Is Pentax a reasonable choice?

Discussion in 'Pentax' started by Peabody, Jan 15, 2010.

  1. Peabody

    Ray Fischer Guest

    Alfred Molon <> wrote:
    >A sensor cleaning system is an essential feature, unless you think that
    >having dust spots all over the images is ok.


    I use a can of compressed air and a fine nylon brush. Works quite well.

    --
    Ray Fischer
     
    Ray Fischer, Jan 17, 2010
    #21
    1. Advertisements

  2. On Sun, 17 Jan 2010 21:44:56 +0100, Alfred Molon wrote:

    >> Ofcourse. But a manual cleaning toolkit is a system as well.

    >
    > Sure, but you can't use it in a dusty environment, because dust will
    > likely get into the camera when you open the body to blow the dust away.
    > A sensor shake system instead can be used anywhere, because the camera
    > will be sealed all the time.


    True. So an internal sensor cleaning system is essential in a dusty
    environment, if you need to swap lenses there.

    That's a slight refinement of your original statement.

    --
    Regards, Robert http://www.arumes.com
     
    Robert Spanjaard, Jan 17, 2010
    #22
    1. Advertisements

  3. On Sun, 17 Jan 2010 23:15:33 +0100, Alfred Molon wrote:

    >> True. So an internal sensor cleaning system is essential in a dusty
    >> environment, if you need to swap lenses there.
    >>
    >> That's a slight refinement of your original statement.

    >
    > Well, you are not always in a dustfree environment, which is why it is
    > important to be able to clean a sensor without opening the camera.
    >
    > But coming back to the original topic, I had a look at the Pentax K20D a
    > couple of years ago, because back then it was the affordable DSLR with
    > the highest pixel count. The main reason I didn't buy it was the lack of
    > lenses (they didn't have the lenses I was interested in) and I also
    > didn't like the ergonomics and user interface.


    Same here. The only thing I like about Pentax is its exterior. I like the
    green and gold combination they use on their lenses. But I'm not going to
    drop Canon just for that. :)

    --
    Regards, Robert http://www.arumes.com
     
    Robert Spanjaard, Jan 17, 2010
    #23
  4. Peabody

    Ray Fischer Guest

    Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
    > (Ray Fischer) said:
    >> Alfred Molon <> wrote:


    >>> A sensor cleaning system is an essential feature, unless you think that
    >>> having dust spots all over the images is ok.

    >>
    >> I use a can of compressed air and a fine nylon brush. Works quite well.

    >
    >The canned air is not a good idea. You have the potential to spray
    >propellant onto the lowpass filter and have some real cleaning problems.


    I don't use the air on the camera. It's for the brush.

    --
    Ray Fischer
     
    Ray Fischer, Jan 18, 2010
    #24
  5. Peabody

    LOL! Guest

    On Sun, 17 Jan 2010 21:44:56 +0100, Alfred Molon <>
    wrote:

    >In article <a31ce$4b536208$546accd9$>,
    > says...
    >
    >> Ofcourse. But a manual cleaning toolkit is a system as well.

    >
    >Sure, but you can't use it in a dusty environment, because dust will
    >likely get into the camera when you open the body to blow the dust away.
    >A sensor shake system instead can be used anywhere, because the camera
    >will be sealed all the time.


    ROFLMAO!!!!! I just love these DSLR-Trolls that promote their DSLR cameras
    by which one has the least crippling problems! Can't focus accurately, dust
    problems, etc.

    LOL!!!!
     
    LOL!, Jan 18, 2010
    #25
  6. Peabody

    Ray Fischer Guest

    LOL! <> wrote:
    >On Sun, 17 Jan 2010 21:44:56 +0100, Alfred Molon <>
    >wrote:
    >
    >>In article <a31ce$4b536208$546accd9$>,
    >> says...
    >>
    >>> Ofcourse. But a manual cleaning toolkit is a system as well.

    >>
    >>Sure, but you can't use it in a dusty environment, because dust will
    >>likely get into the camera when you open the body to blow the dust away.
    >>A sensor shake system instead can be used anywhere, because the camera
    >>will be sealed all the time.

    >
    >ROFLMAO!!!!! I just love these DSLR-Trolls that promote their DSLR cameras


    Go away, asshole troll.

    --
    Ray Fischer
     
    Ray Fischer, Jan 18, 2010
    #26
  7. On 1/17/10 PDT 10:40 PM, Ray Fischer wrote:
    > LOL!<> wrote:
    >>
    >> ROFLMAO!!!!! I just love these DSLR-Trolls that promote their DSLR cameras

    >
    > Go away, asshole troll.
    >


    Gosh, Ray, these replies are surely going to drive our pest away.

    Keep up the good work.

    --
    lsmft
     
    John McWilliams, Jan 18, 2010
    #27
  8. Peabody

    LOL! Guest

    On Mon, 18 Jan 2010 17:02:21 +1100, "Pete D" <> wrote:

    >
    >"Chrlz" <> wrote in message
    >news:...
    >On Jan 17, 4:44 pm, "Pete D" <> wrote:
    >>>"LOL!" <> wrote in message
    >>> Did you miss them? Too bad.

    >>
    >> Once again you have failed to live up to your own hype with lies, you have
    >> never posted one, as the Queen would say, keep it up we are almost amused.

    >
    >Allow me. The definitive Keoeeit (aka LOL!, Namehere, Anti-DSLR
    >troll, etc) gallery:
    >
    >Macro images:
    >http://forums.steves-digicams.com/forums/attachment.php?id=96572
    >(Beetle macro - can you say 'over-processed'?)
    >http://chdk.wikia.com/wiki/Image:Drop_a.jpg
    >(Water droplet - too bad about the CA/PF..)
    >http://iz.carnegiemnh.org/cranefly/images/Photos/Limonia_immatura_by_Keoeeit.jpg
    >(crane fly - what a challenging image that must have been..)
    >
    >His expertise also ranges to IR images like this masterpiece:
    >http://forums.steves-digicams.com/forums/attachment.php?id=96685
    >
    >Then there's his demonstration of his p&s camera's low light
    >superiority:
    >http://forums.steves-digicams.com/forums/attachment.php?id=101398
    >
    >And he even does panoramas:
    >http://forums.steves-digicams.com/forums/attachment.php?id=100233
    >
    >Superb stuff. I think everyone would want to be in that league....
    >
    >*** I kid you not - these are all images taken by the 'gay
    >outdoorsman' troll, Keoeeit. ***
    >
    ><In that case we are amused and amazed, truly what a joke. I was actually
    >hoping he would post some good photos, even average would <have been okay.
    >
    ><Cheers.
    >
    ><Pete
    >


    Oh look! The DSLR-Trolls have turned into net-stalking trolls! They can't
    even stalk properly let alone know anything about cameras too!

    LOL!!!!!
     
    LOL!, Jan 18, 2010
    #28
  9. Peabody

    Ray Fischer Guest

    John McWilliams <> wrote:
    >On 1/17/10 PDT 10:40 PM, Ray Fischer wrote:
    >> LOL!<> wrote:
    >>>
    >>> ROFLMAO!!!!! I just love these DSLR-Trolls that promote their DSLR cameras

    >>
    >> Go away, asshole troll.

    >
    >Gosh, Ray, these replies are surely going to drive our pest away.


    They'll let people know who the trolls are.

    >Keep up the good work.


    And you keep defending the asshole trolls.

    --
    Ray Fischer
     
    Ray Fischer, Jan 18, 2010
    #29
  10. ? "Alfred Molon" <> ?????? ??? ??????
    news:...
    > In article <4b83e$4b537ced$546accd9$>,
    > says...
    >
    >> True. So an internal sensor cleaning system is essential in a dusty
    >> environment, if you need to swap lenses there.
    >>
    >> That's a slight refinement of your original statement.

    >
    > Well, you are not always in a dustfree environment, which is why it is
    > important to be able to clean a sensor without opening the camera.
    >
    > But coming back to the original topic, I had a look at the Pentax K20D a
    > couple of years ago, because back then it was the affordable DSLR with
    > the highest pixel count. The main reason I didn't buy it was the lack of
    > lenses (they didn't have the lenses I was interested in) and I also
    > didn't like the ergonomics and user interface.
    > --
    >

    The Nikon D-60 sells for 379 euros here, the Canon EOS 1000 D for 399.


    --
    Tzortzakakis Dimitrios
    major in electrical engineering
    mechanized infantry reservist
    hordad AT otenet DOT gr
     
    Tzortzakakis Dimitrios, Jan 18, 2010
    #30
  11. On 1/17/10 PDT 11:34 PM, Ray Fischer wrote:
    > John McWilliams<> wrote:
    >> On 1/17/10 PDT 10:40 PM, Ray Fischer wrote:
    >>> LOL!<> wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>> ROFLMAO!!!!! I just love these DSLR-Trolls that promote their DSLR cameras
    >>>
    >>> Go away, asshole troll.

    >>
    >> Gosh, Ray, these replies are surely going to drive our pest away.

    >
    > They'll let people know who the trolls are.


    Yes, this guy is extremely difficult to spot!
    Sheesh...
    >
    >> Keep up the good work.

    >
    > And you keep defending the asshole trolls.


    Uh, no, Ray. Not even close.

    Any sort of reply keeps him going. Even talking about him as we are doing.

    So, STFU.

    --
    lsmft
     
    John McWilliams, Jan 18, 2010
    #31
  12. Peabody

    Bruce Guest

    On Mon, 18 Jan 2010 08:43:26 -0800, John McWilliams
    <> wrote:

    >Any sort of reply keeps him going. Even talking about him as we are doing.
    >
    >So, STFU.



    Why don't you take your own advice? You can't credibly criticise Ray
    if you are also adding to the thread.
     
    Bruce, Jan 18, 2010
    #32
  13. Alfred Molon <> wrote:

    > Three stops are what you usually get with most DSLR models incorporating
    > in-body IS, then there are DSLRs with a more advanced in-body IS capable
    > of more than that.


    And current in-lens IS is usually at 4 stops. I'll not talk
    about continuous in-lens stabilisation as found in binoculars
    and video cameras ...

    -Wolfgang
     
    Wolfgang Weisselberg, Jan 20, 2010
    #33
  14. Alfred Molon <> wrote:
    > A sensor cleaning system is an essential feature, unless you think that
    > having dust spots all over the images is ok.


    You know, all cameras without one get dust spots over their images
    within 10 seconds. It's terrible. That's why I own a rocket
    blower and some eclipse fluid and stuff, and even use them a few
    times a year.

    In other words, your huge moutain panorama is just the macro of a
    molehill --- and as tests have shown, even the best dust shakers
    remove about half of the airborne dirt at most.

    -Wolfgang
     
    Wolfgang Weisselberg, Jan 20, 2010
    #34
  15. Alfred Molon <> wrote:
    > -this-bit.and-this-part.co.uk.invalid says...


    >> One reason is that in-body IS does nothing for the viewfinder image.


    > If that mattered, you could use live view to frame.


    If I wanted a heavy camera at arm's length with a comparatively
    low resolution screen, I'd buy an EVIL (or P&S) and screw some
    weights on --- probably in form of extra batteries. And be
    blinded by night, too.

    Try it --- with a 70-200 f/2.8 IS. Try it for a couple hours
    non-stop, handholding the gear, then we talk. Ah, and I'd want
    a fast AF, too.

    > But it's not a reason not to add in-body IS to a camera,


    It's also not a reason to add it, when an excellent technology
    that delivers all that already exists for far longer than life
    view exists. And it uses much less battery power, works with
    phase AF and film cameras, never has a problem with bright
    sunshine ... and displays without any lag from reading the
    sensor, transforming that data and pushing it to a monitor.

    > which delivers a gain of up to
    > 5 stops depending on the implementation.


    Under which specific conditions, focal lengths and so on does
    what system deliver 5 stops and how it that measured?

    -Wolfgang
     
    Wolfgang Weisselberg, Jan 20, 2010
    #35
  16. Joe100 <> wrote:

    > What ever you do don’t buy a Pentax (I have 3 bodies) I bet a lot
    > of people saying
    > This were the same ones saying you would be crazy to buy apple products
    > just
    > A few years ago cause apple is at deaths door. Then they started to

    [ more badly formatted, incoherent drivel ]

    Don't drink and post.

    But of course you are ashamed of your posting, look at the
    fake name and the equally fake email address.

    -Wolfgang
     
    Wolfgang Weisselberg, Jan 29, 2010
    #36
  17. Peabody

    John Turco Guest

    Peabody wrote:
    >
    > I've been doing a lot of research on DSLRs, entry level and the next
    > step up, and on paper the best value appears to be the Pentax K-x.
    > $550 at Amazon for the kit. The dpreview review was absolutely
    > glowing, including a statement that if you want better low-light
    > performance, you'll have to go full frame. Overall, they liked it
    > at least as well as the D5000 and T1i, and all for materially less
    > money.
    >
    > And I guess an additional advantage would be the availability of
    > the older Pentax lenses at low cost.
    >
    > But I keep seeing comments to the effect that Pentax may be on
    > death's door. Is that the consensus opinion? Well if they go
    > under, there would be the issue of warranty, but I assume you
    > would still be able to get repairs done somewhere. And the
    > cameras wouldn't immediately stop taking pictures. :)
    >
    > Actually, as long as somebody else buys them, a la Sony and
    > Konica/Minolta, it might not matter, at least for a while.



    I have a Pentax K100D, and admire both its build quality and
    the excellence of its pictures. If photography is just a hobby
    for you, then Pentax is a good, relatively inexpensive option.

    Wide varieties of superb, used lenses are affordably available
    (on eBay, etc.), and secondhand Pentax bodies should be much
    cheaper than Nikon and Canon merchandise.

    Good luck!

    --
    Cordially,
    John Turco <>

    Paintings Pain and Pun <http://laughatthepain.blogspot.com>
     
    John Turco, Jan 30, 2010
    #37
  18. Peabody

    John Turco Guest

    Pete D wrote:
    >
    > "simon" <> wrote in message
    > news:...


    <heavily edited for brevity>

    > > Pentax K-7 best price i can find (body only) = £989 [plus you can get £50
    > > cashback from pentax.
    > > D300s £1239
    > > both prices from srsmicrosystems.co.uk or cameraworld.co.uk
    > >
    > > Is the Nikon really worth £250 quid more....?
    > > You could buy some glass with the money you saved.... and be quietly smug
    > > in knowing that you made an educated choice.
    > >>
    > >>

    > > Someone will doubtless comment that IS in lens is better 'cos the
    > > viewfinder stabilises too. Fair comment. fine if you shoot birds in
    > > flight or similar... do you?
    > > IS in lenses will cost you more, with the pentax system you get it on all
    > > your lenses 'cos its in the body.
    > >>

    >
    > All very good stuff, I think those that say that the Pentax cameras are
    > beaten by a mile simply have an agenda. Some features are not as good but
    > when you actually measure the difference it is not so much and as you say
    > they often forget to mention that many Pentax cameras have features that
    > the others simply do not have.
    >
    > Cheers.
    >
    > Pete



    My K100D is genuinely feature-packed, and it's just an "entry level"
    DSLR.

    Plus, it feels like a somewhat solider camera, than any of the much
    more pricey Nikon and Canon display models that I've handled, inside
    local stores.

    --
    Cordially,
    John Turco <>

    Paintings Pain and Pun <http://laughatthepain.blogspot.com>
     
    John Turco, Jan 30, 2010
    #38
    1. Advertisements

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. D L Singer

    Venue(s) for reasonable discussion

    D L Singer, Aug 6, 2003, in forum: 35mm Cameras
    Replies:
    15
    Views:
    564
    Al Denelsbeck
    Aug 8, 2003
  2. Christi Conley

    Looking for a reasonable source

    Christi Conley, Apr 5, 2004, in forum: Photography
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    467
    John O.
    Apr 6, 2004
  3. What's a Reasonable...

    , Jan 27, 2005, in forum: Photography
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    460
  4. Scott Coutts

    Wanted: 300D in Melbourne, in stock and for a reasonable price.

    Scott Coutts, Oct 24, 2003, in forum: Australia Photography
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    336
    Gurrie
    Oct 25, 2003
  5. Rowan Crowe
    Replies:
    10
    Views:
    502
    redbears
    May 27, 2004
  6. s
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    527
    Ax Photo
    Jun 15, 2004
  7. Dave Ello
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    267
    Dave Ello
    Nov 16, 2004
  8. Chris Barnard
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    300
    andymarquis
    Jan 16, 2004
Loading...