Sony or Nikon - Help Please!

[Anewman]

I do think that you seriously underestimate the competition. Most of the differences you speak of either don't exist or are so minute as to be unnoticable to the average shooter.

I dont underestimate them, I actually recommend them often and am not blinded by brand loyalty(hint).
Funny that you have had no issue pointing out those "MINUTE" differences when it serves as an advantage to your brand.

Do you really consider a 4 shot burst vs a 27 shot burst to be "MINUTE" or none existent?
Please let me know which of those differences is none existent, if you can?

I assure you this is my last post debating you on this subject EVER, IMO you no longer even care about sounding credible.

Please do, I'm not aware of this wonder camera.

Here is a link to the camera in question, it went up in price from yesterday when I posted.
http://www.buydig.com/shop/product.aspx?sku=CNEOS20D

Sigh..... for the last time, it was more about the lenses than the body, though again, I think you underestimate the K100D and overestimate the XTi.

Sure, I that have recommended the K100D on this forum countless times underestimates it, and you that consider the XTI handicapped does not underestimate anything... RIGHT I AM the BIASED ONE

So right now it is about the LENSES, as a sports shooter I would recommend CANON or NIKON and EVEN SONY over Pentax based on available LENSES. Please feel free to change the subject back to the camera now

Again I think the K100D is a great camera but is not IDEAL for sports, that is not to say one cant shoot sports with it. Just not Ideal.

When I recommend a camera I dont simply throw out my brands camera in that price range, if they need a camera primarily for indoor sports the XTI would be miles ahead of the k100D IMO for VARIOUS reasons.

I have never seen YOU concede that the K100D is not better than the competition in an area where it is clearly not, while I and other NON PENTAX shooters have no issue recommending the K100D when IS and great Prime lenses would be the most beneficial.

I would seriously look in the mirror before implying others are biased or underestimating cameras based on brand loyalty.

One last thing, lest we lose all prospective... most any DSLR gives the photographer more tools in his arsenal than nearly any film camera, and photographers got along fine for years with those limitations. Anyone claiming that they simply cannot work without a top-line DSLR should remember that.

Ok anyone that claims to not be able to work with anything but a top line DLSR is being ignorant, but one that claims that the XTI is handicapping is not... Just wanted to clear that up.

 

[Groucho]

Sigh...........

Funny that you have had no issue pointing out those "MINUTE" differences when it serves as an advantage to your brand.

Do you really consider a 4 shot burst vs a 27 shot burst to be "MINUTE" or none existent?

Please let me know which of those differences is none existent, if you can?

I've never debated that the K100D buffer is a weak point, and that they should have kept the larger buffer from the *ist DS.

Minor differences are noise, resolution (last time I checked, no one here ever recommended more megapixels as much of reason to choose a camera), and I'm not sure what you even mean by speed? Certainly they're both very responsive, like any DSLR.

You're welcome to focus on the buffer size as it's the one obvious flaw, if you require that for your shooting. I think image stabilization with every lens for no extra cost is at least as important for most people.

Here is a link to the camera in question, it went up in price from yesterday when I posted.
http://www.buydig.com/shop/product.aspx?sku=CNEOS20D

First off, that's 5 fps, not 8; secondly, it's not even in production any more (at least, Canon doesn't list it on their own SLR page.)

Sure, I that have recommended the K100D on this forum countless times underestimates it, and you that consider the XTI handicapped does not underestimate anything... RIGHT I AM the BIASED ONE

Anewman, please take a deep breath and listen as I explain this one last time.

The "handicapped" reference was to the entry-level lenses and bodies. Who would disagree that Canon designed their product so that the entry-level stuff is limited, to encourage moving up to the higher line? I made specific examples of their kit lens and their 50mm F1.8, both of which consistly ranked poorly for build quality and the kit lens is generally ranked as the worst of any kit lens? Surely Canon can do better, but they choose not to. They themselves handicap the entry-level stuff.

I have never seen YOU concede that the K100D is not better than the competition in an area where it is clearly not, while I and other NON PENTAX shooters have no issue recommending the K100D when IS and great Prime lenses would be the most beneficial.

You obviously haven't been reading much of what I've written. I almost always mention that Pentax's weak points as much as the strong points, and many times have volunteered that the K100D is not ideal for sports shooting. I'm sorry if you believe otherwise, but you're quite wrong in this regard.

 

[KrazyPete]

I think we need a new sticky called "Cage Match!"