As a prefacing note, I'd like to say that I'm not flaming, I'm not angry, I'm not trying to personally attack or antagonize anyone, nor do I feel that anyone is intentionally doing the same to me. This board puts a high value on civility and I am remaining civil while still vigorously disagreeing with assertions stated earlier in this thread.
The only example there that I think is valid is the class instructor.
So the other examples are in
valid? Are you making a universal dismissal of those examples or are you trying to say that the other examples are just not things you
personally consider important. I can tell you that the people getting the eagle shots, the spoonbill shots, and the horse shots all saw those as important.
this is a big reason why the Pentax line has gotten so big of a buzz
I have to say that this is the only place I see a Pentax buzz. I don't see them stocked anywhere. I rarely see them mentioned on other photo sites like Fred Miranda or Luminous Landscapes. They are getting reasonable reviews, but I still don't see them when I go shooting. I don't see them at the photo clubs and workshops I attend. I hope that you're right and that Pentax does start making money on cameras again.
At the entry level, I think you're handicapping yourself somewhat with the entry-level cameras and lenses (especially Canon, who reserve their "good lenses" for the high-paying crowd). Send two identically-skilled photographers out, one with a K100D, 18-55mm kit, and 50mm F1.4, and a Rebel XTi, 18-55mm kit, and 50mm F1.8, and who do you think will come back with better shots?
We can play these little "my camera is better than yours" games all day. We can loads of fun thinking up scenarios that favor each manufacturer. Just staying with the confines you set out, I can still see lots of situations where the Canon shooter is going to bring home the better shots. Are they shooting JPG and taking advantage of Canon's superior image processing compared with the frequent complains about the Pentax's jpgs? Are we shooting more than one shot a time, taking advantage of Canon's much larger buffer? Are we taking pictures with fine detail or cropping the photos, taking advantage of Canon's 67% higher resolution? Are taking pictures at high ISO, taking advantage of Canon's lower noise levels? Are we taking pictures at low ISO, taking advantage of Canon's ISO 100 and avoiding Pentax's loss of dynamic range below ISO 400? Are we using a flash, taking advantage of Canon's more sophisticated flash metering? Are we worried about our exposure and taking advantage of Canon's RGB histogram compared with Pentax's "just hope all the colors are the same brightness" histogram? Is our subject moving, handing an advantage to Canon's faster AF system and faster (and quieter) focusing lenses? Are we shooting someplace where the unusually loud shutter of the Pentax is going to cause a problem? If we have a problem during our shoot, am I allowed to run to just about any store and buy replacements while you wait for your mail order parts to get here?
With the Canon, you're armed with equivalent build quality (they're both plastic on steel), better features, and better ergonomics (particularly if you add a portrait grip, which is something I always did when I bought cameras that didn't come with one).
With the Pentax, you're armed with superior lenses and image stabilization, and have better build quality, more features, and arguably better ergonomics, and oh by the way, the total cost is $625 for that setup versus $820 for the Canon one.
If I'm allowed to do the lens picking, I can run through in quite a few more Canon advantages. Of course, most of those will take you out of the beginner range with things panning IS modes, tilt/shift lenses, f/1.2 lenses, amd diffractive optics lenses. If I'm allowed to pick the body (an option I have in the real world), there really isn't a contest at all anymore. I'll spend more money, but I'll get much better value.
If you look at different lenses, the Canon can certainly beat the Pentax kit lens and can come awfully close with the 50mm, but at what cost?
Canon can beat the Pentax kit lens and the Pentax 50mm lens (see reviews of the new Canon 50mm f/1.2).
Meanwhile, more and more people are buying Pentax, meaning more and more people out there with similar equipment and needs, more lenses will be made available
Are they? The current Pentax line seems to be selling OK, but they're still eons away from the market share they squandered over the years. They almost got bought buy a company that barely mentioned their camera lineup in their press releases about the purchase. They arrived years late to the DSLR scene and had several large failures trying to get there. It's been years since their camera division made a profit. I
think that their new lineup will get them passed the danger of disappearing, but I'm not betting my camera investment that it'll happen. And if they do fall, your investment will be practically unrecoverable. In another real world example, I watched Minolta guys dump gear for a fraction of what they paid for it when they couldn't take waiting around while Canon and Nikon shooters were having all the DSLR fun.
One last thing, the "professional quality" is the most glaring red herring. Not all photographers value the same things. If you're after image quality, you'll more likely to be shooting with a medium-format than any C/N setup, and if you're interested in quality lenses, Pentax has some of the best, bar none.
Now that's just getting silly. There really are professional photographers in the world. They come in all types including journalists, landscape shooters, sports shooters, portrait photographers, product photographers, etc, etc. They do use a variety of different camera styles from DSLRs to large format. I'm pretty much ignoring the non-DSLR professionals because their gear is much more specialized and represents a significantly smaller or more fractionalized market. Amongst professionals that use DSLRs, virutally all of them today shoot either Canon or Nikon. Their gear costs signficantly more than consumer gear and the people and companies that buy it do so for good reasons.
Next time you see a sporting event, take a peak and you'll see almost everyone shooting Canon with a smattering of Nikon gear mixed in. You won't see any Pentax or Sony. Go to popular bird or wildlife shooting areas and talk to professional and serious amateur photographers there. Most will be using DSLRs and all of them will probably be using Canon or Nikon. Look at the photo credits in books and magazines that publish them and you'll see struggle hard to find any SLR shot was not taken with a Canon or Nikon. Go to your local camera club and check out the gear of the most admired shooters in the club. It'll probably all be either Canon or Nikon. You will almost never see anyone that makes a living selling photographs that doesn't either shoot Canon, Nikon, or a non-35mm SLR based format. None of them will be shooting with the Sony or Pentax DSLRs. That doesn't mean that the Sony and Pentax DSLRs aren't perfectly capable cameras for hobbyists. It simply shows that people who make a living shooting pictures don't buy them.
All tit-for-tat argueing aside, the original reason I made my comments about market share are to point out to newbies that there are advantages to sticking with an established, major brand. My concern is that, given the vocalness of the Pentax choir on this board, people unfamiliar with the DSLR market might not realize that Pentax has an almost trivial market share compared with Canon and Nikon. These newbies are often the very people that would get the largest benefits from owning mainstream gear. They're the most likely to want to borrow gear. They're the most likely to need help with their cameras. If, after understanding that they still feel that the Pentax or Sony is a better fit for them, i assume that they are making a rational choice that is right for them.
I've never said that someone should not buy a Pentax simply because it's a minor brand. I just try to point out that owning a minor brand has disadvantages that should be considered. For many people, particularly those that are very cost conscious, those have no desire to join a club, get hands on instruction at workshops, rent gear, etc, and those with no desire to ever evolve their gear beyond the limits of the Pentax offerings, my advice should be completely discounted. For those that see my advice as relevant to their expectations, I like to think of my advice helpful rather than "red herrings'.
The things that I take exception to in this discussion are the distorting of my advice such as the mischaracterization - "only buy from the big names" and the dismissal of my views as red herrings or not valid. Just because the advice given by someone doesn't match with your personal situation doesn't make that advice invalid or a "red herring." That sort of view is about as useful as someone that always uses a tripod advising people that image stabilization is "red herring". In fact, I backed up my comments with recent, real-world examples of situations where people benefited in ways they thought were valuable from using mainstream brand gear. To me, that's actually more relevant that the camera brand comparisons of people that have only shot with one brand and only read about others. Personally, I'd like actually try shooting with a Pentax DSLR sometime...if only I can find someone offline that actually owns one.
