have made the mistake of asking about bodies rather than systems/lenses. However, I am fully aware that buying a body essentially locks you into a lens company. So basically I need help deciding between Canon and Nikon... I love Canon's higher end bodies and I love all of Nikon's bodies, but I barely know anything about their lenses.

You won't find much difference in pro lenses for either system, and consumer grade lenses are hit or miss on either side. If you prefer Nikon, go with Nikon and don't worry about it. Spend as little as you can on a body and as much as you can on lenses. Don't ignore the used market for lenses, you can find some sweet deals. http://www.nikonians.org is a great resource for Nikon stuff. I'd steer away from the D40 since it won't drive a lot of good AFD lenses.

 

[Abstract]

They say "Canon is better for sports photographers" and such: Are you shooting these sorts of events? I have shot dance competitions with my Nikon and didn't suffer one bit with a Nikon. Most people don't need super-telephoto lenses (or telephoto lenses at all) unless they're shooting certain sports (ie: football, NFL, baseball, F1....any sport with massive fields/pitches), and birds. Sports like tennis or dance can be done with any system. I will never shoot arena sports and even if I do, Nikon offers me great options, although fewer of them.

If you find yourself fancying landscape and cityscape night shots more than sports or wildlife, you'll need to look at which company offers better wide-angle lenses. I think Nikon does, so if I became a professional, I wouldn't choose Canon for what I shoot. If I were to shoot birds often, I'd pick up a Canon 30D (bare minimum in Canon-land, IMO) and lenses, full stop. This doesn't mean shooting birds is impossible with a Nikon. However, Canon makes more long telephoto options for slightly cheaper, although some of Nikon's are better.

All these people who "claim" to be pros: What type of things do they shoot? Forget this dick-measuring competition you're witnessing. The difference between systems is very little if you don't need two handfuls of telephoto lenses; even if you do, the difference in camera systems is still very small. In fact, the difference between shooting with or without a tripod is much MUCH greater than the difference between Canon and Pentax, or Nikon and Pentax. Who cares how sharp your lens is if you shake a lot while shooting?

Technically, I'm a pro because I sold a photo for $200 around 2 months ago. Calling yourself a pro doesn't mean you know how to shoot well. Look at me, for example. Look at all the non-pros at FredMiranda.com who AREN'T pros and take absolutely stunning photos.

Buy a Nikon D50 or D80. You know you want one, and you know you don't want a Canon 400D. You already said so.

 

[Abstract]

I admit that I am a newbie in the DSLR world, and I have made the mistake of asking about bodies rather than systems/lenses. However, I am fully aware that buying a body essentially locks you into a lens company. So basically I need help deciding between Canon and Nikon... I love Canon's higher end bodies and I love all of Nikon's bodies, but I barely know anything about their lenses.

Don't worry, almost nobody knows what lenses they want when they buy their first SLR. I think it's impossible. ChrisA's advice is great for those who shot with SLRs took a 10 year hiatus, and are now getting back into it with a new DSLR, but in practice, it's hard for a person who's choosing a company for the first time to "choose a company based on lenses. His advice is still valid though.

Oh heck, that's no qualification.

I think most of us know that. Don't need to point out the obvious.

1. Inferior is too much spin, the MTF charts really aren't miles apart (and are a slight win on the Nikon side for some of the big guns,) and I've never had anyone look at one of my prints and say "Hey! That'd look so much better shot with a Canon!" If there was that much difference and it was all Canon positive, nobody making money could have afforded NOT to switch.

2. Having owned 2 S2Pros and played some with the S3Pro, unless I was shooting weddings, I'd probably go with a D2xs. The prior Fujis were dog slow and the D200s battery system sucks compared to the D2 series.

Well it's true. If Canon really did have a large edge in photography, Canon would be the only company still left standing. Canon's edge in the super-telephoto area isn't THAT much different, but objectively, if I was starting out and shooting sports very often, I'd take Canon because they do have a slight edge and offer more options. Their focusing is also (probably) sliiiiightly faster unless dealing with Nikon's AF-S lenses.

But again, other than that sort of shooting, I'd go Nikon because I need wide lenses, and nice macro lenses. That, and I think Nikon camera bodies are better. My longest lens is a Nikon 105 mm macro lens, which I also use to shoot portraits. It's a bit long, but the results are so excellent that I'll live with that problem.

And the S5 Pro is so much like the D200 except with less "real" megapixels and way more dynamic range. I say that it wouldn't be so bad if you didn't need to shoot continuously for too long. If you did, goodbye Fuji.

 

[compuwar]

Well it's true. If Canon really did have a large edge in photography, Canon would be the only company still left standing. Canon's edge in the super-telephoto area isn't THAT much different, but objectively, if I was starting out and shooting sports very often, I'd take Canon because they do have a slight edge and offer more options. Their focusing is also (probably) sliiiiightly faster unless dealing with Nikon's AF-S lenses.

If you're shooting sports with a screw-focus lens then it doesn't matter what you choose, it's a slow sport or you're ill equipped. I've shot Motorcycle racing with the S2Pro and the 400mm AFS-II, and even on that slow body, I could get autofocus just fine (though I realy didn't try for shots in the straight aways, since cornering shots are what sell.) All the good long glass is AFS or AFS-II now anyway. With Nikon, focus speed depends a lot on the body, as each body seems to have a different focusing module. I'm not sure if Canon does the same thing. I'd put my D2x up against anything for speed of focus.

I'd say it'd totally depend on the sport(s). For moderate speed sports like football, I might choose Canon, but for really high speed stuff I don't think you can beat the D2hs for frame rate at publication-sized images. Even in High Speed Crop mode, my D2x doesn't do it. For birds, I'd go with Canon simply because the 400mm+ teles have IS, which I didn't think was all that important until I was trying to nail more Eagle flight shots a couple of weeks ago. It's put the Nikkor 200-400mm VR on my list despite it being f/4. I'd rather keep looking for a good 600mm, but in the end, the 200-400 will likely sell more pictures than the 600 for the next few years.

Nikon's growth in the DSLR market is huge compared to Canon, there's a tidal shift happening, though not at the pro end of the spectrum. That's good for everyone though, since it'll force Canon to up the ante and keep things evolving for everyone.