 |
 | 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 / Digital Photography / Digital Photo / October 2007Two questions in one Pentax - Canon - Nikon
I am a returnee to photography and moving up from SLR to DSLR. My current lens kit is very good, about 20 years old, and is Pentax PK fitting, therefore if it will function in manual mode on the Pentax K10D that is what I would like to buy. Does anyone know how well it will work? If compatability is an issue then I've got another problem - I shortened the odds down to: Pentax K10D Nikon D40X Canon EOS400D Which would be your favourite and why? Thanks Steve PS: Any other options around at a similar price level? > I am a returnee to photography and moving up from SLR to DSLR. > My current lens kit is very good, about 20 years old, and is Pentax PK > fitting, therefore if it will function in manual mode on the Pentax > K10D that is what I would like to buy. Does anyone know how well it > will work? The PK lenses can be used on the K10D. You can also use them on the Canon with a lens adapter, see "http://goshotcamera.com/product/LAD003EOSPKCONFIRM?meta=FRG". The Pentax lenses cannot be used with the Nikon, due to issues with the Nikon mount. > If compatability is an issue then I've got another problem - I > shortened the odds down to: [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Which would be your favourite and why? Since you have Pentax lenses already, get the K10D. It's a good deal right now with a $100 rebate if you get the kit with the 18-55 lens, "http://www.pentaximaging.com/files/scms_docs//brightenyourholidaydslrrebate.lr.pdf". That makes it $629 in the U.S., with the kit lens, though from your spelling errors you seem to be located outside the U.S.. The in-camera image-stabilization is a useful feature, and is less expensive than buying IS lenses (though not quite as effective as having IS in the lens). Just avoid the K100D and D40/D40x at all costs. These are seriously de-featured models, and you'll regret not moving up the product line one step. The K10D is a very good choice considering you have lenses that you want to use. > though from your > spelling errors you seem to be located outside the U.S.. Eh? Can Americans not be rubbish at spelling then?  SignatureRegards, Chris. (Remove Elvis's shoes to email me) I can't see any spelling mistakes in the previous message. Where are they? >> I am a returnee to photography and moving up from SLR to DSLR. >> My current lens kit is very good, about 20 years old, and is Pentax PK [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > step. The K10D is a very good choice considering you have lenses that you > want to use. > I can't see any spelling mistakes in the previous message. > > Where are they? "compatability", and one other ("favourite") whose correctness may vary from place to place and from one spell correcting program to another. Saying : > That makes it $629 in the U.S., with the kit lens, though from > your spelling errors you seem to be located outside the U.S. just exemplifies SMS's general incivility, arrogance, ego and superciliousness. If only he had omitted "errors". > Just avoid the K100D and D40/D40x at all costs. These are > seriously de-featured models, And as usual, providing advice stupidly, since he doesn't take into account anyone's needs, desires or bank account other than his own. For some people, any of those cameras would be excellent choices, for others fair compromises, and for others, poor choices. " though from your spelling errors you seem to be located outside the U.S.." SMS Thanks for your prompt response and good info. Yes as you've guessed I am from the land of the proper Queen's English, so we probably won't see special offers yet awhile if at all. At current exchange rates the K10D body and kit lens is around $900.00. Steve > " though from your spelling errors you seem to be located outside the > U.S.." [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > all. At current exchange rates the K10D body and kit lens is around > $900.00. I would think that with the weak U.S. dollar that the prices in the U.S. would be going up, but I guess they don't want to weaken demand at all. Pentax D-SLRs do not sell well in the U.S., even though the integrated IS is a very good feature that you'd think would attract more new users with no stash of lenses, and that don't need the advantages of the Nikon or Canon systems. >> I am a returnee to photography and moving up from SLR to DSLR. >> My current lens kit is very good, about 20 years old, and is Pentax PK [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Pentax lenses cannot be used with the Nikon, due to issues with the > Nikon mount. The real problem is that the Nikon mount a about a milimetre greater in flange-to-sensor distance than the Pentax K mount, so without corrective optics (similar to FD [lens] to EOS [camera] inifinty focus adapters) a PK lens will act as though it's on a macro ring if somehow fitted onto Nikon SLR. Some (silly or desperate?) experimenters have jammed Nikon lenses into Pentax SLR cameras and been able to focus to infinty (some Nikon lenses fit into the PK bayonet, but don't lock), but due to the different flange-to-sensor distance can't focus nearly as closely as if they were mounted on a Nikon SLR. It is usually best to use the lenses you've got with the camera moutn they were designed for, as you won't need adapters and the lens features should work as designed. > It is usually best to use the lenses you've got with the camera moutn > they were designed for, as you won't need adapters and the lens features > should work as designed. Amusingly, some older Nikon lenses work better on a new Canon body, with an adapter, than they work on a new Nikon body without any adapter. > Just avoid the K100D and D40/D40x at all costs. These are seriously > de-featured models, and you'll regret not moving up the product line one > step. What is it about the K100D that makes you call it "seriously de-featured"? I'd say for an entry level model it's quite the opposite and a very capable camera. If you don't need a big buffer, weather sealing or 10MP (The 6MP sensor outperforms the 10MP Sony sensor when it comes to high ISO low noise performance) it's a very viable alternative. Sander > > Just avoid the K100D and D40/D40x at all costs. These are seriously > > de-featured models, and you'll regret not moving up the product line one > > step. > > What is it about the K100D that makes you call it "seriously de-featured"? it doesn't fit his narrow minded view of what a camera should be and he also assumes that everyone requires the exact same features he does. > I'd say for an entry level model it's quite the opposite and a very > capable camera. If you don't need a big buffer, weather sealing or 10MP > (The 6MP sensor outperforms the 10MP Sony sensor when it comes to high > ISO low noise performance) it's a very viable alternative. don't forget built in stabilization, all for about $500. it is a very nice camera for the money, as is the d40 at about the same price point. and for those who don't care about stabilization there is the k110d for slightly less. also, pentax lenses are easy to find and not in as much demand as nikon or canon glass and there are definitely some excellent bargains to be had. >> Just avoid the K100D and D40/D40x at all costs. These are seriously >> de-featured models, and you'll regret not moving up the product line >> one step. > > What is it about the K100D that makes you call it "seriously de-featured"? -Resolution is too low for large prints (K10D is of sufficient resolution) -No Li-Ion battery (K10D has it) so battery life is lower than K10D and most other Li-Ion powered cameras (almost all D-SLRs are Li-Ion powered because of the tremendous advantage of Li-Ion batteries, see "http://batterydata.com") -Poor continuous shooting mode due to small buffer (K10D has a large buffer and has fast continuous shooting) -No LCD backlighting (K10D has it) -No battery grip available (K10D has it) -Auto-focus is slow (K10D auto-focus is much faster) I guess I was a bit harsh saying to avoid it at all costs. if you want a very low priced D-SLR, and can live with the limitations, the K100D is okay. It's $395 now with the kit lens, after $100 rebate ("http://www.buydig.com/shop/product.aspx?sku=PKK100DS1855"). That's a heck of a deal for an IS D-SLR, and if price is the main consideration, and you want to use it with existing Pentax lenses, then it's an okay choice. >>> Just avoid the K100D and D40/D40x at all costs. These are seriously >>> de-featured models, and you'll regret not moving up the product line [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > -Resolution is too low for large prints (K10D is of sufficient resolution) OP did not specify he wanted to produce large prints. My 8x10s from the K100D are just fine, that's as big as I have needed. Perhaps it's all the OP needs. > -No Li-Ion battery (K10D has it) so battery life is lower than K10D and > most other Li-Ion powered cameras (almost all D-SLRs are Li-Ion powered > because of the tremendous advantage of Li-Ion batteries, see > "http://batterydata.com") Yeah, the fact that my 4 AA Eneloops only get 4 or 5 hundred shots from a set is such a huge limitation... > -Poor continuous shooting mode due to small buffer (K10D has a large > buffer and has fast continuous shooting) Again, not something the OP specified as a need. If he's not shooting sprts, how big a factor is this *really* going to be? > -No LCD backlighting (K10D has it) Not something I've needed in the 10 months I've had my K100D. Perhaps the OP won't find it a big deal either. > -No battery grip available (K10D has it) I suppose some people would find this a limitation. I'm not one of those folks... And I would venture to say that most dSLR users are probably holding their camera without a battery grip too. Professional usage excepted, but the OP said nothing about that. > -Auto-focus is slow (K10D auto-focus is much faster) This one could actually be a real factor in OP's decision. > I guess I was a bit harsh saying to avoid it at all costs. if you want a > very low priced D-SLR, and can live with the limitations, the K100D is [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > and you want to use it with existing Pentax lenses, then it's an okay > choice. If the OP just wants to get back into the dSLR realm, has old Pentax glass, doesn't need the specific K10D features that were left off the K100D, and is budget-minded, then it's a *great* choice, not just an "okay" choice. <snip> > If the OP just wants to get back into the dSLR realm, has old Pentax > glass, doesn't need the specific K10D features that were left off the > K100D, and is budget-minded, then it's a *great* choice, not just an > "okay" choice. What you don't understand is that not everyone's needs are as limited as yours. The original poster did not specify that he didn't need large prints, or fast continuous shooting, or a vertical grip (now or in the future), or fast auto-focus, all features that are present on the K10D as well as on most cameras from other manufacturers. Not everyone is looking for the absolute cheapest product. The original poster had apparently already ruled out the K100D, as it wasn't on his short list. Presumably he ruled it out for some or all of the reasons I listed. At $395 it's certainly a good alternative to some of the ZLRs. -------------------------------------------------------------------- "There is scarcely anything in the world that some man cannot make a little worse, and sell a little more cheaply. The person who buys on price alone is this man's lawful prey." John Ruskin -------------------------------------------------------------------- > <snip> > [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > short list. Presumably he ruled it out for some or all of the reasons I > listed. True, the K100D wasn't on his short list. Possibly because it doesn't meet his needs, possibly because he was unaware of it being a good alternative. My points were just in response to someone posting overly generalized remarks about the need for certain features. ;-) I just wanted to un-generalize the points a bit... Jim > At $395 it's certainly a good alternative to some of the ZLRs. > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > price alone is this man's lawful prey." John Ruskin > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > My points were just in response to someone posting overly generalized > remarks about the need for certain features. ;-) I just wanted to > un-generalize the points a bit... It's often the case that the purchaser doesn't even realize that certain features are missing until long after they make the purchase. Then they find out that what they bought doesn't meet their needs, and it's an expensive lesson. Many manufacturers intentionally defeature their low end products, even when it really would cost them almost nothing to include certain features. [] > It's often the case that the purchaser doesn't even realize that > certain features are missing until long after they make the purchase. > Then they find out that what they bought doesn't meet their needs, > and it's an expensive lesson. Many manufacturers intentionally > defeature their low end products, even when it really would cost them > almost nothing to include certain features. Isn't buying the wrong camera the purchaser's fault? Not going to the store and asking for advice? Buying on price alone? Not doing one's research? David On Wed, 24 Oct 2007 07:05:45 GMT, "David J Taylor" <david-taylor@blueyonder.not-this-bit.nor-this-bit.co.uk> wrote: >[] >> It's often the case that the purchaser doesn't even realize that [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >store and asking for advice? Buying on price alone? Not doing one's >research? SMS is on a soapbox, David. Logic doesn't really apply. SignatureJohn Bean > [] >> It's often the case that the purchaser doesn't even realize that [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > store and asking for advice? Buying on price alone? Not doing one's > research? Well yes, that's why people like the OP are asking for advice. Unfortunately, there are many individuals whose advice consists of advocating for others, whatever they themselves purchased, despite the fact that not everyone's needs are the same. It's always disappointing to see people on Usenet that can only promote what they themselves purchased, as if they need their choice to be validated by others purchasing the same thing. >> [] >>> It's often the case that the purchaser doesn't even realize that [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > purchased, as if they need their choice to be validated by others > purchasing the same thing. Equally, better to give advice and recommendations from your own personal knowledge rather than simply regurgitating the review sites! David > Equally, better to give advice and recommendations from your own personal > knowledge rather than simply regurgitating the review sites! You don't need the review sites to compare features, just using the manufacturer's sites is sufficient. The review sites have two components, the performance testing which is objective, and the picture quality which is somewhat subjective. I don't know about you, but when I select a product I first narrow down the choices based on the features and hard performance data, then of the remaining choices I look at the more subjective data, including opinions of those that own the product in question. Similarly, when I state opinions on products that I own, I try to be careful to point out both the pros and cons. I could tell you some issues with about every product I own. >> Equally, better to give advice and recommendations from your own >> personal knowledge rather than simply regurgitating the review sites! [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > components, the performance testing which is objective, and the > picture quality which is somewhat subjective. Agreed. Except that some performance testing is woefully inadequate. > I don't know about you, but when I select a product I first narrow > down the choices based on the features and hard performance data, [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > careful to point out both the pros and cons. I could tell you some > issues with about every product I own. How do I choose a product? It depends. Some people would be horrified how I buy shoes - the first pair which fits within the price range is usually what I go for, and then I buy several pairs to the process does not have to be repeated for several years. I recently bought some memory for this PC - walked into the local shop and bought what they had. No comparing brand A with brand B etc. Installed memory, and it works. Job done. Most recent lens I bought - I went to the shop to see if the lens would fit in the camera bag. It did, I bought the lens. Nikon 70 - 300mm VR. I'll admit to having looked at a few review sites, but it was actually the size and weight which mattered. I would not trust third-party VR just yet. Most recent camera I bought - I went to the shop and held both cameras (major brand DSLRs). Nikon won over the Canon as it felt better. I find I take less time over decisions as I get older, although it did take nearly ten years to decide to replace a film SLR with a DSLR! I'm probably more prepared to write off a bad decision, rather than wasting time not making any decision. Cheers, David > Well yes, that's why people like the OP are asking for advice. > Unfortunately, there are many individuals whose advice consists of [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > purchased, as if they need their choice to be validated by others > purchasing the same thing. do you have a mirror? >> Well yes, that's why people like the OP are asking for advice. >> Unfortunately, there are many individuals whose advice consists of [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > do you have a mirror? <g> You just provided one, but I don't think that he has the vision to see what you're getting at. > > If the OP just wants to get back into the dSLR realm, has old Pentax > > glass, doesn't need the specific K10D features that were left off the [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > What you don't understand is that not everyone's needs are as limited as > yours. what you don't understand is not everyone's needs are the same as yours. you keep harping that people *will* want a battery grip, for example, or will want to use exotic and expensive lenses. a six megapixel camera with a kit lens and perhaps a second lens is more than adequate for a *lot* of people. that's why camera makers make more than one model. >>> If the OP just wants to get back into the dSLR realm, has old Pentax >>> glass, doesn't need the specific K10D features that were left off the [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > yours. you keep harping that people *will* want a battery grip, for > example, or will want to use exotic and expensive lenses. People may or may not want a vertical/battery grip in the future. It just makes sense to choose a camera that has a full line of accessories available. The same goes for lenses. On occasion people will often have the need for an expensive lens. It's nice to be able to rent such a lens for a day, and it's fairly inexpensive. > a six > megapixel camera with a kit lens and perhaps a second lens is more than > adequate for a *lot* of people. that's why camera makers make more > than one model. Yes, it is adequate for some people. But as with most technology products, it often pays to go up one step from entry-level, where the feature set and performance is at a level that you'll be happy with for a lot longer, rather than continually upgrading. > >>> If the OP just wants to get back into the dSLR realm, has old Pentax > >>> glass, doesn't need the specific K10D features that were left off the [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > just makes sense to choose a camera that has a full line of accessories > available. it *does* have a full line of accessories available, just not one particular one you think everyone *must* have. a lot of people don't give a flying hoot about battery grips, preferring a small lightweight camera. that's why nikon made the d40 even *smaller* than the already small d50. > The same goes for lenses. On occasion people will often have > the need for an expensive lens. It's nice to be able to rent such a lens > for a day, and it's fairly inexpensive. but there's a real cost in buying more camera than one ever needs just for the occasional use. it is often better to buy a camera that *matches* one's needs, and then for the rare occasion it won't suffice, rent not only the exotic lenses, but a *much* better camera as well. or, borrow it from a friend. > > a six > > megapixel camera with a kit lens and perhaps a second lens is more than > > adequate for a *lot* of people. that's why camera makers make more > > than one model. > > Yes, it is adequate for some people. exactly. so why do you insist they buy something else? > But as with most technology > products, it often pays to go up one step from entry-level, where the > feature set and performance is at a level that you'll be happy with for > a lot longer, rather than continually upgrading. sometimes it is, but not always. maybe they have budget constraints, for instance. how about you offer to pay the difference between the entry level model and the next model up? > exactly. so why do you insist they buy something else? Who is "they"? The original poster didn't even mention the K100D, presumably because he is looking for a more fully-featured, higher performance model. I don't care what anyone buys, but I do try to point out the trade-offs between various models, and explain that for those that are not constrained to buying the absolute lowest priced model from _any_ manufacturer, that there are real benefits in moving up at least one level. The reasons include features, performance, resolution, accessory availability, lens compatibility, etc. > sometimes it is, but not always. maybe they have budget constraints, As I explained, for those that are constrained to buying the least expensive model, making the feature and performance trade-offs may be necessary. Obviously the originator of this thread is not constrained to buy the cheapest D-SLR from _any_ manufacturer, as those he mentioned are at least one level up. > I don't care what anyone buys, yet you keep ranting about defeatured cameras and nimh batteries, among other things. apparently, you do care. > but I do try to point out the trade-offs > between various models, and explain that for those that are not > constrained to buying the absolute lowest priced model from _any_ > manufacturer, that there are real benefits in moving up at least one > level. The reasons include features, performance, resolution, accessory > availability, lens compatibility, etc. i'm pretty sure people realize that the absolute lowest priced model will have fewer features than the next model up, just as they realize that the top of the line model can cover virtually any situation they might encounter. however, if the lowest price model meets their needs, what exactly is the benefit in spending more money for features they'll never use? >> I don't care what anyone buys, > > yet you keep ranting about defeatured cameras and nimh batteries, among > other things. apparently, you do care. To you it's "ranting" because you're upset about the facts. To most people it's simply information that is worth considering when making a buying decision. Let me guess, you bought a K100D, which is why you're so upset. > i'm pretty sure people realize that the absolute lowest priced model > will have fewer features than the next model up, just as they realize > that the top of the line model can cover virtually any situation they > might encounter. They don't always realize this. They will realize the obvious things like megapixels. Unless they do some research, they may not be aware of continuous shooting rate, LCD backlighting, battery type, accessory availability, or lens compatibility. They may think that all that they're giving up is resolution, and not realize the rest of it until it's too late. At least lens compatibility is only an issue on Nikon, which has three different lists of compatible lenses for different level bodies. As the OP I can now see that I didn't give you guys enough info to work with. My original photography was landscape, kids, animals, model portfolios and friends candid wedding pictures (i.e. I didn't do the main wedding photography, but the incidental before, after and catching people not posing - usually the best pictures came this way). I would like to do this type of photography again, especially as friends and relatives children are now of the marrying age. Does that help? Steve > As the OP I can now see that I didn't give you guys enough info to > work with. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Does that help? Yes. Get the Canon EOS-400D. As David points out, only Nikon and Canon have a full line of lenses and accessories. For wedding photography you're definitely going to want a battery vertical grip, which the D40/D40x lacks. That leaves only the EOS 400D. BTW, there _is_ an after-market vertical grip for the K100D. Go to "http://nordicgroup.us/grips/". Also note that the Pentax BG-2 for the K10D doesn't support AA batteries, while the after-market grip for the K10D does support them. This can be useful on occasion, though since they weigh more and are less dense in terms of stored energy, you generally want to avoid AA batteries. As I mentioned earlier, one big advantage of Nikon and Canon is that if you need an expensive specialty lens for some special occasion you can rent one (if you live in a metro area with a full service shop) While almost every D-SLR uses Li-Ion batteries, due to the tremendous advantages of Li-Ion versus NiMH, it is nice to be able to use AA batteries in a pinch in the vertical grip. Remember, you can still use your old Pentax lenses on the Canon, just use an adapter. It's only Nikon, due to limitations of the old Nikon F mount, that can't use the Pentax lenses. That's another reason for you to not get the D40x. Be wary of Usenet posters always trying to promote whatever they use, as what _you_ should use. There's a tendency for some people to promote their choice as the choice for everyone else, without taking into consideration that people's needs are different, and that some people want to spend less or are willing to spend more. Steve "http://nordicgroup.us/grips/" "http://batterydata.com" >> As the OP I can now see that I didn't give you guys enough info to >> work with. [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > you're definitely going to want a battery vertical grip, which the > D40/D40x lacks. For casual shots? A battery vertical grip is not something I would use. David >>> As the OP I can now see that I didn't give you guys enough info to >>> work with. [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > For casual shots? A battery vertical grip is not something I would use. He said that he will be shooting weddings. It's very useful for portrait mode shots, and to extend the time between battery changes. >>>> As the OP I can now see that I didn't give you guys enough info to >>>> work with. [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > He said that he will be shooting weddings. It's very useful for portrait > mode shots, and to extend the time between battery changes. I do portraits and the odd wedding. Battery grip is, for me, a bigger bane than boon. So I don't got none. I always carry one spare fully charged battery for each back I am shooting with. Signaturejohn mcwilliams > > For casual shots? A battery vertical grip is not something I would use. > > He said that he will be shooting weddings. It's very useful for portrait > mode shots, and to extend the time between battery changes. what a riot. on my camera, i get 1500-2000 pictures per charge. also, it only takes about 5 seconds to swap a battery (ok, maybe 10 seconds if i'm clumsy). it's not like there's non-stop action at a wedding where there's never an opportunity to swap a battery. [] > He said that he will be shooting weddings. It's very useful for > portrait mode shots, and to extend the time between battery changes. Actually, not the main shots, but "incidental pictures". I've yet to have the battery run out with my DSLR during a day's shoot....and that can be up to several hundred pictures. I keep a spare just in case, and an overnight charge keeps both topped up. In any case, changing the battery takes but a few seconds, and if the indicator is low, you can change battery in advance of a critical period. So for me, at least, extra batteries in a vertical grip is not something which would help. David > [] >> He said that he will be shooting weddings. It's very useful for [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > So for me, at least, extra batteries in a vertical grip is not something > which would help. Yeah, with Li-Ion batteries, they last so long, and are so quick to swap that the extended battery time probably isn't all that important. Still, the ability to use the vertical shutter release in portrait mode is the major advantage of the vertical grip, and on film SLRs the grip didn't even take extra batteries. For the K100D, one of the advantages of the vertical grip (after-market) is that you can use a variety of Li-Ion packs instead of the AA batteries that it normally uses. This allows for fast battery swaps, as well as giving the user all the other advantages of Li-Ion batteries, but unfortunately doesn't address the other issues with that specific model. It's really only the Nikon D40/D40x that has no grip available, either from Nikon or after-market, though it may come later (it took a while for the after-market D70/D70s grips to appear, and when they did, three different manufacturers were making them because the demand was so high). Part of selecting a system is keeping your options open for future expansion and upgrades without having to start over. At the time of initial purchase you may not be interested in high-end lenses, specific accessories, the ability to move up from entry-level to amateur, to semi-pro, to pro, but it makes sense to leave these options open, especially when there is little extra cost in doing so. The ability to rent an exotic lens for a day is a real advantage of Nikon and Canon models that you don't get with the second tier SLR manufacturers. > For the K100D, one of the advantages of the vertical grip (after-market) > is that you can use a variety of Li-Ion packs instead of the AA [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > three different manufacturers were making them because the demand was so > high). I forgot to mention the page I did on battery grips, for those that are interested. "http://nordicgroup.us/grips/" Steve "http://batterydata.com" <snip> > It's really only the NikonD40/D40x that has no grip available, > either from Nikon or after-market, though it may come later (it took a > while for the after-market D70/D70s grips to appear, and when they did, > three different manufacturers were making them because the demand was so > high). there is a grip available on the d50 from ansmann (n-40). > > As the OP I can now see that I didn't give you guys enough info to > > work with. [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > have a full line of lenses and accessories. For wedding photography > you're definitely going to want a battery vertical grip, there you go again, *telling* the person what they need, as opposed to simply pointing out feature differences and letting them decide for themselves. > Also note that the Pentax BG-2 for the > K10D doesn't support AA batteries, while the after-market grip for the > K10D does support them. so what? what if they aren't going to get a battery grip at all? > Remember, you can still use your old Pentax lenses on the Canon, just > use an adapter. in stop-down metering mode with manual focus. you seem to have fogotten that 'fact' when offering information. > It's only Nikon, due to limitations of the old Nikon F > mount, that can't use the Pentax lenses. That's another reason for you > to not get the D40x. if he has pentax lenses, his obvious choice is a pentax camera. furthermore, there are far more limitations when using pentax lenses on non-pentax cameras than any limitation you seem to believe exists with nikon. > Be wary of Usenet posters always trying to promote whatever they use, as > what _you_ should use. There's a tendency for some people to promote > their choice as the choice for everyone else, oh, you mean like when you said above: > For wedding photography > you're definitely going to want a battery vertical grip, you're right, there is a tendency for some people to promote their choice as the choice for everyone else, and its coming from YOU. > without taking into > consideration that people's needs are different, and that some people > want to spend less or are willing to spend more. except that you have decided *for him* what he needs to spend. > >> I don't care what anyone buys, > > > > yet you keep ranting about defeatured cameras and nimh batteries, among > > other things. apparently, you do care. > > To you it's "ranting" because you're upset about the facts. no, what bugs me is your misinformation that i (and others) often correct, such as your (incorrect) claims that the nikon lens mount is limited and the lack of fluorite means their lenses aren't any good. both are totally wrong. > To most > people it's simply information that is worth considering when making a > buying decision. information is: the d80 can do xyz, the d40 can't. what you do is: the d40 is defeatured. you'll be sorry you bought it when you find out you can't do xyz even though i have no idea if you even want those features. > Let me guess, you bought a K100D, which is why you're > so upset. you'd be wrong (no surprise there). > > i'm pretty sure people realize that the absolute lowest priced model > > will have fewer features than the next model up, just as they realize > > that the top of the line model can cover virtually any situation they > > might encounter. > > They don't always realize this. i'm quite certain people realize that more money they spend the more features they get. it really is not a difficult concept to grasp. > They will realize the obvious things > like megapixels. Unless they do some research, they may not be aware of > continuous shooting rate, LCD backlighting, battery type, accessory > availability, or lens compatibility. They may think that all that > they're giving up is resolution, and not realize the rest of it until > it's too late. i thought you didn't care what people bought. if they buy the wrong thing, they have only themselves to blame. like i said, apparently you do care. > At least lens compatibility is only an issue on Nikon, which has three > different lists of compatible lenses for different level bodies. maybe you should leave the 'information' about nikon cameras and lenses to those who actually own them. i own nikon equipment, and i really don't give it a second thought about which lens works and which does not. virtually every ai lens or later will work on a newer camera (and i have a few i've bought for literally a few dollars at flea markets -- in perfect shape). older mechanical cameras can use newer lenses, they just won't activate the newer features such as autofocus or stabilization. it is actually very straightforward. the few exceptions are quite obvious, such as the old fisheyes that required mirror lockup due to a protruding rear element. such lenses are exceedingly rare, so it isn't really anything that affects very many people, and i'm quite sure that anyone who owns such a lens will realize the implications of using it on a recent camera. >>>> I don't care what anyone buys, >>> yet you keep ranting about defeatured cameras and nimh batteries, among [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > limited and the lack of fluorite means their lenses aren't any good. > both are totally wrong. I never said that the Nikon lenses weren't any good. Only that the flourite glass enables Canon to manufacture lenses with less chromatic abberation, which is quite true. Minolta and Zeiss have also manufactured flourite glass lenses. It's a difficult and expensive process to master. The lens mount issue has been discussed extensively. You can use Google Groups to do your research. I'm not starting up that debate again. Suffice it to say that the F mount means that some lenses are not possible on the Nikon mount, and others perform less well. > The lens mount issue has been discussed extensively. You can use Google > Groups to do your research. I'm not starting up that debate again. > Suffice it to say that the F mount means that some lenses are not > possible on the Nikon mount, and others perform less well. Oh, so also some perform less well! I am all ears: please enlighten us, Oh Master! >> The lens mount issue has been discussed extensively. You can use Google >> Groups to do your research. I'm not starting up that debate again. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Oh, so also some perform less well! I am all ears: please enlighten > us, Oh Master! As I stated, this has been discussed extensively in the past, all the way back in the days of film in fact. Google "nikon lens mount limitations" on both web search and on Google Groups. Of course you are free to believe or disbelieve what the experts say on the subject. > >> The lens mount issue has been discussed extensively. You can use Google > >> Groups to do your research. I'm not starting up that debate again. [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > Groups. Of course you are free to believe or disbelieve what the experts > say on the subject. Well, I just did. Many irrelevant posts come up (ie that do not talk about limitations of the mount), and most of the ones that do talk about the limitations are yours. So could you please explain? I can see (from measuring its size) that faster than f/1.2 or so will be problematic (f/1.2 lenses are in fact available, so it's faster). Are you talking about the non-availability of f/1 lenses for nikon? And what is the worse performance that you're talking about? I'm really curious. >>>> The lens mount issue has been discussed extensively. You can use Google >>>> Groups to do your research. I'm not starting up that debate again. [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > about limitations of the mount), and most of the ones that do talk > about the limitations are yours. Read the first hit when you Google what I mentioned above. It's not from me, and it's a good summary of the issues. If you're looking for some Nikon executive to acknowledge the limitations, I think you'll be waiting for a long time, you just have to go with the body of knowledge of camera experts. As I stated, you are free to believe or disbelieve the reasons, or at least to disbelieve the significance of the limitations to particular users, since for most amateurs the issues are of little consequence. > >>>> The lens mount issue has been discussed extensively. You can use Google > >>>> Groups to do your research. I'm not starting up that debate again. [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > significance of the limitations to particular users, since for most > amateurs the issues are of little consequence. I beg your pardon: That's not a camera expert, but some person posting on a forum. His reasons are: 1. Maximum aperture size is limited because of... a. The F-mount inside diameter is small (compared to the Canon mount as discussed, but also to future considerations on their own). b. The existence of mechanical aperture setting arm. 2. Sensor size might be limited due to registration distance and mount diameter. 3. Overly complicated compared to an electrical system that has fewere moving parts. Are you willing to discuss these? For example, which of the points above makes the lenses perform worse? Or is it enough for you to claim that "experts" disagree? Frankly, I couldn't care less if the OP decides that the nikon mount is limited, or whatever else he decides, but I'd sure love to see you try to argue about this. > >> Google "nikon lens mount limitations" on both web search and on Google > >> Groups. Of course you are free to believe or disbelieve what the experts [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Read the first hit when you Google what I mentioned above. It's not from > me, and it's a good summary of the issues. assuming you mean the nikonian's post (why don't you post the link rather than 'google it' ?), that's just one person's opinion. but hey, if it is on the internet, it must be true. a lot of people *think* there's a limitation, but i've never seen clonclusive facts. people say fast lenses can't be made, yet nikon has f/1.2 lenses, and others have managed to adapt f/0.7 lenses. while it is true they don't currently manufacture an f/1 lens, who really cares? canon did that just to brag and sold very very few, and the lens wasn't particularly good anyway. as i've stated before, if they saw a profit to be made by making such a lens, they would. canon *lost* money with it. > If you're looking for some Nikon executive to acknowledge the > limitations, I think you'll be waiting for a long time, you just have to > go with the body of knowledge of camera experts. As I stated, you are > free to believe or disbelieve the reasons, or at least to disbelieve the > significance of the limitations to particular users, since for most > amateurs the issues are of little consequence. so if its of little consequence, why are you harping on it? > a lot of people *think* there's a limitation, but i've never seen > clonclusive facts. people say fast lenses can't be made, yet nikon has > f/1.2 lenses, and others have managed to adapt f/0.7 lenses. Well, the exit pupil's angular size is independent of the actual focal length, as far as I know; so that sets a lower limit to the f/stop (and I imagine the nikons to have a limit around f/1 to f/1.2, given the dimensions of the mount). I don't know about the f/0.7 lenses you mention, though (do they focus to infinity? or only closer, at a slower f/stop?). But I'd love to see SMS try to talk about specifics, as I said. I'm not an expert on optics, so would like to be corrected. I'd also like to know why > > a lot of people *think* there's a limitation, but i've never seen > > conclusive facts. people say fast lenses can't be made, yet nikon has [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > (and I imagine the nikons to have a limit around f/1 to f/1.2, given > the dimensions of the mount). i have seen a claim on dpreview by someone who tends to know his stuff that an 85mm f/1.2 might be very difficult on nikon, not necessarily impossible, however. but again, who really cares? nikon *does* have an excellent 85 f/1.4, and worrying about a half stop difference is ridiculous. also, since dslrs generally do quite well at high iso, the need for super-fast lenses is nowhere near what it once was. > I don't know about the f/0.7 lenses you > mention, though (do they focus to infinity? or only closer, at a > slower f/stop?). my thinking is that if some random person can adapt an f/0.7 lens to a nikon camera and get it working then nikon themselves could design an even better one one that worked correctly in all situations. > But I'd love to see SMS try to talk about specifics, as I said. I'm > not an expert on optics, so would like to be corrected. I'd also like > to know why well, it would be a first if he did. > In article <1193251230.768831.117...@v23g2000prn.googlegroups.com>, acl > [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > ridiculous. also, since dslrs generally do quite well at high iso, the > need for super-fast lenses is nowhere near what it once was. Well I don't disagree, I'm just wondering. > > I don't know about the f/0.7 lenses you > > mention, though (do they focus to infinity? or only closer, at a [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > nikon camera and get it working then nikon themselves could design an > even better one one that worked correctly in all situations. Well but if they only work at close-focus and an effective f-stop of f/ 1.6 (say), then there is no problem. But I really can't see how you can get faster than f/1.2, except if the back of the lens can extend significantly into the camera (I haven't measured how deep it can go without hitting the mirror). > > But I'd love to see SMS try to talk about specifics, as I said. I'm > > not an expert on optics, so would like to be corrected. I'd also like > > to know why > > well, it would be a first if he did. >> a lot of people *think* there's a limitation, but i've never seen >> clonclusive facts. people say fast lenses can't be made, yet nikon has [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > not an expert on optics, so would like to be corrected. I'd also like > to know why It has probably been explained 100 times in the past 20 years. "A small throat leads to mirror cutoff with telephotos, and a simple inability to have large rear elements with shorter lenses." > >> a lot of people *think* there's a limitation, but i've never seen > >> clonclusive facts. people say fast lenses can't be made, yet nikon has [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > "A small throat leads to mirror cutoff with telephotos, and a simple > inability to have large rear elements with shorter lenses." Are you serious? Can you name one lens that will show mirror cutoff? And are you telling me that the constraint on the size of the rear element is a serious one? Which lenses can you name with rear elements that don't fit into the Nikon mount? And, are these two the reasons you say the f-mount is limited? >>>> a lot of people *think* there's a limitation, but i've never seen >>>> clonclusive facts. people say fast lenses can't be made, yet nikon has [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > Are you serious? Can you name one lens that will show mirror cutoff? On the The Canon EOS-1D Mark II, the spec says that there is no mirror cut-off with EF1200mm f5.6. I could not find the similar Nikon spec. I saw one mention of 500mm/f8 being exhibiting mirror cut-off. Yes, I realize that only a few pros are going to be using either very long lenses, or very fast lenses, where Nikon has an issue. > >>>> a lot of people *think* there's a limitation, but i've never seen > >>>> clonclusive facts. people say fast lenses can't be made, yet nikon has [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > Yes, I realize that only a few pros are going to be using either very > long lenses, or very fast lenses, where Nikon has an issue. Actually, "mirror cut off" occurs when the aperture is *small* and the focal length large, not when the lens is fast... Which isn't too surprising if you think about it. And you forgot to answer my question about which lenses' rear element would not fit in the nikon mount. > Actually, "mirror cut off" occurs when the aperture is *small* and the > focal length large, not when the lens is fast... Which isn't too > surprising if you think about it. Sorry, I didn't mean to imply that it was the mirror cut-off issue with the fast lenses, that's a different issue with the mount, which is why Nikon can't make lenses as fast as Canon, i.e. no 50mm f/1.0 is possible. As you stated, it's the long focal length where you have the mirror cut-off problem. > And you forgot to answer my question about which lenses' rear element > would not fit in the nikon mount. LOL, the lens that doesn't exist because the rear element won't fit! Anyway, I got more into this age-old argument than I promised. If you want to learn more you're going to have to do your own research from now on, I've done as much as I can here. You're just being stubborn, when in reality you are well aware of the facts. > > Actually, "mirror cut off" occurs when the aperture is *small* and the > > focal length large, not when the lens is fast... Which isn't too > > surprising if you think about it. > > Sorry, I didn't mean to imply that it was the mirror cut-off issue with > the fast lenses, Ah, I see. > that's a different issue with the mount, which is why > Nikon can't make lenses as fast as Canon, i.e. no 50mm f/1.0 is > possible. Yes, that's not so hard to work out from the registration distance and the diameter of the mount. But the fact remains that at the moment the fastest lenses for both systems are f/1.2 (the nikon is manual focus and actually not that good a lens, though-I haven't actually shot with the canon). > As you stated, it's the long focal length where you have the > mirror cut-off problem. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > LOL, the lens that doesn't exist because the rear element won't fit! Well, I thought it was obvious that I didn't mean Nikon lenses, but SLR lenses in general. So? Which ones? I don't know, but the Canon 50mm f/1.2 isn't one for sure. I don't know about the 85mm f/1.2, maybe it is; but there's simply no reason, in fact. But do you know? > Anyway, I got more into this age-old argument than I promised. If you > want to learn more you're going to have to do your own research from now > on, I've done as much as I can here. You're just being stubborn, when in > reality you are well aware of the facts. "I've done as much as I can", eh? Actually all you've done is spit out what you read in newsgroups and forums. Well at least from now on you've probably learned to avoid being too specific about the limitations of the mount, and, it seems, you've also learned what "mirror cut off" is :) I've never claimed to be an expert on this, and I am most certainly not, but it really pisses me off when someone tries to pass of as an expert without actually understanding what he's talking about. > "I've done as much as I can", eh? Actually all you've done is spit out > what you read in newsgroups and forums. Well at least from now on > you've probably learned to avoid being too specific about the > limitations of the mount, and, it seems, you've also learned what > "mirror cut off" is :) No, what I've learned is to not engage in debates with people that are so committed to the equipment that they themselves have purchased, that they are unable to look at the pros and cons of said equipment objectively. > > "I've done as much as I can", eh? Actually all you've done is spit out > > what you read in newsgroups and forums. Well at least from now on [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > so committed to the equipment that they themselves have purchased, that > they are unable to look at the pros and cons of said equipment objectively. :) > > "I've done as much as I can", eh? Actually all you've done is spit out > > what you read in newsgroups and forums. Well at least from now on [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > so committed to the equipment that they themselves have purchased, that > they are unable to look at the pros and cons of said equipment objectively. !!!!!! so instead you just fabricate issues which i (and others) keep disproving? care to explain how mirror cutoff is more of a problem on nikon which has more room for a bigger mirror, than on canon with its shallower registration distance? and this time, how about a credible reference backing up any claim, not 'i saw it somewhere.' >> "I've done as much as I can", eh? Actually all you've done is spit out >> what you read in newsgroups and forums. Well at least from now on [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > so committed to the equipment that they themselves have purchased, that > they are unable to look at the pros and cons of said equipment objectively. You're so transparent that you could be used as lens material, if only your many flaws and distortions could be eliminated. :) > >> "I've done as much as I can", eh? Actually all you've done is spit out > >> what you read in newsgroups and forums. Well at least from now on [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > You're so transparent that you could be used as lens material, if > only your many flaws and distortions could be eliminated. :) hah! > >> "I've done as much as I can", eh? Actually all you've done is spit out > >> what you read in newsgroups and forums. Well at least from now on [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > You're so transparent that you could be used as lens material, if > only your many flaws and distortions could be eliminated. :) Actually he's not. For someone who just reads this thread, nospam and me probably come across as arrogant and aggressive and he as reasonable. That's been his tactic for years: he posts something and keeps repeating the same thing in a manner implying authority; if he's corrected on something, at best he doesn't reply and stops repeating it in the future or makes his claims more nebulous. The bizarre thing is that many times he really has no clue what he's talking about, eg making up some story about the d200 being forced on professionals because there was no high-resolution professional camera available, while a quick google search would show that the d2x was 1 year earlier. This is doubly strange because whenever he's tried to say something technical, you can easily find out where he got it from (google); so he knows how to use google well! I have no idea what's in it for him. OK enough whining, I think I've had enough of this. > The bizarre thing is that many times he really has no clue what he's > talking about, eg making up some story about the d200 being forced on [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > say something technical, you can easily find out where he got it from > (google); so he knows how to use google well! And people would be well advised to check his links, since the information provided is often at odds with what he claims. > I have no idea what's in it for him. Alas, just when they're needed, Woodward and Bernstein are occupied with more trivial pursuits. :) > Anyway, I got more into this age-old argument than I promised. If you > want to learn more you're going to have to do your own research from now > on, I've done as much as I can here. You're just being stubborn, when in > reality you are well aware of the facts. in other words, there is no proof for your nebulous statements and you are simply going to claim 'it's true because i said so; go find out for yourself.' put up or shut up. > > Are you serious? Can you name one lens that will show mirror cutoff? > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > I could not find the similar Nikon spec. I saw one mention of 500mm/f8 > being exhibiting mirror cut-off. oh i get it. you can't back up your claim except for this vague 'well i saw it somewhere.' you just believe it to be true, so therefore, it must be true. canon has a shallower lens registration distance and therefore *less* room for a mirror to clear the lens. that's why nikon lenses can be mounted on canon but not vice versa. therefore, canon would be *more* susceptible to mirror cutoff than nikon would. so how is this an issue with nikon and not canon? as for nikon, the only 500mm f/8 nikon made is a mirror lens, and i suspect any mirror cutoff (if it actually exists, which i doubt) has more to do with it being a mirror lens than any limitation in the camera. i do know that i tried a cheap third party 500mm f/8 mirror lens at a used camera store on a nikon film camera (they did not have any nikon digital at the time), and saw no issue whatsoever. note that a film camera is full frame and thus more susceptible to this 'issue.' nikon also makes a traditional optical 500mm f/4 lens, and i've never heard of any issue with that either, but i have not personally tried it. nikon also makes a 1200-1700 zoom (where's canon's version?) and i have not heard of any issue with that lens. it is also a special order item and priced similar to canon's 1200mm lens, around $80-$100k, so even if there was an issue, it isn't anything that matters to anyone, except for the very few who own it (estimated to be about 10-20 units, total). > Yes, I realize that only a few pros are going to be using either very > long lenses, or very fast lenses, where Nikon has an issue. so why do you harp on it? > > Are you serious? Can you name one lens that will show mirror cutoff? > > On the The Canon EOS-1D Mark II, the spec says that there is no mirror > cut-off with EF1200mm f5.6. i guess you 'missed' the spec on the full-frame canon 5d where it states 600mm f/4 or shorter. now what was that about nikon being limited? <http://web.canon.jp/imaging/eos5d/specifications.html> and for what it's worth, searching dpreview for mirror cutoff shows a *lot* more hits in the canon forums than in the nikon forums. i wonder why that is... > I never said that the Nikon lenses weren't any good. Only that the > flourite glass enables Canon to manufacture lenses with less chromatic > abberation, which is quite true. no, actually it is not quite true. photozone measured the chromatic aberration to be *less* on the nikon 70-200/2.8 versus the equivalent canon 70-200/2.8 (both versions with stabilization). the fact is, both nikon and canon (and others too for that matter) make excellent lenses. chromatic aberration is trivial to fix in photoshop or other software, much easier than say, flare. why focus (ahem) on just this one issue? > Minolta and Zeiss have also > manufactured flourite glass lenses. It's a difficult and expensive > process to master. and fluorite is only one way to solve the problem. it is not a *requirement* for top quality lenses. > The lens mount issue has been discussed extensively. You can use Google > Groups to do your research. I'm not starting up that debate again. > Suffice it to say that the F mount means that some lenses are not > possible on the Nikon mount, and others perform less well. such as which lenses, exactly? and what if the buyer has zero interest in the mythical lenses that can't be built? both canon and nikon have lenses to cover just about any situation. nikon has a few that canon lacks and canon has a few that nikon lacks. pentax has a few that both nikon and canon lack. there is no reason that they all have the exact same lineup. > At least lens compatibility is only an issue on Nikon, which has three > different lists of compatible lenses for different level bodies. No it's not. Find a place where you can buy a new non-ai lens. For that matter, go to a shop selling used nikkor lenses and find out how many non-ai lenses they have for sale. If it's the potential for ai lenses to not meter on the d80 and so on that confuses you, then the solution is trivial: ignore the existence of all non-AF lenses. Then you're in the same situation as a canon owner: can't use non-af lenses, all af lenses do everything on all bodies. Simple! However, you forgot to address one point here: is there some inherent limitation to the nikon mount? What is it, with a short technical explanation? Thanks! [] > People may or may not want a vertical/battery grip in the future. It > just makes sense to choose a camera that has a full line of > accessories available. The same goes for lenses. [] .. which really only leaves Nikon and Canon in the running! <G> David |
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.