Even though I am happy with the *ist D as well, and Pentax glass, I realize one often doesn't know what they're missing until they try it.
I have been a Pentax-only user for the last 16 years. At times I have felt some sense of loyalty. That started to end around the time the MZ-S came out because it was not a move-up spec-wise from the PZ-1p (irregardless of how good it was in it's own right). I was chagrined that the *ist DS was a move down from the *ist D feature-wise, not a move up (irregardless of how good it is in it's own right).
I agree, the fact that the new lenses do not cover FF indicates no plans for the near future. Even though I can't afford or justify the expense of Canon's full frame DSLR right now, at least they have one.
I do not see Pentax moving in the direction I'm inclined to go, and of all camera brands out there, I suspect they could be the next to bite the dust, as far as cameras go. Only Olympus or Minolta could beat them through the door.
Tom C.
From: "Christian" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Reply-To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net To: <pentax-discuss@pdml.net> Subject: Why and How I switched to Canon (for those who care) long Date: Fri, 29 Apr 2005 11:05:04 -0400
First let me preface this with a few statements. I was more than happy with
te *ist D. Image quality, handling, feature set, etc were all more than I
could have asked for in the first digital SLR from Pentax. I was a very
ealry adopter getting the first one available at the local store in Sept. of
2003. Lens selection, on paper, was more than adequate; anything from
extreme wide/fisheye to super telephoto from Pentax as well as third-part
manufacturers. I was also very happy with my selection of lenses and the
results I was getting. so no complaints to Pentax.
So, why switch? After all, the finacial burden of changing a complete camera system is very hard on someone in my position. I am "only" an amateur shooter and my income is divided between mortgage, car loans, child care, child support, retiremant, etc., etc.
The reasons are many and varied and hard to describe. First, Pentax is just
not "improving" their products. Let's be honest, there is no news of a *ist
D replacement; something with a bigger buffer, higher frame rate, faster
write speeds, and yes, more pixels. I'd also like to see an orientation
sensor and better RAW performance including "lossless" compression. As we
have recently seen, Pentax has no plans to produce a full-frame (24x36mm)
sensor with a k-mount body. New lens releases confirm this with most only
covering the current sensor size.
Second, speaking of lenses, there seem to be more releases of consumer grade
lenses while the high-end true quality glass is being discontinued. And if
it's not discontinued it's back-ordered with impossible delivery times. I
understand the need for Pentax to compete in the "entry-level" market with
the *ist Ds but I would have liked to see a new prosumer (yes, 20D
competitive; just as the D was competitive with the 10D) camera and a
selection of good glass (after all we are using Pentax "for the glass").
Third, Pentax is lagging far behind in the technology wars. Canon and Nikon
and even Sigma (Sigma!) have had implementations of USM/HSM and some kind of
image stabilization for a while now.. The USM thing, I found while playing
with some 10Ds, is awesome. Silent, fast, etc. The IS thing I put down to
hype. After all, 90% of my photography is done on a tripod or with a flash
(birds and bugs) so how could IS work for me anyway? All the Canon owners I
talked to would tell me, "you'll change your mind!" or "Once you use IS
you'll be hooked." Yeah right, not me, Im a purist after all. I have since
learned that the Canon BIG glass has a "tripod" mode. So when I tried IS
and found out it works in manual focus as well as auto I realized what a
great tool it is. I've also discovered recently that my eyesight is pretty
bad and degrading quickly. My manual focus shots have been out of focus
more often than not and I started to rely on AF more often. So AF is
becoming more important to me and the USM becomes an asset.
Fourth: third-party support. While many nice lenses are made by third parties are available to Pentax users, some that I am interested are not. But it's more than just lenses. Pentax is the red-headed-stepchild of the photo industry. For example: one area I wish to explore is underwater photography using a housed DSLR. How many housings are available for the *ist D? Zero. As soon as Canon anounced the digirebel there were no less than 3 housings available for it from 3 seperate manufacturers. I believe there are at least 6 seperate housings available for the 20D now, from milled aluminium to clear plastic. Some even support E-TTL2 flash. for Pentax, one manufacturer has sort of announced a housing for the Ds but their product catalog still has no entry for it and there is no mention on their website. Even the recently announced Minolta 7D has a housing on the market. The housings for the 1DsII were on the market BEFORE the camera was! (granted this is a specialized field and a single case but other examples exist)
Fifth: The size of the *ist D was never a selling point for me. Pentax's obsession with smaller lenses and bodies was not something I really cared about. I have no problem hiking for miles with big, heavy cameras and lenses and a big, heavy tripod.
Sixth: The "upgrade path." What is Pentax's future as a k-mount DSLR manufacturer? We really don't know, but as stated above, we can be pretty sure that there will not be a camera with a k-mount and a 24x36mm sensor. With Canon, the future is pretty clear. DSLR bodies are being developed along three major lines: Consumer, Prosumer, and professional with new or improved bodies coming out at a very agggresive rate. The upgrade path is clear and available. If I choose I can upgrade to a full-frame sensor in the future. Pentax was just not offering me enough of a future.
So those are most of the "whys?"
Now the "hows?"
I didn't switch on a whim. I actually planned it because I have limited
funds and really only wanted to use proceeds from my Pentax gear to pay for
the new Canon gear. I created a spreadsheet with all my gear and a guess at
what I could get for it onthe used market. I then created a columnn with
the replacement gear and its projected cost. If I replaced the most used
gear, one-for-one, I was in the hole about $2000. Not good. It could take
me a long time to svae $2k.
First I sold my unused gear and got more than I expected. With that cash
and the cash from the sale of a small boat, I bought the 20D, battery grip,
100mm macro lens, a Sigma flash and a flash cable. now I had my macro kit
so I could sell my 105mm macro lens. And the first purchase was paid off .
Next i looked at my remaining Pentax gear and my "wish list" of canon gear.
Making some sacrifices (such as no wide-normal lens; which is a big
sacrifice) I realized that I had enough gear to sell to finance my other big
purchase, namely a 300mm F4 USM IS lens to replace my Sigma 300/4 macro.
Additionally i added the 1.4x TC and a cable release and a bunch of extra
BP-511 batteries (more on this in a later email).
So my Canon kit is very limited: 20D, battery grip, 100mm f2.5 USM macro, 300mm F4 L USM IS, 1.4x TC, Sigma EF500DG Super flash, cable release and off-camera flash cord. I have the "normal" gap filled with SMC Takumar lenses and a m42-EOS adapter. Next I will buy an "interim" lens; the mediocre 18-55 "kit" lens which are being dumped on eekbay. I'll use this lens until I can get the highly regarded 17-40/4 L in the very near future. Also on the list is a 50/1.4, the 2X TC and some other minor accessories. Of course an Ikelite housing, dome port for the 17-40 and flat port for the 100mm macro and e-ttl UW strobes are also on the list; maybe in time for my next trip to the GBR.
So far I'm very happy with the Camera and lenses. I'll write another email later based on a comparison of handling and features of the 20D vs. *ist D if anyone is interested.
Christian
