Pentax K10D reviewed by DPReview.com -- interesting camera

[Mrvile]

Originally posted by: tfinch2

Originally posted by: Mrvile

Originally posted by: tfinch2

Originally posted by: Mrvile
It's so weird how so many people are recommending $100-200 lenses for a $1000 body. I mean sure, they might be great lenses, but they're old and outdated. We've pretty much agreed that the lens is >>> the body...honestly all my lenses barring the 50/1.8 cost at least as much as the body I use. And sure, an old MF 105mm lens could take any photo a new, updated one can, but IMO, the lens being the workhorse of photography - I would be willing to pay the premium for the better lens. Of course, with Canon or Nikon, it is one hell of a premium we pay, but for the sheer quality of its glass, it's (usually) worth every penny.

These MF lenses are great. Pentax/Takumar, OM, Zeiss, Leica all have lenses that are tack sharp/good contrast/awesome bokeh that rival that of any lens on the market today.

I'd like to see some action shots taken with those MF lenses...

It's very possible, just have to pre-focus. How do you think people shot sports before autofocus?

Not all shots are action though, so you're point is pretty pointless.

I know that, and I specifically said that all older MF lenses can take photos just as good as the newer AF lenses, but it's the new features we look for...sure, they took great photos before AF or IS existed, but with the new technology comes new standards. If you're ok manual focusing and would rather spend the extra money on something else, go ahead. But most of us look for fast AF, IS, weather sealing, whatever else we look for in a lens that keep us going back to the companies that keep their glass up to date and paying more for these features. That's my point.

 

[tfinch2]

Originally posted by: Mrvile

Originally posted by: tfinch2

Originally posted by: Mrvile

Originally posted by: tfinch2

Originally posted by: Mrvile
It's so weird how so many people are recommending $100-200 lenses for a $1000 body. I mean sure, they might be great lenses, but they're old and outdated. We've pretty much agreed that the lens is >>> the body...honestly all my lenses barring the 50/1.8 cost at least as much as the body I use. And sure, an old MF 105mm lens could take any photo a new, updated one can, but IMO, the lens being the workhorse of photography - I would be willing to pay the premium for the better lens. Of course, with Canon or Nikon, it is one hell of a premium we pay, but for the sheer quality of its glass, it's (usually) worth every penny.

These MF lenses are great. Pentax/Takumar, OM, Zeiss, Leica all have lenses that are tack sharp/good contrast/awesome bokeh that rival that of any lens on the market today.

I'd like to see some action shots taken with those MF lenses...

It's very possible, just have to pre-focus. How do you think people shot sports before autofocus?

Not all shots are action though, so you're point is pretty pointless.

I know that, and I specifically said that all older MF lenses can take photos just as good as the newer AF lenses, but it's the new features we look for...sure, they took great photos before AF or IS existed, but with the new technology comes new standards. If you're ok manual focusing and would rather spend the extra money on something else, go ahead. But most of us look for fast AF, IS, weather sealing, whatever else we look for in a lens that keep us going back to the companies that keep their glass up to date and paying more for these features. That's my point.

That's another thing. Why are people so fixated on weather sealed lenses? What point does it make if your body isn't weather sealed? There are only a handful of weather sealed bodies, most of which people DO NOT have, especially on the C/N side.

 

[JulesMaximus]

Originally posted by: tfinch2

Originally posted by: Mrvile

Originally posted by: tfinch2

Originally posted by: Mrvile

Originally posted by: tfinch2

Originally posted by: Mrvile
It's so weird how so many people are recommending $100-200 lenses for a $1000 body. I mean sure, they might be great lenses, but they're old and outdated. We've pretty much agreed that the lens is >>> the body...honestly all my lenses barring the 50/1.8 cost at least as much as the body I use. And sure, an old MF 105mm lens could take any photo a new, updated one can, but IMO, the lens being the workhorse of photography - I would be willing to pay the premium for the better lens. Of course, with Canon or Nikon, it is one hell of a premium we pay, but for the sheer quality of its glass, it's (usually) worth every penny.

These MF lenses are great. Pentax/Takumar, OM, Zeiss, Leica all have lenses that are tack sharp/good contrast/awesome bokeh that rival that of any lens on the market today.

I'd like to see some action shots taken with those MF lenses...

It's very possible, just have to pre-focus. How do you think people shot sports before autofocus?

Not all shots are action though, so you're point is pretty pointless.

I know that, and I specifically said that all older MF lenses can take photos just as good as the newer AF lenses, but it's the new features we look for...sure, they took great photos before AF or IS existed, but with the new technology comes new standards. If you're ok manual focusing and would rather spend the extra money on something else, go ahead. But most of us look for fast AF, IS, weather sealing, whatever else we look for in a lens that keep us going back to the companies that keep their glass up to date and paying more for these features. That's my point.

That's another thing. Why are people so fixated on weather sealed lenses? What point does it make if your body isn't weather sealed? There are only a handful of weather sealed bodies, most of which people DO NOT have, especially on the C/N side.

Um, keeping dust and moisture out of the lens itself is just as important as keeping it out of the camera. Bodies come and go but lenses should last you many many years.

 

[tfinch2]

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus

Originally posted by: tfinch2

Originally posted by: Mrvile

Originally posted by: tfinch2

Originally posted by: Mrvile

Originally posted by: tfinch2

Originally posted by: Mrvile
It's so weird how so many people are recommending $100-200 lenses for a $1000 body. I mean sure, they might be great lenses, but they're old and outdated. We've pretty much agreed that the lens is >>> the body...honestly all my lenses barring the 50/1.8 cost at least as much as the body I use. And sure, an old MF 105mm lens could take any photo a new, updated one can, but IMO, the lens being the workhorse of photography - I would be willing to pay the premium for the better lens. Of course, with Canon or Nikon, it is one hell of a premium we pay, but for the sheer quality of its glass, it's (usually) worth every penny.

These MF lenses are great. Pentax/Takumar, OM, Zeiss, Leica all have lenses that are tack sharp/good contrast/awesome bokeh that rival that of any lens on the market today.

I'd like to see some action shots taken with those MF lenses...

It's very possible, just have to pre-focus. How do you think people shot sports before autofocus?

Not all shots are action though, so you're point is pretty pointless.

I know that, and I specifically said that all older MF lenses can take photos just as good as the newer AF lenses, but it's the new features we look for...sure, they took great photos before AF or IS existed, but with the new technology comes new standards. If you're ok manual focusing and would rather spend the extra money on something else, go ahead. But most of us look for fast AF, IS, weather sealing, whatever else we look for in a lens that keep us going back to the companies that keep their glass up to date and paying more for these features. That's my point.

That's another thing. Why are people so fixated on weather sealed lenses? What point does it make if your body isn't weather sealed? There are only a handful of weather sealed bodies, most of which people DO NOT have, especially on the C/N side.

Um, keeping dust and moisture out of the lens itself is just as important as keeping it out of the camera. Bodies come and go but lenses should last you many many years.

Not according to Mrvile. Out with the old and in with the new!

And you still haven't posted your best of 2006 Jules.