Pentax K10D reviewed by DPReview.com -- interesting camera

[yhelothar]

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus
Personally, I think that's a negative. I'm looking forward to purchasing a FF Canon DSLR camera in a few years and I'll be able to use my 17-40mm lens on it. Oh, and I can use it on my Elan 7 film camera that I have currently.

Good thing you got canon then, but for most of the consumers buying $800 cameras, they will never fork out the $2000+ for a FF body.

 

[ElFenix]

i'm trying to figure out if the zeiss lenses for sony are actually zeiss (like the new nikon ones), or if they're just sony-manufactured at the old konica plant (more likely)

 

[foghorn67]

You guys remind me of people spec or paper racing on car forums. This is silly.

I think the MF elitism is going too far. Like if someone never used manual focus lenses, you would snub them. Guess what? Not everyone likes the old days. Some people like the fact that Canon and Nikon seek to improve more than just their camera bodies. Something you can't say all the time about others. Nikon's flash system is the best in the world, and they keep improving it. Canon's isn't bad either.
You can pixel peep all you want, read MTF charts and read the reviews of countless sites. But it won't let you try the system themselves. There are reasons pros and serious amateurs stick with systems with the most support. To discount others that agree with them, but are not pros themselves is petty. High noise isn't liked by a lot of people that shoot a lot in low light (where Canon has a slight edge, and where Nikon is gaining fast). Not everyone likes to focus manually in the dark and where stopping action is needed. Not everyone likes to use a lens with subpar AF speed and accuracy.
Sure it's fun to get a great bargain lens that is optically great, but what about the rest? Build quality, bokeh, AF speed, AF noise, colors...these seem to be glossed over when balking at the price of the latest Nikon or Canon lens. Then to discredit the other qualities besides sharpness gets plain silly.

And really, trying to trump lens selection by naming a fisheye zoom?

 

[yhelothar]

Originally posted by: foghorn67
You guys remind me of people spec or paper racing on car forums. This is silly.

I think the MF elitism is going too far. Like if someone never used manual focus lenses, you would snub them. Guess what? Not everyone likes the old days. Some people like the fact that Canon and Nikon seek to improve more than just their camera bodies. Something you can't say all the time about others. Nikon's flash system is the best in the world, and they keep improving it. Canon's isn't bad either.
You can pixel peep all you want, read MTF charts and read the reviews of countless sites. But it won't let you try the system themselves. There are reasons pros and serious amateurs stick with systems with the most support. To discount others that agree with them, but are not pros themselves is petty. High noise isn't liked by a lot of people that shoot a lot in low light (where Canon has a slight edge, and where Nikon is gaining fast). Not everyone likes to focus manually in the dark and where stopping action is needed. Not everyone likes to use a lens with subpar AF speed and accuracy.
Sure it's fun to get a great bargain lens that is optically great, but what about the rest? Build quality, bokeh, AF speed, AF noise, colors...these seem to be glossed over when balking at the price of the latest Nikon or Canon lens. Then to discredit the other qualities besides sharpness gets plain silly.

And really, trying to trump lens selection by naming a fisheye zoom?

You don't seem to understand that no one is talking about pro cameras here. These are prosumer cameras.
If you want a pro camera, sure, you'd probably be better of getting canon or nikon.
MF lenses is great for the prosumer who's on a budget and want the best quality for the money. You can get lenses that's optically on par equivalent modern lenses for easily a fourth to a sixth of the price. All at the sacrafice of autofocus.
Fisheye zoom was just an example that having the most doesn't mean having it all. Thus, there's no clear manufacturer that's better just based on lens selection.

 

[foghorn67]

Originally posted by: virtualgames0

Originally posted by: foghorn67
You guys remind me of people spec or paper racing on car forums. This is silly.

I think the MF elitism is going too far. Like if someone never used manual focus lenses, you would snub them. Guess what? Not everyone likes the old days. Some people like the fact that Canon and Nikon seek to improve more than just their camera bodies. Something you can't say all the time about others. Nikon's flash system is the best in the world, and they keep improving it. Canon's isn't bad either.
You can pixel peep all you want, read MTF charts and read the reviews of countless sites. But it won't let you try the system themselves. There are reasons pros and serious amateurs stick with systems with the most support. To discount others that agree with them, but are not pros themselves is petty. High noise isn't liked by a lot of people that shoot a lot in low light (where Canon has a slight edge, and where Nikon is gaining fast). Not everyone likes to focus manually in the dark and where stopping action is needed. Not everyone likes to use a lens with subpar AF speed and accuracy.
Sure it's fun to get a great bargain lens that is optically great, but what about the rest? Build quality, bokeh, AF speed, AF noise, colors...these seem to be glossed over when balking at the price of the latest Nikon or Canon lens. Then to discredit the other qualities besides sharpness gets plain silly.

And really, trying to trump lens selection by naming a fisheye zoom?

You don't seem to understand that no one is talking about pro cameras here. These are prosumer cameras.
If you want a pro camera, sure, you'd probably be better of getting canon or nikon.
MF lenses is great for the prosumer who's on a budget and want the best quality for the money. You can get lenses that's optically on par equivalent modern lenses for easily a fourth to a sixth of the price. All at the sacrafice of autofocus.
Fisheye zoom was just an example that having the most doesn't mean having it all. Thus, there's no clear manufacturer that's better just based on lens selection.

We are talking about a thousand dollar body. This is hardly ranked in the budget target market. Everyone seems that the important part of the investment should go to the glass not the body. Why dump a grand into a body and compromise on the lens?
Do you really want to recommend a MF lens to a newb? You seem to discount AF systems heavily. It doesn't just serve pros at the superbowl or wedding photogs making several grand for each wedding. It serves every photographer wanting to capture a moment. You might like creating the moment where MF can serve just as well. But capturing an image you can't recreate is priceless. Can I prefocus at an car race sure. Can I use a camera body with fast AF with a lens with a fast motor and accurate computers? Yes. Get the car you are composing for then notice a wreck in progress and quickly composing to capture it in several frames? AF would win. How about a dimly lit party? Or a church event? Or your pets and kids running around? Heck, even in a studio setting, kids are hard to take pictures of.
This weekend I was hired to take a Christmas portrait of a 18 month old kid. I brought the 9ft backdrop and my 5 ft backdrops. No room in their house for the 9ft. Getting that kid to stay with the backdrop filling that frame was hard enough. I would hate to think about MF. Or with a slow AF lens, or an inaccurate lens. And that was a 'controlled' enviroment.
Don't even get me started on trying to capture candids with a manual focus. Sure it's very possible, but the shots AF can give is breathtaking.

 

[yhelothar]

Originally posted by: foghorn67
We are talking about a thousand dollar body. This is hardly ranked in the budget target market. Everyone seems that the important part of the investment should go to the glass not the body. Why dump a grand into a body and compromise on the lens?
Do you really want to recommend a MF lens to a newb? You seem to discount AF systems heavily. It doesn't just serve pros at the superbowl or wedding photogs making several grand for each wedding. It serves every photographer wanting to capture a moment. You might like creating the moment where MF can serve just as well. But capturing an image you can't recreate is priceless. Can I prefocus at an car race sure. Can I use a camera body with fast AF with a lens with a fast motor and accurate computers? Yes. Get the car you are composing for then notice a wreck in progress and quickly composing to capture it in several frames? AF would win. How about a dimly lit party? Or a church event? Or your pets and kids running around? Heck, even in a studio setting, kids are hard to take pictures of.
This weekend I was hired to take a Christmas portrait of a 18 month old kid. I brought the 9ft backdrop and my 5 ft backdrops. No room in their house for the 9ft. Getting that kid to stay with the backdrop filling that frame was hard enough. I would hate to think about MF. Or with a slow AF lens, or an inaccurate lens. And that was a 'controlled' enviroment.
Don't even get me started on trying to capture candids with a manual focus. Sure it's very possible, but the shots AF can give is breathtaking.

First of all, I never claimed the K10D is a budget body, I said prosumer. Secondly, canon/nikon bodies that cost $1000 won't be able to take advantage of the full frame field of view and the weather sealing in the pro lenses. That was the basis of my argument. That's why it's moot argue about the lack of pro lenses on pentax's side.

MF is hardly a challenge for any noob, and that's if there are any noobs that would drop a grand on a camera. Well come to think about it, it might be a challenge with the tunnel like viewfinders canon and nikon users have become accustomed with in their consumer/prosumer bodies. D80 was a good step away from this, but prior to that, they've all had tunnel like viewfinders.
But for the large and bright viewfinder found in the K10D, it's hardly a challenge. Heck, leica and zeiss users pay thousands for their equipment, all with no autofocus. I'm sure they're not missing out on too many photos.
But don't get me wrong, AF has their uses, but for most, it's hard to justify paying 4-6 times more for something that you can do easily without. However, to claim that you would be missing out on many photo opportunities with MF just seems ridiculous. AF is little more than being plain convenient.

As for candids, that's pretty much my favorite type of photography, and I do it almost solely with manual focus primes, and often even with extremely short DoF.
Here's one I took just two days ago
This image would have been much more difficult with AF, as I have little control with where I want it to focus with AF. With AF, it probably would have focused on the nose, and I wouldn't have gotten the shot I wanted.
I took this picture with a $50 lens. Being able to use manual focus lenses opens you up to dozens of top notch quality lenses that costs next to nothing. This is why it's such a great thing to have a camera like the K10D to have support for such lenses.

 

[AndrewR]

Originally posted by: Mrvile

Originally posted by: AndrewR

I don't know jack about Pentax' lens lineup. Don't own one, probably never will. However, I'll continue on the Sony thing: Compare Canon's 135L and 85L to the new Zeiss 135mm and 85mm available only for the Alpha. And Zeiss is only just getting started!

Maybe someday when I hit it large at Vegas, I'll be able to afford one of these lenses! I'm debating right now on whether or not to bid near $400 for four Minolta lenses (three nice, one so-so) plus a macro ring flash and a light meter. Shhh -- don't tell the wife!

Don't do it. Better off spending the $400 on one decent lens than four crappy ones (unless they're all old manual focus lenses or a 50/1.8, I guarantee you they're below par). It might sound crude but sadly, for our wallets that is, it's the truth.

They aren't crappy -- these are from Minolta's heyday in the '80s and are optically the equivalent of anything that's out today -- 135 f/2.8, 50mm f/2.8 Macro, and a 70-210mm f/4 (for resale). The other one, 35-105mm f/3.5-4.5, is a decent lens that I already own, but my copy has some significant scratches on the front element -- an eBay mistake I won't make again! Thankfully, I didn't overpay.

Hardly, I'd much rather have lens IS than body IS. Since they're build directly for the lens, they tend to be much more accurate and easier to use (you can see the IS in the viewfinder).

Like virtualgames0 says, not by much, and in-body IS is improving all the time. If you buy in-lens IS right now, which is going to last longer, your IS lens or my IS body? So, 2 years from now when I upgrade my in-body IS to the state-of-the-art, is your in-lens IS going to improve at all? What about 5 years from now? So, my seven lenses are all stabilized, and that technology is improving constantly. I like it! :thumbsup:

 

[AndrewR]

Originally posted by: ElFenix
i'm trying to figure out if the zeiss lenses for sony are actually zeiss (like the new nikon ones), or if they're just sony-manufactured at the old konica plant (more likely)

No, they are Zeiss lenses manufactured by Zeiss, not Sony, from what I recall reading. There are two out now with a third expected within a couple months, and a fourth (24-75mm f/2.8, IIRC) expected shortly after that. A lot of people are also waiting on Sony to reintroduce all of Minolta's G-series lenses so all the "Canon and Nikon only have pro gear" arguments will disappear.

Sony is on a longer schedule than most people would like, however. They have two new bodies coming, but most people want everything introduced NOW. They've had possession of Minolta for less than a year and are working at getting their products everywhere, without the benefit of prior stocking. It's a tall order, and their first camera is certainly a good one. By this time next year, the DSLR market could be quite different.

Here's to competition! :beer:

 

[ElFenix]

i don't like the word prosumer.

professionals are consumers.



the best cameras for MF are the ones with the nice split rangefinder in the middle of the focus screen that gives an interference pattern when it's not in focus. best focus aid ever. a rebel xti would be easier to focus than a 5D if it had one of those.

Some people like the fact that Canon and Nikon seek to improve more than just their camera bodies. Something you can't say all the time about others. Nikon's flash system is the best in the world, and they keep improving it.

nikon used to be notorious for being the last japanese maker to improve anything. and i'd consider the flash system to be just another part of the body.

 

[JulesMaximus]

Originally posted by: astroidea

Originally posted by: foghorn67
We are talking about a thousand dollar body. This is hardly ranked in the budget target market. Everyone seems that the important part of the investment should go to the glass not the body. Why dump a grand into a body and compromise on the lens?
Do you really want to recommend a MF lens to a newb? You seem to discount AF systems heavily. It doesn't just serve pros at the superbowl or wedding photogs making several grand for each wedding. It serves every photographer wanting to capture a moment. You might like creating the moment where MF can serve just as well. But capturing an image you can't recreate is priceless. Can I prefocus at an car race sure. Can I use a camera body with fast AF with a lens with a fast motor and accurate computers? Yes. Get the car you are composing for then notice a wreck in progress and quickly composing to capture it in several frames? AF would win. How about a dimly lit party? Or a church event? Or your pets and kids running around? Heck, even in a studio setting, kids are hard to take pictures of.
This weekend I was hired to take a Christmas portrait of a 18 month old kid. I brought the 9ft backdrop and my 5 ft backdrops. No room in their house for the 9ft. Getting that kid to stay with the backdrop filling that frame was hard enough. I would hate to think about MF. Or with a slow AF lens, or an inaccurate lens. And that was a 'controlled' enviroment.
Don't even get me started on trying to capture candids with a manual focus. Sure it's very possible, but the shots AF can give is breathtaking.

First of all, I never claimed the K10D is a budget body, I said prosumer. Secondly, canon/nikon bodies that cost $1000 won't be able to take advantage of the full frame field of view and the weather sealing in the pro lenses. That was the basis of my argument. That's why it's moot argue about the lack of pro lenses on pentax's side.

MF is hardly a challenge for any noob, and that's if there are any noobs that would drop a grand on a camera. Well come to think about it, it might be a challenge with the tunnel like viewfinders canon and nikon users have become accustomed with in their consumer/prosumer bodies. D80 was a good step away from this, but prior to that, they've all had tunnel like viewfinders.
But for the large and bright viewfinder found in the K10D, it's hardly a challenge. Heck, leica and zeiss users pay thousands for their equipment, all with no autofocus. I'm sure they're not missing out on too many photos.
But don't get me wrong, AF has their uses, but for most, it's hard to justify paying 4-6 times more for something that you can do easily without. However, to claim that you would be missing out on many photo opportunities with MF just seems ridiculous. AF is little more than being plain convenient.

As for candids, that's pretty much my favorite type of photography, and I do it almost solely with manual focus primes, and often even with extremely short DoF.
Here's one I took just two days ago
This image would have been much more difficult with AF, as I have little control with where I want it to focus with AF. With AF, it probably would have focused on the nose, and I wouldn't have gotten the shot I wanted.
I took this picture with a $50 lens. Being able to use manual focus lenses opens you up to dozens of top notch quality lenses that costs next to nothing. This is why it's such a great thing to have a camera like the K10D to have support for such lenses.

Good luck selling a Pentax camera to your typical Best Buy customer using the "there are plenty of used Pentax manual focus lenses you can buy off ebay for this body" argument.

 

[slatr]

Good luck selling a Pentax camera to your typical Best Buy customer using the "there are plenty of used Pentax manual focus lenses you can buy off ebay for this body" argument.
*****

I hope best buy doens't tell them anything about used lenses. Something is already driving up the price of the old pentax primes on ebay.

 

[JulesMaximus]

Originally posted by: slatr
Good luck selling a Pentax camera to your typical Best Buy customer using the "there are plenty of used Pentax manual focus lenses you can buy off ebay for this body" argument.
*****

I hope best buy doens't tell them anything about used lenses. Something is already driving up the price of the old pentax primes on ebay.

Yeah, it's the current line of Pentax DSLR cameras. There go your cheap used MF lenses. :laugh:

 

[tfinch2]

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus

Originally posted by: slatr
Good luck selling a Pentax camera to your typical Best Buy customer using the "there are plenty of used Pentax manual focus lenses you can buy off ebay for this body" argument.
*****

I hope best buy doens't tell them anything about used lenses. Something is already driving up the price of the old pentax primes on ebay.

Yeah, it's the current line of Pentax DSLR cameras. There go your cheap used MF lenses. :laugh:

They are still cheap. They are just going from really really cheap to cheap.

 

[foghorn67]

Originally posted by: astroidea

Originally posted by: foghorn67
We are talking about a thousand dollar body. This is hardly ranked in the budget target market. Everyone seems that the important part of the investment should go to the glass not the body. Why dump a grand into a body and compromise on the lens?
Do you really want to recommend a MF lens to a newb? You seem to discount AF systems heavily. It doesn't just serve pros at the superbowl or wedding photogs making several grand for each wedding. It serves every photographer wanting to capture a moment. You might like creating the moment where MF can serve just as well. But capturing an image you can't recreate is priceless. Can I prefocus at an car race sure. Can I use a camera body with fast AF with a lens with a fast motor and accurate computers? Yes. Get the car you are composing for then notice a wreck in progress and quickly composing to capture it in several frames? AF would win. How about a dimly lit party? Or a church event? Or your pets and kids running around? Heck, even in a studio setting, kids are hard to take pictures of.
This weekend I was hired to take a Christmas portrait of a 18 month old kid. I brought the 9ft backdrop and my 5 ft backdrops. No room in their house for the 9ft. Getting that kid to stay with the backdrop filling that frame was hard enough. I would hate to think about MF. Or with a slow AF lens, or an inaccurate lens. And that was a 'controlled' enviroment.
Don't even get me started on trying to capture candids with a manual focus. Sure it's very possible, but the shots AF can give is breathtaking.

First of all, I never claimed the K10D is a budget body, I said prosumer. Secondly, canon/nikon bodies that cost $1000 won't be able to take advantage of the full frame field of view and the weather sealing in the pro lenses. That was the basis of my argument. That's why it's moot argue about the lack of pro lenses on pentax's side.

MF is hardly a challenge for any noob, and that's if there are any noobs that would drop a grand on a camera. Well come to think about it, it might be a challenge with the tunnel like viewfinders canon and nikon users have become accustomed with in their consumer/prosumer bodies. D80 was a good step away from this, but prior to that, they've all had tunnel like viewfinders.
But for the large and bright viewfinder found in the K10D, it's hardly a challenge. Heck, leica and zeiss users pay thousands for their equipment, all with no autofocus. I'm sure they're not missing out on too many photos.
But don't get me wrong, AF has their uses, but for most, it's hard to justify paying 4-6 times more for something that you can do easily without. However, to claim that you would be missing out on many photo opportunities with MF just seems ridiculous. AF is little more than being plain convenient.

As for candids, that's pretty much my favorite type of photography, and I do it almost solely with manual focus primes, and often even with extremely short DoF.
Here's one I took just two days ago
This image would have been much more difficult with AF, as I have little control with where I want it to focus with AF. With AF, it probably would have focused on the nose, and I wouldn't have gotten the shot I wanted.
I took this picture with a $50 lens. Being able to use manual focus lenses opens you up to dozens of top notch quality lenses that costs next to nothing. This is why it's such a great thing to have a camera like the K10D to have support for such lenses.

No offense, but that shot doesn't look hard either way with AF or MF.
AF has manual over rides on most of the Canon lenses.
Pro lenses offer more then weather sealing. Most of the time, again, AF is pretty damn fast on a Nikon or Canon. This is something I hate on most third party lenses, loud, whiny and slow AF.
And yes, ask any pro how many more shots they have with AF now. And don't get mad.
Do I hate MF lenses. No, I plan on picking up a few myself. But really. Get realistic, it's a niche market now.

 

[ElFenix]

pentax would have to be in best buy first.

and stuff in best buy is generally price driven. go look at the top selling dslr on buy.com. it's a samsung for under $500. olympus is selling tons of the cheap dual lens kit E500s. i have no doubt that, were pentax in best buy, K100Ds and K110Ds would be flying off the shelves.

and the lenses started going up on ebay back when pentax was blowing out bodies last spring, selling out old inventory before launching the K100D. but hey, the 1.4 smc is going for about the same price as the canon 1.8 II. so, while they're not as cheap as they once were, they're still cheap.

 

[slatr]

Yeah, it's the current line of Pentax DSLR cameras. There go your cheap used MF lenses.

****
Yeah, that is what I was buying them for. My ist dl.

I need to back off my LBA anyways.

 

[slatr]

That is a pentax. They have a partnership with Samsung now.

go look at the top selling dslr on buy.com. it's a samsung for under $500

go look

 

[randomlinh]

anyone have a good site that references for the good old MF pentax lenses?

 

[AndrewR]

Originally posted by: slatr
Good luck selling a Pentax camera to your typical Best Buy customer using the "there are plenty of used Pentax manual focus lenses you can buy off ebay for this body" argument.
*****

I hope best buy doens't tell them anything about used lenses. Something is already driving up the price of the old pentax primes on ebay.

As if Best Buy stocks additional lenses anyway beyond the crappy consumer ones! They don't care about anything but the immediate sale, and then if they have any problems, they just lie.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: slatr
That is a pentax. They have a partnership with Samsung now.

go look at the top selling dslr on buy.com. it's a samsung for under $500

go look

yeah, i know. it just goes to show, however, that people are buying on price more than name. are most people going to buy.com and buying the least expensive DSLR there even aware that it'll accept any pentax lens ever made? probably not. it doesn't say in the description that it's a pentax, and the lens that comes with it is a schneider.

 

[yhelothar]

Originally posted by: randomlinh
anyone have a good site that references for the good old MF pentax lenses?

Here are some old ones I recommend and their general price.
16mm F/2.8 Zenitar fisheye $110.. very good fisheye for the money. Build quality ain't so good since it's made in russia, but the optical quality is superb. This lens is pretty highly acclaimed.
35mm F/2 $150 - I'd just get the new autofocus lens for this one for about $100 more. The S-M-C Takumar version is a gorgeous lens though. It's so well built and focuses so smoothly, it's like shooting with a piece of art. here's a pic of mine
50mm F/1.4.. any are good. Super-Multi-Coated Takumar version probably has the best build quality with the metal focusing rings, similar to the 35mm version. It's screwmount though, so you'll need a $15 adapter. The M version is the most compact, and has similar quality. The newer A version has worse build quality but is said to be the sharpest. But they're all pretty much identical in terms of optical quality.
85mm F/1.8 Super-Multi-Coated Takumar ~ $250-300 on ebay, this lens is really rare, and has a ledgendary reputation.
85mm F/1.9 Super Takumar, $150, this is about as good as the 1.8, but it's much cheaper and doesn't have the multi coating.
105mm F/2.8 S-M-C Takumar, $150-200 this one is rare and ledgendary too.
135mm F/2.5 S-M-C Takumar, or SMC K mount. $110-150 If you get the S-M-C version, make sure it's the 6element/6group version. It's a lot better than the older 5 element/5group version. I have this lens, and it's extremely sharp wide open but CA is a bit of an issue wide open.

Here's a good site that references old MF lenses

 

[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.

 

[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.

 

[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...

 

[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.