Pentax K10D or Nikon D80?

[SolracSelbor]

Hi,

I was wondering which camera most of you would recommend. Ive seen many pictures taken with the PentaxK10D and a lot of the pictures are very dull and its metering system is not the greatest. However, I have heard the NIKON D80 has very nice color tones and overall better quality pictures without having to tweak the settings.

Also, I found the Nikon D80 for $400 at bestpricecameras.com and the Pentax K10D for $500 at the same site, which of the two would you get under these circumstances?

EDIT: 12-12-07 at 8:33pm PST

I read some reviews that the Pentax colors were more dull than the Nikon D80 out of the box. Check them out here:

Pentax k10d: http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/Pe...0D/page5.shtml

Nikon D80: http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/NikonD80/page5.shtml

Compare the two sets, and read the entire reviews if you have time. He also has a video review here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=914GtE0FcLE

I dunno what settings to change in the Pentax in order to get the same look and color as the nikon D80.

[Lovesong]

Do NOT buy at places like bestpricecamera. These people are scam artists, and will pull what is known as the bait and switch. If you're uncertain about a site to get a camera from, ask here, or go to resellerratings.com (http://www.resellerratings.com/rlist-s1-n2.html) . These guys have a 0.14 rating (out of 10). If you're curious what happens with such places check out this article (http://thomashawk.com/2005/11/priceritephoto-abusive-bait-and-switch.html). Or this (http://www.pcworld.com/article/id,107855-page,1/article.html).

About the only places that you get good deals and are good people, are B&H, Adorama, Amazon (directly from them), Calumet, and Cameta. Some will argue for 17th Street or Beach Camera, but I haven't heard anything about them myself, and have had no experience with either.

Now about your question- were one to shoot raw files, you would not detect much difference between the cameras. The perceived differences are all in the way Pentax and Nikon process their images. Both use CCD chips that are made by Sony, and there is little difference in the overall image quality, given that you use equivalent lenses.

The difference when you're selecting dSLRs is in the entire system- the lenses that a manufacturer offers, the lighting, accessories for the camera and lenses. There are also differences in the ergonomics and handling of the camera bodies, but these are trivial, and a matter of personal preferences. Think of it this way- when you get a dSLR, you're investing in a lens system- think about the lenses you'll want to have 10 years down the line, and figure out which of these manufacturers will suffice. Canon and Nikon are the largest, as in there are more lenses out there for them. In the low end spectrum there is also Sony, Olympus, Panasonic, and even lowly Samsung. They each bring something to the table. You might want to read up on the differences in the systems- like the 4/3 vs 3/2 before deciding on a camera ( dpreview.com).

[jpfisher]

Also, it's important to consider that the lens attached to the camera will have a lot to do with the images it produces. I'm not 100% sure, but I believe the D80 and K10D use the same image sensor, so any differences in a RAW image coming off the cameras is going to be dependent on the lens, and the antialiasing filter over the sensor.

I have a photostream of some of my better K10D images up at 2bq.livejournal.com -- take a look for yourself. Pbase.com is also a great resource, because you can browse through many different images, based on lens, camera, whatever.

Pay more attention to what lenses you see yourself using, rather than the body. Bodies come and go very quickly these days -- Pentax should be refreshing its line next month. The standard 18-55mm kit lens from both Pentax and Nikon perform on par (I had one with my old *ist DL, and I've used my father's D50 with the kit lens on occasion).

What are you planning on using the camera for? Family snapshots? Landscapes? Sports? Wildlife? That goes a long way into figuring out what lens would suit your best, and that will solve your body question. :)

Jim

[Buschmaster]

I don't have the K10D, I have the K110D, but I'm confused as to why you think the Nikon has better color. My friend is switching from Nikon to Pentax simply for color. As for you, I would shoot mostly in raw if you're getting a camera that great, and in RAW the Pentax K10D and Nikon D80 basically produce the same images.

My friend faced the same question, the only difference is, at the time he faced it the Pentax K10D cost $1000

I guess what I'm saying is, I'd recommend the Pentax. For a lot of reasons.

Are you aware that the current Pentax bodies can shoot any lens ever made for a Pentax SLR? That's a nifty feature when you want to pick up a really awesome old school lens for really cheap. ;)

[SLC Flyfishing]

I was in the same boat as you when I made the choice. I read a lot of reviews, handled them both, and in the end went with the Pentax even though I had 2 Nikon lenses. I just like the feel of the Pentax better, I think it produces more natural colors (the joke in the Pentax world is that the big two have created the world of plastic skin and over-saturated colors.) I shoot a lot of portraits so the Pentax FA limited lenses were a big draw, as well as the K10D's reputation for producing the most accurate skin tones.

If you like the feel and layout of the D80 better then it's the camera for you, but if the K10D feels better that's the camera. They both have a full featured system, and they both can be tweaked to get the same image quality. With the Nikon, you dial down the color saturation, with the K10D you boost the saturation, do that and you have essentially the same image.

The K10D is weather sealed and has in body shake reduction, to me that's a big deal as well. It may not be to you, only you can decide. I'm admittedly a big Pentax fan, but I don't think you are going to match this camera with a Nikon D80 feature wise, maybe a D200 would be a better comparison; most photo-review sites seem to think so!

SLC

[seahawk09]

I would have to agree with SLC on that.:D












I was in the same boat as you when I made the choice. I read a lot of reviews, handled them both, and in the end went with the Pentax even though I had 2 Nikon lenses. I just like the feel of the Pentax better, I think it produces more natural colors (the joke in the Pentax world is that the big two have created the world of plastic skin and over-saturated colors.) I shoot a lot of portraits so the Pentax FA limited lenses were a big draw, as well as the K10D's reputation for producing the most accurate skin tones.

If you like the feel and layout of the D80 better then it's the camera for you, but if the K10D feels better that's the camera. They both have a full featured system, and they both can be tweaked to get the same image quality. With the Nikon, you dial down the color saturation, with the K10D you boost the saturation, do that and you have essentially the same image.

The K10D is weather sealed and has in body shake reduction, to me that's a big deal as well. It may not be to you, only you can decide. I'm admittedly a big Pentax fan, but I don't think you are going to match this camera with a Nikon D80 feature wise, maybe a D200 would be a better comparison; most photo-review sites seem to think so!

SLC

[termina3]

Are you aware that the current Pentax bodies can shoot any lens ever made for a Pentax SLR? That's a nifty feature when you want to pick up a really awesome old school lens for really cheap. ;)

…just as the D80 can use any F-mount lens, which is what Nikon has been making since what… the 50s?

in body shake reduction

…and Nikon offers lenses with "shake reduction" (Nikon calls it VR: Vibration Reduction). There are pros and cons of each; from what I've gathered, in-camera is much cheaper but often less effective. Of course, this knowledge is 2nd-, 3rd-, or more-hand.

[Westside guy]

Hi SolracSelbor,

Here's what usually happens when people ask questions such as yours. The fans of camera Brand "X" (Pentax, in this case) weigh in telling you why their camera is the best thing since sliced bread. Then the fans of camera Brand "Y" (Nikon, in this case) will come in and start telling you why THEIR brand cures cancer. After a while longer, the brand "Z" folks (which'll be Canon in this case) will come in and talk about how Brand X and Brand Y actually cause cancer, while their brand cures it.

There are very few people that end up regretting whichever brand they decide on. All of these cameras take great pictures - your photos will not be any better or any worse because you chose one over the other.

So how do you decide? Well, if you've got friends that own one particular brand, that's often a great way to go - you can coordinate over time and buy new lenses, which will give you access to more of them than if you're totally on your own. Another thing to look at is, are there particular types of photos you've found yourself taking most of the time with whatever you've got now? If so, does one brand or another seem to have better lenses for that type of photography?

But if you're like most people, you likely just want to get good photos, and you may only want to own one lens, ever. If this is the case, any brand will work fine (*cough* Nikon *cough*). Consider going to a real camera store and handling the cameras - which one feels right for your hands? Which viewfinder seems to do a better job?

Just remember that, no matter what you choose, you will almost certainly be very happy with it.

[termina3]

(*cough* Nikon *cough*)

Don't be so subtle; there are LIVES at stake!

Nikon cures prostate cancer; everyone (I mean, girls don't count, they have cooties) gets it eventually, unless, of course, you use Nikon.

[SolracSelbor]

I read some reviews that the Pentax had more dull colors than the Nikon D80 out of the box. Check them out here:

Pentax k10d: http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/PentaxK10D/page5.shtml

Nikon D80: http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/NikonD80/page5.shtml

Compare the two sets, and read the entire reviews if you have time. He also has a video review here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=914GtE0FcLE

I dunno what settings to change in the Pentax in order to get the same look and color as the nikon D80.

[jpfisher]

…just as the D80 can use any F-mount lens, which is what Nikon has been making since what… the 50s?

Actually, according to the chart on Nikonians (http://www.nikonians.org/nikon/slr-lens.html), the D80 is not compatible with Pre-AI lenses.... so it's compatible every Nikon manual focus lens since 1977, and every non-F3AF autofocus lens... still not a bad library to choose from.

Most modern users are going to want zooms anyway, and zoom lenses from back in the day aren't nearly as good as they are now, speaking in generalities. Backwards lens compatibility is really a boon for those who do have a library of old glass (and, for the record, that's what pushed me to the Pentax digital system). If you get really into shooting as a hobby, you can get some deals on older glass if you look, but if you're just looking for 'better than a point and shoot,' then chances are you'll never get past the kit lens, and a companion tele-zoom.

[Lovesong]

Here's what usually happens when people ask questions such as yours. The fans of camera Brand "X" (Pentax, in this case) weigh in telling you why their camera is the best thing since sliced bread. Then the fans of camera Brand "Y" (Nikon, in this case) will come in and start telling you why THEIR brand cures cancer. After a while longer, the brand "Z" folks (which'll be Canon in this case) will come in and talk about how Brand X and Brand Y actually cause cancer, while their brand cures it.


Actually, I think that Nikon and Pentax are responsible for world hunger, global warming, ozone holes, and starting World War II. Canon is your only friend, trust Canon!.... oh, wait :o

[jdsony]

Well one reason to go with Pentax is that in general most of the lenses are cheaper. I have a Nikon D80 and it's a great camera. It's feel great in your hand. For me ergonomics is the most important thing. Either camera will get you good or bad pictures it really depends on the photographer. Nikon typically has warmer (more yellow) saturated colours. This is really personal preference. I'm not really into warm saturated colours anymore so I change it on my RAW files. You really need to look at both carefully and then plan what lenses 'might' interest you in the future. I was looking at Canon and Nikon when I chose and I found the Nikon's built a lot better, handled better, and had some great lenses I could easily pick up used. This may be more of an issue with Pentax because you'll find less used stock out there.

[termina3]

starting World War II.

Canon is Japsanese (sic), right? So they're all at fault… except… uh, Kodak?

[ChrisA]

You are makig a bit of a mitake. You are looking at images an assumming the camera body has anything to do with the quality of the image. It's the lens that makes the image. The sensor in the body can only capture the image the lens makes

So many beginners spend much time looking at the DSRL camera body, then when they buy it they just get whatever lens hapens to be bundled with it or maybe they pick the cheapest lens they can find. That's backwards. If you care abut the quality of the final image then the lens is the most important part of the system and you should be shopping for a company that makes lenses you like. One you find that then pick a body that fits your budget. I think that only Nikon and canon make a full line of lenses that covers not only the full range of lengths but have them ppriced for consummers and profesionals. Ppentax's range is more limited. That said you are not going to buy 20 lenses. Likely only a few so if Pentax makes the four you want, go with Pentax if Nikon makes the set of lenses you'd like to buy then get the Nikon body. You will replace the body in a few years no matter with but you keep the lenses..

[ChrisA]

Here's what usually happens when people ask questions such as yours. The fans of camera Brand "X" (Pentax, in this case) weigh in telling you why their camera is the best thing since sliced bread. Then the fans of camera Brand "Y" (Nikon, in this case) will come in and start telling you why THEIR brand cures cancer. After a while longer, the brand "Z" folks (which'll be Canon in this case) will come in and talk about how Brand X and Brand Y actually cause cancer, while their brand cures it.

What this tells you is either of two things...

1) Everyone is happy no matter which brand they buy. They are ALL good. So just flip a coin and buy anything and you too will be happy with anything you buy,

2) After investing quite a bit on money and time and making a decision that is hard to back out of people will always rationalize that they did the best thing, even if they didn't.

I actually think it's a little of both.

[SLC Flyfishing]

As far as settings in the Pentax to get the over saturated colors and oversharpened jpegs, you just go into the main settings menu. Once there, there are 3 sliders to adjust, one for sharpness, one for saturation, and one for contrast. (there are others but theses are the main three that are responsible for the default difference of the "look" of the images the camera makes.

It's mainly like Chris A said, the lens is going to be the most important part of the equation (other than you of course), all manufacturers have some amazing lenses and some real stinkers. You've already had a list of legendary Pentax lenses made in another of your threads, perhaps someone else can make a similar list of highly coveted Nikon lenses for you.

But as long as you aren't terribly succeptible to buyers remorse, you are going to be very happy with which ever you chose. They're both nearly identical performance wise, and you can't go wrong with either one (or both :D).

SLC

[SolracSelbor]

As far as settings in the Pentax to get the over saturated colors and oversharpened jpegs, you just go into the main settings menu. Once there, there are 3 sliders to adjust, one for sharpness, one for saturation, and one for contrast. (there are others but theses are the main three that are responsible for the default difference of the "look" of the images the camera makes.

It's mainly like Chris A said, the lens is going to be the most important part of the equation (other than you of course), all manufacturers have some amazing lenses and some real stinkers. You've already had a list of legendary Pentax lenses made in another of your threads, perhaps someone else can make a similar list of highly coveted Nikon lenses for you.

But as long as you aren't terribly succeptible to buyers remorse, you are going to be very happy with which ever you chose. They're both nearly identical performance wise, and you can't go wrong with either one (or both :D).

SLC


Thanks a lot! And yes, I am very susceptible to buyers remorse :(

[SLC Flyfishing]

Well then you're always going to wish you'd bought the other one aren't you? Just pick one, and try and be happy with it, they're both equally fine cameras.

SLC

[theblueone]

Thanks a lot! And yes, I am very susceptible to buyers remorse :(

Maybe you should save your money for a while until you can afford to buy not only a body and kit lens, but the body and four or five very nice lenses. That way you'll be so invested in one brand you couldn't help but like it ;):D

[Mr. G4]

…and Nikon offers lenses with "shake reduction" (Nikon calls it VR: Vibration Reduction). There are pros and cons of each; from what I've gathered, in-camera is much cheaper but often less effective. Of course, this knowledge is 2nd-, 3rd-, or more-hand.

But unlike the IS on the body, you have to pay more for the lens in order to get IS and that for each and every single lens you buy and not every lens has IS...while the IS in body just put any lens on the body and you have IS.

[Grimace]

For now, IS (or VR) is much better in the lens than in the body. Who knows about the future.

Even without the stabilization, I would take Nikon's lens lineup any day over the Pentax offerings.

[SLC Flyfishing]

For now, IS (or VR) is much better in the lens than in the body. Who knows about the future.

Even without the stabilization, I would take Nikon's lens lineup any day over the Pentax offerings.

It's not much better, I get 3 stops of latitude with the K10D; Nikon claims they can get me 4 stops (but at $100+ extra per lens). I think it has more to do with your natural unsteadiness than anything else.

Care to elaborate on why you would pick Nikon over Pentax anyday? I've used both extensively and don't see a noticeable difference aside from the price, and the fashion accessory aspect of owning a Nikon compared to a Pentax. I'm not trying to be a pain, just curious to see what your reasons are.


SLC

[Macintosh Sauce]

Pay more attention to what lenses you see yourself using, rather than the body. Bodies come and go very quickly these days -- Pentax should be refreshing its line next month.

The thing the Pentax K10D has going for it is the fact that the anti-shaking feature is actually built into the camera body not the lens. This makes a Pentax lens cheaper than other competing brands. On the other hand, the Nikon D80 has the anti-shaking feature built into the lenses which makes for a more expensive lens purchase. There is a lot of debate about this, but I believe that having the feature built into the camera body is much better.

Note that the Pentax K10D is the only digital SLR to have full dust/weather protection for the body and the lenses they currently sell.

To those currently considering buying a digital SLR, I would suggest waiting for the forthcoming Pentax K20D - it will feature 14 Megapixel capability. I am in the market for a digital SLR and I have done a lot of reading on the D80 and the K10D. The Pentax wins out in many reviews IMO. Since Pentax is going to be updating their cameras very soon, I am going to wait for the K20D because it will be a camera to have for a long time.

Since I will be getting the Pentax K20D when it comes out, can anyone tell me which software is better: Aperture or Lightroom?

[termina3]

I believe that having the feature built into the camera body is much better.

"better" being cheaper. The in-lens stabilization systems in Canon and Nikon are widely accepted as better in terms of performance.

Note that the Pentax K10D is the only digital SLR to have full dust/weather protection for the body and the lenses they currently sell.

BS! Many, many Canons and Nikons are dust- and water-resistant.

The Pentax wins out in many reviews IMO.

How does that have anything to do with your opinion–shouldn't it be the reviewers?

Aperture or Lightroom?
Aperture.

[milozauckerman]

One thing I like about in-body stabilization - it works with my preferred prime lenses.

Canon and Nikon are never going to produce a prime lens with IS - hell, sooner or later they may not be making them at all (Nikon already trending that way - when was the last time they developed or re-worked a prime design?).

So if I get three stops of IS with an f/2.8 zoom, I'm at the equivalent of f/1. If I get two stops with an f/2 prime (which costs ~$300 vs. $1100+ for the zoom), I'm at the same place. If in-body IS advances at the rate lens IS has, three or four stops, my f/2 prime suddenly gets me well beyond anything I could have handheld in the days of yore.

[Westside guy]

One thing I like about in-body stabilization - it works with my preferred prime lenses.

Canon and Nikon are never going to produce a prime lens with IS - hell, sooner or later they may not be making them at all (Nikon already trending that way - when was the last time they developed or re-worked a prime design?).

So if I get three stops of IS with an f/2.8 zoom, I'm at the equivalent of f/1. If I get two stops with an f/2 prime (which costs ~$300 vs. $1100+ for the zoom), I'm at the same place. If in-body IS advances at the rate lens IS has, three or four stops, my f/2 prime suddenly gets me well beyond anything I could have handheld in the days of yore.

I agree that there are situations where IS/VR would be nice in a prime lens - but there is a problem with your logic. IS/VR gains you a few stops... if you're shooting totally static subjects. But for more typical low light situations, where some part (or all) of the subject is moving, you're not really gaining anything at all with stabilization (other than countering your own camera movement).

[Lovesong]

Canon and Nikon are never going to produce a prime lens with IS - hell, sooner or later they may not be making them at all.


Uh... what? Seriously?
300 f/4 (http://www.usa.canon.com/consumer/controller?act=ModelInfoAct&fcategoryid=153&modelid=7316)
300 f/2.8 (http://www.usa.canon.com/consumer/controller?act=ModelInfoAct&fcategoryid=154&modelid=7317)
400 f/2.8 (http://www.usa.canon.com/consumer/controller?act=ModelInfoAct&fcategoryid=154&modelid=7319)
500 f/4 (http://www.usa.canon.com/consumer/controller?act=ModelInfoAct&fcategoryid=154&modelid=7318)
600 f/4 (http://www.usa.canon.com/consumer/controller?act=ModelInfoAct&fcategoryid=154&modelid=7320)

And let's not forget the new 200 and 800 (http://www.usa.canon.com/templatedata/pressrelease/20071015_eflens.html) that are coming out too.

That's just from Canon.

[Grimace]

Yeah, just because Pentax has IS/VR in the body, and it works well, doesn't mean it works better. Quality doesn't just mean showing up.

[SLC Flyfishing]

No body is claiming it gives you more stops of performance than the Nikon or Canon equivalent. Just that most people these days consider it better to have SR available for all their lenses and not just the select few that they can afford a different version of.

Canon and Nikon would likely have SR in the body if they weren't so heavily invested in technology from the film days. In lens stabilization was conceived before digital SLR's even existed, you can't just put a roll of velvia on a shift mechanism like you can with a digital sensor. Nikon and Canon were making stabilized lenses for their 35 mm cameras long before Minolta introduced the first sensor based SR, if Nikon and Canon hadn't been on shaky ground with some people over abandoning a mount or two they probably would have gone with in body SR as well. But that would entail leaving all those people with IS lenses holding equipment that wouldn't work with their DSLR's.

Nikon sells a lot of D40's based on their name and the price of the D40, they sell D40X's for much the same reason (and the fact that everyone out there thinks that more megapixels means better pictures). They even sell a fair amount of D80's based on that reasoning. Canon sells a lot of XT's & XTi's based on name and price too. It's not that these cameras are not of good quality, it's just that most people buying these cameras know very little about photography. They know their wedding photographer had a Canon, or that Uncle Joe made all those beautiful photos at his cabin with a Nikon; and that if they want to do the same, well they better get a Canon or Nikon. Unfortunately, many people both online and elsewhere also perpetuate that myth when in fact, beautiful, professional quality photographs are well within the capabilities of any brand of camera and it's selection of lenses. Urging someone to use a particular brand solely on it's history is unhelpful, telling them "that's what the pros use so that's what you want" is certainly a disservice. Making suggestions about certain aspects of an actual camera's features or performance that will help the person have an easier time making good pictures would be more conducive to that individual actually making an informed and happy decision.

SLC

[jpfisher]

The thing the Pentax K10D has going for it is the fact that the anti-shaking feature is actually built into the camera body not the lens. This makes a Pentax lens cheaper than other competing brands. On the other hand, the Nikon D80 has the anti-shaking feature built into the lenses which makes for a more expensive lens purchase. There is a lot of debate about this, but I believe that having the feature built into the camera body is much better.

You don't have to tell me about the in-body shake reduction. It's nice to pull out the 35-year old 300mm f/4 prime lens, flip a switch and have the shake reduction.

And I won't worry argue about the price of K10D body versus the D80. You get the same quality image sensor, better on-body control options, and the weather sealing.... but depending on which lens you look at, Nikon wins price on one area, and Pentax in another. If you're only going to pick up a few lenses, it does pay to look at the prices of the ones you're looking at -- if you see yourself being more enthusiastic about the hobby, then chances are the differences in price will balance out in the long run.

Note that the Pentax K10D is the only digital SLR to have full dust/weather protection for the body and the lenses they currently sell.

At that price point for the body, yes (but keep in mind that it's being heavily discounted because it's on the way out the door). But I'm pretty sure that Canon/Nikon both have weather-sealed cameras available... and the K10D isn't weather sealed for everything -- there are only two matching weather-sealed lenses available right now, the 16-50mm f/2.8 DA* and the 50-135mm f/2.8 DA*. I have the latter (the only zoom in my bag) and I have to say it's a fantastic performer, but it'll set you back more than the body -- around $800 at B&H.

To those currently considering buying a digital SLR, I would suggest waiting for the forthcoming Pentax K20D - it will feature 14 Megapixel capability. I am in the market for a digital SLR and I have done a lot of reading on the D80 and the K10D. The Pentax wins out in many reviews IMO. Since Pentax is going to be updating their cameras very soon, I am going to wait for the K20D because it will be a camera to have for a long time.

Let's see what the specs actually are before recommending it. Personally, if you're looking to buy now, the K10D is an excellent value -- and it's a body that will keep you happy for quite some time, assuming you don't need the latest and greatest at all times. If you can wait a month or two, and are on a budget, wait for the K20D announcement, and buy a K10D then.

And if you have an unlimited budget, go out and buy a Nikon D3, and a Leica M8 for when you need a pocket camera. ;)

Since I will be getting the Pentax K20D when it comes out, can anyone tell me which software is better: Aperture or Lightroom?

I prefer the LightRoom workflow, but then again, Aperture runs like a dog on a MacBook. Both have demos available, download and give them a trial spin, pick the one you like better.

[compuwar]

It's not much better, I get 3 stops of latitude with the K10D; Nikon claims they can get me 4 stops (but at $100+ extra per lens). I think it has more to do with your natural unsteadiness than anything else.

Care to elaborate on why you would pick Nikon over Pentax anyday? I've used both extensively and don't see a noticeable difference aside from the price, and the fashion accessory aspect of owning a Nikon compared to a Pentax. I'm not trying to be a pain, just curious to see what your reasons are.


SLC

Here's an actual test, rather than rampant speculation of the number of stops thrown about by proponents of each system:

http://www.popphoto.com/cameras/4615/image-stabilization-special-stop-the-shake.html

While you may feel you get three stops- frankly if you're hand-holding that much outside of the norm then IS/VR may not really be all that necessary. The actual test shows 2-2.5 stops on average for the Pentax K10D and 1.5-2 stops for the K100D.

With the lenses, it depends a lot on the lens. The original VR 80-400 sucks, the 18-200 shows up to 4 stops. Remember that each stop is twice as much or half as much light depending on which way you're moving along the scale, so even a half a stop can be a significant amount of light- so better is a lot better, but poor might be good enough.

Results vary by focal length. Looking at Pentax's site, I don't see anything over 200mm (personally that'd be the deal killer for me,) so I'm not sure the lack of in-lens stabilization is a significant detriment to folks who shoot with them.

YMMV

[compuwar]

Canon and Nikon are never going to produce a prime lens with IS - hell, sooner or later they may not be making them at all (Nikon already trending that way - when was the last time they developed or re-worked a prime design?).

The 400/2.8 VR is a re-worked design and it's the most recent Nikon VR prime lens, so I'm not sure where you're getting your info. Besides the new design, it has the new nano-coated elements and the MTF chart is much more impressive than the one for the version I have which is hella sharp, contrasty, and with which I've yet to see CA.

I'm not sure if the 105mm f/2.8 Micro was reformulated or not, but it got VR at its last revision.

So far Nikon has six VR-enabled primes:

AF-S VR Micro-NIKKOR 105mm f/2.8G IF-ED
AF-S VR NIKKOR 200mm f/2G IF-ED
AF-S VR NIKKOR 300mm f/2.8G IF-ED
AF-S NIKKOR 400mm f/2.8G ED VR
AF-S NIKKOR 500mm f/4G ED VR
AF-S NIKKOR 600mmf/4G ED VR

Given the last three are Nikon's most recent lenses (being produced but not yet shipping) what makes you say Nikon is trending that way? Since the only non-VR prime to get AF-S so far is the 300/4 I think it's a little early to call that game.

[techie4life]

I am planning on buying a K10D in the very near future. I know that there is going to be an announcement in January about Pentax's new dSLR's, but the K10D provides what I need right now. Besides, if I can get the K10D for under $700, and I know I can, why spend $1000+ for a camera that will have more features than I need? I was wondering, is this lens: http://www.pentaxslr.com/lenses/lens_18_55 different than the kit lens, or is this lens the kit lens?

[Grimace]

If you are set on Pentax, wait until a few weeks *after* the announcement so that the K10 price a whole lot more.

[milozauckerman]

Eh, I wasn't specific enough - wide-to-normal primes. I've never found myself in need of anything longer than 100mm, so I basically just pretend those lenses don't exist.

. IS/VR gains you a few stops... if you're shooting totally static subjects.
This applies equally to zooms, though - it's a question of the usefulness of stabilization regardless of platform. Subject movement is not necessarily a shot killer - where camera shake (rendering the entire image blurred) quite often is.

[Westside guy]

IS/VR gains you a few stops... if you're shooting totally static subjects.
This applies equally to zooms, though - it's a question of the usefulness of stabilization regardless of platform. Subject movement is not necessarily a shot killer - where camera shake (rendering the entire image blurred) quite often is.

I agree with you. I know we were talking about primes; but my comment was more regarding the general "VR equals 3-4 stops" logic that a lot of people (probably including me!) have tossed around. It's certainly true, but there are caveats - that's all I meant. And, as you say, those same caveats apply equally to zooms with VR.

I would think that adding VR to a prime would add some not-insignificant amount of length to the lens; but that's probably not a big deal. Might make it look more professional. :D When I was recently photographing some students (using my 35mm f/2 lens) for an in-house publication, one of the girls was asking me about the camera. Then she said "a couple of my friends have that camera too - but their lenses are bigger." :rolleyes:

[jpfisher]

I was wondering, is this lens: http://www.pentaxslr.com/lenses/lens_18_55 different than the kit lens, or is this lens the kit lens?

That's the standard, budget, kit lens that Pentax bundles with their cameras --its companion is the DA 50-200mm. If you want a "nicer than kit zoom", Pentax offers a 16-45mm f/4 (around $400), as well as a higher-level 16-50mm f/2.8 (around $800-900; but is weather sealed, and includes an internal focusing motor); the only "step up" for the longer zoom is the 50-135mm f/2.8 ($800-1000 depending on where you look), same features as the 16-50.

Eh, I wasn't specific enough - wide-to-normal primes. I've never found myself in need of anything longer than 100mm, so I basically just pretend those lenses don't exist.

If you are looking for a wide-to-normal prime in the Pentax system, you absolutely cannot go wrong with the FA 31mm Limited. I'll put it up against any lens from Nikon or Canon for image quality.

You can also get top-quality lenses from Zeiss (a 25mm and 28mm) for the Pentax and Nikon systems... manual focus only on those, though.

[SLC Flyfishing]

If you are looking for a wide-to-normal prime in the Pentax system, you absolutely cannot go wrong with the FA 31mm Limited. I'll put it up against any lens from Nikon or Canon for image quality.

You can also get top-quality lenses from Zeiss (a 25mm and 28mm) for the Pentax and Nikon systems... manual focus only on those, though.

Those Zeiss primes are amazing, get a katz eye split focusing screen and you have a lens that is as near perfect as you will find both optically and durability/construction wise. I've got plans for the 25 mm as soon as I can scrape the cash together.

SLC

[Lovesong]

Those Zeiss primes are amazing, get a katz eye split focusing screen and you have a lens that is as near perfect as you will find both optically and durability/construction wise. I've got plans for the 25 mm as soon as I can scrape the cash together.

SLC

My vote goes for the 21mm Distagon :D

[miloblithe]

That's the standard, budget, kit lens that Pentax bundles with their cameras --its companion is the DA 50-200mm. If you want a "nicer than kit zoom", Pentax offers a 16-45mm f/4 (around $400), as well as a higher-level 16-50mm f/2.8 (around $800-900; but is weather sealed, and includes an internal focusing motor); the only "step up" for the longer zoom is the 50-135mm f/2.8 ($800-1000 depending on where you look), same features as the 16-50.

Why are the Pentax versions of these lenses more expensive than the Tokina versions? The Tokina 16-50 is $660 and the Pentax is $900 (at bhphotovideo). For the 50-135 it's $800 and $900 respectively. Tokina versions also come with 3 year instead of 1 year warranties. Are they optically different?

[termina3]

Are they optically different?

Maybe, maybe not. But Pentax has Pentax on it.

[jpfisher]

Why are the Pentax versions of these lenses more expensive than the Tokina versions? The Tokina 16-50 is $660 and the Pentax is $900 (at bhphotovideo). For the 50-135 it's $800 and $900 respectively. Tokina versions also come with 3 year instead of 1 year warranties. Are they optically different?

I don't believe that the Tokina versions of weather-sealed, also, do they have an internal focus motor or do they rely on the body to autofocus?

B&H recently dropped the price on the Pentax 50-135 from $1000 to $800; I'm hoping they do the same on the 16-50 in the near future.

[miloblithe]

I don't believe that the Tokina versions of weather-sealed, also, do they have an internal focus motor or do they rely on the body to autofocus?

B&H recently dropped the price on the Pentax 50-135 from $1000 to $800; I'm hoping they do the same on the 16-50 in the near future.

Good question about weather sealing. That could account for a difference. As for internal focus motors, although it might depend on the mount, as far as I know it does.

[SLC Flyfishing]

I don't think Tamron or Sigma make many internal focusing lenses yet for Pentax mount.

SLC

[ChrisA]

Are they optically different?

Almost certainly they are.

But there is more to lenses then optics. For example, when you focus or zoom the lenses may change it's length. When it does it also was to change it's internal volume. So air is sucked in or pushed out. If it were just air then there would be no problems but with the air comes dust, dirt and maybe water. The better built lenses take care of this dust, dirt and water problem better. The other thing you can't see in the specs is how consistent the factory is. Are all the lenses _identical_ or maybe there are wider manufacturing variations making getting a "good" one a mater of luck. And then optical coating are not cheap and not easy to engineer. Modern costing are multi-layered interference filters.

It is worth reading about anti-reflective coating. This is the technology that has made modern zoom lenses possible. Getting this "right" is still an expensive process
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-reflective_coating

Bottom line is there are many ways to make a lower priced lens.

[miloblithe]

Almost certainly they are.

But there is more to lenses then optics. For example, when you focus or zoom the lenses may change it's length. When it does it also was to change it's internal volume. So air is sucked in or pushed out. If it were just air then there would be no problems but with the air comes dust, dirt and maybe water. The better built lenses take care of this dust, dirt and water problem better. The other thing you can't see in the specs is how consistent the factory is. Are all the lenses _identical_ or maybe there are wider manufacturing variations making getting a "good" one a mater of luck. And then optical coating are not cheap and not easy to engineer. Modern costing are multi-layered interference filters.

It is worth reading about anti-reflective coating. This is the technology that has made modern zoom lenses possible. Getting this "right" is still an expensive process
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-reflective_coating

Bottom line is there are many ways to make a lower priced lens.

Right. But they are co-designs. My question is how different is the design, really?

[SLC Flyfishing]

Well I know that the 16-50 (Tokina) requires the screw drive to auto-focus at least on the Nikon version, if there is a Canon version it would have an internal motor since no Canon has a screw driven body. The Pentax version has a screw drive, and an internal focusing motor so it can be used on some of the older Pentax DSLR's like the *ist series or the K100D/K110D. It also can be used on the K10D and K100D super as a SDM lens.

SLC

[ChrisA]

For now, IS (or VR) is much better in the lens than in the body. Who knows about the future.

If you have an SLR IS will always be better if done in the lens.

This can't change in the future because with an SLR when the IS is done in the lens the image in the viewfinder is stable. But if done in the body the viewfinder image is not stabilized. So it will always be best to have optical IS if the viewfinder is optical.

[SLC Flyfishing]

If you have an SLR IS will always be better if done in the lens.

This can't change in the future because with an SLR when the IS is done in the lens the image in the viewfinder is stable. But if done in the body the viewfinder image is not stabilized. So it will always be best to have optical IS if the viewfinder is optical.

That's odd, I thought it was the recorded image that mattered, not the image the photographer sees through the viewfinder, guess I've been misunderstanding things all this time.

SLC

[miloblithe]

That's odd, I thought it was the recorded image that mattered, not the image the photographer sees through the viewfinder, guess I've been misunderstanding things all this time.

SLC

There might be some connection between the two.

Regardless, to date, in-lens has proven to be more effective.

[jpfisher]

Regardless, to date, in-lens has proven to be more effective.

... and in-lens VR does you no good at all when you are using older glass.

An ideal solution would be a system that supports both -- in-lens VR for newer glass, in-body for older. Having the cake, and eating it too, so to speak.

[ChrisA]

That's odd, I thought it was the recorded image that mattered, not the image the photographer sees through the viewfinder, guess I've been misunderstanding things all this time.

SLC

For static handheld shots it really does not mattr much. But if you are using VR from a moving vehicle or shooting a moving subject them it is good to be able to judge how well the VR is working. If you can't see the VR in the viewfinder then you have to look at each shot in the LCD panel. Also you can simply see beeter if the scen in the viewfinder is stable.

You are right. it is the final image that counts. But if that is really true why are we using digital? My 70's vintage film camera (it's an F2) still beats any Nikon DSLR. So there must be something more then just the final image that we care about.

[SLC Flyfishing]

For static handheld shots it really does not mattr much. But if you are using VR from a moving vehicle or shooting a moving subject them it is good to be able to judge how well the VR is working. If you can't see the VR in the viewfinder then you have to look at each shot in the LCD panel. Also you can simply see beeter if the scen in the viewfinder is stable.

You are right. it is the final image that counts. But if that is really true why are we using digital? My 70's vintage film camera (it's an F2) still beats any Nikon DSLR. So there must be something more then just the final image that we care about.

As a rule I never shoot from a moving vehicle, at least when I want to get a good picture. To counteract the motion blur that would result would require a shutter speed fast enough to make shake reduction mechanisms unnecessary in the first place. I know what to expect from my sensor based SR system, so I fail to see how seeing the effect in the viewfinder changes anything. I still get sharp pictures when I expect them and know when they won't be saved by the SR system, so I'm not sure I buy into that argument.

And as far as the digital vs film argument is concerned, the whole reason to shoot digital is that with the modern post processing methods that we have today, there's no reason to expect any better quality from film; apart from dynamic range (which digital HDR more than makes up for anyway). The main advantage to digital is also the one that makes the in-lens vs camera based SR largely a matter of brand preference, it's that with memory cards as cheap and as large capacity as they are, you can shoot way more than the traditional 24 or 36 images at a time. I only have a 2 GB card and can easily fit 130 RAW images on it at a time, and it doesn't cost me a penny to empty it to my Mac and go out and shoot another 130 right away.

SLC