The Pentax "shopping cart" or the Nikon "shopping cart"?

[Steve's Girl]

As decent as they are, I don't see it being worth taking the risk for anyone that intends to get serious about photography as a hobby. If you plan to drop $1,000 on a system and you fully expect it to be all you need for the next 10 years, the Pentax makes sense. If you are just starting with photography and think that you want to be serious about it, I think you are much better off with one of the two dominant players in the market.

This kind of describes my thought process at the beginning of my search for a DSLR. Initially, I only planned to spend $750 or so for a camera and one multi-purpose lens and that would be the end of it for many years to come. I simply wanted a decent camera to take good pictures of my family. But, I now find myself enjoying this hobby more than I anticipated and looking at accessories and lenses I never dreamed of. I will be the first to admit that there is no need to go with a mid-tier camera like a D80, K10D or a 30D. But, like Mark said, I am glad that I have a system that will not limit me down the road. Please don't misunderstand that I am trying to say everyone should buy the same camera I have. That is not the case at all. I only mention it as that is my choice, it fit our family's budget and I am happy with it. Actually, I never dreamed of spending that much. But, my husband really encouraged me to broaden my search and look at cameras that I could grow into. In hindsight, I'm glad I did. Others need to do an analysis of their needs and budget as well and go with what matches their situation. I only caution to be careful not to buy a camera that may limit growth down the road. Saving a few bucks up front only to end up switching systems a few years down the road doesn't make a lot of sense financially.

 

[ukcatfan]

1) They're more likely to be around 10 years from now. If you're going to invest $1K in a system, it probably doesn't matter. If you're going to invest $10K in bodies and lenses, you want to be sure that they'll be there will into the future. Given Pentaxes tiny DSLR market share, they are a much greater risk.

Groucho responded to much of this, but I have a few more things to add.

While I agree that the current lineups for Pentax, Olympus, Sony, and so on are limited right now, the vast majority of the users seeking advice on the Disboards are not likely to ever fall into the $10K investment area. If they are that serious about photography, then they probably post more on DPReview, Steve's, etc. and likely would not even be asking for help in making their decision. It is a great point in substance, but I just do not see it being applicable to this audience. I also think that the mark would be closer to $2K instead of $1K b/c up to that $ mark you would likely be replacing all of your gear for a move to the pro ranks anyway.

I also would like to point out that Pentax does have a better camera in the pipeline. Since the K10D is "nearly" pro, we have to assume that it would be pro. They will not give a firm date, but it is expected to be towards the end of next year to early '09. That is really not all that long from now in terms of upgrade ability. Not many people are going to buy an entry level camera today and demand a pro level camera within two years; especially when there is already an upgrade to the K100D available today. Like Groucho already stated, the next two years at Pentax are devoted to new lenses. I believe that the number of new ones is in the teens.

At the level the OP is looking at, I personally think that the K100D and the D50 are the best options. The D40 is too crippled for lenses and the XTi is too limited in features (can I say no top LCD ). I don't like the aspect ratio, ISO noise, or crop factor of the 4/3 system, but other than that it is still a nice system and Olympus should be considered as well.

Kevin

 

[ukcatfan]

groucho, while i understand your point, i do think mark has a good point...i think only those with wallets of steel don't some time at least think of upgrading to a better body/lenses, whether they planning on selling photos or not...forget who it was that commented a while back on the 30d $$$range cameras being used on "auto" at WDW...

It has been reported by a few different people, but I was one. This guy had a nice setup. I saw what I think was a 5D, but it could have been a 30D (I didn't want to get too close for fear of laughing in his face), a speedlight, probably four to five lenses (one was white BTW and what caught my attention in the first place), and what looked like a Manfrotto tripod. He and his DW were having a spirited conversation b/c she did not want the flash to fire and neither could figure out how to turn it off. I can only assume that it was in auto or they had set it to fill flash and did not know how to turn it off. Do not think I was being a bad person for not helping. These two were the arrogant type that likely would have told me off if I had tried. She was wearing stiletto heels in a WDW park and while they were dressed nice, it was not like they were dressed for V&A or anything, so the heels were just by personal choice IMO. I don't have a problem with people buying more than they need. It supplies the companies with $$$ to improve things for the people that do know what they are doing.

Kevin

 

[Master Mason]

Mark does make some valid points. But in truth, the vast majority of people will buy a body, a couple of lens and use it till it either dies or the technology has so far passed it that they need to compleatly change it out. Most folks will never go "pro" so that isn't much of a concern for most folks.

Yes C/N have the lions share of the Market, but I have been very impressed with what Pentax has put out. If I were starting out right now, I would have to strongly concider them.

In the end, all 3 make great cameras, so buy the one you like, and enjoy the pictures you take with them.

 

[Jeanne B]

Just enjoying the friendly debate.

 

[DisneyGirl4188]

I wanted to add my opinion. I love my k100d. I have spent less than $1000 and have four lenses all with IS (since it's in the body). The price couldn't be beat. I would have a hard time spending the thousands it can take to get a IS lens for Canon (plus, I don't think DH would like it too much either).

I originally looked at Canon and Nikon, but after reading here I decided to go with Pentax. I looked at the Canons in stores, but they did seem like a "play camera" (cheaply made). The Pentax has a good feel for me.

 

[handicap18]

I don't see anything that would tell me Pentax wont be around as long as Nikon and Canon might be. Pentax has been making camera equipment for quite a long time. Any of their lenses made can be used with any of their camera bodies made including the most recent dSLR's. Thats something that Canon can not claim. Nikon to an extent can use all their lenses. There are a few exceptions, but their lenses will mount to the bodies.

If I'm not mistaken, with Canon if you want to upgrade to their "pro-line", there are a number of lenes that wont fit on those bodies that do fit with the rebel series and others like the 20D and 30D. So if someone is going to go the Canon route and start with the Rebel line, then down the road they want to go pro, a lot of the lenses they first started with wont work with the new camera. Correct? At least with Nikon and Pentax, they wont have that problem. Granted, at this time Pentax doesn't have the "pro line" like Nikon and Canon do, but they have been making a number of dSLR bodies, unlike Sony. Olympus is even harder to find anything and their 4/3rd's system is different than the others which might turn people off. Plus I think their best body isn't readily available in the US, mostly only in the UK and they also don't get the reviews that N/C/P do.

Anyway, thats my $0.02 for what its worth.

 

[jann1033]

just for the sake of accuracy...
1)if you count 5 out of all the 50+ lenses canon has on their site as "a lot" that would be true...as far as i know most of the focal length of those few are available in other lenses.
2)the most expensive IS lens i know of cost about $1600, roughly the same as the nikon Vr ( 70-200 f2.8) the range of which isn't available as far as i can tell with pentax( checked the pentax site but they only have maybe 15 ( didn't count them but 2 small pages)lenses listed tops?????guessing that is all their current lenses), although the sigma that is closest to that for pentax is the around 900, same as for canon and nikon. and pentax' 100 mm macro( which pretty sure you'll use a tripod with whether you have the is or not) is $800 vs canon $470
so from what i could see, don't know that the "superior lenses for pennies" argument really holds up all that well. they seem along the same l$$$ lines as the other 2, just less new ones...so if you want to buy used lenses to fill in the gaps, i would expect them to be cheaper than new lenses...at least i wouldn't pay new lens prices for someone's used lens but that might just be me.

 

[wkrider]

 

[KrazyPete]

Someone just posted a thread on a lens rental company. There are several online companies that rent lenses.

I don't want to highjack this thread but could someone PM me a link to the lens rental thread. I don't see it.

EDIT: NVM, I just found it. It was on the front page but I went to the nearly worthless board search tool first.

 

[MarkBarbieri]

A few things first:

1) I don't have anything against Pentax gear. I think it's very competitive with the other equipment in its price range.

2) My comments don't really apply to casual photogs. I'm really only making these statements for those people that think they will get serious about photography. If it will become your profession or your passion, you'll probably be making a greater investment and you need to be more cautious about it.

3) Regardless of what equipment you buy, it still pales in comparison with the skill and knowledge of the photographer. Lack of skill is far more limiting than lack of equipment. Whatever brand you use, learn to use it well.

1) I don't think there's any danger of Pentax disappearing any time soon. They've been around for decades and their current DSLRs and lenses are highly regarded and selling like mad. They are a smaller company and are not attempting to match the volumes that C/N move. They're making a lot of money off their DSLRs, plus they have investments from Samsung (which is not exactly a small company) and Hoya.

It doesn't take a large share of a market in order to remain healthy. Hey, look at how few cameras Hasselblad sells, too!

I suppose I'm sensitive about camera system orphaning because I've seen it happen to several people. If you look at the transition from film to digital, here's the rough chronology (as I remember it):

In 2000, Nikon released the D1 and Canon released the D30. They weren't cheap ($5K and $3K respectively), but they started a revolution. No word from Minolta. Pentax announced the MZ-D. Pentax was never able to turn it into a sellable camera.

In 2001, Nikon introduced the D1x and Canon introduced the 1D. No word from Minolta.

In 2002, Canon introduced the D60 and the 1Ds and Nikon introduced the D100. The major brands not only had distinct model lines of DSLRs, but no word from Minolta. In fact, Minolta wasn't even discussing plans for a DSLR.

In 2003, Canon rocked the market with the first sub-$1,000 DSLR. They also introduced the 10D. Nikon introduced the D2H.

By then, the Minolta photography fans that I knew threw in the towel. All of my Canon and Nikon friends had converted to digital. Some were on their second bodies already. The Minolta guys couldn't take it and dumped their gear at horrible losses.

It was that year (I think), that Pentax introduced their first digital camera. I never met anyone with one, but at least they had something.

After that, Konica bought Minolta. Minolta announced a DSLR (or maybe two) but got no traction in the marketplace. They finally dumped their camera division and sold it off to Sony.

Sony appears to be applying all of their recent magic and has shown as much success with DSLRs as they have with MP3 players, laptop batteries, and the PS3.

To recap, in 2000 there were four major camera companies for serious shooters (not including the niche brands in the medium to large format space). They were Nikon, Canon, Minolta, and Pentax. Within 4 years, Minolta was essentially dead and delays in Pentax getting into the market had sunk it to niche player status.

In my real job, I'm a manager in an IT organization. One of the things we do whenever we invest in new software is guage the financial strength and commitment of the vendor. If I applied the same process to Pentax, I'd walk away nervous. I wouldn't cut them from the list, but it would be a significant knock against them when comparing them to other companies.

From 2004 to 2005, Pentax saw their profit decline from 6.9 billion yen to 3.6 billion yen. Their Life Care division went form a 6.1 billion yen profit to a 3.5 billion yen profit. Their Imaging System division (cameras, lenses, binoculars, and telescopes) went from a 1.2 billion yen profit to a 2.8 billion yen loss.

In 2005, Pentax partnered with Samsung to get some badly needed help with digital imaging systems. That certainly gave Pentax fans hope that the company could survive in the rapidly evolving digital SLR space.

In 2006, the Imaging System division again posted a large loss (1.2 billion yen). Later that year, Hoya purchased Pentax. Despite having a less well known name, Hoya had double the sales of Pentax and 20-30 times the net income. In the press release announcing the deal, the Imaging System division was listed last among the five division. Hoya's CEO made his priorities plain when he said ""The most attractive part about Pentax was its medical business."

Here's what Hoya Pentax's press release had to say about the Imaging System division:

"Imaging systems area: (Major products include: digital cameras, binoculars, etc.) In order to enhance business value, the new company will differentiate its offerings by specializing in high-value added products with unique technology and will focus on areas where it has a competitive edge. This area will be positioned as a foundation for development of new optical-related equipment and is expected to diversify into the life care and security business areas."

That's hardly a ringing endorsement of a strategy to hold a small position in the consumer DSLR market.

Will Pentax make it? Probably, but it is definitely a much greater risk than Nikon or Canon. I'd say that the big two will almost certainly still be cranking out new cameras in 10 years. I'd give Pentax a 2 in 3 chance of doing so (although I'm not even close to being an expert in this area). If I was starting from scratch and was planning on making a major investment in equipment over the next several years, I'd definitely take that risk into account. If I was having any trouble (without factoring in brand health) between Pentax and either Canon or Nikon, I'd definitely go with one of the more successful brands.

Sure, it's a bit of FUD. However, it's honest FUD. and FUD is a reality in any technology business that involves a significant commitment.

 

[MarkBarbieri]

If I'm not mistaken, with Canon if you want to upgrade to their "pro-line", there are a number of lenes that wont fit on those bodies that do fit with the rebel series and others like the 20D and 30D. So if someone is going to go the Canon route and start with the Rebel line, then down the road they want to go pro, a lot of the lenses they first started with wont work with the new camera. Correct? At least with Nikon and Pentax, they wont have that problem.

The only vaguely modern Canon lenses that won't work on all Canon bodies are the EF-S lenses. They are their "digital" lenses. They'll work on any Canon body except those with 1.3x or full frame sensors. The same can be said of any other brands "digital" lenses. You can't use a Nikon digital lens on a Nikon film body. If Nikon does what the rumors have been saying and introduces and full frame body, the digital lenses won't work with it either.

The lesson is clear regardless of brand. If you plan on shooting film or a full frame sensor, don't invest a lot in pre-cropped lenses.

We can have a wonderful debate on the merits (or lack thereof) of full frame sensors, but that's another subject.

 

[MarkBarbieri]

I would like to clear up one more thing (if anyone is still reading this thread). There has been some implication that people will shoot amateur equipment for a while and then "go pro." While that happens every now and then, what I see much more often is a slow evolution.

You start with the entry level body and the kit lens. You add a consumer telephoto zoom. You add a prime for low light. You add a flash. Your camera body is two generations out of date and when you go to buy a new one, suddenly that mid-range body that seemed so overpriced has features that solve some problems that really bother you, so you buy it. You find yourself taking lots of telephoto shots and you want more speed, so you upgrade to a high end zoom. You love the picture quality of the new zoom, so you buy a high end wide angle zoom. It disappoints you (wide angle lenses almost always do). You get interested in lighting and you buy a "pro" flash so that it can control your old flash.

This process keeps going on and on until you finally hit some comfortable plateau. For most people, that's the original body and kit lens that they bought. For others, it's a mixture of a mid-range body and a variety of fair to excellent lenses. For others, it's a "pro" body and a complete set of high-end lenses.

So don't think that one day you'll decide to go pro and replace your entire kit. In just about every case I've seen, people with high end gear got there through a slow evolution.

In the interest of full disclosure, I should point out that own somewhere around $8K in Canon stock. That means that if everyone that reads this thread immediately replaces all of their Pentax gear with Canon gear, I stand to gain about a penny as my share of the profits.

 

[Groucho]

2)the most expensive IS lens i know of cost about $1600, roughly the same as the nikon Vr ( 70-200 f2.8) the range of which isn't available as far as i can tell with pentax( checked the pentax site but they only have maybe 15 ( didn't count them but 2 small pages)lenses listed tops?????guessing that is all their current lenses),

True enough, Pentax doesn't currently make a 70-200mm F2.8, but of course the $200 and generally well-regarded 50-200mm has IS when mounted on a K100D or K10D. If you want more speed in those focal lengths, you have to go with a prime. There is a 50-135mm F2.8 coming out soon, but it is a premium lens - $1,000. Yowch! There's also a 60-250mm F4.0 coming later this year. You can see their roadmap here.

so from what i could see, don't know that the "superior lenses for pennies" argument really holds up all that well. they seem along the same l$$$ lines as the other 2, just less new ones...

Used lenses can certainly be part of that equation, there are literally millions of top-notch Pentax lenses floating around and there are many classics in the bunch. I don't see any problem with buying used lenses, not only for the price savings, but some older lenses are built better than some current ones.

As for direct comparisons... Canon certainly has lenses for more than $1,600. Glancing at BH, I see a 300mm 2.8 IS for $3,900... 400mm 4.0 IS for $5,300... 400mm 2.8 IS for $6,500... 500mm 4.0 IS for $5,500... 600mm 4.0 IS for $7,200... they list the 70-200mm 2.8 IS at $1,700... a 28-300mm 3.5-5.6 IS for $2,200...

Here's a specific comparison... you're familiar with the Canon 28-135mm F3.5-5.6 IS lens that sells for $410... on the Pentax side, you can get a pretty similar focal length of 28-105mm F3.2-4.5 for $210 - and of course, it'll have IS on a K100D/K10D. If you want the full focal length, oldex Pentax 28-135mm F4.0 lenses seem to sell for about $200 on eBay. Obviously, you can't save that much on every lens, but generally, you definitely can get more for less. And Canon seems to put their main effort into their "L" lenses, and as I said earlier, Canon fans seem to accept that any under-$500 or even under-$1,000 lens will have a somewhat cheap feel and probably have subpar image quality, as well.

Getting back to your earlier comment:

although the sigma that is closest to that for pentax is the around 900, same as for canon and nikon. and pentax' 100 mm macro( which pretty sure you'll use a tripod with whether you have the is or not) is $800 vs canon $470

BH lists the Pentax 100mm macro F2.8 for $440 after $100 rebate. I'm not sure where you saw a $800 price tag? And why would you use a tripod for this lens? Especially when the Pentax lens weighs 12.2 oz vs the 21.12 oz for the Canon lens?

 

[MarkBarbieri]

BH lists the Pentax 100mm macro F2.8 for $440 after $100 rebate.
I'm not sure where you saw a $800 price tag? And why would you use a tripod for this lens? Especially when the Pentax lens weighs 12.2 oz vs the 21.12 oz for the Canon lens?
Today 10:06 PM

I've never heard of anyone doing macro work without a tripod.

 

[Groucho]

I suppose I'm sensitive about camera system orphaning because I've seen it happen to several people. If you look at the transition from film to digital, here's the rough chronology (as I remember it):

I think we need a bit of context here. Photography has been around for, what, 150+ years now. The companies we're talking about have, I think, all been around for 50+ years.

The transition to digital has been just a few years yet and is still in flux. A film camera that was top-notch in 1999 still works just as well now. Furthermore, chances are that the cheapest DSLR works just about as well as any top 35mm SLR. Honestly, can we all agree that no one should be claiming that they're taking substandard photos because of their DSLR, no matter which one it is? A good photographer can get great results with any DSLR, just like a good driver in a slower car can beat a bad driver in a faster car in any race.

And, FWIW, digital backs for MF cameras played a part in the transition to digital, too; and there seem to be plenty of rangefinder fanatics who wouldn't be caught dead with any SLR. It's not really fair to imply that pros only use C/N DSLRs when they use 'Blads, Mamiyas, Leicas, Arca-Swisses, Contaxes, Rolleis, and yes, even Pentaxes (including MF), Minoltas, Olympuses, and Fujis... and several others, too.

And ultimately, the Pentax DSLR of today should still be working whether or not Pentax as a company exists. And I certainly don't see any new shake-out coming like the film-to-digital transition - what could there be? And those early digital adopters - they certainly paid a high price buying first-gen stuff, like all early adopters do. In the "big picture", who churned through more money, an early adopter who had bought a few top-dollar DSLRs, or a Minolta SLR shooter who sold his gear and bought one current DSLR? Nothing is cut and dried here.

We're really going on tangents, though, aren't we?

I'm not sure about your Pentax financials, I know I read an article just a few months ago about how they were actually raising their forecast based on stronger-than-predicted DSLR sales. They seem to have a good amount of momentum, anecdotal evidence certainly indicates that lots of informed consumers are choosing them... and the longer Nikon and Canon wait to put IS in the body, the better it is for Pentax.

 

[Groucho]

I've never heard of anyone doing macro work without a tripod.

Last time I checked, you can use a macro lens for non-macro photography. A 100mm F2.8 lens would be a handy thing to have at WDW, macro or not.

 

[MarkBarbieri]

And ultimately, the Pentax DSLR of today should still be working whether or not Pentax as a company exists. And I certainly don't see any new shake-out coming like the film-to-digital transition - what could there be?

Your current camera is likely to work 10 or even 20 years from now. Will you still use it? I doubt it. 20 year old computers still boot, but not many people use them either.

In 10 to 20 years, I expect the camera that I buy to have a wider dynamic range and lower noise at higher ISOs. I expect to rely on local storage only when in remote areas with most of my shots being sent back to my house wirelessly as I take them. It should have a built in GPS. It better have a mode in which I set two of the three exposure modifiers (ISO, aperture, and shutter speed) and it automatically sets the last one not based on a metering of the scene, but based on what combination will result in the right most histogram without clipping. I'm expecting to have a live histogram preview as well. My autofocus had better improve significantly. It would be great if my manual shutter were replaced by an electronic one without introducing shutter lag. Canon will have a *@#$ button for locking up the mirror rather than having to navigate to a custom function. In other words, I expect to have no interest in using a 10 to 20 year old camera body. Things will improve far too much between now and then.

And those early digital adopters - they certainly paid a high price buying first-gen stuff, like all early adopters do. In the "big picture", who churned through more money, an early adopter who had bought a few top-dollar DSLRs, or a Minolta SLR shooter who sold his gear and bought one current DSLR? Nothing is cut and dried here.

That's a surprising comment from someone that has shot both film and digital. We were saving more money on film and developing costs than we were losing on camera depreciation. At the same time, we were getting all of the benefits of shooting in digital. I still look back at my boxes of prints and negatives and regret having waited as long as I did to make the switch.

It's true that fundamental change from film to digital is over and there isn't likely to be such a fundamental change again in our lifetimes (3D? Smell-o-vision?). Still, the rate of change of camera technology is going to be faster than ever. I'm sure that C/N will continue to be at the forefront of innovation. I'm not at all convinced that Hoya Pentax has the resources or motiviation to keep up. In the past, I thought that having a large enough body of lenses in the world would guarantee that a lens system would survive, but Minolta proved otherwise. I definitely hope that the Pentax lineup will survive to keep the market competitive, but I also think people unfamiliar with the industry should understand the risks before investing their money.

 

[Groucho]

Your current camera is likely to work 10 or even 20 years from now. Will you still use it? I doubt it. 20 year old computers still boot, but not many people use them either.

I've got a house full of computers, some older than 20 years old, so I'm the wrong guy to ask about that.

Anyway - I still use my camera that's getting close to 20 years old, and which, technology-wise, is not much different than a camera from 30-40 years ago. (100% manual outside of a needle to show exposure, etc.) It's still a pleasure to use and is capable of taking photos about as good as any 35mm camera. You know what else? I actually like that it's 100% manual. I have no interest in moving to a more advanced 35mm SLR that has program, aperture/shutter priority, etc. There's a tactile pleasure to using something so absolutely mechanical.

I don't think camera-computer is really a valid comparison. Cars is probably a better comparison (if you take out the maintenance and rust issues), the car of 20 years ago isn't as refined as today's car but is still perfectly capable of getting the job done. There is also a charm to them. My 40+ year old Lotus certainly provides a driving experience which is not and probably could not be duplicated by any modern vehicle, due to increases in mandatory equipment, hence more weight.

In 10 to 20 years, I expect the camera that I buy to have a wider dynamic range and lower noise at higher ISOs. I expect to rely on local storage only when in remote areas with most of my shots being sent back to my house wirelessly as I take them. It should have a built in GPS. It better have a mode in which I set two of the three exposure modifiers (ISO, aperture, and shutter speed) and it automatically sets the last one not based on a metering of the scene, but based on what combination will result in the right most histogram without clipping. I'm expecting to have a live histogram preview as well. My autofocus had better improve significantly. It would be great if my manual shutter were replaced by an electronic one without introducing shutter lag. Canon will have a *@#$ button for locking up the mirror rather than having to navigate to a custom function. In other words, I expect to have no interest in using a 10 to 20 year old camera body. Things will improve far too much between now and then.

You've got a lot of faith in the industry. If things continue the way they are, I expect cameras 10-20 years from now to have 50 megapixels in an APS-sized sensor and will have so much noise that only ISO50 will be usable. Oh, and 150 scene modes!

I'm not sure we'll see dramatic changes in dynamic range, and noise levels will probably improve but I'm not sure if that will be dramatic, either. There's only so far that technology can go. Even if the changes come that you speak of - most of the ones you list will not produce better photos.

I'd be very interested in seeing some refinement of the Foveon sensor that Sigma uses - I like the sharpness that it can produce, unfortunately it's at the cost of noise at the moment.

That's a surprising comment from someone that has shot both film and digital. We were saving more money on film and developing costs than we were losing on camera depreciation. At the same time, we were getting all of the benefits of shooting in digital. I still look back at my boxes of prints and negatives and regret having waited as long as I did to make the switch.

But those first-gen cameras certainly weren't providing the quality of film.

I'm sure that C/N will continue to be at the forefront of innovation. I'm not at all convinced that Hoya Pentax has the resources or motiviation to keep up. In the past, I thought that having a large enough body of lenses in the world would guarantee that a lens system would survive, but Minolta proved otherwise.

Well, Sony's providing a pretty darn good SLR for the Minolta owners to move to at this point; they're not totally in the lurch. Actually, I was recently talking to one of my brother-in-law's brothers, who has a Minolta 35mm and has been enjoying the ability to build up a collection of equipment for relatively little money. For every loser, there's a winner.

As for innovation... I certainly cannot agree with that. Outside of their top-line stuff, what innovation have C/N brought to the table recently? The K10D easily has more innovation than the XTi or D40/D40x combined. There's that article that we've probably all seen at Luminous Landscape (IIRC) where the author, a Canon user, bemoans that Canon has just been resting on its laurels, providing virtually nothing new and interesting, just resolution bumps, while the K10D has some really interesting features that are really designed with the photographer's needs in mind, not the marketing dep't's.

If Canon continues its policy of stripping its entry-level DSLRs of options, that certainly won't help, either. I certainly don't think removing the top LCD was a very innovative thing to do.

Smaller companies often can be as or more innovative. This is true in nearly all industries, especially automobiles... look at the innovations that go into some high-end sports cars coming from small companies... and Lotus is a relatively tiny company that is a world leader in certain things, like their aluminum bonded chassis, and they're used as consultants by all sorts of companies for their expertise in areas like handling, head design, etc.

(BTW, the thing I couldn't remember than the D50 was lacking was DoF preview.)

 

[jann1033]

groucho, anything i posted about pentax came from their website since i couldn't get google to work( ) i remember reading some place about a $50,000+++ lens that you had to lift with a crane as well( can't remember the brand, ) but i was thinking more along the lines of what the "normal" person on here might buy & can't say i read much about tons of purchases of the large $$$$ zooms, my major point which might not have been clear is(like that would be new)... i think the $$ factor gets blow up to be something it isn't,,you can't really compare a used lens price to a new lens price imo. anyone can go buy a bunch of used lenses for less than anyone can go buy a bunch of new lenses..i'd just like to have the option of buying something that might not be resold due to it being dropped in a creek by the previous owner, as long as my wallet holds out ,and that might not be as good an option with a company with a limited selection of new lenses. and since i am not all that sold on any IS as it is so i don't really put that high a value on it truthfully...i would hate to have it go on my camera body which means forget using my camera period. i mean do i really need IS for a 50mm f1.8 lens even with my earthquake shake hands?, i sure hope not! on the rare occasions i'm taking that low light a shot i'd be kind of dumb not to use a tripod ...( that being said i rarely ever used my old tripod, so you can do the math on what that one says about me ) and of course none of the above should be taken to mean i did not fill out the contest form on their site to win a new pentax
mark i wasn't aware pentax now=hoya...i've heard some decent things about some of their tokina lenses( the 1/2 dozen they have) but seems kind of odd they would make 2 kinds of lenses, wonder if that means the end of the line for tokina