 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| PhotoKB HomeDiscussion Groups Digital Photography Digital PhotoDSLR CamerasZLR CamerasPoint & Shoot CamerasFilm Photography 35 mmLarge FormatMedium formatDarkroomFilm and LabsOther EquipmentPhoto Technique Nature PhotographyPeople PhotographyTechnique GeneralGeneral Photo Topics General TopicsAustralian PhotographyUK PhotographyDirectoryPhoto Clubs |
Photo Forum / General Photo Topics / Australian Photography / April 2007Pentax on special??
Saw Pentax reduced in a shop today. The K100D with 18-55 sigma going for $699.00. Is this just one shop or is this a run out model? > Saw Pentax reduced in a shop today. > The K100D with 18-55 sigma going for $699.00. > Is this just one shop or is this a run out model? There is a photography show on in Melbourne - I think next week - there should be some specials coming out of that, which should shortly hit the stores - give it another week. Also don't get the Sigma lens, its cheap and nasty, from what I've heard. > Also don't get the Sigma lens, its cheap and nasty, from what I've heard. Surely you *look* at photo's, not listen to them? MrT. >>Also don't get the Sigma lens, its cheap and nasty, from what I've heard. > > Surely you *look* at photo's, not listen to them? > > MrT. Do you use a Sigma lens - if not you should - its show and tell time. .. > >>Also don't get the Sigma lens, its cheap and nasty, from what I've heard. > > > > Surely you *look* at photo's, not listen to them? > > > Do you use a Sigma lens - if not you should - its show and tell time. No I don't own any Sigma lenses, but they make a few I would quite happily use. I prefer to believe proper bench tests of the actual lens model in question though, every manufacturer makes a few dogs IME. And most of the cheap standard "kit" zoom lenses are total crap, not just Sigma. (even some of the expensive ones for that matter) MrT. > .. > [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > MrT. And thats exactly what I implied "the Sigma lens" in the first instance. It was THE Sigma lens that it was kitted to "The K100D with 18-55 sigma going for $699.00." There are better Sigma lenses. >> .. >> [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > > There are better Sigma lenses. If it was an 18-55mm then it was not a Sigma lens, they don't make one, Pentax make a 18-55mm that is reasonable enough though and with a K100D it would be good enough. >>>.. >>> [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > Pentax make a 18-55mm that is reasonable enough though and with a K100D it > would be good enough. Basic lenses, as has been established, which ever make, are not so hot. They package them to get the punters in. >>>.. >>> [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > Pentax make a 18-55mm that is reasonable enough though and with a K100D it > would be good enough. I think you will find its a Sigma 18-50mm. See this kit advertised at Teds. Price is a lot higher though. http://www.teds.com.au/www/6/1001102/displayproduct/1990932_1005803_.html >>>> .. >>>> [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > Teds. Price is a lot higher though. > http://www.teds.com.au/www/6/1001102/displayproduct/1990932_1005803_.html Be interesting to see what the special prices are next week with the PMA show in Melbourne. I am aware of some specials price lists to be released Friday. > >>> And thats exactly what I implied "the Sigma lens" in the first > >>> instance. It was THE Sigma lens that it was kitted to "The K100D > >>> with 18-55 sigma going for $699.00." > > I think you will find its a Sigma 18-50mm. See this kit advertised at > > Teds. Price is a lot higher though. http://www.teds.com.au/www/6/1001102/displayproduct/1990932_1005803_.html > Be interesting to see what the special prices are next week with the PMA > show in Melbourne. > > I am aware of some specials price lists to be released Friday. Teds has it advertised for $699 in today's Melbourne papers. MrT. >>>>> And thats exactly what I implied "the Sigma lens" in the first >>>>> instance. It was THE Sigma lens that it was kitted to "The K100D [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > MrT. J&B in Perth are down to $769 for the basic kit. >>>>>> And thats exactly what I implied "the Sigma lens" in the first >>>>>> instance. It was THE Sigma lens that it was kitted to "The K100D [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > J&B in Perth are down to $769 for the basic kit. JB HiFi Gold Coast have the basic kit for $699. Hope Nikon drop the price of D40 in reply. > JB HiFi Gold Coast have the basic kit for $699. > Hope Nikon drop the price of D40 in reply. I hope they don't, as I just bought one :-) >>JB HiFi Gold Coast have the basic kit for $699. >>Hope Nikon drop the price of D40 in reply. > > I hope they don't, as I just bought one :-) I can well understand your point of view, I was almost in the same boat. I had just decided to buy the Nikon D40 instead of the Pentax K100D. However now with the price difference of around $700 vs $950 I will have to reconsider. Have you been happy with your D40? >>> JB HiFi Gold Coast have the basic kit for $699. >>> Hope Nikon drop the price of D40 in reply. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Have you been happy with your D40? Have you looked at the price of the Samsung kit - which is a rebadged Pentax with Schneider lenses. > I had just decided to buy the Nikon D40 instead of the Pentax K100D. > However now with the price difference of around $700 vs $950 I will have > to reconsider. The D40 can be had for about $895 at a certain large yellow chain store ;) if you haggle right. The RRP of the Nikons in non-US countries is quite punishing, though; guess they know that those who want Nikons often tend to ONLY want Nikons :) I did consider the Pentax - I still have my Pentax film SLR and always liked the brand - but the comparative photographic tests here: http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikond40/page20.asp ...and the noise comparisons here: http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikond40/page17.asp ...both helped push me towards the Nikon. That, and the fact that a friend owns a D50 and produces stunning results with it, and the D40 is, in terms of image quality, a step up. > Have you been happy with your D40? I've only had it for a few days, but I'm absolutely thrilled with it. Aside from the sheer image quality of the thing (its 1600ISO performance is astonishing and is one of the main reasons I chose the D40) the design and build quality is totally no-compromise. The Nikon's kit lens is remarkable at that price point, too. On Mon, 30 Apr 2007 16:08:25 +1000, Anthony Horan <anthonyhoran@hotmail.com> >I've only had it for a few days, but I'm absolutely thrilled with it. Aside >from the sheer image quality of the thing (its 1600ISO performance is >astonishing and is one of the main reasons I chose the D40) the design and >build quality is totally no-compromise. The Nikon's kit lens is remarkable >at that price point, too. Are Nikons as good as Canons 'tho ? > On Mon, 30 Apr 2007 16:08:25 +1000, Anthony Horan > <anthonyhoran@hotmail.com> [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Are Nikons as good as Canons 'tho ? Depends on the powder you use. ;-) >>On Mon, 30 Apr 2007 16:08:25 +1000, Anthony Horan >><anthonyhoran@hotmail.com> [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > Depends on the powder you use. ;-) That BTW is cannon as distinct to the brand name Canon. > On Mon, 30 Apr 2007 16:08:25 +1000, Anthony Horan <anthonyhoran@hotmail.com> > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Are Nikons as good as Canons 'tho ? Cos' they are who would want to say otherwise? > On Mon, 30 Apr 2007 16:08:25 +1000, Anthony Horan <anthonyhoran@hotmail.com> > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Are Nikons as good as Canons 'tho ? I think so, but I'm sure those who prefer Canon would disagree :-) We're lucky enough to have a choice between several major brands of extremely high quality. For me, Nikon offers both the quality and features that work for me. Others' mileage will vary. >>Also don't get the Sigma lens, its cheap and nasty, from what I've heard. > > Surely you *look* at photo's, not listen to them? > > MrT. this is a see bit then http://www.digitalfan.de/sig1850.html >>> Also don't get the Sigma lens, its cheap and nasty, from what I've >>> heard. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > http://www.digitalfan.de/sig1850.html the test is flawed they tested an EX sigma against the canon kit lens. Lenses so far apart in build quality and optical quality. A better test would have been against the canon 18-70mm IS f2.8 which is also an efs lens. the non EX sigma lenses are pure rubbish. >>>> Also don't get the Sigma lens, its cheap and nasty, from what I've >>>> heard. [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > also an efs lens. > the non EX sigma lenses are pure rubbish. The test is not flawed, it was showing that the Sigma EX lens is better than the Canon kit lens, what is flawed with that, the Canon kit lens is known to be pretty ordinary and pretty much all kit lenses from most manufacturers are better, this test simply demonstated that. >>>>> Also don't get the Sigma lens, its cheap and nasty, from what I've >>>>> heard. [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > be pretty ordinary and pretty much all kit lenses from most manufacturers > are better, this test simply demonstated that. it's FLAWED because the EX range is the equivalent of the L in the sigma range. Testing a top of the range lens against a crappy consumer lens is not a fair test. Test it against the 17-40 L and then make a judgment ffs. It's a very bad test. >>>>>> Also don't get the Sigma lens, its cheap and nasty, from what I've >>>>>> heard. [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > Test it against the 17-40 L and then make a judgment ffs. > It's a very bad test. No the EX is not an L lens, plenty of others have tested the L lenses, you should look there. Mind you pretty much every lens on the planet is better than the Canon kit lens, what were they thinking? And of course the Canon is only a F4 but costs a third more so you could not compare them evenly anyway. > A better test would have been against the canon 18-70mm IS f2.8 which > is also an efs lens. No that lens costs far more than the Sigma EX. A better test would be the slow non EX Sigma 18-50, Vs the standard Canon EFS 18-55. Both are rubbish. > the non EX sigma lenses are pure rubbish. As are most cheap zooms from all the manufacturers. So simply buy a better one! They only add $100 to the cost of the body in most cases anyway. No big loss. MrT. > Saw Pentax reduced in a shop today. > The K100D with 18-55 sigma going for $699.00. > Is this just one shop or is this a run out model? Saw that combo at Campbelltown, NSW, last week for $889/$899, so that would be a good price. If it is a Good Guys store, Would be interested to see if it still is there when you go back. Somehow, a K100d with twin lenses change to a istDL by the next day. AFAIK, the 18-50 is the okay Sigma lens > AFAIK, the 18-50 is the okay Sigma lens Not possible, the 18-50mm F2.8 is the good Sigma lens in this size and would be around AUD$650, Sigma also make a 18-50mm F3.5-5.6 basic lens that is pretty much close to the bottom of the tree, it works okay opened up a bit and for the cost is okay and would be the one with this camera, a better choice would be the 18-125mm Sigma. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.