Pentax K10D or Nikon D80?

[milozauckerman]

One thing I like about in-body stabilization - it works with my preferred prime lenses.

Canon and Nikon are never going to produce a prime lens with IS - hell, sooner or later they may not be making them at all (Nikon already trending that way - when was the last time they developed or re-worked a prime design?).

So if I get three stops of IS with an f/2.8 zoom, I'm at the equivalent of f/1. If I get two stops with an f/2 prime (which costs ~$300 vs. $1100+ for the zoom), I'm at the same place. If in-body IS advances at the rate lens IS has, three or four stops, my f/2 prime suddenly gets me well beyond anything I could have handheld in the days of yore.

 

[Westside guy]

One thing I like about in-body stabilization - it works with my preferred prime lenses.

Canon and Nikon are never going to produce a prime lens with IS - hell, sooner or later they may not be making them at all (Nikon already trending that way - when was the last time they developed or re-worked a prime design?).

So if I get three stops of IS with an f/2.8 zoom, I'm at the equivalent of f/1. If I get two stops with an f/2 prime (which costs ~$300 vs. $1100+ for the zoom), I'm at the same place. If in-body IS advances at the rate lens IS has, three or four stops, my f/2 prime suddenly gets me well beyond anything I could have handheld in the days of yore.

I agree that there are situations where IS/VR would be nice in a prime lens - but there is a problem with your logic. IS/VR gains you a few stops... if you're shooting totally static subjects. But for more typical low light situations, where some part (or all) of the subject is moving, you're not really gaining anything at all with stabilization (other than countering your own camera movement).

 

[Lovesong]

Canon and Nikon are never going to produce a prime lens with IS - hell, sooner or later they may not be making them at all.

Uh... what? Seriously?
300 f/4
300 f/2.8
400 f/2.8
500 f/4
600 f/4

And let's not forget the new 200 and 800 that are coming out too.

That's just from Canon.

 

[Grimace]

Yeah, just because Pentax has IS/VR in the body, and it works well, doesn't mean it works better. Quality doesn't just mean showing up.

 

[SLC Flyfishing]

No body is claiming it gives you more stops of performance than the Nikon or Canon equivalent. Just that most people these days consider it better to have SR available for all their lenses and not just the select few that they can afford a different version of.

Canon and Nikon would likely have SR in the body if they weren't so heavily invested in technology from the film days. In lens stabilization was conceived before digital SLR's even existed, you can't just put a roll of velvia on a shift mechanism like you can with a digital sensor. Nikon and Canon were making stabilized lenses for their 35 mm cameras long before Minolta introduced the first sensor based SR, if Nikon and Canon hadn't been on shaky ground with some people over abandoning a mount or two they probably would have gone with in body SR as well. But that would entail leaving all those people with IS lenses holding equipment that wouldn't work with their DSLR's.

Nikon sells a lot of D40's based on their name and the price of the D40, they sell D40X's for much the same reason (and the fact that everyone out there thinks that more megapixels means better pictures). They even sell a fair amount of D80's based on that reasoning. Canon sells a lot of XT's & XTi's based on name and price too. It's not that these cameras are not of good quality, it's just that most people buying these cameras know very little about photography. They know their wedding photographer had a Canon, or that Uncle Joe made all those beautiful photos at his cabin with a Nikon; and that if they want to do the same, well they better get a Canon or Nikon. Unfortunately, many people both online and elsewhere also perpetuate that myth when in fact, beautiful, professional quality photographs are well within the capabilities of any brand of camera and it's selection of lenses. Urging someone to use a particular brand solely on it's history is unhelpful, telling them "that's what the pros use so that's what you want" is certainly a disservice. Making suggestions about certain aspects of an actual camera's features or performance that will help the person have an easier time making good pictures would be more conducive to that individual actually making an informed and happy decision.

SLC

 

[jpfisher]

The thing the Pentax K10D has going for it is the fact that the anti-shaking feature is actually built into the camera body not the lens. This makes a Pentax lens cheaper than other competing brands. On the other hand, the Nikon D80 has the anti-shaking feature built into the lenses which makes for a more expensive lens purchase. There is a lot of debate about this, but I believe that having the feature built into the camera body is much better.

You don't have to tell me about the in-body shake reduction. It's nice to pull out the 35-year old 300mm f/4 prime lens, flip a switch and have the shake reduction.

And I won't worry argue about the price of K10D body versus the D80. You get the same quality image sensor, better on-body control options, and the weather sealing.... but depending on which lens you look at, Nikon wins price on one area, and Pentax in another. If you're only going to pick up a few lenses, it does pay to look at the prices of the ones you're looking at -- if you see yourself being more enthusiastic about the hobby, then chances are the differences in price will balance out in the long run.

Note that the Pentax K10D is the only digital SLR to have full dust/weather protection for the body and the lenses they currently sell.

At that price point for the body, yes (but keep in mind that it's being heavily discounted because it's on the way out the door). But I'm pretty sure that Canon/Nikon both have weather-sealed cameras available... and the K10D isn't weather sealed for everything -- there are only two matching weather-sealed lenses available right now, the 16-50mm f/2.8 DA* and the 50-135mm f/2.8 DA*. I have the latter (the only zoom in my bag) and I have to say it's a fantastic performer, but it'll set you back more than the body -- around $800 at B&H.

To those currently considering buying a digital SLR, I would suggest waiting for the forthcoming Pentax K20D - it will feature 14 Megapixel capability. I am in the market for a digital SLR and I have done a lot of reading on the D80 and the K10D. The Pentax wins out in many reviews IMO. Since Pentax is going to be updating their cameras very soon, I am going to wait for the K20D because it will be a camera to have for a long time.

Let's see what the specs actually are before recommending it. Personally, if you're looking to buy now, the K10D is an excellent value -- and it's a body that will keep you happy for quite some time, assuming you don't need the latest and greatest at all times. If you can wait a month or two, and are on a budget, wait for the K20D announcement, and buy a K10D then.

And if you have an unlimited budget, go out and buy a Nikon D3, and a Leica M8 for when you need a pocket camera.

Since I will be getting the Pentax K20D when it comes out, can anyone tell me which software is better: Aperture or Lightroom?

I prefer the LightRoom workflow, but then again, Aperture runs like a dog on a MacBook. Both have demos available, download and give them a trial spin, pick the one you like better.

 

[compuwar]

It's not much better, I get 3 stops of latitude with the K10D; Nikon claims they can get me 4 stops (but at $100+ extra per lens). I think it has more to do with your natural unsteadiness than anything else.

Care to elaborate on why you would pick Nikon over Pentax anyday? I've used both extensively and don't see a noticeable difference aside from the price, and the fashion accessory aspect of owning a Nikon compared to a Pentax. I'm not trying to be a pain, just curious to see what your reasons are.


SLC

Here's an actual test, rather than rampant speculation of the number of stops thrown about by proponents of each system:

http://www.popphoto.com/cameras/4615/image-stabilization-special-stop-the-shake.html

While you may feel you get three stops- frankly if you're hand-holding that much outside of the norm then IS/VR may not really be all that necessary. The actual test shows 2-2.5 stops on average for the Pentax K10D and 1.5-2 stops for the K100D.

With the lenses, it depends a lot on the lens. The original VR 80-400 sucks, the 18-200 shows up to 4 stops. Remember that each stop is twice as much or half as much light depending on which way you're moving along the scale, so even a half a stop can be a significant amount of light- so better is a lot better, but poor might be good enough.

Results vary by focal length. Looking at Pentax's site, I don't see anything over 200mm (personally that'd be the deal killer for me,) so I'm not sure the lack of in-lens stabilization is a significant detriment to folks who shoot with them.

YMMV

 

[compuwar]

Canon and Nikon are never going to produce a prime lens with IS - hell, sooner or later they may not be making them at all (Nikon already trending that way - when was the last time they developed or re-worked a prime design?).

The 400/2.8 VR is a re-worked design and it's the most recent Nikon VR prime lens, so I'm not sure where you're getting your info. Besides the new design, it has the new nano-coated elements and the MTF chart is much more impressive than the one for the version I have which is hella sharp, contrasty, and with which I've yet to see CA.

I'm not sure if the 105mm f/2.8 Micro was reformulated or not, but it got VR at its last revision.

So far Nikon has six VR-enabled primes:

AF-S VR Micro-NIKKOR 105mm f/2.8G IF-ED
AF-S VR NIKKOR 200mm f/2G IF-ED
AF-S VR NIKKOR 300mm f/2.8G IF-ED
AF-S NIKKOR 400mm f/2.8G ED VR
AF-S NIKKOR 500mm f/4G ED VR
AF-S NIKKOR 600mmf/4G ED VR

Given the last three are Nikon's most recent lenses (being produced but not yet shipping) what makes you say Nikon is trending that way? Since the only non-VR prime to get AF-S so far is the 300/4 I think it's a little early to call that game.

 

[techie4life]

I am planning on buying a K10D in the very near future. I know that there is going to be an announcement in January about Pentax's new dSLR's, but the K10D provides what I need right now. Besides, if I can get the K10D for under $700, and I know I can, why spend $1000+ for a camera that will have more features than I need? I was wondering, is this lens: http://www.pentaxslr.com/lenses/lens_18_55 different than the kit lens, or is this lens the kit lens?

 

[Grimace]

If you are set on Pentax, wait until a few weeks *after* the announcement so that the K10 price a whole lot more.

 

[milozauckerman]

Eh, I wasn't specific enough - wide-to-normal primes. I've never found myself in need of anything longer than 100mm, so I basically just pretend those lenses don't exist.

. IS/VR gains you a few stops... if you're shooting totally static subjects.

This applies equally to zooms, though - it's a question of the usefulness of stabilization regardless of platform. Subject movement is not necessarily a shot killer - where camera shake (rendering the entire image blurred) quite often is.

 

[Westside guy]

IS/VR gains you a few stops... if you're shooting totally static subjects.

This applies equally to zooms, though - it's a question of the usefulness of stabilization regardless of platform. Subject movement is not necessarily a shot killer - where camera shake (rendering the entire image blurred) quite often is.

I agree with you. I know we were talking about primes; but my comment was more regarding the general "VR equals 3-4 stops" logic that a lot of people (probably including me!) have tossed around. It's certainly true, but there are caveats - that's all I meant. And, as you say, those same caveats apply equally to zooms with VR.

I would think that adding VR to a prime would add some not-insignificant amount of length to the lens; but that's probably not a big deal. Might make it look more professional. When I was recently photographing some students (using my 35mm f/2 lens) for an in-house publication, one of the girls was asking me about the camera. Then she said "a couple of my friends have that camera too - but their lenses are bigger."

 

[jpfisher]

I was wondering, is this lens: http://www.pentaxslr.com/lenses/lens_18_55 different than the kit lens, or is this lens the kit lens?

That's the standard, budget, kit lens that Pentax bundles with their cameras --its companion is the DA 50-200mm. If you want a "nicer than kit zoom", Pentax offers a 16-45mm f/4 (around $400), as well as a higher-level 16-50mm f/2.8 (around $800-900; but is weather sealed, and includes an internal focusing motor); the only "step up" for the longer zoom is the 50-135mm f/2.8 ($800-1000 depending on where you look), same features as the 16-50.

Eh, I wasn't specific enough - wide-to-normal primes. I've never found myself in need of anything longer than 100mm, so I basically just pretend those lenses don't exist.

If you are looking for a wide-to-normal prime in the Pentax system, you absolutely cannot go wrong with the FA 31mm Limited. I'll put it up against any lens from Nikon or Canon for image quality.

You can also get top-quality lenses from Zeiss (a 25mm and 28mm) for the Pentax and Nikon systems... manual focus only on those, though.

 

[SLC Flyfishing]

If you are looking for a wide-to-normal prime in the Pentax system, you absolutely cannot go wrong with the FA 31mm Limited. I'll put it up against any lens from Nikon or Canon for image quality.

You can also get top-quality lenses from Zeiss (a 25mm and 28mm) for the Pentax and Nikon systems... manual focus only on those, though.

Those Zeiss primes are amazing, get a katz eye split focusing screen and you have a lens that is as near perfect as you will find both optically and durability/construction wise. I've got plans for the 25 mm as soon as I can scrape the cash together.

SLC

 

[Lovesong]

Those Zeiss primes are amazing, get a katz eye split focusing screen and you have a lens that is as near perfect as you will find both optically and durability/construction wise. I've got plans for the 25 mm as soon as I can scrape the cash together.

SLC

My vote goes for the 21mm Distagon

 

[miloblithe]

That's the standard, budget, kit lens that Pentax bundles with their cameras --its companion is the DA 50-200mm. If you want a "nicer than kit zoom", Pentax offers a 16-45mm f/4 (around $400), as well as a higher-level 16-50mm f/2.8 (around $800-900; but is weather sealed, and includes an internal focusing motor); the only "step up" for the longer zoom is the 50-135mm f/2.8 ($800-1000 depending on where you look), same features as the 16-50.

Why are the Pentax versions of these lenses more expensive than the Tokina versions? The Tokina 16-50 is $660 and the Pentax is $900 (at bhphotovideo). For the 50-135 it's $800 and $900 respectively. Tokina versions also come with 3 year instead of 1 year warranties. Are they optically different?

 

[termina3]

Are they optically different?

Maybe, maybe not. But Pentax has Pentax on it.

 

[jpfisher]

Why are the Pentax versions of these lenses more expensive than the Tokina versions? The Tokina 16-50 is $660 and the Pentax is $900 (at bhphotovideo). For the 50-135 it's $800 and $900 respectively. Tokina versions also come with 3 year instead of 1 year warranties. Are they optically different?

I don't believe that the Tokina versions of weather-sealed, also, do they have an internal focus motor or do they rely on the body to autofocus?

B&H recently dropped the price on the Pentax 50-135 from $1000 to $800; I'm hoping they do the same on the 16-50 in the near future.

 

[miloblithe]

I don't believe that the Tokina versions of weather-sealed, also, do they have an internal focus motor or do they rely on the body to autofocus?

B&H recently dropped the price on the Pentax 50-135 from $1000 to $800; I'm hoping they do the same on the 16-50 in the near future.

Good question about weather sealing. That could account for a difference. As for internal focus motors, although it might depend on the mount, as far as I know it does.

 

[SLC Flyfishing]

I don't think Tamron or Sigma make many internal focusing lenses yet for Pentax mount.

SLC

 

[ChrisA]

Are they optically different?

Almost certainly they are.

But there is more to lenses then optics. For example, when you focus or zoom the lenses may change it's length. When it does it also was to change it's internal volume. So air is sucked in or pushed out. If it were just air then there would be no problems but with the air comes dust, dirt and maybe water. The better built lenses take care of this dust, dirt and water problem better. The other thing you can't see in the specs is how consistent the factory is. Are all the lenses _identical_ or maybe there are wider manufacturing variations making getting a "good" one a mater of luck. And then optical coating are not cheap and not easy to engineer. Modern costing are multi-layered interference filters.

It is worth reading about anti-reflective coating. This is the technology that has made modern zoom lenses possible. Getting this "right" is still an expensive process
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-reflective_coating

Bottom line is there are many ways to make a lower priced lens.

 

[miloblithe]

Almost certainly they are.

But there is more to lenses then optics. For example, when you focus or zoom the lenses may change it's length. When it does it also was to change it's internal volume. So air is sucked in or pushed out. If it were just air then there would be no problems but with the air comes dust, dirt and maybe water. The better built lenses take care of this dust, dirt and water problem better. The other thing you can't see in the specs is how consistent the factory is. Are all the lenses _identical_ or maybe there are wider manufacturing variations making getting a "good" one a mater of luck. And then optical coating are not cheap and not easy to engineer. Modern costing are multi-layered interference filters.

It is worth reading about anti-reflective coating. This is the technology that has made modern zoom lenses possible. Getting this "right" is still an expensive process
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-reflective_coating

Bottom line is there are many ways to make a lower priced lens.

Right. But they are co-designs. My question is how different is the design, really?

 

[SLC Flyfishing]

Well I know that the 16-50 (Tokina) requires the screw drive to auto-focus at least on the Nikon version, if there is a Canon version it would have an internal motor since no Canon has a screw driven body. The Pentax version has a screw drive, and an internal focusing motor so it can be used on some of the older Pentax DSLR's like the *ist series or the K100D/K110D. It also can be used on the K10D and K100D super as a SDM lens.

SLC

 

[ChrisA]

For now, IS (or VR) is much better in the lens than in the body. Who knows about the future.

If you have an SLR IS will always be better if done in the lens.

This can't change in the future because with an SLR when the IS is done in the lens the image in the viewfinder is stable. But if done in the body the viewfinder image is not stabilized. So it will always be best to have optical IS if the viewfinder is optical.

 

[SLC Flyfishing]

If you have an SLR IS will always be better if done in the lens.

This can't change in the future because with an SLR when the IS is done in the lens the image in the viewfinder is stable. But if done in the body the viewfinder image is not stabilized. So it will always be best to have optical IS if the viewfinder is optical.

That's odd, I thought it was the recorded image that mattered, not the image the photographer sees through the viewfinder, guess I've been misunderstanding things all this time.

SLC