Nikon D80 vs. Pentax K10D

[Don Simon]

Well if its on a chart its obviously its beyond doubt... (and which lenses exactly are you comparing anyway?)

I've heard several arguments for choosing Canon and Nikon over Pentax but overall quality of optics was never one until... er just now. There are people who frankly think the opposite is true, though lets face it if someone here suggested Pentax glass might be better they'd get ripped to pieces.

 

[newrmdmike]

damn, i wish i could find the chart!

i can't say nikon is better than canon, with those two its lens specific, and i'd expect it is with pentax.

example
nikons 70-200 f/2.8 vr is sharper than canons 70-200 f/2.8 vr

 

[DSLR noob]

newrmdmike: I know canon and Nikon have weather sealed bodies, but I assumed you'd know I meant in this class. Also IS in camera body may not be as good, but the ability to use them with any lens IS much better IMO. Then there's the fact that older lenses cost less, so being able to use them is a plus. Pentax even has viewfinder screens. As for people saying I might be biased, keep in mind I shoot Canon and have only shot Canon. I just believe the research should be the basis of your answers, not by using one, and getting comfortable with it then calling it better when you "try" using another. Pentax does yield different results, but how often do you take a photo, and then go"Ugh, this is so ugly, well I mean it looks good, but just knowing that that red is slightly less saturated on the charts makes me hate it." Not they say "Wow, nice photo." I'm sorry but you seem to have a good balance between the Canon VS. Nikon, but have shut your eyes to any other options.

 

[usayit]

newrmdmike: I'm sorry but you seem to have a good balance between the Canon VS. Nikon, but have shut your eyes to any other options.

Exactly... thumbs up!

i wouldn't buy the sony alpha just because they havn't been on the slr market long.

I guess you missed the whole thing about Minolta Konica - Sony. That argument has been discussed here. It is Konica-Minolta!!! Sony deciding to use their own branding as a marketing decision. Why... my feeling is that the public no longer views DSLRs as a photographic item but more like a consumer electronic (hence why Best buy, circuit city, compusa far out sells any camera store - local or chain). Sony's a big player in consumer electronics and Konica-Minolta is not.

Sony not been the SLR market long??... sheesh.. they've just been making the CCD sensor in your Nikon for YEARS... .. what is it now? 80+% of the digital cameras out there use sony sensors.. maybe more. Next you'll be saying that Konica-Minolta has little experience in designing cameras...

btw.... according to DPreview... sony alpha pretty much performed just as well as the Nikon D200... but you knew that being that dpreview is your spot. The pentax also held its own against the D80 too. I'm still haven't found dynamic range data... ohwell.

 

[newrmdmike]

the sony alpha is sony's first slr camera. they have been in parts a long time, alright . . . but not the full camera.

also, the reason sony alpha does about the same as the d200 is because the chips are the same (as far as i can tell, even though they wouldn't admit it at photokina)

i've used the sony as well as the nikon and frankly the sony feels like a total piece of cheap crap. what happens once sensors get better? the resolution charts are obviously only going to reflect what the sensor can detect . . . once they get better who's lenses are really going to be better? ans:idk.

i use nikon bc i soon will be shooting with a d2xs, ITS GOOD, better than any pentax or sony, tougher than canon.
i invested in a system. ill admit i'm not the most familiar with pentax, but i've never liked anything of theirs i used, even back in my minolta days.

if cheap old lenses are a selling point for you then by all means get pentax! at that level its obviously nitpicky to argue about who is better, but where will you go from old lenses in a semi-pro body? (not that the camera makes the photographer, but technology plays a huge part in what you can get)

 

[Don Simon]

i invested in a system. ill admit i'm not the most familiar with pentax, but i've never liked anything of theirs i used, even back in my minolta days.

if cheap old lenses are a selling point for you then by all means get pentax! at that level its obviously nitpicky to argue about who is better, but where will you go from old lenses in a semi-pro body? (not that the camera makes the photographer, but technology plays a huge part in what you can get)

Where will you go? Er, to better lenses? Cheap old lenses are the only benefit or the only option, they are just one. There are plenty of newer Pentax lenses available, and as with Canon or Nikon many of these are way above the price range or needs of most users.

As for the "pro" bodies, no Pentax do not currently make one and traditionally have not done. The LX and MZ-S were very capable pro-grade cameras but that's not Pentax's market. Instead they make professional medium format gear (film and soon digital). Having said that, people have used the *ist for professional purposes without flinging themselves to the floor weeping "Oh if only I went with Canon". Pentax have high-end optics and well-made bodies and it's entirely possible to use their systems in a professional capacity, they just don't have bodies equivalent to the d2. Now you will soon be shooting with a d2xs, so Nikon is clearly the system for you. This is not necessarily the case for everyone else. Of course you invested in a system, everyone invests in a system (although Nikon and Canon users seem to think there are only two) but not everyone wants the same system for the same reasons.

You said you personally don't like Pentax's gear. That's fair enough. With a few exceptions I don't much like Canon's. But let's not mix personal preference up with the capability or quality of the gear. As you pointed out charts are lens-specific. With comparable lenses sometimes the Nikon will be better, sometimes the Canon, sometimes the Pentax, sometimes a 'Sony' or something else. Plus lens charts don't tell you everything. As long as they buy good glass instead of the cheapest stuff the majority of folks should be happy with the optics in any of those systems.

 

[usayit]

i use nikon bc i soon will be shooting with a d2xs, ITS GOOD, better than any pentax or sony, tougher than canon.

LOL... thanks for the laugh in the morning.. hehehe lol... smokin weed huh?

What do you want me to say next? Hows this?

"I use canon bc I soon will be shooting with a 1dsMarkII, ITS GOOD, better than any pentax or sony, tougher than nikon."

 

[newrmdmike]

hahah, i must be smoking somthing, thats so stupid sounding.

what i meant was "i shoot nikon and will soon be ... ."

ag just never mind the whole thing . . .

the point was, theres room to grow with nikon and canon. neither pentax nor sony have somewhere to go from their new slr's.

 

[usayit]

You really like those blanket generalizations don't you?

Nikon > Canon
Sony and Pentax are dead end system

 

[Don Simon]

No it's a fair point, you wouldn't be able to upgrade from the K10d to something like a D2xs or 1ds. You wouldn't have anywhere to go in terms of bodies in the current lineup. IMO the huge majority of folks wouldn't be spending that much on a body anyway. I don't believe you'd be that limited when it comes to glass though.

 

[cigrainger]

nikon/canon both have every lens you will want, almost every lens made will work on them, its not a big deal that some of them don't work because you wouldn't want to use a lens that old, and new lenses cover the same focal lengths!

I really hope you're kidding.

:thumbdown:

 

[dxqcanada]

Hmm, Canon DSLR's cannot use the older manual focus lenses.
I believe the Nikon DSR's have restrictions on which bodies can work with the old manual focus lenses.

My Canon MF lenses were optically excellent and I wish Canon had kept compatibility. Most of my MF lenses are not available in AF.

If the Pentax DSLR's were available when I was in the market ... I would have seriously considered it, as I would have easily aquired excellent MF lenses for it (I never did get into AF cameras).

 

[Joves]

As long as the mount is an F you can use the manual lenses with the Nikons.

 

[Johnboy2978]

Gees, didn't realize this thread was 2 years old. What's the point.

 

[Dubious Drewski]

Leave zombie threads in their grave! Have respect for the dead!

With that said, from a personal standpoint, my only gripes about my K10 (I use this thing professionally, and I use it alot) are:

The frames per second: 3? It's acceptable, but just acceptable.

Low light performance: Could be better. But in Pentax's defence, the K10 doesn't doesn't apply smoothing, whereas everybody else does. This smudges details.

Advanced tracking and focusing: Maybe I'm expecting too much out of a mid level, two year old camera. Also, I have no practical experience using the D80 with sports, so I can't personally compare, but the K10 doesn't have any sort of advanced predictive focusing algorithms which some of the newer high end cameras do. I really wish it had that.

Future of the KMount: Is it secure? I have no idea. Pentax/Samsung release cameras very seldomly. This worries me personally. I don't care if it's sooner or later, but I want to know that there will eventually be a K30.

Everything else about the K10 (and by extension the K20) is golden. They're built well, and I'd argue that the majority of lenses have an Image quality that either matches or beats anything from Canon, Nikon, or Sony. I hear alot about people using adaptors to mount Pentax glass on Nikon and Canon bodies, but I never hear about the inverse.

I've gone out and done photography in pouring rain, -35 degree winter and blowing desert, and it's not given me any trouble. I've captured sports, done macro, done weddings, studio shooting, street photography, night exposures, all of it. And this thing's been a reliable tool through it all.