Reading mode: Light Dark

K10 / XTi: All things being equal...

Go to last post
hardsuit01 said:
the K10d is a metal body . canon plastic matchbox kit body.
Click to expand...
No, the K10D is not a metal body. It's listed as "High-impact plastic with metal sub-structure", which is essentially the same thing as the XTi's "Plastic (Stainless Steel chassis)". Both of them have a metal chassis with plastic body parts screwed on. That's very different from the bodies in cameras like the 30D and D200, which are solid metal with a rubberized surface for grip. The K10D preview even comments "the K10D appears to be lacking is a magnesium body (compared to the Canon EOS 30D and Nikon D200)".
hardsuit01 said:
the K10d is a dustproof/ water resistant body.
Click to expand...
Another feature that looks more impressive than it is. Unless your lens has a corresponding weather seal- which few lenses from any brand do- then the single largest opening into your camera lacks a seal.
--

As with all creative work, the craft must be adequate for the demands of expression. I am disturbed when I find craft relegated to inferior consideration; I believe that the euphoric involvement with subject or self is not sufficient to justify the making and display of photographic images. --Ansel Adams
 
Also, double the size of the RAW Buffer. Lack of spot metering is a major shortcoming for a serious camera. And frankly, being able to shoot 5 FPS is of decidedly limited usefulness if the buffer only stores 1 second's worth of shots before having to write to it.
 
As a Canon user I must say that Phil nailed it in his latest Canon review, in the conclusion he said that the Canon was predictable - ie just like the 30D - Boring. Canon refuses to deliver top notch innovation at all levels to protect its higher end cameras.

Canon apologist can come here and try and defend Canon, but they know the truth. As a 25 year Canon user I must say I am tired of supporting a company who seems to careless about innovation. Many of the features that are on the K10 have been requested on the Canon forum over 4 years.

Its clear to see how Pentax decided on the specs for the K10, they listened to Canon user requests and complaints and built the K10. Now with the financial backing of Samsung, Pentax has the knowledge and financial resources to compete in the market.

I personally am not quite ready to upgrade, my 20D is still working, but my backup 10D is starting to die. I figure it will die in the next 3-4 months, then I have to decide if I end my 25 years as a Canon user.

Personally if I was the original poster I would wait until the K10 review is posted and then make a decision.

Ed
 
Steven Noyes said:
645D said:
1) K10D have environmental seals. 5D does not. All Pro bodie like
1D or D2 series have.
Click to expand...
1) 5D has a huge 17 frame RAW buffer. K10D only has a 9 frame
buffer. This is extremely important in operation when shooting
RAW. Much more than DNG as an option.
Steven Noyes said:
2) K10D has ISO in viewfinder. 5D does not. 1D series has.
Click to expand...
2) 5D has a MUCH large sensor. Pro cameras like the 1 series also
have a larger sensor.
Steven Noyes said:
3) K10D has more RAW process option, including the RAW button. RAW
handling is most important for Professionals.
Click to expand...
3) 5D has a true MLU (like the 1 series and D2 series) the K10D
does not. This is critical when using long lenses and other big
glass like many pros use. What is the point of the RAW button. I
know what it does, but what is the point. Sounds lots like the
print button to me IMHO.

4) 5D has more JPEG procession options. For many pros this is very
important.
Steven Noyes said:
Why K10D is way above D30?
1) K10D has no pre-programed shooting modes (i.e. Sports, Portrait...)
Click to expand...
1) The 30D is what ??? 5 fps?
Steven Noyes said:
2) K10D has USER (Custom) mode instead, just like 5D has.
Click to expand...
2) The 3D has a magnesium composite body. Like the 1 series and
D2/D200
Steven Noyes said:
As for reasons why K10D not perceived as PRO?
1) Price too low to be PRO?
Click to expand...
Plastic body?
Steven Noyes said:
2) Has SR and Dust Reduction, these are totally unpro-ish?
Click to expand...
the 30D has ISO 3200 ISO extension. Also already has a huge
selection of in lens IS already available. I question the Dust
Reduction of the A100 (so-so ability) VS the Olympus SWF (Canon
uses a similar technique).
Steven Noyes said:
3) APC sensor? D2x uses APC sensor, thus unprofessional?
Click to expand...
Don't fool yourself on having a 30D as a backup to a 5D/1Ds/1Ds Mk
II FF body is a great option.
Steven Noyes said:
4) K10D not fast enough? 1Ds only 4fps, 5D is 3fsp, all not as fast
Click to expand...
1Ds is 4 years old, 3 fps and > 1MP more.
1Ds Mk II is 2 years old, 1 fps more + almost 7MP more.
5D is almost 2MP more and same fps with a 17 RAW buffer VS a 9
frame RAW buffer. Not bad for a driver chip three years older.
Steven Noyes said:
as 30D. Which is more pro?
Click to expand...
Mostly because of construction and higher speed of operation, the
30D still has a slight edge. The K10D is a sweet camera (I have
been saying that over and over) but it is WAY below the 1 series
and really is between the rebel and the 30D. In many aspects it is
right below the 30D and way above the Rebel. The fun part is the
K10D is clearly above the D80 and still cheaper.
Click to expand...
Making comments such as "above and below" are hard to defend when dealing with cameras that offer different feature sets that cut across product lines of other makers. For example in the case of the 30D/K10D there are a series of trade-offs for each camera that make an "above/beyond" statement very hard to defend unless you provide an explicit set of requirements. But a blanket statement is very hard to defend...
Steven Noyes said:
Steven

--
---
2006 Southern Arizona Monsoon Wildflowers
http://www.pbase.com/snoyes/images_summer_2006_ii

Fall 2006:
http://www.pbase.com/snoyes/images_fall_2006

Click to expand...
--
Comprehensive Photokina 2006 speculation: http://photographyetc.livejournal.com
 
Greenville said:
Personally if I was the original poster I would wait until the K10
review is posted and then make a decision.
Ed
Click to expand...
....or, debate for eternity. (and again, when review when posted...)
--
Life is too short for dialup
Molon Labe
 
Certainly, those who do any studio work at all need the ability to control a multi-point lighting setup.

Anyone at all who does professional sports work will need at least 5 FPS and long fast lenses.

Many pros might sometimes need to fire a camera remotely.

Many pros might need weather-resistant cameras AND LENSES.

Those were just some examples of the types of professional systems support that Canon and Nikon routinely offer, and which other brands do not. They are not the only such examples, just typical ones. If you have a need for this type of stuff, as MANY pros do, then the Pentax (or Sony, or to some degree, the Olympus) system won't cut it for you. It's an important consideration. To ME PERSONALLY, it's certainly a much more important consideration than, say, in-body image stabilization - which I happen to deem to be a very minor feature. Others' needs may very well differ, but it is certainly silly for anyone here to claim to know what some other photographer would find most necessary in these areas.

And BTW, all of our self-proclaimed experts on the superiority of the Pentax K10D are making this pronouncement purely on the basis of a spec sheet. The camera does not yet exist with production software, so it's real world performance is still unknown. Undoubtedly, it will be somewhere between pretty darn good and outstanding, but exactly where on that continuum, nobody here actually knows, and won't actually know for 1-2 months. And what if the user needs a DSLR THIS month? Then, pretty clearly, the Nikon D80 will be better. OK, in 3 months, the Pentax might be as good or better, but then 6 months later, something else will be better again. So it's pointless to rank future cameras that aren't yet available, and proclaiming them to be superior to something that is current. Because right now, the K10D is merely a promise. And neither you nor I can take a single photo worth anything on it at the moment. And that's a fact.
 
Either is a capable tool.

It's up to the person behind the viewfinder to determine how well the tool works. They haven't made a camera that can take a perfect photo all by itself - may the day never come that they do. It would take all the joy out of photography.

These two cameras are so close in capability that it may come down to which one feels better in the hand.

Canon has more lenses, but be serious - do you really plan to buy 10 exotic lenses? They aren't cheap. One general purpose lens, one tele zoom, perhaps a macro or super wide angle, that will keep you more than satisfied for the immediate future. Both cameras have a good selection to choose from - Pentax has been an optical company for decades, I own one of their telescope eyepieces (26mm) and it is top rate.

One decent flash (the popups are a bit of a joke), and you should be set for pretty much anything.

Flip a coin, and go create magnificent images.
 
This paragraph from this professional fashion photog says exactly what I think about spot metering:

"...The light raking across the crowd from behind nicely rim lights the people watching, adding some depth and a small bit of drama. But basically it was just horrible blackness everywhere for most of the frames exposed during this show.

Even in this kind of lighting I’ll stick mainly with matrix metering because spot metering only needs to be slightly off target to drastically affect exposure, and things happen too quickly to compensate on the fly for the varying gray values of the different fabric colours. If the spot meter takes an erroneous reading that partially overlaps the back wall while you’re tracking the scene at 5 frames per second no one is going to stop and let you do it again. The moment is just gone. Using matrix metering with exposure compensation applied takes the black background into account on every frame and is a safer way to render the scene consistently."

Glad to hear from him that matrix metering can actually be used. The last time I shot in lighting like that (concert), I just stuck to manual mode.

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/fashion-week.shtml
DougJGreen said:
Also, double the size of the RAW Buffer. Lack of spot metering is
a major shortcoming for a serious camera. And frankly, being
able to shoot 5 FPS is of decidedly limited usefulness if the
buffer only stores 1 second's worth of shots before having to write
to it.
Click to expand...
...and the D80 has the same 6 shot RAW buffer limit.
 
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/fashion-week.shtml

Incidentally, what was this pro using while rubbing shoulders (and elbows, and just about every other part of his body) with all the other pros? A Canon 20D!

Incidentally,
Joe0Bloggs said:
"...The light raking across the crowd from behind nicely rim lights
the people watching, adding some depth and a small bit of drama.
But basically it was just horrible blackness everywhere for most of
the frames exposed during this show.

Even in this kind of lighting I’ll stick mainly with matrix
metering because spot metering only needs to be slightly off target
to drastically affect exposure, and things happen too quickly to
compensate on the fly for the varying gray values of the different
fabric colours. If the spot meter takes an erroneous reading that
partially overlaps the back wall while you’re tracking the scene at
5 frames per second no one is going to stop and let you do it
again. The moment is just gone. Using matrix metering with exposure
compensation applied takes the black background into account on
every frame and is a safer way to render the scene consistently."

Glad to hear from him that matrix metering can actually be used.
The last time I shot in lighting like that (concert), I just stuck
to manual mode.

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/fashion-week.shtml
DougJGreen said:
Also, double the size of the RAW Buffer. Lack of spot metering is
a major shortcoming for a serious camera. And frankly, being
able to shoot 5 FPS is of decidedly limited usefulness if the
buffer only stores 1 second's worth of shots before having to write
to it.
Click to expand...
...and the D80 has the same 6 shot RAW buffer limit.
Click to expand...
 
For people that do, it can be indispensible. I wouldn't ever consider purchasing a serious camera that lacked the feature. I wouldn't even keep it if you gave it to me.

Like I said, different features matter to different people. But frankly, I would never hire a pro who didn't know how to advantageously use spot metering.
 
Spot Metering isn't for sports, it isn't for fashion, it isn't for anything where you are are shooting at 5 FPS. Spot metering is for things like deliberate, creative landscape work. For stuff like Ansel Adams used to shoot.

Of course, when using Evaluative metering, you are basically approximating the taking of multiple spot readings, and letting the camera's CPU determine what the reading should be, at high speed. But, when you have time to do it right, taking multiple spot readings is better for letting the photographer, rather than the camera control the exposure.

Admittedly, not every photographer can actually make a better exposure decision than the camera's CPU. But knowledgeable, experienced, GOOD photographers, who actually know what they are doing, certainly can.
 
And RGB histograms, and blinking highlights... all much more useful tools than any metering mode in a modern DSLR for correctly exposing a static scene.

It's even more of a no-brainer if you use an EVF camera with exposure preview.

If you had the time to 'take multiple spot meter readings' and then do your math, I could finish shooting the scene for you with a DSLR that had NO meter...
DougJGreen said:
Spot Metering isn't for sports, it isn't for fashion, it isn't for
anything where you are are shooting at 5 FPS. Spot metering is for
things like deliberate, creative landscape work. For stuff like
Ansel Adams used to shoot.

Of course, when using Evaluative metering, you are basically
approximating the taking of multiple spot readings, and letting the
camera's CPU determine what the reading should be, at high speed.
But, when you have time to do it right, taking multiple spot
readings is better for letting the photographer, rather than the
camera control the exposure.

Admittedly, not every photographer can actually make a better
exposure decision than the camera's CPU. But knowledgeable,
experienced, GOOD photographers, who actually know what they are
doing, certainly can.
Click to expand...
 
For a photographer that is more interested in creative control than in speed, spot metering is an indispensible tool. The fact that you obviously don't know how it is used properly is no reason to denigrate the value of the feature for those that do.

Admittedly, you probably don't make as good photographic decisions as your camera's CPU, so I wouldn't begrudge you the tools YOU need to get the results you want. Personally, I would rather make my own decisions, and buy a camera that provides me with the tools I prefer to make them with.

Oh, and BTW, the 20D firmware also has limited histogram capability, which the 30D improved upon as well.

Face it, the fact that YOU don't find the 20D's shortcomings to be important for your picture-taking methods and skills, does not alter the fact that they DO exist, for other photographers, as compared to several other cameras.
 
DougJGreen said:
Admittedly, you probably don't make as good photographic decisions
as your camera's CPU, so I wouldn't begrudge you the tools YOU need
to get the results you want. Personally, I would rather make my
own decisions, and buy a camera that provides me with the tools I
prefer to make them with.
Click to expand...
For you information, the camera I use is a KM 5D, which DOES have spot metering which I never use; also FYI, I override the 'camera's CPU's photographic decisions' all the time, using exposure compensation, manual exposure, histograms and exposure adjustments in RAW to get any damn exposure effect I damn well like.

If you are NOT interested in speed for your shot, you could have got your shot right without any meter at all!

Exposure bracketing also achieves the same effect, I'm just waiting for you to tell me how unartistic and inaccurate that is, when you can adjust exposure in RAW to get any, ANY exposure value you want between the brackets, and how post-processing isn't art, or something.

I'm thoroughly fed up with this discussion; just because YOU must have a spot meter in your camera on threat of death doesn't mean everyone else needs one.

You say 20D is a lesser camera than the D80? It's also cheaper than the D80, and the point of argument was VALUE, not absolute level of the camera. The 20D can also still take low light pictures like no Nikon can (maybe the gap has even been widened, with the introduction of the 10mp Sony chip).

What IS your problem with Canon anyway?
 
With Olympus gear that can't even shoot a decent ISO 800!

And Oly long lenses are so expensive as to be practically non-existent!

Oh no, a pro would never touch an Oly!

Mr. Self-proclaimed expert on Canon and Nikon

What is your POINT???
 
There is not ONE camera that is inherently better than the others, for all users purposes. I never said that they were.

I happen to use Olympus DSLRs, (E-300 and E-1) as well as the Kodak DCS-760, because they do what I personally need, better than any other cameras that are available at reasonable prices.

I like the Olympus ergonomics better than any Nikon or Canon I've ever used. I could not care less about the high ISO performance of these cameras, because the vast majority of what I shoot is at ISO 100, with only occassional use of ISO 400.

High ISO performance is unimportant to ME PERSONALLY.

In-body Image Stabilization is unimportant to ME PERSONALLY.

The ability to manual focus in the viewfinder, is VERY IMPORTANT to ME PERSONALLY (and I use a Katz-Eye screen for that)

The ability to mount manual focus Nikon glass, Pentax glass, and Leica R glass is VERY IMPORTANT to ME PERSONALLY. I have several thousand dollars invested in those lenses. And I use them. I use them for landcapes, and nature photography mostly.

The ability to spot meter is VERY IMPORTANT to ME PERSONALLY.

And those features are why I use Olympus DSLRs, and a Kodak DCS-760. Because there is nothing else that is out there today, for less than $1500, that can do all of those things. And not one of my DSLRs cost me more than $800. In fact, all of them together cost me less than $1500. And together, they meet the range of my personal needs better than any other $1500 expenditure could have.

It gets very tiresome to hear someone cheerlead for their particular system, when those systems might well be right for them, but NOT for EVERYONE. It is utterly absurd to suggest that one system is better than all others. The fact is, NONE is better for EVERYONE, and all of them are better for some segment of the market.
 
Joe0Bloggs said:
DougJGreen wrote:
I'm thoroughly fed up with this discussion; just because YOU must
have a spot meter in your camera on threat of death doesn't mean
everyone else needs one.
Click to expand...
That's totally OK with me that you are fed up. I personally could care less. I never said that EVERYONE needed a spot meter. All I said was that I personally wouldn't use a camera without it. YOU took offense at that, simply because YOU don't value the feature. That's fine - I simply pointed out that what mattered to you, was not the universal definition of what mattered to everyone. Plenty of people DO care about certain features that you don't care about. And you are not any more right in YOUR opinion than they are.
Joe0Bloggs said:
What IS your problem with Canon anyway?
Click to expand...
Nothing. I simply prefer the ergonomics and human factors engineering of others - especially of Olympuses, which, I will grant you, are in some ways inferior, such as in ISO 1600 performance and AF speed, to name a couple of issues which I don't happen to care much about, but which many folks do. My problem is not with Canon cameras, it's with a whole bunch of Canon users, who insist on proclaiming the supposed universal superiority of their cameras to all others who might somehow have come to a different conclusion. Canons are fine for some folks - maybe even MOST folks. But that doesn't in any way mean that they are better for ME. I personally prefer other cameras, which better meet MY SPECIFIC NEEDS. And in a free market, I get to choose what I buy, just as you do.

I find it laughable that some people need the approval of the majority on a bulletin board to validate their own self-worth in the camera that they have chosen. And, just from observation, it seems to me that more of THOSE type folks use Canon DSLRs than any other brand. Here's a news flash - not everyone has the same decision criteria as you, or, for that matter, as Phil Askey, and people with different decision criteria might very well come to an entirely different decision than you did or that Phil did. And THOSE folks decisions have every bit as much validity for them as your decisions do for you. So deal with it.
 
Did you read the part where I told you I use a KM 5D?

And who's the minority opinion here? Who's the one trying to impose what matters to himself to everyone? You're saying something is a must have feature for you, I'm saying it's not a must have feature for everyone. Have you got something back to front here or what?
DougJGreen said:
Joe0Bloggs said:
DougJGreen wrote:
I'm thoroughly fed up with this discussion; just because YOU must
have a spot meter in your camera on threat of death doesn't mean
everyone else needs one.
Click to expand...
That's totally OK with me that you are fed up. I personally could
care less. I never said that EVERYONE needed a spot meter. All I
said was that I personally wouldn't use a camera without it. YOU
took offense at that, simply because YOU don't value the feature.
That's fine - I simply pointed out that what mattered to you, was
not the universal definition of what mattered to everyone. Plenty
of people DO care about certain features that you don't care about.
And you are not any more right in YOUR opinion than they are.
DougJGreen said:
What IS your problem with Canon anyway?
Click to expand...
Nothing. I simply prefer the ergonomics and human factors
engineering of others - especially of Olympuses, which, I will
grant you, are in some ways inferior, such as in ISO 1600
performance and AF speed, to name a couple of issues which I don't
happen to care much about, but which many folks do. My problem is
not with Canon cameras, it's with a whole bunch of Canon users, who
insist on proclaiming the supposed universal superiority of their
cameras to all others who might somehow have come to a different
conclusion. Canons are fine for some folks - maybe even MOST
folks. But that doesn't in any way mean that they are better for
ME. I personally prefer other cameras, which better meet MY
SPECIFIC NEEDS. And in a free market, I get to choose what I buy,
just as you do.

I find it laughable that some people need the approval of the
majority on a bulletin board to validate their own self-worth in
the camera that they have chosen. And, just from observation, it
seems to me that more of THOSE type folks use Canon DSLRs than any
other brand. Here's a news flash - not everyone has the same
decision criteria as you, or, for that matter, as Phil Askey, and
people with different decision criteria might very well come to an
entirely different decision than you did or that Phil did. And
THOSE folks decisions have every bit as much validity for them as
your decisions do for you. So deal with it.
Click to expand...
 
Not by a long shot. I never claimed that my personal requirements were more important to MOST users. I just said that for ME, what I require and what I prefer, is what determines what I buy. What other people need and choose to buy is entirely irrelevant to my own purchase decisions, other than they impact the viability of various cameras in the marketplace.

Just remember, a majority of the citizens in the U.S. in 1800 supported slavery, and a majority of the citizens in Germany in 1935 supported Hitler. Majorities often can be VERY wrong, and very intolerant to dissenting views.
 
realjag said:
I shoot with both the XTi and the original Pentax *istD......the
istD high ISO performance is much better than my XTi.

I have heard that the DS and DL are not so good but expect the K10
to be at least as good as the D and hopefully better.
Click to expand...
What the? All the Pentax DSLRs have the same Sony sensor. I have the D, DS and K100d the the D has the worst lowlight performance of the 3.. Makes sense same sensor but older generation of processor...

------------
Joel - K100D/DS/SFX
http://www.pbase.com/joele
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top