US B&H Pricing Litmus test.

Russell Evans · Apr 4, 2012

Alex Sarbu said:
Russell Evans said:

I would go with the more expensive 35mm f1.4 setup. By the next year, the wife will think $459 is cheap and I might get away with another lens.

Pentax
Pentax K-5 Digital SLR Camera $1,099.00
Pentax DA 16-50mm f/2.8 $1,499.95
Pentax DA 50-135mm f/2.8 $1,599.95
Total $4,158.9

Nikon
Nikon D800 Digital SLR Camera $2999.95
AF-S NIKKOR 50mm f/1.4G $459.00
Total $3,458.95

Nikon
Nikon D800 Digital SLR Camera $2999.95
AF-S NIKKOR 35mm f/1.4G $1,649.95
Total $4,649.9

Click to expand...

Could you please compare the price of a K-5 and the whole Pentax lens range with that of a D800, body-only? (a pinhole being easy to make, from the body cap).
I'm curious which is cheaper.

I think one of the most related folklore around here is to use one lens and learn to see the photo before you even raise the camera to your eye. It is said that this is the fastest, if not the only way, to become a true photographer. So here we have the choice presented, a Pentax setup most would probably like to have, versus that "inner voice of reason" system of a one lens setup.

Sarcasm is a defense mechanism, are you afraid to examine the possibility?

Thank you
Russell

Alex Sarbu · Apr 4, 2012

Russell Evans said:
Alex Sarbu said:

Russell Evans said:

I would go with the more expensive 35mm f1.4 setup. By the next year, the wife will think $459 is cheap and I might get away with another lens.

Pentax
Pentax K-5 Digital SLR Camera $1,099.00
Pentax DA 16-50mm f/2.8 $1,499.95
Pentax DA 50-135mm f/2.8 $1,599.95
Total $4,158.9

Nikon
Nikon D800 Digital SLR Camera $2999.95
AF-S NIKKOR 50mm f/1.4G $459.00
Total $3,458.95

Nikon
Nikon D800 Digital SLR Camera $2999.95
AF-S NIKKOR 35mm f/1.4G $1,649.95
Total $4,649.9

Click to expand...

Could you please compare the price of a K-5 and the whole Pentax lens range with that of a D800, body-only? (a pinhole being easy to make, from the body cap).
I'm curious which is cheaper.

Click to expand...

I think one of the most related folklore around here is to use one lens and learn to see the photo before you even raise the camera to your eye. It is said that this is the fastest, if not the only way, to become a true photographer. So here we have the choice presented, a Pentax setup most would probably like to have, versus that "inner voice of reason" system of a one lens setup.

Sarcasm is a defense mechanism, are you afraid to examine the possibility?

What you expected, when you compared the Nikon with a 50mm with the Pentax with two "pro" (not really, but whatever) zooms - and what a coincidence, the ones that had by far the biggest prices increases? Congratulations for being fair and square?

I'm sorry, but when I want to examine "possibilities", I'd just reach for my bag, grab the K-5 and the 35 Limited and go.
Price comparisons won't help a bit.

Alex

Russell Evans · Apr 4, 2012

Alex Sarbu said:
I'm sorry, but when I want to examine "possibilities", I'd just reach for my bag, grab the K-5 and the 35 Limited and go. Price comparisons won't help a bit.

You own it already, so I really do believe you when you say price comparisons won't help you a bit.

Thank you
Russell

thatsnoordinaryrabbit · Apr 4, 2012

Russell Evans said:
Alex Sarbu said:

Could you please compare the price of a K-5 and the whole Pentax lens range with that of a D800, body-only? (a pinhole being easy to make, from the body cap).
I'm curious which is cheaper.

Click to expand...

I think one of the most related folklore around here is to use one lens and learn to see the photo before you even raise the camera to your eye. It is said that this is the fastest, if not the only way, to become a true photographer. So here we have the choice presented, a Pentax setup most would probably like to have, versus that "inner voice of reason" system of a one lens setup.

Sarcasm is a defense mechanism, are you afraid to examine the possibility?

Thank you
Russell

While you make a reasonable point about a one lens solution, comparing a two zoom Pentax system to a one prime FF Nikon system is an utterly useless comparison, a point Alex made quite well - so your snarky comment is out of line AFAICS.

If you really want to present that "inner voice of reason", how about pricing out a K-5 / DA 35 system? Oh wait, that's a lot of work, I'll do it for you.

Nikon D800 $2999.95 + Nikkor 50 f1.8 $216.95 = $3219.90
Pentax K-5 $1099.00 + DA 35 f2.4 $219.95 = $1318.95

or

Nikon D800 $2999.95 + Nikkor 50 G f1.4 $459.00 = 3454.95
Pentax K-5 $1099.00 + 31 f1.8 Limited $989.95 = $2088.95

Looks to me like in this particular apples to apples comparison, your OP is not very well made.

--
STFU and do it.

Pentax_Prime · Apr 4, 2012

Alex

You may be interested to know that Russell owns none of the lenses he speaks about - nor does he have any intention of buying them. His previous 'crusade' here was his "SDM Problems List!" that he desperately needed others to be aware of. This month, it's his "Pentax lens prices list!" - he's desperate for attention/recognition and apparently thinks the place to find that is the Pentax SLR forum. Just a bit of background to help you understand the agenda of the OP.

And then there was the botched attempt to "re-interpret" Photozone MTF scores that was generally laughed at .... http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1036&message=40211738

-Andy

thatsnoordinaryrabbit · Apr 4, 2012

Here's what I was comparing when I was shopping. Prices are current but pretty close to when I bought.

Source: Broadway Camera in Vancouver, BC.

http://bccamera.com/

Canon 5DmkII @ $2249.99 + 24-70 f2.8 @ $1479.99 + 70-200 f2.8 IS @$2369.99 = $6099.97
Pentax K-5 @ $999.99 + 16-50 f2.8 @ 969.99 + 50-135 f2.8 @ $1149.99 = $3119.97

For me the most important lens was the 70-200 equivalent - made this a no brainer.

--
STFU and do it.

Alex Sarbu · Apr 4, 2012

Russell Evans said:
Alex Sarbu said:

I'm sorry, but when I want to examine "possibilities", I'd just reach for my bag, grab the K-5 and the 35 Limited and go. Price comparisons won't help a bit.

Click to expand...

You own it already, so I really do believe you when you say price comparisons won't help you a bit.

If I want to become a "true photographer" - as you suggested - shouldn't I learn to better use my Limited (pun intended) equipment, instead of spending money on camera and lenses?

Yet you're somehow implying that one can't become a "true photographer" without a Nikon D800 and a prime, nor can he use a single lens (at minimum, 2 of the most expensive zooms are mandatory) with Pentax...

Alex

Edvinas · Apr 4, 2012

Russell Evans said:
Nikon
Nikon D700 DSLR Camera $2,199.00
Nikkor 24-85mm f/2.8-4.0D IF $669.95
Nikkor 80-200mm f/2.8D $1,109.00
Total $3,877.95

DA* 16-50mm f/2.8 should be compared to Nikkor 24-70mm f/2.8 ($1886.95) not to some cheap variable aperture zoom. And DA* 50-135 should be compared not to used Nikkor 80-200mm f/2.8 but at least to 70-200mm f/2.8 zoom. B&H does not have it in sale, The new 70-200mm f/2.8 VR II price is $2396.95

That makes Nikon system $6482.90

--
Edvinas

Russell Evans · Apr 4, 2012

thatsnoordinaryrabbit said:
While you make a reasonable point about a one lens solution, comparing a two zoom Pentax system to a one prime FF Nikon system is an utterly useless comparison, a point Alex made quite well - so your snarky comment is out of line AFAICS.

For a big purchase, I usually know about how much money I'm willing to spend before I step into a store. What I try to do is get the most value for that money. If I planned to spend $4200, I wouldn't probably just spend $1600, (the K-5 and the DA 35mm), I would probably throw in a few more lenses, working as many as I could into my budget. I would then weigh that against all my other options. There might be a special case were I would walk out of the store with just the K-5 and the DA 35mm (poisoned by my wife), but if I'm honest with myself, if I have made up my mind and set aside the money to spend on something, I more than likely will.

Since my reason for this thread was about putting the new pricing up against other options to see what the market pressure would be, I don't really think it is unfair or stacking the deck to see where the pricing doesn't make sense. Pentax has already dealt the cards after all, I'm just putting them into suits.

I think the idea that I shouldn't somehow consider the DA * zooms because they have had the most increase in price, pretty much says the pricing doesn't make sense, not that my comparison doesn't make sense. Do you think Pentax wants to sell $1600 in gear, or $4200 in gear to a customer? They probably would prefer to make the $4200 sale, so unfair doesn't fit in the analysis. Do you think the people that can spend $4200 care that the DA * zooms have had a price increase and thus shouldn't be considered in the competition for their money? Do you think Pentax doesn't want the market that can afford to buy its top of the line camera with its top of the line zooms? Really, who's being unfair now?

thatsnoordinaryrabbit said:
If you really want to present that "inner voice of reason", how about pricing out a K-5 / DA 35 system? Oh wait, that's a lot of work, I'll do it for you.

Nikon D800 $2999.95 + Nikkor 50 f1.8 $216.95 = $3219.90
Pentax K-5 $1099.00 + DA 35 f2.4 $219.95 = $1318.95

or

Nikon D800 $2999.95 + Nikkor 50 G f1.4 $459.00 = 3454.95
Pentax K-5 $1099.00 + 31 f1.8 Limited $989.95 = $2088.95

I think if you can afford $3454.95, you probably won't be interested in the $3219.90 solution if you have looked around on your own, or you are willing to listen to the salesperson's advice. I would be really surprised that a person interested in the D800 would be interested in the DA 35mm f2.4. That leaves only the last scenario as being reasonable in my opinion and Pentax might win the sale here.

thatsnoordinaryrabbit said:
Looks to me like in this particular apples to apples comparison, your OP is not very well made.

OK, but don't you think you still need to worry about the $2415, Nikon D700 $2,199.00 + Nikkor 50 f1.8 $216.95 combination competing with the $2088.95, Pentax K-5 $1099.00 + 31 f1.8 Limited $989.95 combination? That's only a difference of $326.05.

thatsnoordinaryrabbit said:
STFU and do it.

Wow, sitting behind your keyboard, that seems so manly. I have chills.

Thank you
Russell

Russell Evans · Apr 4, 2012

Edvinas said:
Edvinas said:

Nikon
Nikon D700 DSLR Camera $2,199.00
Nikkor 24-85mm f/2.8-4.0D IF $669.95
Nikkor 80-200mm f/2.8D $1,109.00
Total $3,877.95

Click to expand...

DA* 16-50mm f/2.8 should be compared to Nikkor 24-70mm f/2.8 ($1886.95) not to some cheap variable aperture zoom. And DA* 50-135 should be compared not to used Nikkor 80-200mm f/2.8 but at least to 70-200mm f/2.8 zoom. B&H does not have it in sale, The new 70-200mm f/2.8 VR II price is $2396.95

That makes Nikon system $6482.90

So what you're saying it that someone that has $4200 to spend on a system wouldn't pick the $3,877.95 Nikon D700, Nikkor 24-85mm f/2.8-4.0D, and Nikkor 80-200mm f/2.8D setup, over the $4,158.90 Pentax K-5, DA * 16-50mm f2.8, and DA * 50-135mm f2.8, setup? There's just no way for that to happen?

Thank you
Russell

Russell Evans · Apr 4, 2012

Alex Sarbu said:
If I want to become a "true photographer" - as you suggested - shouldn't I learn to better use my Limited (pun intended) equipment, instead of spending money on camera and lenses?

I'm not the one to ask. I made no claims, but you always seem to have an issue understanding that.

Alex Sarbu said:
Yet you're somehow implying that one can't become a "true photographer" without a Nikon D800 and a prime, nor can he use a single lens (at minimum, 2 of the most expensive zooms are mandatory) with Pentax...

Your intestinal track must be in pretty bad shape, because how you managed to pull that out of there has to mean something's really messed up. I don't even want to touch it knowing where it's been.

Thank you
Russell

Ian Stuart Forsyth · Apr 4, 2012

Russell Evans said:
bkpix said:

The Nikon "fast zoom" for the second list is actually the 24-70/2.8, BH priced at $1,886.95 -- not the cheaper zoom you listed.

Click to expand...

Sure, but you can argue one stop DOF, and one stop better ISO performance for the 135 format sensor, so I think it is still valid.

Pentax
Pentax K-5 Digital SLR Camera $1,099.00
Pentax DA 16-50mm f/2.8 $1,499.95
Pentax DA 50-135mm f/2.8 $1,599.95
Total $4,158.9

Nikon
Nikon D700 DSLR Camera $2,199.00
Nikkor 24-70mm f/2.8 $1,886.95
Nikkor 80-200mm f/2.8D $1,109.00
Total $5,194.95

Canon
Canon EOS 5D Mark II $2,199.00
Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM $1,399.00
Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L USM $1,449.00
Total $5,047

Thank you
Russell

Now that the 16-50 is $1500 the Nikon 24-70 is only $300 more making it very attractive
--
The Camera is only a tool, photography is deciding how to use it.

http://ianstuartforsythphotography.com
http://www.flickr.com/photos/isfphotography/
http://www.pentaxphotogallery.com/artists/ianforsyth#/carousel

Alex Sarbu · Apr 5, 2012

Russell Evans said:
Alex Sarbu said:

If I want to become a "true photographer" - as you suggested - shouldn't I learn to better use my Limited (pun intended) equipment, instead of spending money on camera and lenses?

Click to expand...

I'm not the one to ask. I made no claims, but you always seem to have an issue understanding that.

So you never said:

Russell Evans said:
I think one of the most related folklore around here is to use one lens and learn to see the photo before you even raise the camera to your eye. It is said that this is the fastest, if not the only way, to become a true photographer.

seemingly trying to justify an unfair comparison?

Russell Evans said:
Your intestinal track must be in pretty bad shape, because how you managed to pull that out of there has to mean something's really messed up. I don't even want to touch it knowing where it's been.

Are you a proctologist, now?
Boy, you're lame; you can't take a little (justified) sarcasm.

Alex

awaldram · Apr 5, 2012

Russell Evans said:
Edvinas said:

Russell Evans said:

Nikon
Nikon D700 DSLR Camera $2,199.00
Nikkor 24-85mm f/2.8-4.0D IF $669.95
Nikkor 80-200mm f/2.8D $1,109.00
Total $3,877.95

Click to expand...

DA* 16-50mm f/2.8 should be compared to Nikkor 24-70mm f/2.8 ($1886.95) not to some cheap variable aperture zoom. And DA* 50-135 should be compared not to used Nikkor 80-200mm f/2.8 but at least to 70-200mm f/2.8 zoom. B&H does not have it in sale, The new 70-200mm f/2.8 VR II price is $2396.95

That makes Nikon system $6482.90

Click to expand...

So what you're saying it that someone that has $4200 to spend on a system wouldn't pick the $3,877.95 Nikon D700, Nikkor 24-85mm f/2.8-4.0D, and Nikkor 80-200mm f/2.8D setup, over the $4,158.90 Pentax K-5, DA * 16-50mm f2.8, and DA * 50-135mm f2.8, setup? There's just no way for that to happen?

Not if he's interested in photography rather than scoring forum points it wouldn't.

If he wanted a Nikon then yes he'd accept the compromise and by the inferior optical solution to get the name.

If he was after the best bang for his money then surely the better SR constant Aperture solution would attract him for less money ?

Russell Evans said:
Thank you
Russell

--
My PPG
http://www.pentaxphotogallery.com/artists/andrewwaldram
My Photo Stream
http://www.flickr.com/photos/awaldram/
1x.com
http://1x.com/artist/awaldram/wall

CANIKONTAXIAN · Apr 5, 2012

Thats true, the 24-70 2.8 Nikon seemed too expensive to me until you point out its less than $400 more than the QC Plagued 16-50mm SDM. Though the fast NikonZoom is well regarded I bought a like new Nikon 18-35mm f3.5-4.5 for $300, half its current US retail. Every lens I buy for my Nikon System has full frame coverage whereas the Pentax QC Plagued SDM may not cover full frame.

This has nothing to do with "Pentax" as its a Ricoh decision to price gouge Pentaxians.

Ricoh successfully shuttered their own slr production years ago.

Now with real K Mount inhand, I see they are quite capable in doing this once more...

Ian Stuart Forsyth said:
Russell Evans said:

bkpix said:

The Nikon "fast zoom" for the second list is actually the 24-70/2.8, BH priced at $1,886.95 -- not the cheaper zoom you listed.

Click to expand...

Sure, but you can argue one stop DOF, and one stop better ISO performance for the 135 format sensor, so I think it is still valid.

Pentax
Pentax K-5 Digital SLR Camera $1,099.00
Pentax DA 16-50mm f/2.8 $1,499.95
Pentax DA 50-135mm f/2.8 $1,599.95
Total $4,158.9

Nikon
Nikon D700 DSLR Camera $2,199.00
Nikkor 24-70mm f/2.8 $1,886.95
Nikkor 80-200mm f/2.8D $1,109.00
Total $5,194.95

Canon
Canon EOS 5D Mark II $2,199.00
Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM $1,399.00
Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L USM $1,449.00
Total $5,047

Thank you
Russell

Click to expand...

Now that the 16-50 is $1500 the Nikon 24-70 is only $300 more making it very attractive
--
The Camera is only a tool, photography is deciding how to use it.

http://ianstuartforsythphotography.com
http://www.flickr.com/photos/isfphotography/
http://www.pentaxphotogallery.com/artists/ianforsyth#/carousel

Gerry Winterbourne · Apr 5, 2012

Russell Evans said:
Edvinas said:

Russell Evans said:

Nikon
Nikon D700 DSLR Camera $2,199.00
Nikkor 24-85mm f/2.8-4.0D IF $669.95
Nikkor 80-200mm f/2.8D $1,109.00
Total $3,877.95

Click to expand...

DA* 16-50mm f/2.8 should be compared to Nikkor 24-70mm f/2.8 ($1886.95) not to some cheap variable aperture zoom. And DA* 50-135 should be compared not to used Nikkor 80-200mm f/2.8 but at least to 70-200mm f/2.8 zoom. B&H does not have it in sale, The new 70-200mm f/2.8 VR II price is $2396.95

That makes Nikon system $6482.90

Click to expand...

So what you're saying it that someone that has $4200 to spend on a system wouldn't pick the $3,877.95 Nikon D700, Nikkor 24-85mm f/2.8-4.0D, and Nikkor 80-200mm f/2.8D setup, over the $4,158.90 Pentax K-5, DA * 16-50mm f2.8, and DA * 50-135mm f2.8, setup? There's just no way for that to happen?

That's not what he's saying. Someone with $4,200 to spend might do it in many ways; in my family I'd choose the Pentax set, my brother would choose the Nikon set. We each make our own compromises on size, weight, ergonomics, stabilisation etc.

What Evinas is saying that that if you want to eliminate some of those variables, notably stabilisation, you need to compare a Nikon set that is a lot more than $4,200. Many people would (and do) still choose Nikon - but not on the basis of equal price for equal output.

--
---

Gerry

First camera 1953, first Pentax 1985, first DSLR 2006
http://www.pbase.com/gerrywinterbourne

awaldram · Apr 5, 2012

CANIKONTAXIAN said:
Thats true, the 24-70 2.8 Nikon seemed too expensive to me until you point out its less than $400 more than the QC Plagued 16-50mm SDM. Though the fast NikonZoom is well regarded I bought a like new Nikon 18-35mm f3.5-4.5 for $300, half its current US retail. Every lens I buy for my Nikon System has full frame coverage whereas the Pentax QC Plagued SDM may not cover full frame.

This has nothing to do with "Pentax" as its a Ricoh decision to price gouge Pentaxians.

There can be only one conclusion if Pentax recent price adjustment to bring their prices in line with competitors is gouging

Then those same competitors having been gouging for years.

--
My PPG
http://www.pentaxphotogallery.com/artists/andrewwaldram
My Photo Stream
http://www.flickr.com/photos/awaldram/
1x.com
http://1x.com/artist/awaldram/wall

peppermonkey · Apr 5, 2012

Russell Evans said:
Small Prime System trying for 24mm, 35mm, 50mm, and 85mm equivalency with 180° fisheye

Olympus
Olympus OM-D E-M5 $999.99
Panasonic Lumix G Fisheye 8mm f/3.5 $629.00
Olympus M. Zuiko Digital ED 12mm f/2.0 $799.99
Olympus M.Zuiko Digital 17mm f/2.8 $299.99
Panasonic Leica DG Summilux 25mm f/1.4 $539.00
Olympus M. Zuiko Digital ED 45mm f/1.8 $399.99
Total $3 667.96

You may want to consider the smallest prime lens in the system which is the Panasonic 14mm 2.5 at $303.08

Russell Evans said:
Olympus
Olympus OM-D E-M5 $999.99
Panasonic Lumix G 7-14mm f/4.0 $888.98
Panasonic 14-50mm f/2.8-3.5 $844.95
Total $2,733.81

Just a note: The Pansonic 14-50mm is four thirds lens and not a micro four thirds. Which would mean you would have to buy an adapter for it to use it on the OM-D. ~$200 I believe.

For micro 4/3, the best lens they have in that range would be the Panasonic 14-45mm for $272.77. Albeit, it's not a fast lens. Currently m4/3 doesn't have a fast zoom lens.

The Panasonic 12-35mm F2.8 is rumoured to be coming out in June.

http://www.43rumors.com/panasonic-says-new-12-35mm-f2-8-coming-end-of-june-priced-1000/

--
Hubert

My cameras: GF1, TZ3, Konica Auto S2, K1000, Yashica Electro 35 GX, Recesky and my wife's old K110D

http://www.flickr.com/photos/peppermonkey/

Russell Evans · Apr 5, 2012

Gerry Winterbourne said:
What Evinas is saying that that if you want to eliminate some of those variables, notably stabilization, you need to compare a Nikon set that is a lot more than $4,200. Many people would (and do) still choose Nikon - but not on the basis of equal price for equal output.

It's the other way around that seems more the issue. Many people wouldn't (and don't) still choose Pentax - on the basis of equal price for equal output. I also think many people that did choose Pentax on the basis of less cost for equal output, will be inclined to move to other systems as well.

That's why I put up what I thought were the most tempting scenarios, smaller camera prime set up for less cost and faster lenses, smaller camera walk around, larger sensor setups within striking distance, and then what I would consider the most tempting, but also the least likely road taken (at least for me, I'm a lens junkie), the D800 with a single lens.

I have to wonder if Pentax USA did the same, and I'm wondering if their answers to those scenarios match what people here actually think. I'm pretty sure their answers don't match what I think.

Thank you
Russell

thatsnoordinaryrabbit · Apr 5, 2012

Russell Evans said:
thatsnoordinaryrabbit said:

While you make a reasonable point about a one lens solution, comparing a two zoom Pentax system to a one prime FF Nikon system is an utterly useless comparison, a point Alex made quite well - so your snarky comment is out of line AFAICS.

Click to expand...

For a big purchase, I usually know about how much money I'm willing to spend before I step into a store. What I try to do is get the most value for that money. If I planned to spend $4200, I wouldn't probably just spend $1600, (the K-5 and the DA 35mm), I would probably throw in a few more lenses, working as many as I could into my budget. I would then weigh that against all my other options. There might be a special case were I would walk out of the store with just the K-5 and the DA 35mm (poisoned by my wife), but if I'm honest with myself, if I have made up my mind and set aside the money to spend on something, I more than likely will.

I don't disagree with your point about buying what your budget will allow, but I still feel comparing the DA* zooms to dissimilar equipment to make the point that they are overpriced makes no sense. You could make similar points if you were to attempt to compare a 7D or D300s system to FF systems.

Russell Evans said:
Since my reason for this thread was about putting the new pricing up against other options to see what the market pressure would be, I don't really think it is unfair or stacking the deck to see where the pricing doesn't make sense. Pentax has already dealt the cards after all, I'm just putting them into suits.

The point is not that it's unfair, the point is that it's meaningless. You can "prove" any point this way. For example: why would I spend $3,455 on a D800 with a 50mm f1.4 when I could have a K-x and a suite of DA primes? Doesn't that prove that Nikon is overpriced? Nikon dealt the cards, I'm just putting them into suits.

Russell Evans said:
I think the idea that I shouldn't somehow consider the DA * zooms because they have had the most increase in price, pretty much says the pricing doesn't make sense, not that my comparison doesn't make sense. Do you think Pentax wants to sell $1600 in gear, or $4200 in gear to a customer? They probably would prefer to make the $4200 sale, so unfair doesn't fit in the analysis. Do you think the people that can spend $4200 care that the DA * zooms have had a price increase and thus shouldn't be considered in the competition for their money? Do you think Pentax doesn't want the market that can afford to buy its top of the line camera with its top of the line zooms? Really, who's being unfair now?

I just think for a comparison to be meaningful it needs to be comparing what a customer would actually consider to be reasonable substitutes. I have a lot of confidence in saying that no one is going to consider a K-5/DA*16-50/DA*50-135 system and a Nikon FF with a couple of primes "reasonable substitutes".

Russell Evans said:
Russell Evans said:

Russell Evans said:

If you really want to present that "inner voice of reason", how about pricing out a K-5 / DA 35 system? Oh wait, that's a lot of work, I'll do it for you.

Click to expand...

Nikon D800 $2999.95 + Nikkor 50 f1.8 $216.95 = $3219.90
Pentax K-5 $1099.00 + DA 35 f2.4 $219.95 = $1318.95

or

Nikon D800 $2999.95 + Nikkor 50 G f1.4 $459.00 = 3454.95
Pentax K-5 $1099.00 + 31 f1.8 Limited $989.95 = $2088.95

Click to expand...

I think if you can afford $3454.95, you probably won't be interested in the $3219.90 solution if you have looked around on your own, or you are willing to listen to the salesperson's advice. I would be really surprised that a person interested in the D800 would be interested in the DA 35mm f2.4. That leaves only the last scenario as being reasonable in my opinion and Pentax might win the sale here.

Russell Evans said:

Looks to me like in this particular apples to apples comparison, your OP is not very well made.

Click to expand...

OK, but don't you think you still need to worry about the $2415, Nikon D700 $2,199.00 + Nikkor 50 f1.8 $216.95 combination competing with the $2088.95, Pentax K-5 $1099.00 + 31 f1.8 Limited $989.95 combination? That's only a difference of $326.05.

You made a similar point above. I would be really surprised that a person interested in the 31 Limited would be interested in the Nikon 50 f1.8. That makes this scenario pretty unreasonable. Even if we did make this comparison, it's not a slam dunk that the Nikon is the better choice depending on the user's needs, so what does it prove?

This to me is the fundamental flaw with trying to compare value across formats. FF comes with its own cost/benefit formula - if you want FF, you probably don't have any APS-C system on your radar, and vice versa.

Russell Evans said:
Russell Evans said:

STFU and do it.

Click to expand...

Wow, sitting behind your keyboard, that seems so manly. I have chills.

Thank you
Russell

Coming from you, I'll take that as a compliment.

--
STFU and do it.

US B&H Pricing Litmus test.

Forum Pro

Forum Pro

Forum Pro

Forum Enthusiast

Veteran Member

Forum Enthusiast

Forum Pro

Veteran Member

Forum Pro

Forum Pro

Forum Pro

Veteran Member

Forum Pro

Forum Pro

Leading Member

Forum Pro

Forum Pro

Veteran Member

Forum Pro

Forum Enthusiast

Keyboard shortcuts