Reading mode: Light Dark

US B&H Pricing Litmus test.

Go to last post
Russell Evans said:
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.
Click to expand...
??? Are you talking aout some comparison other than the ones you posted? Because the ones I see in this thread all show Pentax being either the cheapest option for each of the scenarios, or within 10% of cheapest. Suggesting that if in fact they did this sort of comparison - and I have to assume they did - they would have liked what they saw. In fact I thought that was your point - showing that even with the increases, Pentax prices are not in fact out of line with the competition. I looked again and if your point is somehow the opposite, I think you must have made a rypo in virtually every price you posted, since the numbers you actually posted support the conclusions that Pentax prices are in line, not that they are out of line.

--
Marc Sabatella
http://www.marcsabatella.com/
Blog: http://marcsabatella.blogspot.com/
Flickr: http://www.flickr.com/photos/marcsabatella/
 
thatsnoordinaryrabbit said:
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
Click to expand...
I think it is all the same point, for APS-C systems to be attractive, they have to be more enticing than a FF camera with a single lens. At least with the 7D and D300, the people that buy those might be thinking FF at some point, but this will do for now. When the lenses weren't as expensive or more expensive than the FF lenses from the other manufacturers, that clearly was an advantage to Pentax. Now the expensive APS-C only lenses seem a liability.
thatsnoordinaryrabbit said:
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.
Click to expand...
95% of the market buys APS-C or smaller sensor systems. Probably 90% only buy zooms. I compared the worst possible scenario for the D800 to be up against, top of the line APS-C camera and top of the line zooms, and you have to go to an entry level Pentax to make a Pentax value proposition.
thatsnoordinaryrabbit said:
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".
Click to expand...
I was thinking it was like the decision between a Ferrari sport car and a Mercedes E class. Before the price increases, it would have been like making the decision between a Ferrari sport car and a Lexus sedan, and I would have agreed with you then that it wasn't meaningful.
thatsnoordinaryrabbit said:
thatsnoordinaryrabbit said:
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
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.
thatsnoordinaryrabbit 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.
Click to expand...
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?
Click to expand...
I didn't want to be accused of apples to oranges again, so if you are OK with the $2658 Nikon D700 $2,199.00 + Nikkor 50 f1.4G $459.00 competing with the $2088.95, Pentax K-5 $1099.00 + 31 f1.8 Limited $989.95 combination, I'm OK with it. Does the extra $200 for the Nikon system really tip the balance or does the faster and better lens make it even a harder decision to choose Pentax?
thatsnoordinaryrabbit said:
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.
Click to expand...
I think if you go fishing for a 2 lbs trout and land a 20 lbs salmon instead, you don't throw it back.
thatsnoordinaryrabbit said:
thatsnoordinaryrabbit said:
thatsnoordinaryrabbit said:
STFU and do it.
Click to expand...
Wow, sitting behind your keyboard, that seems so manly. I have chills.
Click to expand...
Coming from you, I'll take that as a compliment.
Click to expand...
I'm sure you would take it any way I decided to give it to you.

Thank you
Russell
 
Marc Sabatella said:
Russell Evans said:
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.
Click to expand...
??? Are you talking aout some comparison other than the ones you posted? Because the ones I see in this thread all show Pentax being either the cheapest option for each of the scenarios, or within 10% of cheapest. Suggesting that if in fact they did this sort of comparison - and I have to assume they did - they would have liked what they saw. In fact I thought that was your point - showing that even with the increases, Pentax prices are not in fact out of line with the competition. I looked again and if your point is somehow the opposite, I think you must have made a rypo in virtually every price you posted, since the numbers you actually posted support the conclusions that Pentax prices are in line, not that they are out of line.
Click to expand...
A couple of these comparisons were against FF kits, though. In the recent past, you wouldn't even be able to come close to building a new FF kit for the same price as an 'equivalent' Pentax aps-c kit... now, that's changed, that gap has narrowed quite a bit. And Pentax almost always, in just about every permutation, could beat out equivalent aps-c kits from other manufacturers, and that's changed too.

If you wanted to go the gently-used route, some surprising comparisons could be made as well...

I think the overall message being hit home here is that there definitely is no longer a price advantage to Pentax, at least if/until the 'unilateral' prices adjust to market.

--
Here are a few of my favorite things...
---> http://www.flickr.com/photos/95095968@N00/sets/72157626171532197/
 
Russell Evans said:
I think it is all the same point, for APS-C systems to be attractive, they have to be more enticing than a FF camera with a single lens.
Click to expand...
Comparing a whole APS-C system with one "FF" camera with a single lens; I knew you'll get there, eventually.
Yet you got angry when I suggested the same thing :p

Alex
 
Marc Sabatella said:
In fact I thought that was your point - showing that even with the increases, Pentax prices are not in fact out of line with the competition.
Click to expand...
If Pentax had a larger market share, had a 135 format DSLR, had a lens system for that 135 format camera, had a camera with an AF system that would allow people to take photos of their active kids, had third party support for the flash system, had a tilt swivel flash that was designed in this century, had a more viable mirrorless camera, had a better distribution system, had lenses that didn't require debate about whether there had a high failure rate or not, and had a better support system, I would agree.

Thank you
Russell
 
peppermonkey said:
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.
Click to expand...
OK, sorry, I only have Pentax gear, so don't know the system. I can't think of another system that can compete with Pentax there then.

Thank you
Russell
 
Russell Evans said:
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.
Click to expand...
I need to correct this as one of the lenses I picked for the EM-5 is for the larger 4/3 system.

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1036&message=41131323

With that system gone, I can't think of another to compete with Pentax with the same level of camera for a small walk about.

Thank you
Russell
 
Russell Evans said:
Marc Sabatella said:
In fact I thought that was your point - showing that even with the increases, Pentax prices are not in fact out of line with the competition.
Click to expand...
If Pentax had a larger market share, had a 135 format DSLR, had a lens system for that 135 format camera, had a camera with an AF system that would allow people to take photos of their active kids, had third party support for the flash system, had a tilt swivel flash that was designed in this century, had a more viable mirrorless camera, had a better distribution system, had lenses that didn't require debate about whether there had a high failure rate or not, and had a better support system, I would agree.

Thank you
Russell
Click to expand...
Lol, much though I like my Pentax gear I am inclined to agree. Besides, there may be a law of unintended consequences here. If you raise prices selectively, the effect may be to send yourself downmarket not upmarket. You will still get the lower-end users because you have not raised prices much on your more basic offerings. But you are much more likely to lose higher-end users who will now see that the better products from competing brands are hardly more expensive and those brands do offer far more choices over products, accessories, warranties, upgrade paths and all the rest. Soon, you are having to raise prices on your own better products even more: fewer of your new users are buying these items and production runs have had to be reduced. At which point you have again lowered the bar at which the competition starts to skim off your wealthier and more enthusiastic clientele. By giving up price as a key differentiator, Pentax may have given up more than they thought.
 
Russell Evans said:
thatsnoordinaryrabbit said:
You could make similar points if you were to attempt to compare a 7D or D300s system to FF systems
Click to expand...
I think it is all the same point, for APS-C systems to be attractive, they have to be more enticing than a FF camera with a single lens. At least with the 7D and D300, the people that buy those might be thinking FF at some point, but this will do for now. When the lenses weren't as expensive or more expensive than the FF lenses from the other manufacturers, that clearly was an advantage to Pentax. Now the expensive APS-C only lenses seem a liability.
Click to expand...
For many people (about 95% by your estimate in the next paragraph) APS-C or smaller is more enticing anyway. The word "smaller" is, of course, very significant. For many people it's the size as much as the cost that puts them off FF. I've been buying cameras for over 40 years and small size has always been one of my key requirements.

Yes, some owners of other makes might be thinking about future FF. But why do you think 7D or D7000 will do them "for now"? If the price comparisons within systems are in line with what you've listed then a D700 with one lens must be more attactive than a D7000 with several lenses - and yet the majority don't make that choice.
Russell Evans said:
95% of the market buys APS-C or smaller sensor systems. Probably 90% only buy zooms.
Click to expand...
--
---

Gerry


First camera 1953, first Pentax 1985, first DSLR 2006
http://www.pbase.com/gerrywinterbourne
 
Gerry Winterbourne said:
Russell Evans said:
thatsnoordinaryrabbit said:
You could make similar points if you were to attempt to compare a 7D or D300s system to FF systems
Click to expand...
I think it is all the same point, for APS-C systems to be attractive, they have to be more enticing than a FF camera with a single lens. At least with the 7D and D300, the people that buy those might be thinking FF at some point, but this will do for now. When the lenses weren't as expensive or more expensive than the FF lenses from the other manufacturers, that clearly was an advantage to Pentax. Now the expensive APS-C only lenses seem a liability.
Click to expand...
For many people (about 95% by your estimate in the next paragraph) APS-C or smaller is more enticing anyway.
Click to expand...
Being on a forum, I probably should have written: "I think it is all the same point, for APS-C systems to be attractive to the group of people that buy premium products , they have to be more enticing than a FF camera with a single lens".

I think there are a lot more of the premium buyers that are willing to sacrifice size for sensor size.
Gerry Winterbourne said:
The word "smaller" is, of course, very significant. For many people it's the size as much as the cost that puts them off FF. I've been buying cameras for over 40 years and small size has always been one of my key requirements.
Click to expand...
Do you own a m4/3 setup with the fast primes available with that system or are you shooting with a Pentax system with the pancake primes? I would assume the latter as this is a Pentax forum, so I assume smaller size does have its limits, even for you. Do you own the Q?
Gerry Winterbourne said:
Yes, some owners of other makes might be thinking about future FF. But why do you think 7D or D7000 will do them "for now"? If the price comparisons within systems are in line with what you've listed then a D700 with one lens must be more attractive than a D7000 with several lenses - and yet the majority don't make that choice.
Click to expand...
I think we have just reached the point where the difference between the APS-C sensor bodies and the 135 format bodies isn't a giant leap. There is a relative scale at work where in the last year lens prices have climbed to point that a $1000 gap between the camera pricing has comparatively narrowed.

I haven't really been paying attention, but with the D800 being announced at introduction for $3000, maybe the older cameras dropped accordingly and it is only in the last few weeks this has become the new norm?

It not like the people that do choose the D700 with a 50mm have to stay there. It has just become a more attractive starting point for a premium buyer and I think a mark that high end APS-C systems have to compete against for that premium buyer. Wasn't a FF camera with a 50mm the standard starting point for a few decades at one point?

Thank you
Russell
 
Russell Evans said:
Gerry Winterbourne said:
Russell Evans said:
thatsnoordinaryrabbit said:
You could make similar points if you were to attempt to compare a 7D or D300s system to FF systems
Click to expand...
I think it is all the same point, for APS-C systems to be attractive, they have to be more enticing than a FF camera with a single lens. At least with the 7D and D300, the people that buy those might be thinking FF at some point, but this will do for now. When the lenses weren't as expensive or more expensive than the FF lenses from the other manufacturers, that clearly was an advantage to Pentax. Now the expensive APS-C only lenses seem a liability.
Click to expand...
For many people (about 95% by your estimate in the next paragraph) APS-C or smaller is more enticing anyway.
Click to expand...
Being on a forum, I probably should have written: "I think it is all the same point, for APS-C systems to be attractive to the group of people that buy premium products , they have to be more enticing than a FF camera with a single lens".
Click to expand...
... some of the group ...

Plenty of people consider top APS-C as premium products.
Russell Evans said:
I think there are a lot more of the premium buyers that are willing to sacrifice size for sensor size.
Click to expand...
A higher proportion rather than a lot more. Yes, there are some aspects of photography where FF beats APS-C beats 4/3 etc. And most of those things are the same despite the general increase in quality for all sizes: tighter DOF stays the same; lower enlargement factor etc.
Russell Evans said:
Russell Evans said:
The word "smaller" is, of course, very significant. For many people it's the size as much as the cost that puts them off FF. I've been buying cameras for over 40 years and small size has always been one of my key requirements.
Click to expand...
Do you own a m4/3 setup with the fast primes available with that system or are you shooting with a Pentax system with the pancake primes? I would assume the latter as this is a Pentax forum, so I assume smaller size does have its limits, even for you. Do you own the Q?
Click to expand...
Perhaps I should have put "one of" in bold to make it easier for you to see it isn't the only thing.

When the Q first came out I wrote a long post (which you can search for if you're interested) saying why I might well buy a Q. To do so I'd need to sell my K-7, which I haven't done yet. One important factor is that the tiny Q is a different breed of camera; DSLRs of any format are all members of the same breed.
Russell Evans said:
Russell Evans said:
Yes, some owners of other makes might be thinking about future FF. But why do you think 7D or D7000 will do them "for now"? If the price comparisons within systems are in line with what you've listed then a D700 with one lens must be more attractive than a D7000 with several lenses - and yet the majority don't make that choice.
Click to expand...
I think we have just reached the point where the difference between the APS-C sensor bodies and the 135 format bodies isn't a giant leap. There is a relative scale at work where in the last year lens prices have climbed to point that a $1000 gap between the camera pricing has comparatively narrowed.
Click to expand...
As I said above, the gap remains essentially unchanged.
Russell Evans said:
I haven't really been paying attention, but with the D800 being announced at introduction for $3000, maybe the older cameras dropped accordingly and it is only in the last few weeks this has become the new norm?

It not like the people that do choose the D700 with a 50mm have to stay there. It has just become a more attractive starting point for a premium buyer and I think a mark that high end APS-C systems have to compete against for that premium buyer. Wasn't a FF camera with a 50mm the standard starting point for a few decades at one point?
Click to expand...
Certainly FF + 50mm was the de facto standard; but in those days the cameras were much smaller and lighter and no one offered a smaller alternative. It's not that long ago that a horse was the de facto standard for transport but that doesn't really affect the SUV v sallon car debate.

--
---

Gerry


First camera 1953, first Pentax 1985, first DSLR 2006
http://www.pbase.com/gerrywinterbourne
 
awaldram said:
I've really enjoyed reading why I shoot aps-c
unfortunatly its wrong

like a lot of people shooting aps-c its because i cant afford long fast glass
to shoot at the speed I need on the light level available

So lets compare a 450mm f4 ff single lens setup to a k5 300 f4 setup
.
Click to expand...
That's a perfectly fine reason to shoot aps-c, and smart. You're using of one of the format's inherent advantages wisely.

.
--
Here are a few of my favorite things...
---> http://www.flickr.com/photos/95095968@N00/sets/72157626171532197/
 
Russell Evans said:
If Pentax had a larger market share, had a 135 format DSLR, had a lens system for that 135 format camera, had a camera with an AF system that would allow people to take photos of their active kids, had third party support for the flash system, had a tilt swivel flash that was designed in this century, had a more viable mirrorless camera, had a better distribution system, had lenses that didn't require debate about whether there had a high failure rate or not, and had a better support system, I would agree.
Click to expand...
Sure, you can cherry pick the list of features that happen to interest you, and make it seem like Pentax has nothing to offer. I, on the other hand, would claim SR on its own trumps every single item on your list. Add much smaller size and much lighter weight, add the Green button and how it makes M mode so much more usable, add better support for older lenses - any of these are 100 times more important to me than counting how many third party flash units are available or whatever.

--
Marc Sabatella
http://www.marcsabatella.com/
Blog: http://marcsabatella.blogspot.com/
Flickr: http://www.flickr.com/photos/marcsabatella/
 
Russell Evans said:
peppermonkey said:
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.
Click to expand...
OK, sorry, I only have Pentax gear, so don't know the system. I can't think of another system that can compete with Pentax there then.

Thank you
Russell
Click to expand...
Not a problem. Can't really expect people to be experts on all systems, that would be just insane (or someone who just doesn't get out to take photos enough ;)).

I don't think m43 in general competes with Pentax...or any other DSLR's considering it's more for those who want extreme portability or those upgrading from p&s. I know Pentax cameras are small but they are still perceived to compete with the big boys.

In either case, m43 would be more interesting when Panasonic finally brings out those bright zooms that a lot of people have been whining for.

--
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/
 
moving_comfort said:
awaldram said:
I've really enjoyed reading why I shoot aps-c
unfortunatly its wrong

like a lot of people shooting aps-c its because i cant afford long fast glass
to shoot at the speed I need on the light level available

So lets compare a 450mm f4 ff single lens setup to a k5 300 f4 setup
.
Click to expand...
That's a perfectly fine reason to shoot aps-c, and smart. You're using of one of the format's inherent advantages wisely.
Click to expand...
D800 $2999, 24-70mm f2.8 $1,886.95, 70-200mm f2.8 VR II $2,396.95, 200-400mm 2x 18mp crops free, total $7,282.9.

K-5 $1099, 16-50mm f2.8 $1,499.95, 50-135mm f2.8 $1,599.95, 200mm f2.8 $1,199.95, 300mm f4 $1,399.95, total $6,798.80

I think if you want f2.8, the D800 seems to be the better choice. It's a smaller kit compared to the four lens setup on the K-5 to get to 450mm equivalency.

K-5 $1099, 16-50mm f2.8 $1,499.95, 50-135mm f2.8 $1,599.95, 300mm f4 $1,399.95, total $5,598.85.

If you can live with the larger kit and the gap between 135mm and 300mm, then the K-5 system is probably going to be the one people go with.

K-5 $1099, 16-50mm f2.8 $1,499.95, 60-250mm f4 $1,999.95, total $4,598.90.

I think people would go with this setup if they wanted smaller and wanted to avoid the gap between 135mm and 300mm. I think they would pick it over the D800 with the f2.8 lenses above. If you are willing to go to f4 on the Pentax, then maybe you are willing to go with the lenses I posted for the d700?

D800 $2999, Nikkor 24-85mm f/2.8-4.0D $669.95, Nikkor 80-200mm f/2.8D $1,109.00, Total $4,777.95.

The K-5 kit wins on size, but I think the only $179.05 difference in systems plays towards the D800. What do you think?

Thank you
Russell
 
Marc Sabatella said:
Russell Evans wrote:

Sure, you can cherry pick the list of features that happen to interest you, and make it seem like Pentax has nothing to offer. I, on the other hand, would claim SR on its own trumps every single item on your list.
Click to expand...
We haven't looked at the Sony solutions yet. I've been avoiding it as I have a desire not to know. When I bought my first DSLR, the choice was between the K10D and A100, Sony or Pentax. I really want to go on believing it was the right choice for me to go with the K10D.

Thank you
Russell
 
Russell Evans said:
moving_comfort said:
awaldram said:
I've really enjoyed reading why I shoot aps-c
unfortunatly its wrong

like a lot of people shooting aps-c its because i cant afford long fast glass
to shoot at the speed I need on the light level available

So lets compare a 450mm f4 ff single lens setup to a k5 300 f4 setup
.
Click to expand...
That's a perfectly fine reason to shoot aps-c, and smart. You're using of one of the format's inherent advantages wisely.
Click to expand...
D800 $2999, 24-70mm f2.8 $1,886.95, 70-200mm f2.8 VR II $2,396.95, 200-400mm 2x 18mp crops free, total $7,282.9.
Click to expand...
Think again about that crop. You either won't get to 2x, or you'll only have 9MP. But then, you could also crop the K-5 to the same effect.
Russell Evans said:
K-5 $1099, 16-50mm f2.8 $1,499.95, 50-135mm f2.8 $1,599.95, 200mm f2.8 $1,199.95, 300mm f4 $1,399.95, total $6,798.80
Click to expand...
The K-5 has one "extra" lens, the 300mm, added just to increase the price.

Alex
 
Here is what my choice would look like

Olympus
Olympus OM-D E-M5 $999.99
Olympus M. Zuiko Digital ED 12mm f/2.0 $799.99
Panasonic Leica DG Summilux 25mm f/1.4 $539.00
Olympus M. Zuiko Digital ED 45mm f/1.8 $399.99
Panasonic Lumix G 7-14mm f/4.0 $888.98
Panasonic 100-300mm f/4.0-5.6 $499.00
Total $5,126.95

And, I could do without the zooms, which brings the total to $2,837.95

However I'm going with ;
Olympus OM-D E-M5 $1000
Panasonic 14mm f/2.5 $170 - eBay (the much better Oly 12/2 is $800)
Panasonic 20mm f/1.7 $330
Olympus 45mm f/1.8 $400
Total $1,900 ($2,520 with the Oly 12/2)

Similar Pentax setup would be...
Pentax K-5 Digital SLR Camera $1,000
Pentax DA 15mm f/4 $650 (same price as the 21)
Pentax DA 35mm f/2.4 $220
Pentax DA 70mm f/2.4 $700
Total $2,570

Again, for under $2K I can have a very small and capable system. (And, I already have the 20 & 45. The sale of ONE of my lenses A*200/4 basically would pay for this kit ;-) )

And, looking at the lenses, the Oly 12, Oly 45, Panny 25, and Panny 7-14 are as good as any lens Pentax has in it's respective lineup... AND, they are smaller to boot.
Russell Evans said:
Small Prime System trying for 24mm, 35mm, 50mm, 85mm equivalency with 180° fisheye, with 14/5-100/105mm zoom coverage

Pentax
Pentax K-5 Digital SLR Camera $1,099.00
Pentax DA 10-17mm f/3.5-4.5 $649.95
Pentax DA 15mm f/4 $649.95
Pentax DA 21mm f/3.2 $649.95
Pentax FA 35mm f/2 $475.00
Pentax DA 55mm f/1.4 $799.95
Sigma 10-20mm f/4-5.6
Pentax DA 17-70mm f/4
Total $5,402.75

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
Panasonic Lumix G 7-14mm f/4.0 $888.98
Panasonic 14-50mm f/2.8-3.5 $844.95
Total $5401.89

Fast zoom systems with 24-200mm equivalent zooms

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 24-85mm f/2.8-4.0D IF $669.95
Nikkor 80-200mm f/2.8D $1,109.00
Total $3,877.95

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...
--
.Sam.
Panasonic GF1+20+45 & Pentax K20D - ist* DS - ZX-5 - LX
Photos: http://www.flickr.com/shadzee/
Pentax Resources: http://pentaxsearch.com/
 
Alex Sarbu said:
Russell Evans said:
moving_comfort said:
awaldram said:
I've really enjoyed reading why I shoot aps-c
unfortunatly its wrong

like a lot of people shooting aps-c its because i cant afford long fast glass
to shoot at the speed I need on the light level available

So lets compare a 450mm f4 ff single lens setup to a k5 300 f4 setup
.
Click to expand...
That's a perfectly fine reason to shoot aps-c, and smart. You're using of one of the format's inherent advantages wisely.
Click to expand...
D800 $2999, 24-70mm f2.8 $1,886.95, 70-200mm f2.8 VR II $2,396.95, 200-400mm 2x 18mp crops free, total $7,282.9.
Click to expand...
Think again about that crop. You either won't get to 2x, or you'll only have 9MP. But then, you could also crop the K-5 to the same effect.
Click to expand...
The D800 has a 36Mp sensor, so a 2x crop is an 18Mp photo. A 2.4x crop that would get you to 450mm equivalency with the D800 at 200mm would leave you with 15.7Mp compared to the 16Mp of the K-5, so I think any cropping done on the K-5 photo could be equally done on the D800 photo.

Thank you
Russell
 
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