Is K5 better than Nikon D7000?
Are we Pentaxians better photographers than Nikonians? (or Canonians or Leicanians or Sony users or .....)
And THIS is the crux of this "big issue" about FF vs. APS-C, etc. Some claim that as FF cameras "move into the mainstream," APS-C will be relegated to amateur/mid-range status and no longer even considered for pro-sumer or pro use. But you can put a the most expensive FF camera with the highest-quality lens in the world in the hands of someone who doesn't know how to properly frame, compose, expose, what depth of field to go for, what's the best shutter speed to use, etc., and it won't make a bit of difference -- the photo will still look like it was taken by an amateur.
Conversely, you can put a decent, high-end P&S in the hands of someone who knows what they're doing and end up with a photo that may be good enough to publish in a major magazine. It's all relative.
To the pros who shoot Nikon (and A LOT of the biggest pros do), there IS NO CANON, even, much less Pentax, Sony, etc. For THEM, it's NIKON or NOTHING. I've read SEVERAL great photo books written by some of these folks (great because they give fantastic photo tips -- Scott Kelby; Joe McNally). But as far as camera gear goes, they simply won't even DISCUSS anything in their books but Nikon.
Does that mean Nikon is "the best." Clearly it does for them. Probably, for someone for whom money is NEVER an object it is. For as long as I can remember, I've heard Pentax called "the poor man's Nikon." Does it mean you can't get as good photos with a K-5 as you can with a D7000? NO. D4? Maybe not. But then you can buy 5 K-5s at current prices with $$$ left over for what ONE D4 will cost you.
May the Blessings Be.
I'm don't think the reason Pros don't discuss brands is because the other brands are a one entity to them.
All the pros I know don't bother with brands because they are fully aware that if hte camera can do the job they can make and income from it.
It males no odds who makes it, Once hte investment in brand X is made any other brand is non existent as the investment to change is to great.
I fond the biggest questioners of is brands X better than Brand are the body+kit owners who hop from brands to brand seeking some nirvana in the tool which will never happen.
Weve all been there in the 80s I went Practika, Nikon then Cannon before I realized the weak link wasn't the cameras but closer to home.
And to produce images like this
(Circa 2003 not Pentax 3mp)
Was about knowledge and timing not the tool in use
My Photo Stream
Beware that the OP is a known Nikon troll who likes to stir up trouble. He recently declared that he was retiring 'snapper1967' after he accumulated a few complaints, but if he re-appears, consider not responding.
Here are a few of my favorite things...
If the photographer has what it takes to take great pictures, he will be better served with a better gear. Somebody who does a shoddy job in terms of composition/light understanding/feeling/technique can only benefit from a better gear only tangentially and you are right, the gear won't compensate for those deficiencies but probably it will help technically to obtain better quality of something that is not nice...(assuming the person learn how to correctly operate the more expensive gear)
But I never criticize a person for wanting a better gear. If the person has the money I just say good, go for it. As long as every body is happy that's all what matters.
Only problem I have is people discussing and comparing ad-nauseum two cameras that are almost the same in terms of specifications and performance, because the brand is different. Can these people be called "fan boys"? That's why I believe the brand doesn't matter that much for almost generic products and it is a question only of personal preferences: how much you invested in lenses, how much you like the brand, how much you like the support from other manufacturers, so on. But it falls in the realm of personal preferences, which i believe we should just respect.
Before the Pentax k-5 I had Nikon D50/D70/D80. Replaced each one of them with the newer model until I was not very satisfied with the D80 results, specially the image quality and dynamic range. Then, I tried the K-5 and liked it. Based on my real experience, I do believe that the K5 is a more advance model than each of the 3 nikons I owned before. They are in completely different categories. I am extremely happy with the k-5 but also my nephew has a D7000 and it also produces very good images. That's why I believe that k-5 and d7000 are almost in the same level. The d7000 has more focusing points, focusing is a littler faster and the flash system is almost perfect. Pentax has a better JPEg engine, its biggest advantage is the in-body SR feature and has some other cool features, that are mostly add-ons, but essentially K-5 and D7000 are almost at the same level, as the sensor is the same and they have almost same implementation.
But after seeing the results of somebody who is using FF, I want a FF for three reasons: image quality, dynamic range and low iso performance. The k-5 is close to a FF but t's not at the same level. Then, I believe is time for Pentax to provide us with a FF camera. People who love APS-C sensors can keep the K5, K30 and even the K-01 does an excellent work at this level. But if you ever try a FF camera you will see why the people who are serious about photography and have the money to waste prefer them. It's a matter of personal preferences and economic capacity. I think there is absolutely nothing wrong with it. Also my evolution as a photographer has taken me from P/S to mid range DSLR and eventually I hope to end in FF or medium format. But for sure I won't consider a P/S for serious work, even that eventually I can get a good shot with one of them.
I don't know about you, but If I would be racing formula-1 I wouldn't show up at Interlagos with a 1980 Pontiac Fiero to compete against a 2012 McLaren-Mercedes F1. Both have 4 wheels, a seat, a steering wheel, brakes, injection systems but I am sure that the McLaren-Mercedes is the right one for the job at hand....
But if you give to me the exactly same machine as Michael Schumaher gets and I compete against him, the race won't be in my favour, but at least I won't blame the gear, only my lack of skills. But what about if I get the right gear and have the chance to keep competing against Schumaher? eventually I will get better at it.
I prefer to believe that certain models with significantly more advanced specifications are better for the job. That's why one is more expensive than the other one. But what I don't share is people almost fighting to demonstrate that a Toyota Corolla is much better than a Honda Civic and then it comes Hyundai with an Elantra and Chevrolet with a Cruze.... But if you ask me, with enough money, I would take a Mercedes Benz E-450 any time over a Toyota Corolla or any other sub-compact, even if I am a lousy driver...
|A house for sneakers by fotoselect|
from Feet, shoes, anything to do with HUMAN feet
|A Sunday Stroll by TexasGal|
from call any vegetable
|Green roots by cand1d|
from Lichen and moss
|Start of study by Shirsendu Bandyopadhyay|
from Seven Story plots - Rebirth