Pentax as first DSLR?

Started Jul 17, 2013 | Discussions thread
Alex Sarbu
Veteran MemberPosts: 3,647Gear list
Like?
Re: Pentax as first DSLR?
In reply to Ivan Gordeli, Jul 23, 2013

Ivan Gordeli wrote:

Alex Sarbu wrote:

Ivan Gordeli wrote:

As I have said, IMHO you underestimate how good a 8-year old camera may be. All the technological advances that you correctly point out below, they do matter, sure. However in many cases they don't. Yes, the cameras are faster, but you may not need fast at all (for landscape work for instance). The resolution is higher, but you will only benefit from it if you print (very) large or evaluate at 100%. The AF may be better, though why would someone who uses MF all the time care?

Are you trying to build a specific scenario in which using the 8-year old camera makes sense? If you don't need this, if you don't need that...

No, I am pointing out obvious counterexamples to your statements, as you know in logic it is enough to present 1 counterexample to disprove a statement

I'm afraid you don't even understand my statements, to begin with.

The specific scenarios are not that specific in fact:

  • resolution advantage:large size printing: how many people do actually print larger than 12"x18"? (and both camera are quite capable of printing even bigger than that), the difference in MP count is very small, I would expect the resolution to be close

People who aren't printing, or are printing small don't actually need a FF camera, don't you think? There is no such thing as a generalized FF need, I hope you agree.

  • AF, speed (fps) do not matter for a variety of work. For instance for any type of studio or landscape or architecture work. How specific is that? Not to mention the K-5 is not exactly what people say is a good AF tool and I do not know 5D AF performance to compare

In the studio what helps Canon is not the image quality (better at low ISO with the modern APS-C cameras), but the larger accessories range than Pentax; flash triggers, for example. In landscape, Pentax should have a slight advantage.

  • high ISO: dxomark data seems to suggest 5D is as good and maybe slightly better high ISO performance.

OK... though the DXOMark data doesn't tells us much. I "blame" the shot noise for that, and there's nothing the smaller formats could do about it.

So in fact it is quite hard for me to think of any situation where 5D would be lacking compared to the K-5, but I didn't have to, to make my point is enough to point out 1 single example where the 5D is better or equal.

And all will be good, as long as you don't use your camera outside that 1 single example. Then it becomes debatable again.

My point is it all depends on the type of work you do and your style. For some applications and some people the older camera may be still as good if not better.

But most of all, we are not simply comparing 2 cameras of the same class. We compare 2 tools with different sensor size which implies quite different visual rendering of the subject. This difference is IMHO much more important than the difference in resolution etc.

Is it? In the paragraph above you were talking about "the type of work you do and your style". Now you're deciding this is important no matter what?

There is no contradiction at all if you read it carefully. The first paragraph says what is BETTER depends on your style and the type of work you do while the second one acknowledges the differences are IMOPRTANT.

Important to whom?

But it may be important in others.

I have never claimed otherwise.

Not even when you say what is "much more important"?

How would you know it's not important, for the OP?

Only OP himself can decide for him what works for him. I don't have to guess what is important for him and what isn't. Each one of us can only share our perspective and it is up to OP to decide what is relevant for him.

And keep in mind you're on Pentax SLR Talk... not the best place to hype old Canon cameras

this forum would benefit a lot from a more brand-neutral POV. At least it would be nice if it tolerated an opinion of Pentax users themselves (as long as it is presented in a reasonable way)

Actually there's nothing brand-neutral in basically claiming no Pentax camera should ever be bought, because the 5D is so much better.

We are Pentax users; we made our choice. Last thing we want to hear is pro-Canon propaganda.

That was to prove the technology is evolving in the DSLR world; which I did. The K-500/K-50/K-30, with their 7D-level viewfinders, for about $600... that's good progress, by the way.

Pentax always offered best viewfinders in its class and often above its class as with the K-500/K-50/K-30. And yes, the progress here is great, you can now get an entry level dSLR with top-of-the line viewfinder. It could be a deal breaker for many!

However the viewfinders in FF are another step above that, including the viewfinder in 5D, once gain 8-year-old model. The whole point was that we are comparing a APS-C SLR to a FF SLR.

I saw quite a few reflex viewfinders in my life, some much better than the 5D one. You don't have to explain it to me.

I would go for a Pentax 135 DSLR though, just for the better viewfinder (sure, that won't be the only benefit). I'm in no hurry... but my eyes are not getting better.

You are only proving my point. Just the benefit of a better viewfinder may be worth going for the 5D.

Or, it might not. It would push me toward a Pentax FF DSLR, though.

I was arguing against UnexpressiveCanvas' claim that it's "way more advanced" (well, he believed Pentax was still using SAFOX II ) He obviously cared a lot.

I made sure to state in my first comment I do not agree with everything UnexpersiveCanvas has said. He did go a bit overboard IMHO with claiming that 5D is still unmatched by anything out there (including the later 5D Mks). But I find your responses to him equally "overboard" when you claim the 5D is hopelessly outdated.

I never made that claim. I only said it's old, and that APS-C cameras progressed in many significant ways.

The risk is not as high as you think it is IMHO. If you have experience buying used and knowledge about the camera and take the right precautions when buying, the chances of something going wrong are not that high. I personally think the chances of being in trouble are probably less than getting a brand new model with serious defects.

If you can easily afford to replace the camera if it breaks, the risk isn't high; but if you are on a tight budget... warranty becomes important. If you buy it because you can't afford a newer FF body and want to keep it for a while, be prepared for when it will die.

  • it is easier to afford to replace a cheaper camera

A good APS-C camera can be found for about the same price, brand new and with a warranty.

  • either warranty or getting a cheaper camera both are valid solutions. of course it depends a lot on how you use your camera. I know many people buy brand new and many of them never take advantage of the warranty and many of them replace their camera every year or 2, for such people obviously buying used would be more budged conscious solution
  • there is always the risk your camera will die and the risk may be higher with an older camera, this is reflected in the price difference too.

I can't afford a new FF body. Any camera will die someday. I'd rather have a $500 body die on me than a $2000 one. Of course it depends on how much you shoot. It will take me 18+ years to reach the number of actuations my shutter is rated for. Even if I buy an old camera with half of its resource gone, it is still 9+ years. In my practice (and also my friends experience) the camera was replaced for other reasons than failure due to malfunction. So I wouldn't worry about that.

How about people who don't need nor want a 135-format digital camera? They don't have to pay $2000 for one, and could get by using a $500-600 brand new APS-C DSLR.

I have never objected the obvious, if you do not need/want something there is no reason to buy it (for whatever low price in fact)

And don't ever assume your camera will patiently wait for it's expected shutter MTBF. Because it's MTBF, and because that's not the only thing which can fail.

Of course. With an old camera such as 5D you have a lot of information out there on how reliable and long-lasting it is and you can make an informed decision, this partially offsets the risks of getting old.

Not really... it still didn't reached the point in which its electronics would start to fail en masse.

And as I have said, none of my friends were forced to replace their SLR body due to (any type of) failure so the risks may be not as high for my amount of use. I am sure the picture among pros may be totally different.

I know such cases, though.

I'm not saying this must be a deal breaker; it's just a risk which should be considered.

Alex

 Alex Sarbu's gear list:Alex Sarbu's gear list
Pentax K20D Pentax K-5 Pentax smc DA* 60-250mm F4.0 ED (IF) SDM Pentax smc DA 21mm F3.2 AL Limited Pentax smc DA 70mm F2.4 AL Limited +4 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Post (hide subjects)Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark post MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow