I'm thinking of switching to Pentax!?

Pentax is a great camera copmpany, and we should all be happy that they have built such a fine camera. this provides much needed competition to make Canon and Nikon keep their eyes on the ball and their noses to the grindstone making good stuff for us. also it helps keep prices down - what do you think has brought the cost of DSLR down so much in the last couple of years, if not competition.

I've no objection to onboard IS either, just so long as they don't use it as an excuse to double the price of the cameras.

Weather sealing - meh, i don't like inclement weather much anyway, so it's not an issue.

Having competing and incompatible DSLR systems in one home - bad idea! How can you share lenses and accessories?

I am in the same boat as you. I am floored by the price/value Pentax is giving. In body IS tops it followed by weather seals, bright viewfinder, then 9 cross type sensors(my 20d has 1!!!), compatibility with MF lenses and that amazing battery grip which isn't supposed to flex and doesn't look like a brick taped on the bottom....not to mention its also weather sealed witha place to hold extra memory!!!

That doesn't even begin to talk about the lens baragains and the newly announced SSM lenses I mean Pentax has hit one hell of a home run.

Its crazy how they offer all that for so little money when Canon just wants to bend you over...I love my 20d but the lenses and no in body IS really bites!

A Pentax or Sony with in body IS and a Sigma 500mm f/4.5 EX HSM...

$3K will get you what we Canon shooters spend $7-$8K on.

Not a bad deal.

Wilt wrote in post #2018068
But will it be able to take digital images at high ISO as noise free as can be done with a Canon dSLR?

I wish mine was noise free...when they become noise free more will sell...

I think all this competition is a good thing over all. I'm not up on in camera IS so I don't know how good/bad it is in the real world. Anti-Dust is another thing that's a nice to have, but again, how good is it really?

I think IS is over rated. As someone already stated it doesn't stop the world from moving.

Mark_Cohran wrote in post #2018529
I'm not at all tempted by any other system, in camera IS, weather-sealing, anti-dust, etc. not withstanding. It's not that I think Canon has the best system out there, but rather I see it as a "system" and not just a camera body here or a lens there. It's a system of cameras, lenses, flashes and other accessories from which I've acquired an extensive set of components that suit my needs. Additionally, I've invested a lot of time and brain power into learning the system, its quirks and its capabilities over the last 25 years. To have to do that with another system would to me be counterproductive.

It may be tempting to someone just starting out in the DSLR realm, but to those of us who have been around a while Pentax (and Sony for that matter) will have to come up with something leaps and bounds better than this to get us to switch.

Mark

The problem with this Mark is that it alllows Canon to relax and produce...well...so-so cameras. In the past 7 months, Canon has released two cameras, the 30D and the 400D. The 30D is such a small incremental change from the 20D as to be not really worthy of much news, the 400D is a step backwards imho in terms of noise and resolution. People can make all of the BS up that they want because they love Canon, but the fact is that noise and resolution to my eyes, with the 400D appear $hite.

I've said this for a long while now, Canon got into the DSLR market early, and captured a good share. They've now sat on their asses for the past year and done bugger all to really improve their cameras . Canon's philosophy seems to be "we've suckered all of these people in and their committed to our lens/accessory system, so we can drag our asses now cos they'll be reluctant to move to another system".

This noise argument is BS. I rarely shoot at high ISO, and that' the same for most people. Most people shoot at ISO 400 and below from my experience, and in that context, Canon is no better than its competitors. If i was starting out afresh now, I certainly wouldn't be looking at Canon, not based on its track performance over the past 18 months, and not based on what its cameras offer. You're all harping on about how important the system is etc, tell me, put the lens down by itself and see if it takes a picture. Go on. I bet it doesn't. The camera does the work, whether you like it or not. The camera is more important imho than what a lot of people are wanting to admit.

Dave

pentax seems to be doing quite well.

I almost bought an *ist DL the other day from Costco but htey took it off their website...

$570CDN!!!! and it's fairly matched with the XTi...and half the price.

dpastern wrote in post #2018914
The problem with this Mark is that it alllows Canon to relax and produce...well...so-so cameras. In the past 7 months, Canon has released two cameras, the 30D and the 400D. The 30D is such a small incremental change from the 20D as to be not really worthy of much news, the 400D is a step backwards imho in terms of noise and resolution. People can make all of the BS up that they want because they love Canon, but the fact is that noise and resolution to my eyes, with the 400D appear $hite.

I've said this for a long while now, Canon got into the DSLR market early, and captured a good share. They've now sat on their asses for the past year and done bugger all to really improve their cameras . Canon's philosophy seems to be "we've suckered all of these people in and their committed to our lens/accessory system, so we can drag our asses now cos they'll be reluctant to move to another system".

This noise argument is BS. I rarely shoot at high ISO, and that' the same for most people. Most people shoot at ISO 400 and below from my experience, and in that context, Canon is no better than its competitors. If i was starting out afresh now, I certainly wouldn't be looking at Canon, not based on its track performance over the past 18 months, and not based on what its cameras offer. You're all harping on about how important the system is etc, tell me, put the lens down by itself and see if it takes a picture. Go on. I bet it doesn't. The camera does the work, whether you like it or not. The camera is more important imho than what a lot of people are wanting to admit.

Dave

This is a big load of crap. Why does Canon not bring out quantup leap upgrades? Because no one can touch what they already provide.

YOU may not shoot at high ISO but there are a LOT of people who do. And until these other companies quit with the pomp & circumstance and make sensors that work like Canons do, Canon won't have to do much. They provide a tried and true system that's been relied on for years, with customer service to match. That says a lot.

Oh and if Canon's so bad...why are you shooting a 1 Series?

dpastern wrote in post #2018914
The problem with this Mark is that it alllows Canon to relax and produce...well...so-so cameras.
Dave

I'd hardly call my 5D and 1DMKIIN so-so cameras. I understand your point, but my point is that I'm not going to change just because another company brings out a camera that has different (and to me, unimportant) features than what I'm currently shooting. I have too much money, time and energy invested in my system to make it worth while. Besides, I think most of the this is purely talk about chasing after the latest and greatest......

Mark

It's good to see other camera manufacturers do well even if you aren't inclined to switch systems. If Canon dominates the market too much, they will be less inclined to invest in improvements. It's a few years away, but I want my next Canon camera to be a *significant* improvement over what is availble now ... not because what is availble now is bad but because it can be improved. Even simple stuff like a mirror lock up button!

Is Canon ahead of everyone in every area of photography ? Of course not ... you can't get a Canon MF system, a Canon MF digital back, etc. Is Canon still a good choice ? Of course or I wouldn't be here, but I'd like them to stay a good choice so I'm not tempted to change systems.

dpastern wrote in post #2018914
The problem with this Mark is that it alllows Canon to relax and produce...well...so-so cameras. In the past 7 months, Canon has released two cameras, the 30D and the 400D. The 30D is such a small incremental change from the 20D as to be not really worthy of much news, the 400D is a step backwards imho in terms of noise and resolution. People can make all of the BS up that they want because they love Canon, but the fact is that noise and resolution to my eyes, with the 400D appear $hite.

I've said this for a long while now, Canon got into the DSLR market early, and captured a good share. They've now sat on their asses for the past year and done bugger all to really improve their cameras . Canon's philosophy seems to be "we've suckered all of these people in and their committed to our lens/accessory system, so we can drag our asses now cos they'll be reluctant to move to another system".

This noise argument is BS. I rarely shoot at high ISO, and that' the same for most people. Most people shoot at ISO 400 and below from my experience, and in that context, Canon is no better than its competitors. If i was starting out afresh now, I certainly wouldn't be looking at Canon, not based on its track performance over the past 18 months, and not based on what its cameras offer. You're all harping on about how important the system is etc, tell me, put the lens down by itself and see if it takes a picture. Go on. I bet it doesn't. The camera does the work, whether you like it or not. The camera is more important imho than what a lot of people are wanting to admit.

I find it 'interesting' in a twisted way, how photographers today now have come to expect revolutionary changes from camera manufacturers almost on a biannual basis (if not faster!). In the glory days of the SLR, cameras stuck around for a half decade before you saw substantial changes, and they had incremental changes as simple as converting from CdS cell meters to Silicon Blue cell meters in between the revolutions, and the world didn't bellyache about that rate of change. Now, if you don't introduce something revolutionary in EVERY model almost EVERY year, the world overlooks developments like dropping FF dSLR from an $8k major expense to a much smaller $3k expense, and bellyaches about the tiny increment from 20D to 30D!

Wilt wrote in post #2019130
I find it 'interesting' in a twisted way, how photographers today now have come to expect revolutionary changes from camera manufacturers almost on a biannual basis (if not faster!). In the glory days of the SLR, cameras stuck around for a half decade before you saw substantial changes, and they had incremental changes as simple as converting from CdS cell meters to Silicon Blue cell meters in between the revolutions, and the world didn't bellyache about that rate of change. Now, if you don't introduce something revolutionary in EVERY model almost EVERY year, the world overlooks developments like dropping FF dSLR from an $8k major expense to a much smaller $3k expense, and bellyaches about the tiny increment from 20D to 30D!

I agree with you for once!

Wilt wrote in post #2019130
I find it 'interesting' in a twisted way, how photographers today now have come to expect revolutionary changes from camera manufacturers almost on a biannual basis (if not faster!). In the glory days of the SLR, cameras stuck around for a half decade before you saw substantial changes, and they had incremental changes as simple as converting from CdS cell meters to Silicon Blue cell meters in between the revolutions, and the world didn't bellyache about that rate of change. Now, if you don't introduce something revolutionary in EVERY model almost EVERY year, the world overlooks developments like dropping FF dSLR from an $8k major expense to a much smaller $3k expense, and bellyaches about the tiny increment from 20D to 30D!

This is true, but if the technology is available, why not take advantage of it. If Other companies are putting successful in-body IS systems in their cameras, why canon shouldn't? Canon should compete in the market as hard as the next person....

Though it is sad to see us ALL whining and complaining about not enough upgrades in such a short time. But I guess we are all spoiled by the amazing rate of technology advancements now a days.

Livinthalife wrote in post #2019169
This is true, but if the technology is available, why not take advantage of it. If Other companies are putting successful in-body IS systems in their cameras, why canon shouldn't? Canon should compete in the market as hard as the next person....

Though it is sad to see us ALL whining and complaining about not enough upgrades in such a short time. But I guess we are all spoiled by the amazing rate of technology advancements now a days.

You assume (perhaps wrongly, perhaps rightly) that the approach of IS in the camera body is the best way to do it. Perhaps your desired 'solution' is fraught with limitations of its own. Witness flash 'ETTL' vs. the older 'TTL' in film camera...everyone THOUGHT ETTL was terrific until they started to complain about unpredictable results and underexposure. It turns out that the TTL system is far more reliable and that even simple Auto mode on flashes is considered by long-time wedding veterans to be both the most dependable and predictable flash systems available. Any mad rush to adopt ETTL by other companies would be sorely seen as foolhardy. Perhaps the same can be said about IS in the body. Canon once got rid of the reflex mirror to create an SLR with no kerflop noise and vibration. If Nikon owners had pressured Nikon into adopting the pellicle mirror, they too would have discovered the inherent issues and limitations of pellicles (vs. reflex mirrors)...Canon tried the concept 3 times in history and never was it a monster success! Perhaps IS in the body is like the pellicle!