Hi all,
so I'm still trying to find a good walkaround kit that offers IQ close to my current D700/24-120 combo, but without the ridiculous weight. I tried and not been happy with either the Nikon D3100 (tiny OVF, not great handling) or the Sony A55 (EVF tearing/colors gave me a headache).
At this point I've settled on either the Pentax K-5, 17-70/4 and 35/2.4 or the Nikon D7000, 16-85VR and 35/1.8. Both are a tad bigger and heavier than I'd like, but I've heard good things about their OVFs, and both seem to have all the necessary features. All things being equal, I'm leaning toward the Pentax as it seems to have the better build quality and ergonomics. However, I have a couple of concerns based on posts I've seen here and elsewhere.
1) Shutter-induced blur. Not sure if this is really an issue or not, but given the number of reports with the K-7 and K-X, I'm a bit concerned.
2) AA filter. I believe photozone's editor mentioned that the K-5 had a very strong AA filter? That's one of the things I dislike about my D700...
3) AF in low light. I've heard mixed reports about speed and accuracy, particularly regarding tungsten lighting.
So, any thoughts on these or any other issues? Camera is mostly for outdoors use - hiking, landscapes and street photography - but I do also shoot occasionally indoors in poor lighting.
Thanks!
DH
Are you going to replace your D700 with the new kit or add a second camera for hiking? In the latter case, I'd clearly vote for the D7000, since you can share most accessories.
Otherwise, I suggest to try both if possible and choose the one you like better.
Regarding the issues you mention: low light is always a challenge for any AF. And I doubt that shutter induced blur is a field relevant issue. I have this on the D3x, too, but to me it only matters for the lab tests (where I can see a light drop in resolution on horizontal lines, if I don't use an extra stabilized setup). In the field, it was never an issue for me.
-- Markus
Editor
opticallimits.com
[quote name='mst' timestamp='1303323412' post='7794']
Are you going to replace your D700 with the new kit or add a second camera for hiking? In the latter case, I'd clearly vote for the D7000, since you can share most accessories.
Otherwise, I suggest to try both if possible and choose the one you like better.
Regarding the issues you mention: low light is always a challenge for any AF. And I doubt that shutter induced blur is a field relevant issue. I have this on the D3x, too, but to me it only matters for the lab tests (where I can see a light drop in resolution on horizontal lines, if I don't use an extra stabilized setup). In the field, it was never an issue for me.
-- Markus
[/quote]
Hi,
Thanks for the comments. I'll be replacing the D700 entirely. Great camera, but I'm just not taking advantage enough of its strong points (fancy AF, high ISO) to make up for its disadvantages (size, weight, resolution at normal ISOs). None of my FX lenses or accessories make sense on the D7000, so there's no inherent advantage to my sticking with Nikon.
I'm glad to hear that shutter-blur is not such a big issue on the K-5. There was a lot of complaining about the K-7 and K-x, so I was a bit worried. You're right about AF. I don't think I'm looking for anything terribly sophisticated - just a center-point that locks reliably in low-light. After bad experiences with Olympus DSLRs, I've learned not to assume anything there though.
Cheers,
DH
I guess it's about how you use it of course, but I had no problems with shutter induced blur with the K-x, and nothing still now with the K-5, I'm pretty sure it's something you get if you search for it and take pictures to see how much it is. It's not a problem, and hasn't been IMO.
The same goes for AF-problems. Maybe I was just lucky though.
[quote name='dhazeghi' timestamp='1303322315' post='7793']
Hi all,
so I'm still trying to find a good walkaround kit that offers IQ close to my current D700/24-120 combo, but without the ridiculous weight. I tried and not been happy with either the Nikon D3100 (tiny OVF, not great handling) or the Sony A55 (EVF tearing/colors gave me a headache).
At this point I've settled on either the Pentax K-5, 17-70/4 and 35/2.4 or the Nikon D7000, 16-85VR and 35/1.8. Both are a tad bigger and heavier than I'd like, but I've heard good things about their OVFs, and both seem to have all the necessary features. All things being equal, I'm leaning toward the Pentax as it seems to have the better build quality and ergonomics. However, I have a couple of concerns based on posts I've seen here and elsewhere.
1) Shutter-induced blur. Not sure if this is really an issue or not, but given the number of reports with the K-7 and K-X, I'm a bit concerned.
2) AA filter. I believe photozone's editor mentioned that the K-5 had a very strong AA filter? That's one of the things I dislike about my D700...
3) AF in low light. I've heard mixed reports about speed and accuracy, particularly regarding tungsten lighting.
So, any thoughts on these or any other issues? Camera is mostly for outdoors use - hiking, landscapes and street photography - but I do also shoot occasionally indoors in poor lighting.
Thanks!
DH
[/quote]
Hi DH,
Coincidentally, I was making the same decision at the end of December - same camera bodies, same standard zooms on my list, but with a long telephoto zoom instead of the 35mm standard lenses you're looking at (60-250 Pentax, excellent review here. Tamron or Nikon 70-300, not as good).
I, too, was influenced - maybe unduly - by the thread here about the K5's strong anti-aliasing filter and the issues about AF and also initial problems with sensor (which I understand have now been resolved).
When it came to the decision, I spent some time with both and I agreed with [url="http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/pentaxk5/page4.asp"]DP Review[/url]: the Pentax clearly felt more comfortable in my hands, a bit lighter and smaller: a better 'fit' for me.
Both have very clear viewfinders.
The shop didn't have the 17-70, so my choice was a bit restricted on the day. Plus those other issues were on my mind, I thought the two card slots in the D7000 were going to be really useful while I learned what I was doing (RAW + JPEG), and the 16-85 had that bit extra range... (and I'd sort of wanted a Nikon from film days! <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='  ' />).
On the other hand the Pentax felt better, and (I was told) has world-leading weather sealing - which might be a factor for hiking and landscapes.
I decided on the D7000.
I've no regrets, but I don't think you would with either of them (plenty of Pentax users very pleased with the K5).
Bottom line for me is I'm very happy with the D7000, the 16-85 is great (sharp) and I'm gradually getting results I'm pleased with, though I'm very much still learning the D7000, coming new to Digital SLRs and it's a complex camera (to me).
I like things I'm learning about it, which you're probably familiar with already (and which the Pentax may do as well): 2 User customisable modes (e.g. v.quick switch between AF-S / single point and AF-C / multi-point or 3D-tracking, different ISOs and bracket / no-bracket), focus-priority release (didn't realise how useful that could be until I read the 'Focus Trap' thread here the other day!), remote ctrl functionality, etc.
I do wonder about the other set up, sometimes, though - esp. the IQ with the 60-250!
I'll be interested to hear what you decide. <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='  ' />
Ian
Good luck Ian! When my D700 feels heavy from time to time, for instance when travelling, I just stick a 35 f2 or 50 f1.4 on and it all of a sudden feels so light that all is forgotten. I can do everything with those two lenses and some cropping. 2 steps back and I have a 24, 2 steps forward and woops, here is an 85!<img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/cool.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='B)' /> In good light, my 35 becomes almost hyperfocal if I stop down and the auto ISO permits me to shoot in virtually no light with the 50.
So it's a little heavy, but the IQ is unbeatable. After all, I am supposed to be a photographer.
For me the step down won't be a lighter DSLR, but a P7000, Fuji X100, Olympus XZ1, or something like that. Maybe I'll wait for the Fuji X300 with interchangible lenses, but whatever it will be, it will be an in the pocket all the time, top quality compact that goes under my pillow at night. Otherwise I'm not interested, because nothing can beat my D700 with good optics on and that, afte all, is why I take pictures!
[quote name='Vieux loup' timestamp='1303395968' post='7815']
Good luck Ian! When my D700 feels heavy from time to time, for instance when travelling, I just stick a 35 f2 or 50 f1.4 on and it all of a sudden feels so light that all is forgotten. I can do everything with those two lenses and some cropping. 2 steps back and I have a 24, 2 steps forward and woops, here is an 85!<img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/cool.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='B)' /> In good light, my 35 becomes almost hyperfocal if I stop down and the auto ISO permits me to shoot in virtually no light with the 50.
So it's a little heavy, but the IQ is unbeatable. After all, I am supposed to be a photographer.
For me the step down won't be a lighter DSLR, but a P7000, Fuji X100, Olympus XZ1, or something like that. Maybe I'll wait for the Fuji X300 with interchangible lenses, but whatever it will be, it will be an in the pocket all the time, top quality compact that goes under my pillow at night. Otherwise I'm not interested, because nothing can beat my D700 with good optics on and that, afte all, is why I take pictures!
[/quote]
Another reason to maybe consider that 20mm f3.5 from Voigtlander... Way more compact and light than an ultra wide zoom!
[quote name='Brightcolours' timestamp='1303401407' post='7819']
Another reason to maybe consider that 20mm f3.5 from Voigtlander... Way more compact and light than an ultra wide zoom!
[/quote]
Yes, but on FX it only gives limited pleasure.
-- Markus
Editor
opticallimits.com
[quote name='mst' timestamp='1303424495' post='7833']
Yes, but on FX it only gives limited pleasure.
-- Markus
[/quote]
It has lesser borders resolution wise, but the differences are not huge when you stop down (which one often does with wide angle). And it vignets stronger, unless you stop down too.
All true.
This compact, 200 grams lens makes a LOT nicer images than the 1-kilo-left-at-home-due-to-its-weight 14-24mm f2.8, though!
04-28-2011, 09:46 AM
(This post was last modified: 04-28-2011, 09:53 AM by thxbb12.)
First, either combo will be very good and probably give you very similar IQ.
Now, the differentiators are the following.
Nikon:
Nikon has more accessories and a larger global lens line-up (not APS-C though).
The D7000 AF would probably be slightly better than the K5 in dark light.
If you plan on using long lenses, Nikon will be a better choice as Pentax doesn't have anything longer than 300mm.
The 16-85 will give you a longer and wider range at the expense of speed and DOF. Arguably, the Pentax 17-70 has better bokeh though.
Pentax:
Generally, Pentax has an advantage in terms of size and weight. In the case of your lens selection, not that much though - they weigh about the same overall. However, for hiking having a weather-sealed body is clearly an advantage even if you don't use any WR lenses. You also have the option of cheap as well as pro WR lenses to go with it (18-55, 55-200, 18-135, 16-50 f/2.8, 50-135 f/2.8, 60-250 f/4, 100 f/2.8 macro, 200 f/2.8, 300 f/4).
Ergonomics, features and customizations are arguably better with the K5.
If you go into primes, Pentax has some extremely small and light lenses with great IQ and build quality not found elsewhere: 15 f/4, 21 f/3.2, 35 f/2.8 macro, 40 f/2.8, and 70 f/2.4.
The shutter blur issue was sometimes present on the K-x and K-7. However, it's not measurably the case with the K-5 anymore (according to Falcon Eye's paper).
Regarding the high AA filter. It's a matter of preference and I don't think it's that strong. Images sharpen very nicely.
I personally chose Pentax for the above-mentioned reasons and I can say if I had to do it all over again, I'd still chose Pentax.
I hope it helps.
|
