Picturenaut: This is definitely a top pro workhorse lens. I use the Tamron 24-70/2.8 with my 5D3, because I am no pro and I prefer mostly primes. The Tamron is really nice and I love its great IS, which allows such free hand shots:
But the Tamron's AF is no match for any good Canon lens (I have and love e.g. the EF 70-200/2.8 II). Wide open I get a lot of OOF results, AF MA didn't help much. To make it worse, I discovered that I need to activate MA for close distance and switch it better off when I shoot more far away objects. So, if you really want to make the best of the 5D3's or 1D-X's AF system with such a standard zoom I fear you need to go for Canon's new zoom. Just think about what you'd have to pay for a decent Leica lens, this helps to relax a bit... ;-)
@Infared: Would you have the same feeling for a different brand if they had a well-known issue with the mirror falling off from one of their best cameras?
peevee1: Body-cap lens idea is stolen from Olympus? Only no manual focusing and closing...
This was revealed before the Olympus was released. They were both worked on about the same time. This type of lens is nothing new anyway. Neither Olympus or Pentax thought of it first.
(unknown member): I DEMAND A RECOUNT!! Nah never mind lol... it's New Years Eve and it's time to party! Happy New Year Everyone!
There might be some chads in Florida in favor of the Nikon...
"The largest (and most expensive) DLSR format is full frame (so called because the sensor is the same size as a frame of 35mm film)."
I thought medium format was the largest DSLR. Does the Pentax or Mamiya not count as a DSLR even tough the technology is the same?
jonikon: The K-30 may be a very good camera (leaving the reliability issue of Pentax DSLRs aside), but it only makes up one half of the image quality equation, with the other half being the lens in front of the sensor. Unfortunately the Pentax DSLRs suffer from a lot of cheap lenses with poor optical qualities, or very expensive lenses with acceptable, but not exceptional optical qualities. For example, the Pentax SMC 16-50mm f/2.8 lens is over $1400 at reputable dealers like B&H photo, but this lens only gets 3 stars out of 5 (or 60%), for optical quality from the Photozone lens review. For value and the ultimate in optical lens quality, Nikon is a much better choice for lenses than Pentax, which makes a Nikon DSLR the better choice for a camera.
I actually switched away from Nikon to Pentax for the lenses. I have the 16-50/2.8 and see no issues with my copy. Anyway, Pentax has other lenses that cannot be had by Nikon or any other brand just as the same can be said for them. As a whole system, I'm very happy with my decision. Pentax met my needs best for my work. Are there better choices? Depends on what you need. All companies have winners and losers in their lineup. There is no need to bash Pentax because they do not meet your needs.
narddogg81: olympus should just become a third party lens manufacturer. i would buy their lenses, dont want to buy their cameras.
>First *DSLR* was the Oly E-10.
Does the E-10 count as a DSLR?. There was no reflex mirror.
>Yes, but it was clearly inferior to in-lens IS (what gave IBIS initially bad name). Oly's implementation of IBIS competes with the in-lens ISs. (E-M5's IBIS outdoes the in-lens IS.)
That is all subjective and relative. Anyway, my statement is still correct.
>Check the Oly E-420 or E-620. They are painfully small.
That they were, but Pentax was always about small SLR cameras long before Olympus. See E-1 vs Pentax *ist D
>But never openly states that or provides warranty coverage for damage by elements.
Not sure about warranty, but Canon has always stated the weather sealing ability clearly on their pro brochures... At least here in Japan they did.
>They were not the first (IIRC 3rd) to bring it. But it was first anti-dust which actually worked.
This I did not know. Thanks for pointing that out.
Fuji was first with live view.Minolta and Pentax both had in-body image stabilization long before Olympus.Pentax always had the smallest SLR bodies.Canon had weather sealing on their top end pro gear.
The only real innovation from Olympus has been the anti-dust features on the sensor which quite honestly I feel are the most important off all you've listed.
dark goob: It doesn't necessarily have to be a new DSLR. It just has to be something that works quick with the phase-detect lenses. Sony managed to make an adapter with a translucent mirror in it that lets all the old lenses work fine. Nikon built phase detect sensors onto the main sensor in the 1 series. Olympus, who was first in the mirrorless game with Panasonic, and was first to have Live View, ironically has lagged behind on focus speed with the old lenses. I wish they would just allow us to send in the old lenses for a motor upgrade to MSC motors.
But I still want E-7 to be a DSLR because it would be nice to actually see the stars in the viewfinder at night on an f/3.5 lens so I can focus.
Fuji had the first SLR with live view. Pentax had a mirrorless concept/prototype camera long before that never made it into production.
Olympus did have the first good live view though with the 330. I loved that camera. I sold it to my friend a few years ago and he finally just sold it last month. Worked like a dream and had some excellent IQ, but it sure was one ugly looking camera.
KennethKwok: Good samaritan rule applies.Not ethical to NOT render help.
Sort of, if you are in the victim's shoes, do you want help from others? Do you (victim) prefer a true record of your suffering/death? Or Do you prefer help?
By running into a burning house, you may become another person to rescue and avert efforts from saving that child. One can assume there is another person there to inform you that there is a child in the house. Why do they not help? Unless the child is popping out of a window in which case there is no need to run in but grab or catch him from the outside, there would be another person there to make the rescue.
The photographs may actually be of help later for an investigation that may lead to a change that would prevent the same thing from happening again.
This is really a stupid argument though and the vast majority of people will just stand by and wait for trained professionals to help.
There is no way you can judge this situation unless you are in it.
Marty4650: I don't know... for $100 more the weather sealed 60D is starting to look like a real bargain.
Unless you absolutely need to have a camera with a smartphone screen.
The 60D has some weather sealing thus the enhanced environmental sealing that is claimed (compared to older models), but is not weather sealed. It cannot be considered a weather sealed camera. Anyway, no SLR is water proof, but some are sealed far better than others. The 60D simply is not weather sealed, it has just a few seals with the rest being tighter seams to help keep out nature.
Marty's comment is indeed invalid when the 60D is claimed to be weather sealed. If however as you say, his comment is about the 60D being a better camera due to construction, then yes his comment is valid. However, your interpretation was not the comment he made. His comment was incorrect which is why I gave my reply. Nothing against the 60D. I think it's an excellent camera. I just wanted to correct the misinformation.
The 60D is not weather sealed. In fact, no Canon camera other than the 1 series is weather sealed. The 7 and 5 series have enhanced environmental sealing which helps a great deal, but are not fully weather sealed.
Another misconception is that all L lenses are weather sealed, they are not. Only some are and then not fully.