[quote name='Klaus' timestamp='1284553976' post='2795']
The C70-200/4 is hardly comparable to the P60-250/4. If so you may also argue that it makes sense to compare it to the Sigma 100-300/4 which has almost the double weight. A reasonable comparison may be the 70-300L which is just as heavy - actually slightly heavier if you don't count the tripod mount of the P lens.
As far as the 55-250IS and 55-300VR is concerned - the valid counterpart is, of course, not the P60-250mm but the P55-300mm which sits in between the C and N lens.
There're a number of Pentax lenses which are not offered by the others.
50-135/2.8
10-17 Fisheye
17-70/4
And, of course, all the DA and DA* primes.
I think there's absolutely no doubt that Pentax has, by far, the best APS-C lineup out there. It's not even a close call. Full format lenses on APS-C DSLRs are always a compromise - at least in terms of size/weight.
[/quote]
How can you say the Canon 70-200mm f4 L IS USM is hardly comparable, when I just now showed just how comparable it is?
The Canon lens is the same size (actually a bit smaller), has comparable tele reach on APS-C, weights less, is weather sealed and offers IS, and it a bit cheaper.
Now what makes it "hardly" comparable? I do not get that! It is comparable in price, weight (advantage Canon), size (advantage Canon), build quality, AF, IQ, aperture, focal range (!!). Just that the less heavy Canon is also usable on full frame.
The other Pentax lenses you mention...
50-135... Tokina 50-135mm f2.8 and Sigma 50-150mm f2.8 are available for both Canon and Nikon APS-C.
10-17mm fisheye... Tokina 10-17mm is available for both Canon and Nikon APS-C.
17-70 f4. Nikon has a very comparable 16-85mm f3.5-5.6 VR. Canon has a very comparable 15-85mm f3.5-5.6 IS. If those are not to one's liking, Sigma has a 17-70mm f2.8-4 OS.
So what is left are some of the primes.
[quote name='Brightcolours' timestamp='1284555017' post='2797']
How can you say the Canon 70-200mm f4 L IS USM is hardly comparable, when I just now showed just how comparable it is?
[/quote]
Yeah, how could I dare ...
[quote name='Brightcolours' timestamp='1284555017' post='2797']
The Canon lens is the same size (actually a bit smaller), has comparable tele reach on APS-C, weights less, is weather sealed and offers IS, and it a bit cheaper.
[/quote]
C70-200 on EF-S = "112-320mm f/6.4" (2.84x)
P60-250 on P = "90-375mm f/5.6" (4.17x) (althouth that's not 100% correct according to the "official" Pentax crop factor)
Now what was your question again ?
[quote name='Brightcolours' timestamp='1284555017' post='2797']
The other Pentax lenses you mention...
50-135... Tokina 50-135mm f2.8 and Sigma 50-150mm f2.8 are available for both Canon and Nikon APS-C.
10-17mm fisheye... Tokina 10-17mm is available for both Canon and Nikon APS-C.
17-70 f4. Nikon has a very comparable 16-85mm f3.5-5.6 VR. Canon has a very comparable 15-85mm f3.5-5.6 IS. If those are not to one's liking, Sigma has a 17-70mm f2.8-4 OS.
[/quote]
Right, thank you for the confirmation than none of these are available from the original manufacturers.
Klaus - reg. Pentax glass, just out of curiosity - is it really Pentax ot Tokina/Sigma rebranded lenses ?
Anyways, regarding the different systems, despite some awesome lenses by Oly or Pentax, etc., most of the market goes into the hands of Canon/Nikon and I think it's becouse those two systems are the most "complete" in terms of glass and ancilliaries, for any user irrelevantly of sensor size.. For me, FF format of the glass is just more of a future-proof investment and even when I owned 2 bodies (FF and DX) I decided to invest only in FF glass, weight and size issues didn't matter for me that much. Performance and a kind of future-proof purchase did <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='  ' /> It's only after each trip /trekking that I curse myself for carring the 7 (or 10) kg of gear <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='  ' />) That however is a seperate issue. In the lightweight league EVIL cameras will likely dominate soon and current sales growth in that segment already makes an argument there (esp. in Japan from what i've read).
[quote name='wojtt' timestamp='1284559737' post='2801']
Klaus - reg. Pentax glass, just out of curiosity - is it really Pentax ot Tokina/Sigma rebranded lenses ?
Anyways, regarding the different systems, despite some awesome lenses by Oly or Pentax, etc., most of the market goes into the hands of Canon/Nikon and I think it's becouse those two systems are the most "complete" in terms of glass and ancilliaries, for any user irrelevantly of sensor size.. For me, FF format of the glass is just more of a future-proof investment and even when I owned 2 bodies (FF and DX) I decided to invest only in FF glass, weight and size issues didn't matter for me that much. Performance and a kind of future-proof purchase did <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=' ' /> It's only after each trip /trekking that I curse myself for carring the 7 (or 10) kg of gear <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=' ' />) That however is a seperate issue. In the lightweight league EVIL cameras will likely dominate soon and current sales growth in that segment already makes an argument there (esp. in Japan from what i've read).
[/quote]
Pentax lenses are designed by Pentax ... within a handful of exceptions (18-200 (Tamron), 18-250 (Tamron)). Sigma has no ties with Pentax whatsoever. Tokina shares a few lenses. Sony is also using a the Tamron 18-200/250 base design. Nikon used a lens design from a japanese university I think (70-300). There're probably a couple of further funny ties under the hood.
As far as glass is concerned - I think most of the conventional glass comes from Hoya - and that includes the other brands (Nikon, Canon, Sony, Olympus).
FX vs DX - I think it is a phantom discussion. Most drive a Volkswagen-like car although everybody desires a Mercedes. Technically nobody needs a Mercedes (nor a Volkswagen actually). And even if you got a Mercedes you may drool around a Bugatti (equiv. medium format cameras). You have to find your sweet spot whereever it is. APS-C sensors are not without perspective. I reckon within 5 years APS-C sensors are as good as FF sensors today.
[quote name='Klaus' timestamp='1284558538' post='2799']
Yeah, how could I dare ...
[/quote]
At times I just love your tone. But maybe you miss how "how can you" actually is meant In English.
[quote name='Klaus' timestamp='1284558538' post='2799']
C70-200 on EF-S = "112-320mm f/6.4" (2.84x)
P60-250 on P = "90-375mm f/5.6" (4.17x) (althouth that's not 100% correct according to the "official" Pentax crop factor)
Now what was your question again ?
[/quote]
That is totally trying way too hard not to have them be similar.
90 and 112mm is very close. 320 and 375mm is even closer.
Now to what I pointed to before: The Pentax is only longer at infinity. When focus closer, the difference disappears, in fact the Canon 70-200 is LONGER focal length wise than the Pentax at MFD.
So, really, saying these lenses can not be considered equivalents is saying the Nikon 24-120mm f4 and Canon 24-105mm f4 are not comparable or the Tamron 90mm f2.8 is not in the same class as the Nikon 105mm f2.8. And of course the Tamron 28-75mm f2.8 gets compared with 24-70mm f2.8's.
[quote name='Klaus' timestamp='1284558538' post='2799']
Right, thank you for the confirmation than none of these are available from the original manufacturers.
[/quote]
You never wrote before, though. It was (or seemed to be) why you preferred the Pentax K5 out of the new cameras, and part of that was (seemed to be) the availability of a bigger APS-C range of lenses. Well, most of those lenses (equivalents) are available from either Canon or Nikon, or from Sigma and Tokina, for the Canon and Nikon APS-C DSLRs. Except an f4 tele zoom for Nikon and most DA primes.
And concerning APS-C lens size and weight... I already pointed out that the Pentax 60-250mm f4 is bigger and heavier than the Canon 70-200mm f4 L IS USM counterpart. Other lenses also show us that that not always is true (compare the Nikon 35mm f1.8 DX to the Canon and Nikon 35mm f2, for instance, or the different higher end Olympus lenses to APS-C/FF equivalent lenses.
[quote name='Klaus' timestamp='1284562513' post='2803']
I reckon within 5 years APS-C sensors are as good as FF sensors today.[/quote]
According to dxomark.com tests, the 2008 Nikon D90 and 2009 Pentax K-x provide very similar quality as the 2005 Canon 5D, so it's not impossible that even less than 5 years will be needed.
Even more impressive - the FourThirds sensor of the 2009 Panasonic GH1 is ranked as competitive with the FF sensor of the 2002 Canon EOS 1Ds and the medium-format sensor of the 2008 Mamiya ZD back (though in practice, the Panny is only competitive with the latter when it comes to DR, or when one increases the ISO).
[quote name='Klaus' timestamp='1284562513' post='2803']
I reckon within 5 years APS-C sensors are as good as FF sensors today.
[/quote]
And, of course FX sensors will be 5 years ahead of where they are today <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/wink.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=' ' />
-- Markus
Editor
opticallimits.com
Indeed, even today APS-C gives the FF a good run for it's money in terms of IQ <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=' ' /> However, in 5 yrs time FF will also have advanced, unless of course the big guys abandon it's research and development due cost cutting or some market strategy we're not aware of today <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=' ' /> Certainly FF has it's key applications like high ISO performance and DoF (bokeh) that FF with it's properly dedicated lenses is capable of. My point was not that APS-C has no future but rather that a lens system that is mostly APS-C oriented is limiting or might be so in the future, while a FF lens can be used for the smaller sensor cameras with no problem. Therefore you can use both APS-C and FF with the same lens set (roughly) and well, this allows for more versatility.. That's why I'll get myself an APS-C backup before my next holidays - possibly a D7000 <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=' ' /> No reason not to drive a Mazda MX-5 and a Merc depending on the needs / fun you are after <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=' ' /> ? Bugatti Veyron is more like for the Top Gear guys only.. <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=' ' />
[quote name='boren' timestamp='1284564226' post='2805']
According to dxomark.com tests, the 2008 Nikon D90 and 2009 Pentax K-x provide very similar quality as the 2005 Canon 5D, so it's not impossible that even less than 5 years will be needed.
Even more impressive - the FourThirds sensor of the 2009 Panasonic GH1 is ranked as competitive with the FF sensor of the 2002 Canon EOS 1Ds and the medium-format sensor of the 2008 Mamiya ZD back (though in practice, the Panny is only competitive with the latter when it comes to DR, or when one increases the ISO).
[/quote]
Well, that actually makes me really wonder about the validity of these tests, or what they really mean.
IMO, you can't compare 4/3, APS-C or FF directly, just like you can't FF, MF and LF, even if they share, to a degree, the same lenses. AFAIAC, it is at best a technical sensor comparison, which takes actual picture taking completely out of the equation.
Kind regards, Wim
Gear: Canon EOS R with 3 primes and 2 zooms, 4 EF-R adapters, Canon EOS 5 (analog), 9 Canon EF primes, a lone Canon EF zoom, 2 extenders, 2 converters, tubes; Olympus OM-D 1 Mk II & Pen F with 12 primes, 6 zooms, and 3 Metabones EF-MFT adapters ....
[quote name='wim' timestamp='1284567215' post='2809']
Well, that actually makes me really wonder about the validity of these tests, or what they really mean.
IMO, you can't compare 4/3, APS-C or FF directly, just like you can't FF, MF and LF, even if they share, to a degree, the same lenses. AFAIAC, it is at best a technical sensor comparison, which takes actual picture taking completely out of the equation.
Kind regards, Wim
[/quote]
Another point of attention is that when a manufacturer applies any kind of NR to the RAW data, they will always score higher, as it simulates a higher dynamic range. All that is left of that in the DXOmark data is curves with angles.
Take the DXO ratings with a grain of salt, and be careful with interpreting the data.
|
