Pentax K20D or Nikon D300??

[GeneralBenson]

Sight unseen has nothing to do with it. Sure, there's that chance that it's a total flop. I really wouldn't bank on that. I've talked to people that have shot with it, and they say it delivers. What I'm basing my judgment on is the K10d, K20d and assortment of DA* and other pentax lenses I have that are already enough to make want these rather than a D300. If the K-7 is as good as it should be and most likely will be, then it will be far superior to the D300 for less money, with a growing line of amazing lens for half the price of premium nikkor glass to back it up.

 

[itznfb]

i'd like to know how the K7 is "far superior" to the D300. looks inferior in terms of specs and the first google results when searching for pentax k7 complain about noise.

 

[ANDS!]

About the only benefit I see of this UNTESTED camera over the beaten to death D300 is a new image sensor (from SAMSUNG) that has yet to be put through the proper paces and compare/contrasts with other cameras.

The thing is, this really shouldn't be compared to the D300. They aren't the same class of camera. Compare it to the Nikon D90 (which appears to be its closest competition) and then we might be seeing some actual pros/cons instead of putting it up against older camera tech (in relation to image sensor).

 

[GeneralBenson]

i'd like to know how the K7 is "far superior" to the D300. looks inferior in terms of specs and the first google results when searching for pentax k7 complain about noise.

Actually, it wasn't. The website is called 1,001 noisy cameras, and it was merely just a restatement of the announcement. No one has released any actual image results to judge the noise on yet, seeing as how it was only announced yesterday. But going on the fact that they took a pretty darn good 14.6mp sensor, and totally redesigned it from the ground up, with the only goals being better IQ and ISO performance, instead of more pixels, I think it'll do just fine. I guess we'll find out in 2 months.

Maybe far superior was an overstatement, but superior in terms of MP, Hd video, smaller and lighter, same size screen with approximately same resolution, similar frame rate, but with out the boost from a grip, same ISO range except that ISO 100 isn't just a digital tweak, and still cheaper. What specs look inferior to you?

 

[itznfb]

Maybe far superior was an overstatement, but superior in terms of MP, Hd video, smaller and lighter, same size screen with approximately same resolution, similar frame rate, but with out the boost from a grip, same ISO range except that ISO 100 isn't just a digital tweak, and still cheaper. What specs look inferior to you?

i didn't realize it was THAT new. so any data on performance i saw in my quick searches is probably irrelevant. either way, as ANDS basically said, you can't compare an untested camera to a great camera that has been on the market for years. and none of the "specs" you listed mean anything to a photographer except maybe the weight of the body. even that though, the D300 and D700 with grips counter weigh the big lenses much better than the "light" cameras.

 

[NitroDC]

If you're going to be an enthusiast, go Pentax. If you're going to have photography as an occupation, go Nikon/Canon. I myself use a K100D Super and am planning to upgrade to the K-7 this year, mainly because I would love to shoot videos (My friend is a skater) and I'm drooling over the new features.

Pentax is for the enthusiasts that don't have the extreme amounts of money for a Canon 1D or a Nikon D3 and such. I prefer that because I don't really plan on going pro, if anything, I would become a pro videographer... But Pentax offers a LOT of features into a good camera and at a good price. The lenses are great and my father's Rebel XT fails in terms of image quality (18-55mm Canon just doesn't cut it) Nikon and Canon are for the pros in the long run with their luxury bodies and lenses.

I'd go pentax since you have some lenses, but seeing as you have kit lenses, it's ok. I have the 18-55 and 55-300mm (much better than the 50-200, I highly recommend it)

 

[ANDS!]

The lenses are great and my father's Rebel XT fails in terms of image quality (18-55mm Canon just doesn't cut it).

This is an odd statement. The XT doesn't have poor image quality, the kit lens does. Apples and oranges.

 

[pez]

Some links on the K-7 so far:

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BNCHdsZI88g"]Official youtube vid[/ame]
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vaFfaTkoUn4"]Video "review[/ame]"
dPReview blathering
Pentax site

Regardless of how it compares with big clunky Nikons (and their big, porky glass), I'm sure it will be good enough for me to pick up a body in a few months.

 

[NitroDC]

The lenses are great and my father's Rebel XT fails in terms of image quality (18-55mm Canon just doesn't cut it).

This is an odd statement. The XT doesn't have poor image quality, the kit lens does. Apples and oranges.

I'm just saying that Pentax has the best kit lens in the market compared to other brands. Better build quality, better image quality, and the new kit on the K-7 will have weather and dust resistance.

 

[Montana]

Nikon D300. Image quality is nothing.

LOL

I thought the Canon/Nikon debates got old......seems the Nikon junkies really like to trash Pentax too.


Get an Olympus just out of spite!

 

[itznfb]

the 18-55mm VR and 55-200mm VR from nikon are both kit lenses. they are superior in IQ to anything that Pentax offers. i'm not as familiar with canon but i'm sure they offer something similar.

 

[ANDS!]

Nikon D300. Image quality is nothing.

LOL

I thought the Canon/Nikon debates got old......seems the Nikon junkies really like to trash Pentax too.


Get an Olympus just out of spite!

Oh that is too sad. . .seriously. Only someone trolling for a "fight" would take that statement the way you did.

 

[GeneralBenson]

the 18-55mm VR and 55-200mm VR from nikon are both kit lenses. they are superior in IQ to anything that Pentax offers. i'm not as familiar with canon but i'm sure they offer something similar.

How much experience do you have with the Pentax kit lens do be able to make that statement? The Pentax kit zoom is super sharp, but I wouldn't make that statement about the Nikon 18-55 VR, because I've never used it.

Also, the new pentax 18-55 and 55-20 WR lenses are going to be fully weather sealed for kit lens prices. And we don't need VR since it's in camera.

 

[sunbeam]

WOW! I officially LOVE this site! What a great debate going on! I think I have confused myself further as to which camera to buy, haha. But I definately do plan on going pro. For now, I am practicing, practicing, practicing. I just REALLY feel like I've out grown this camera, and I really hate how slow it is to focus, and there's a few other things I'd change about it, as well. It was a great little well priced entry camera, but I need something to grow with. By the sounds of it, people seem to lean towards Nikon. Is that because of popularity or superiority? I guess from what I've 'researched', Pentax just doesn't have any camera's in the 'pro' level, like Canon and Nikon, so maybe that's it? Either way, I've got alot alot of info from all of you. It's going to be a tuffy.

 

[GeneralBenson]

Everyone always says this, but what exactly does a pro need to do that can't be done with high quality prosumer camera? We know it's not megapixels. 10mp is enough to do almost anything. It's all relative, and it's all aline that everyone gets fed so they spend more money, or feel like their stuff is inadequate. The mid level cameras of today, blow away the professional cameras of 5 years ago. So were the guys 5 years ago subprofessional? Tech got better and everyone drew a new line, just because better stuff is available. But I've still yet to find a real world situation where my camera wasn't professional enough.