I'm thinking of switching to Pentax!?

I really like the new Pentax as it is really feature rich! However, I believe that the in body IS is inferior. Ive read the review of the k100 on Steve digicam, and he was only able to get 1 1/2 stop with the SR. The one thing I really like about the k10D is the weather sealing, and their new line of lenses. I believe the lens are weather sealed too, and zoom internally. I do alot of traveling and weather sealing could help alot. I am having a tough time deciding if I should switch or not as I do not have alot invested in the Canon system yet, the only lens I have is the 17-55IS (which I love). For someone who doesnt have deep pockets and is new to the dSLR, the k10D looks amazing. On the other hand, if you have the money, I still think Canon is the best way to go, even though I believe they havent been very innovative in the last year or so. Right now for me I have to decide between the 30D and the k10D.

My take on this is pretty simple. The people who want the latest and newest features because they are available will go and buy them regardless of their current equipment. Those people with a large investment in their current brand will probably not change. Those just coming into DSLR may be tempted by the features of one manufacturer over another.

Yesterday, Canon cameras were on the whole considered to be right at the top. Today, a manufacturer anounces their ne camera with some bells and whistles - some are good additions - others well at best usefull at worst just gimmicks. This doesn't mean that the good camera I had yesterday is any less good today. It is still a good camera but without the bells and whistles that this new arrival has.

As for the rate of major improvements - the slower the better as far as I am comcerned. There is nothing worse than going out and buying a top of the line product only to discover that if you had waited just a few more weeks you could have bought the new release model with so much extra for just a little more money or got your current madel for a whole lot less. The longer time scale between upgrades and new significant features gives more worth to your original investment. Buying something that costs a significant amount of cash only to have it's value depreciated and feature set eclipsed in such a short time will make your appreciation of it wain at the least.

Canon's L range of glass is certainly very good but far from perfect. I have read many posts on this forum from eople who are not happy with their latest purchase. Granted the majority find their lens performs better than they expected BUT the L lens are priced way above the reach of the average user. A whole lot of people will find that average glass will provide more than acceptable results.

IS - Canon want to continue with in lens IS rather than go for in body IS. Their corp[orate and marketing teams have decided that for Canon inc. that is the best way to go. We must remember that putting in all the hardware and software to use IS puts the price up tremendously. Like the L range, their are a whole lot of people who cannot justify the extra expense to get IS for just one lens. The argument that you can get 2 stops from lens IS as opposed to 1 stop for body IS is a sound argument but those of us with limited budgets will find that in body IS giving 1 stop for every lens is far more appealing than the cost of getting a full range of IS lenses.

In the end, it is down to the individual to make a decision based on their perception of all the alternatives. Some will decide that in body IS coupled with weather sealing is of more worth to them than high ISO noise results and will buy accordingly, as will those for whom the opposite hold true. Just because they choose a different marque to my choice doesn't make either of us right or wrong. ALl it does is prove that different models and or brands are right for different circumstances.

storeman wrote in post #2022414
The argument that you can get 2 stops from lens IS as opposed to 1 stop for body IS is a sound argument but those of us with limited budgets will find that in body IS giving 1 stop for every lens is far more appealing than the cost of getting a full range of IS lenses.

Yup, except the latest IS lenses are quoting 3 stop (70-300) or even 4 stops (the recently announced 70-200 F4 L I believe) so the differential in functionality is even greater and the cost gap doesn't seem quite so high.

foghorn wrote in post #2021652
You guys talk about the 'system' of lenses, Pentax has a lot to offer and more coming. Nobody mentioned the pancake lenses or the three zoom lenses with the Supersonic motors . They may not cater to the pro, but their mid-range offering is quite tempting. If you were new to DSLR's, the Pentax looks more intruiging then the 400d.

The three zoom lenses don't exist yet. If they are anything like the tokina 70-200, then I don't want them for free.

The pancake lenses can be had for canon too, if you really want them.

At this point, the pentax system is still iffy.

DocFrankenstein wrote in post #2022833
The three zoom lenses don't exist yet. If they are anything like the tokina 70-200, then I don't want them for free.

The pancake lenses can be had for canon too, if you really want them.

At this point, the pentax system is still iffy.

The K10D doesn't exist yet either.

Simply, Canon do not have to compete with other brands, they have to compete with and catch up to Canon. I'll only ask two questions - why does Canon dominate the DSLR market by such a large margin and why do pro photographers use Canon more than any other make? I can assure you the wrong answer is marketing.

KennyG wrote in post #2023792
I'll only ask two questions - why does Canon dominate the DSLR market by such a large margin and why do pro photographers use Canon more than any other make? I can assure you the wrong answer is marketing.

I'd state pros use Canon for performance, the domination in the DSLR market however is a combination of product performance and marketing. You can have a great product that pros choose as #1 but a company still needs to "market" to it's advanced amateurs, mid-range users and entry level. In so many industries companies count on moving their entry level consumers up the pyramid through ways of upgrading from the entry product line, I doubt Canon is any different. How many on this forum bought a DRebel or Rebel/350 and have later moved onto a 20D, 5D or 1-series? How many started with the kit lens and sooner or later moved onto an L lens or faster glass? Pretty well most of us would fit this consumer movement up the product chain.

If companies like Pentax and Sony are successful in gaining entry level DSLR consumers, which is what I believe their tactic is, and they gain more new users than Canon, then indeed Canon might begin to lose share. In 5 years Canon wouldn't have the huge pool of entry consumers to move up. I'm confident Canon relies on entry consumers upgrading, heck they likely rely on advanced amateurs and pros doing the same but perhaps to a lesser degree (bodies more than glass) since they're already packing a fair bit of glass in their gear bags.

If I was Pentax, I wouldn't tout "Developed with Tokina" all that proudly. I don't exactly put their glass up their with the likes of Ziess or something... That's like an auto manufacturer saying "Developed with Hyundai".

KennyG wrote in post #2023792
Simply, Canon do not have to compete with other brands, they have to compete with and catch up to Canon. I'll only ask two questions - why does Canon dominate the DSLR market by such a large margin and why do pro photographers use Canon more than any other make? I can assure you the wrong answer is marketing.

It's because the marketing have made people beleive that all the pros use it.


That's GOOD marketing.

DocFrankenstein wrote in post #2024029
It's because the marketing have made people beleive that all the pros use it.

That and the evidence of our own eyes, Doc - all you see in any big sports event these days is white lenses.

Keith R wrote in post #2024045
That and the evidence of our own eyes, Doc - all you see in any big sports event these days is white lenses.

Maybe because Canon pays the networks to show the reserved Canon Pro shooting gallery Hehehehe....jk

They don't pay my professional but independent photographer mates though - yet Canon is still the system of choice for them, for sport, weddings, wildlife... you name it.

Don't get me wrong, I come from a Nikon background (albeit a fairly short and utterly depressing one!) so I understand the appeal of Nikon in many respects: but ultimately, image quality in a wide range of light conditions is what really matters, and Canon just does the job better.

I was a fan of in-camera IS until I realized that it doesn't work for long telephoto lenses, which makes it more or less useless in my eyes-- I can handhold shot down to 1/15 at 17mm as it is, I don't really have a need to bother with something else that can malfunction/drive up the price/whatever. And besides, if your subject is moving, what good is IS anyway? And as this seems to be a topic of discussion, I shoot at greater than ISO800 fairly regularly.

Keith R wrote in post #2024082
They don't pay my professional but independent photographer mates though - yet Canon is still the system of choice for them, for sport, weddings, wildlife... you name it.

Don't get me wrong, I come from a Nikon background (albeit a fairly short and utterly depressing one!) so I understand the appeal of Nikon in many respects: but ultimately, image quality in a wide range of light conditions is what really matters, and Canon just does the job better.

Canon is popular - there's no doubt about that.

But there's a lot of pros using nikon. I know 3 studio photogs whooting with blads. And there's zeiss and leica, rodenstock which IMO are better optically.

Canon isn't perfect and it wouldn't a huge loss for the photographic world it they didn't exist. It's just a camera system to me.