Pentax K10D vs Sony A100...I can't decide :(

[Zenmervolt]

Originally posted by: dug777
Any reason i shouldn't start with a prime?

You'll quickly want to buy another lens. That's really the only reason.

Primes are great, but aside from the basic 50mm f/1.8 or f/1.7 they're not always cheap. In fact, they're often as much or more than a zoom. And while the quality is generally better than a zoom, they are much less convenient for "snapshots" or other casual use. Also, with a really good zoom, the difference can be negligible.

I got my 28-75 f/2.8 for under $300, and my 70-200 f/2.8 for $500. For $800 total I have coverage over that whole range at a constant f/2.8. No, it's not as fast as a dedicated prime, but for my needs it's plenty, and the quality is quite good, good enough that I've never once shown a photo and had someone say "that would really have been better if you'd used a prime". That said, my next investments are all going to be primes...

Truthfully, I've seen excellent photos taken by 18-200mm super zooms. Yes, those lenses have limitations (slower, not always the fastest-focusing, some distortion at each end, some issues with CA in high-contrast shots), but in the majority of situations you won't notice issues.

Starting with a basic prime is a good way to learn how to use a camera, but depending on what you want to use the camera for, having only a prime may be an inconvenience. My own school of thought is to start with an inexpensive zoom like the kit lens and take a bunch of photos to figure out your own style. Do you mainly shoot wide angles? Do you mainly stay in the 50mm range? Do you constantly wish for a longer "reach"? Then you'll know where to spend money on a good prime or more expensive fast zoom.

My school of thought is no better or worse than the school that says start with a basic 50mm prime and learn from there, just different.

ZV

 

[foghorn67]

Do it, that lens is pretty damn good considering it's range. You will have wide angle and medium telephoto in one lens.
Nothing beats zooms in versatility. Swapping primes sucks. And I can swap lenses with one hand most of time time without looking. So no comments about me being out of practice.
I don't see how anybody could recommend not getting a decent zoom for a first lens.

 

[yhelothar]

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt

Originally posted by: astroidea
I don't think Pentax would ever move to full frame.
It's clearly moving towards APS completely, considering that they've pretty much discontinued all of their 35mm lenses, aside from the limited.

As for the full frame argument, I see this argument often. What people don't realize is that there isn't anything magical about "full frame". It's an arbitrarily created standard. It's not like camera makers got together and decided 35mm makes the best pictures.
APS will stay, simply because it takes less silicon, and that means lower prices. While technology may improve to bring prices down, but silicon as a raw material is going to stay roughly even. Thus the prices can only drop until the yields cap out. At this point, I'm assuming silicon technology for full frame is already quite high that the yields are close to capping out.

The only reason I would want to stay with full frame is if I was accustomed with shooting film cameras, or having film cameras.

Full frame has two main advantages:

1) Larger sensor means lower noise for a given amount of pixels which will mean better high ISO performance. Look at the ISO 6400 images from the newest Canon 1DSMkIII for example. Link. A full-frame sensor is also about as large as you can put into a relatively easy-to-carry camera, which makes it the easiest way to achieve superior high-ISO performance. All else being equal, a full-frame sensor will always have superior noise characteristics when compared to an APS-C sensor.

2) That beautiful viewfinder. I may not notice much difference between different APS-C viewfinders, but there's sure as hell a difference between APS-C and full frame.

Pentax and Olympus are the only manufacturers that are clearly committed to APS-C only. Nikon may not have a full frame chip yet, but they're still making full-frame lenses so they aren't giving up on it either.

Canon has clearly committed to full frame being the future and given them amount of emphasis that Sony has placed on the fact that their high-end primes are all full frame lenses it's hard to believe that Sony is not also betting on full frame.

Yes, it's only "full frame" compared to 135 film, but it does have advantages and I think that eventually it will be APS-C that's the niche sensor size.

ZV

That's true. Bigger is better. But when do you say enough is enough?
Why stop at 35mm? Why not go to MF? LF?

IMO, APS serves the needs of most. Few people would really find the need for ISO6400, or some ridiculously high ISO. APS already has a huge ISO advantage over film to begin with.

Additionally, I think you'd be pretty hard pressed to find anyone who could really harness the extra resolution provided with FF.

The viewfinder size is a good point however. I really appreciate them, especially coming from a Pentax myself. But honestly, the market doesn't really care much for viewfinders anymore. The new age of photographers is mostly a bunch of techno whizzes that just want a dozen acronyms and buzzwords for all kinds of bells and whistles. More megapixels, image stabilization, ISO, the biggest zooms. This is why you get a bunch of tunnel viewfinders like the ones found in the digital rebel. This trend started even before the digital age in modern film cameras. It moved away to fine, hand-crafted, mechanical pieces with large and clear viewfinders to mass-produced plastic electronic parts with tiny viewfinders.

You want to talk about niche markets? A market for a good solid camera with a good viewfinder is a niche market now.

 

[ElFenix]

once sony gets their new CMOS factory up and running, they'll likely make 35 mm frame chips for use on their own and nikon cameras. nikon will want it for the pro market, and sony will want into the pro market.

i don't know that 35 mm frame chips will ever make it into the low-end dslr market. 35 mm chips are ~2.5x larger than APS chips. that's a huge cost, probably 1/4 the yield. and the low end market is where the money is to be made. (though, controlling the pro market makes getting the low end market much easier). the low end wants a small, portable camera with live view (if the E-410 said canon on it they'd sell 5 million of them)

i'm not even sure how much heart canon has for 35 mm frame right now. arguably their best camera is a weird crop.

 

[Zenmervolt]

Originally posted by: astroidea
That's true. Bigger is better. But when do you say enough is enough?
Why stop at 35mm? Why not go to MF? LF?

I think that 35mm is about that point where "enough's enough", which is why 35mm film stuck as such a consumer and journalistic standard for so long even though arguably 110 or Disc film was "good enough" for most consumer uses, and even why APS film never really caught on. 35mm just happens to occupy a sweet spot in the compromise between a large negative and a reasonably portable camera size.

Originally posted by: astroidea
IMO, APS serves the needs of most. Few people would really find the need for ISO6400, or some ridiculously high ISO. APS already has a huge ISO advantage over film to begin with.

Additionally, I think you'd be pretty hard pressed to find anyone who could really harness the extra resolution provided with FF.

I'm not entirely sure your point about noise is valid. I've shot with ISO 1600 film and I wouldn't call digital superior. Chroma noise can really kill and with film the noise tends to appear in the half-tones. All-told, film's grain is much less obtrusive even if it's heavier. I agree about the resolution, but a full frame sensor with the same resolution should have better noise characteristics. Honestly, aside from some very specialized uses, 6mp is sufficient for most users.

That said, this is all just the speculation of one crazy man (me). This is definitely an interesting discussion though. :beer:

Originally posted by: astroidea
The viewfinder size is a good point however. I really appreciate them, especially coming from a Pentax myself. But honestly, the market doesn't really care much for viewfinders anymore. The new age of photographers is mostly a bunch of techno whizzes that just want a dozen acronyms and buzzwords for all kinds of bells and whistles. More megapixels, image stabilization, ISO, the biggest zooms. This is why you get a bunch of tunnel viewfinders like the ones found in the digital rebel. This trend started even before the digital age in modern film cameras. It moved away to fine, hand-crafted, mechanical pieces with large and clear viewfinders to mass-produced plastic electronic parts with tiny viewfinders.

You want to talk about niche markets? A market for a good solid camera with a good viewfinder is a niche market now.

You are unfortunately quite correct.

Of course, the flip side is that cameras are less expensive than ever before and so many more people are able to go out and experiment and play.

ZV

EDIT: To the OP: Honestly, I think that the way to go here is to take a photo of each camera, tape them all to the wall, blindfold yourself, and throw a dart. Buy the camera that you hit. 😛 They're all good, they all will give you opportunity to make great shots.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: dug777
Bah.

After reading lens reviews, i'm leaning towards the D80 with the 18-135mm 😱

Do the Pentax and Sony have equivalent range/quality lenses at a similar pricepoint? I'd even settle for less range...

How important is the IS in the Sony/Pentax?

there is a sigma 18-125 that is somewhat comparable. it doesn't shade quite as heavily when wide open at either end as the nikon, apparently (though it's still pretty heavy, just the nature of the beast). CAs seems a little better, resolution a little worse. though, i'm comparing the sigma on a canon and pentax, so the results aren't directly comparable to the nikon. check photozone.de

 

[dug777]

Argh 🙁

K10D with 16-45mm?

 

[dug777]

Double arrgh.

After reading the cameralabs review of the K10D, it seems to clearly favour the D80...

 

[IeraseU]

Interestingly, my favorite 'kit' lens is the Zeiss 16-80, only available for the Sony Alpha. I have not used the Alpha, but I did handle it in circuit city and it felt comparable to something like a Rebel XT (which is to say, ok, but not great like a 30D or D200). Wish that lens was available in other mounts (not going to happen).

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: IeraseU
Interestingly, my favorite 'kit' lens is the Zeiss 16-80, only available for the Sony Alpha. I have not used the Alpha, but I did handle it in circuit city and it felt comparable to something like a Rebel XT (which is to say, ok, but not great like a 30D or D200). Wish that lens was available in other mounts (not going to happen).

my favorite kit lens is the leica 14-50

😱

 

[randomlinh]

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt
Canon has clearly committed to full frame being the future and given them amount of emphasis that Sony has placed on the fact that their high-end primes are all full frame lenses it's hard to believe that Sony is not also betting on full frame.

What confuses me about Canon and their intentions with APS-C sized sensors... 18-55 f/2.8 IS EF-S. That thing is insanely expensive. Mostly because I think they should have done away w/ IS... but that's my feeling.

Regardless, I don't see myself hitting full frame anytime soon. I just want a 30D @ $600 or less.. heh.