Good for Pentax! Eliminate the horrible little P&Ss

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by RichA, Feb 13, 2008.

  1. RichA

    John Turco Guest

    Re: Good for Pentax! Eliminate the horrible little P&Ss

    David J Taylor wrote:
    >
    > John Turco wrote:


    <edited for brevity>

    > John,
    >
    > If you compare a long lens (e.g. 300mm) with in-lens and in-body
    > stabilisation, it is immediately obvious why paying any extra for in-lens
    > IS is well worthwhile. Do try it sometime. Just comapre framing the
    > subject with the IS switched on and off. It is not a "nebulous
    > advantage", but an immediately obvious one. Both of my "budget" telephoto
    > zooms have in-lens IS. Buying purely on price may not get you the best
    > overall DSLR system, nor would buying at the cheapest supplier. Let's
    > look at UK prices from Warehouse Express:
    >
    > Pentax
    > K100D + 18-55mm GBP 330
    > 50-200mm GBP 169
    > Total: GBP 499
    >
    > Nikon
    > D40 + 18-55mm GBP 299
    > 55-200mm VR GBP 179
    > Total: GBP 478
    >
    > So no "price premium", actually a saving. I also have a 70-300mm VR lens
    > as well, which is missing from this supplier's Pentax line-up.
    >
    > Cheers,
    > David



    Hello, David:

    We're discussing "entry level" DSLR's, recall? I doubt that very many buyers
    of either the D40 or K100D, would want to throw lots of cash, at even "'budget'
    telephoto zooms."

    Regardless, as the D40 body lacks both the image stabilization and the build
    quality of the K100D, it >should< be the significantly cheaper model. That it
    isn't, merely reflects Nikon's arrogance and crass exploitation of its customer
    base.

    As one of the DSLR industry's "Big Two" (along with Canon), the company
    obviously enjoys overcharging for its various products. Conversely, Pentax -
    being a so-called "second tier" manufacturer - offers consumers far greater
    value for their money.

    Note: The above statements, are all in my opinion, of course. :p


    Cordially,
    John Turco <>
     
    John Turco, Feb 23, 2008
    #81
    1. Advertising

  2. RichA

    John Turco Guest

    Re: Good for Pentax! Eliminate the horrible little P&Ss

    dj_nme wrote:
    >
    > David J Taylor wrote:


    <heavily edited for brevity>

    > > If you compare a long lens (e.g. 300mm) with in-lens and in-body
    > > stabilisation, it is immediately obvious why paying any extra for in-lens
    > > IS is well worthwhile. Do try it sometime. Just comapre framing the
    > > subject with the IS switched on and off. It is not a "nebulous
    > > advantage", but an immediately obvious one. Both of my "budget" telephoto
    > > zooms have in-lens IS. Buying purely on price may not get you the best
    > > overall DSLR system, nor would buying at the cheapest supplier. Let's
    > > look at UK prices from Warehouse Express:
    > >
    > > Pentax
    > > K100D + 18-55mm GBP 330
    > > 50-200mm GBP 169
    > > Total: GBP 499
    > >
    > > Nikon
    > > D40 + 18-55mm GBP 299
    > > 55-200mm VR GBP 179
    > > Total: GBP 478
    > >
    > > So no "price premium", actually a saving. I also have a 70-300mm VR lens
    > > as well, which is missing from this supplier's Pentax line-up.
    > >
    > > Cheers,
    > > David

    >
    > At least be fair and specify comparible lenses for both.
    > You forgot to have both of the Nikon lenses as VR lenses, as both the
    > lenses specified by you for the Pentax K100D can be used with Pentax
    > in-body AS.
    > I'm sorry, but the Nikon D40 18-55mm kit lens isn't a VR lens, so your
    > price comparison is invalid.
    >
    > The closest listed Nikon lens at Warehouse Express is the 18-55mm
    > f/3.5-5.6G AF-S VR DX at GBP 179.
    >
    > Warehouse Express doesn't sell a D40 without a kit lens, so a Nikon D40
    > with an all VR lens line-up would cost out at:
    > Nikon D40 (with non VR 18-55mm kit lens)- GBP 299
    > 18-55mm VR - GBP 179
    > 55-200mm VR - GBP 179
    >
    > total - GBP 657
    >
    > A fair comparison makes the Nikon GBP 158 more expensive than the Pentax.



    Hello, DJ:

    Alas, I fear you're wasting your time. David's Nikonian chauvinism blinds him to
    brutal reality, apparently. <g>


    Cordially,
    John Turco <>
     
    John Turco, Feb 23, 2008
    #82
    1. Advertising

  3. RichA

    John Turco Guest

    m II wrote:
    >
    > John Turco wrote:
    >
    > >> Olympus, Sony and Panasonic are all doing pretty well.
    > >> BTW, you left out Kodak. ;)

    > >
    > >
    > > Hello, John:
    > >
    > > And a very serious omission it was, with Kodak ranking among the U.S.
    > > and worldwide leaders, in digicam sales, today.

    >
    > I understand it's right up there with GE cameras..
    >
    > mike



    Hello, Mike:

    Whoa, I was completely unaware of GE's meteoric rise up the digital camera
    sales charts! <g>


    Cordially,
    John Turco <>
     
    John Turco, Feb 23, 2008
    #83
  4. Re: Good for Pentax! Eliminate the horrible little P&Ss

    John Turco wrote:
    []
    > Hello, nospam:
    >
    > You're quite right...if Nikon's way provides no overall edge over the
    > Pentax approach, then let David continue wasting his pounds, if he so
    > desires. <g>
    >
    >
    > Cordially,
    > John Turco <>


    John,

    As I've already shown, there is little price difference, but that isn't
    the important point. There is a very substantial advantage in having a
    stabilised image in the viewfinder, making composition and other aspects
    of the camera operation much easier when hand-holding long lenses. It's
    not a brand thing at all, simply a function of where you put the IS.

    It's a very easy test to try for yourself in any camera shop. DSLR with
    300mm IS/VR lens. Switch IS to off, try framing. Switch IS to on, and
    try again. If you can get IS lenses for Pentax, you can enjoy the same
    benefit.

    Cheers,
    David
     
    David J Taylor, Feb 23, 2008
    #84
  5. RichA

    nospam Guest

    Re: Good for Pentax! Eliminate the horrible little P&Ss

    In article <>, John Turco
    <> wrote:

    > We're discussing "entry level" DSLR's, recall? I doubt that very many buyers
    > of either the D40 or K100D, would want to throw lots of cash, at even
    > "'budget'
    > telephoto zooms."


    the lenses he listed are often bundled as a kit.

    > As one of the DSLR industry's "Big Two" (along with Canon), the company
    > obviously enjoys overcharging for its various products.


    people are free to choose whatever camera they want. the fact that
    nikon sells more than pentax is proof that they aren't overcharging.
     
    nospam, Feb 23, 2008
    #85
  6. Re: Good for Pentax! Eliminate the horrible little P&Ss

    John Turco wrote:
    []
    > Hello, David:

    []
    > As one of the DSLR industry's "Big Two" (along with Canon), the
    > company obviously enjoys overcharging for its various products.
    > Conversely, Pentax - being a so-called "second tier" manufacturer -
    > offers consumers far greater value for their money.
    >
    > Note: The above statements, are all in my opinion, of course. :p
    >
    >
    > Cordially,
    > John Turco <>


    John,

    I agree that there are lots of Canon and Nikon bodies and lenses which are
    outside my hobbyist budget, but I don't see this as "overcharging" when
    there are alternatives you can choose.

    Perhaps because of the increasing popularity of entry-level DSLRs, Nikon
    have been recently introducing lenses of good optical quality at
    budget-level prices. The 55 - 200mm VR II lens is one example. These
    lenses don't have the same built-like-a-tank build quality as the
    "all-metal" Nikon lenses of old, but for amateur use are quite adequate,
    and have the advantage of being light and easy to carry.

    I'm pleased that Nikon offer me that choice.

    Cheers,
    David
     
    David J Taylor, Feb 23, 2008
    #86
  7. RichA

    John Navas Guest

    Re: Good for Pentax! Eliminate the horrible little P&Ss

    On Sat, 23 Feb 2008 01:07:42 -0800, nospam <> wrote
    in <230220080107424573%>:

    >In article <>, John Turco
    ><> wrote:


    >> As one of the DSLR industry's "Big Two" (along with Canon), the company
    >> obviously enjoys overcharging for its various products.

    >
    >people are free to choose whatever camera they want. the fact that
    >nikon sells more than pentax is proof that they aren't overcharging.


    You're both right. It's a matter of _perceived_ value versus _real_
    value -- if consumers perceive sufficient value, then they don't feel
    overcharged even when there isn't enough real value to justify the price
    premium, as in the case of "premium" bottled water. ;)

    --
    Best regards,
    John Navas
    Panasonic DMC-FZ8 (and several others)
     
    John Navas, Feb 23, 2008
    #87
  8. RichA

    John Navas Guest

    Re: Good for Pentax! Eliminate the horrible little P&Ss

    On Sat, 23 Feb 2008 09:32:07 GMT, "David J Taylor"
    <-this-bit.nor-this-bit.co.uk> wrote in
    <rKRvj.11837$>:

    >Perhaps because of the increasing popularity of entry-level DSLRs, Nikon
    >have been recently introducing lenses of good optical quality at
    >budget-level prices. The 55 - 200mm VR II lens is one example. These
    >lenses don't have the same built-like-a-tank build quality as the
    >"all-metal" Nikon lenses of old, but for amateur use are quite adequate,
    >and have the advantage of being light and easy to carry.
    >
    >I'm pleased that Nikon offer me that choice.


    Unfortunately, whether all such lenses deserve the name brand moniker is
    at least somewhat questionable, since they may just be (re)branded
    versions of third party lenses. I would personally feel ripped off if
    I found the name brand lens I bought is really a Sigma, Tamron, Tokina,
    or whatnot. (I'm not saying this allies to the particular lens you
    mentioned -- don't know one way or the other -- just making a general
    point about this dirty little secret.)

    --
    Best regards,
    John Navas
    Panasonic DMC-FZ8 (and several others)
     
    John Navas, Feb 23, 2008
    #88
  9. Re: Good for Pentax! Eliminate the horrible little P&Ss

    John Navas wrote:
    []
    > Unfortunately, whether all such lenses deserve the name brand moniker
    > is at least somewhat questionable, since they may just be (re)branded
    > versions of third party lenses. I would personally feel ripped off if
    > I found the name brand lens I bought is really a Sigma, Tamron,
    > Tokina, or whatnot.

    []

    I might agree with you, although if the choice is:

    - 3rd party, take it or leave it, no performance guarantee, return to base
    servicing for 1 year

    - branded, quality checked to brand standard, performance guaranteed,
    world-wide carry-in servicing, 5-year warranty.

    at least you then see why there might be two different prices.

    Cheers,
    David
     
    David J Taylor, Feb 23, 2008
    #89
  10. RichA

    John Navas Guest

    Re: Good for Pentax! Eliminate the horrible little P&Ss

    On Sat, 23 Feb 2008 18:48:48 GMT, "David J Taylor"
    <-this-bit.nor-this-bit.co.uk> wrote in
    <kUZvj.12140$>:

    >John Navas wrote:
    >[]
    >> Unfortunately, whether all such lenses deserve the name brand moniker
    >> is at least somewhat questionable, since they may just be (re)branded
    >> versions of third party lenses. I would personally feel ripped off if
    >> I found the name brand lens I bought is really a Sigma, Tamron,
    >> Tokina, or whatnot.

    >[]
    >
    >I might agree with you, although if the choice is:
    >
    >- 3rd party, take it or leave it, no performance guarantee, return to base
    >servicing for 1 year
    >
    >- branded, quality checked to brand standard, performance guaranteed,
    >world-wide carry-in servicing, 5-year warranty.
    >
    >at least you then see why there might be two different prices.


    In my experience, the latter is more theory than real world practice.
    I've seen little or no real differentiation between the independent
    brand and the name brand of the same lens.

    --
    Best regards,
    John Navas
    Panasonic DMC-FZ8 (and several others)
     
    John Navas, Feb 24, 2008
    #90
  11. RichA

    nospam Guest

    Re: Good for Pentax! Eliminate the horrible little P&Ss

    In article <>, John Navas
    <> wrote:

    > I've seen little or no real differentiation between the independent
    > brand and the name brand of the same lens.


    which nikon or canon lens is made by sigma/tamron/tokina ?
     
    nospam, Feb 24, 2008
    #91
  12. RichA

    John Navas Guest

    Re: Good for Pentax! Eliminate the horrible little P&Ss

    On Sat, 23 Feb 2008 20:37:10 -0800, nospam <> wrote
    in <230220082037107988%>:

    >In article <>, John Navas
    ><> wrote:
    >
    >> I've seen little or no real differentiation between the independent
    >> brand and the name brand of the same lens.

    >
    >which nikon or canon lens is made by sigma/tamron/tokina ?


    You really don't have any idea?
    --
    Best regards,
    John Navas
    Panasonic DMC-FZ8 (and several others)
     
    John Navas, Feb 24, 2008
    #92
  13. RichA

    nospam Guest

    Re: Good for Pentax! Eliminate the horrible little P&Ss

    In article <>, John Navas
    <> wrote:

    > >> I've seen little or no real differentiation between the independent
    > >> brand and the name brand of the same lens.

    > >
    > >which nikon or canon lens is made by sigma/tamron/tokina ?

    >
    > You really don't have any idea?


    nope. clue me in. which ones?
     
    nospam, Feb 24, 2008
    #93
  14. RichA

    John Navas Guest

    Re: Good for Pentax! Eliminate the horrible little P&Ss

    On Sat, 23 Feb 2008 22:36:33 -0800, nospam <> wrote
    in <230220082236330231%>:

    >In article <>, John Navas
    ><> wrote:
    >
    >> >> I've seen little or no real differentiation between the independent
    >> >> brand and the name brand of the same lens.
    >> >
    >> >which nikon or canon lens is made by sigma/tamron/tokina ?

    >>
    >> You really don't have any idea?

    >
    >nope. clue me in. which ones?


    "Google is your friend:"
    <http://www.google.com/search?q=%28canon-lens+OR+nikon-lens%29+%28made-by-sigma+OR+made-by-tokina+OR+made-by-tamron%29>

    --
    Best regards,
    John Navas
    Panasonic DMC-FZ8 (and several others)
     
    John Navas, Feb 24, 2008
    #94
  15. RichA

    nospam Guest

    Re: Good for Pentax! Eliminate the horrible little P&Ss

    In article <>, John Navas
    <> wrote:

    > <http://www.google.com/search?q=(canon-lens OR nikon-lens) (made-by-sigm
    > a+OR+made-by-tokina+OR+made-by-tamron%29>


    that just produces a lot of anecdotal evidence and people speculating
    because some lenses are similar. nikon does outsource some of the
    budget lenses, but i have not seen any evidence that the exact same
    lens is also marketed by someone else. it also contradicts what you
    said a few months ago about not bothering with third party lenses.

    you stated:

    > I've seen little or no real differentiation between the independent
    > brand and the name brand of the same lens.


    to which lens(es) do you refer? specific examples please, not google
    it.
     
    nospam, Feb 24, 2008
    #95
  16. RichA

    John Turco Guest

    Re: Good for Pentax! Eliminate the horrible little P&Ss

    David J Taylor wrote:
    >
    > John Turco wrote:
    > []
    > > Hello, nospam:
    > >
    > > You're quite right...if Nikon's way provides no overall edge over the
    > > Pentax approach, then let David continue wasting his pounds, if he so
    > > desires. <g>

    >
    >
    > John,
    >
    > As I've already shown, there is little price difference, but that isn't
    > the important point. There is a very substantial advantage in having a
    > stabilised image in the viewfinder, making composition and other aspects
    > of the camera operation much easier when hand-holding long lenses. It's
    > not a brand thing at all, simply a function of where you put the IS.


    Hello, David:

    Whoopie. :-J

    > It's a very easy test to try for yourself in any camera shop. DSLR with
    > 300mm IS/VR lens. Switch IS to off, try framing. Switch IS to on, and
    > try again. If you can get IS lenses for Pentax, you can enjoy the same
    > benefit.
    >
    > Cheers,
    > David


    Oh, so, I could then enjoy the best of both worlds, in terms of image
    stabilization?

    Thank you, kindly, for confirming Pentax's superiority in modern DSLR
    ergonomics. <g>


    Cordially,
    John Turco <>
     
    John Turco, Feb 25, 2008
    #96
  17. RichA

    John Turco Guest

    Re: Good for Pentax! Eliminate the horrible little P&Ss

    nospam wrote:
    >
    > In article <>, John Turco
    > <> wrote:
    >
    > > We're discussing "entry level" DSLR's, recall? I doubt that very many buyers
    > > of either the D40 or K100D, would want to throw lots of cash, at even
    > > "'budget' telephoto zooms."

    >
    > the lenses he listed are often bundled as a kit.
    >
    > > As one of the DSLR industry's "Big Two" (along with Canon), the company
    > > obviously enjoys overcharging for its various products.

    >
    > people are free to choose whatever camera they want. the fact that
    > nikon sells more than pentax is proof that they aren't overcharging.



    Hello, nospam:

    No, Nikon >does< overcharge, because there's a sucker born every minute,
    as the old saying goes. <g>

    Besides, market share isn't necessarily indicative of quality. After
    all, as a faithful Apple user, haven't you often publicly lambasted
    Microsoft's allegedly monopolistic practices?


    Cordially,
    John Turco <>
     
    John Turco, Feb 25, 2008
    #97
  18. RichA

    John Turco Guest

    Re: Good for Pentax! Eliminate the horrible little P&Ss

    David J Taylor wrote:

    <edited for brevity>

    > John,
    >
    > I agree that there are lots of Canon and Nikon bodies and lenses which are
    > outside my hobbyist budget, but I don't see this as "overcharging" when
    > there are alternatives you can choose.
    >
    > Perhaps because of the increasing popularity of entry-level DSLRs, Nikon
    > have been recently introducing lenses of good optical quality at
    > budget-level prices. The 55 - 200mm VR II lens is one example. These
    > lenses don't have the same built-like-a-tank build quality as the
    > "all-metal" Nikon lenses of old, but for amateur use are quite adequate,
    > and have the advantage of being light and easy to carry.
    >
    > I'm pleased that Nikon offer me that choice.
    >
    > Cheers,
    > David



    Hello, David:

    Death to Nikon and Canon, alike, I say...Pentax is my puppy! :-D
    Just as with the lack of respect afforded Kodak's P&S cameras,
    within <news:rec.photo.digital>, I consider it my duty to defend
    Pentax's honor, in the DSLR arena.

    It's a tough job, but, someone has to do it. <g>


    Cordially,
    John Turco <>
     
    John Turco, Feb 25, 2008
    #98
  19. RichA

    John Turco Guest

    Re: Good for Pentax! Eliminate the horrible little P&Ss

    John Navas wrote:
    >
    > On Sat, 23 Feb 2008 01:07:42 -0800, nospam <> wrote
    > in <230220080107424573%>:
    >
    > >In article <>, John Turco
    > ><> wrote:

    >
    > >> As one of the DSLR industry's "Big Two" (along with Canon), the company
    > >> obviously enjoys overcharging for its various products.

    > >
    > >people are free to choose whatever camera they want. the fact that
    > >nikon sells more than pentax is proof that they aren't overcharging.

    >
    > You're both right. It's a matter of _perceived_ value versus _real_
    > value -- if consumers perceive sufficient value, then they don't feel
    > overcharged even when there isn't enough real value to justify the price
    > premium, as in the case of "premium" bottled water. ;)



    Hello, John:

    Not to mention, "gourmet hot dogs." <g>


    Cordially,
    John Turco <>
     
    John Turco, Feb 25, 2008
    #99
  20. Re: Good for Pentax! Eliminate the horrible little P&Ss

    John Turco wrote:
    []
    > Oh, so, I could then enjoy the best of both worlds, in terms of image
    > stabilization?
    >
    > Thank you, kindly, for confirming Pentax's superiority in modern DSLR
    > ergonomics. <g>
    >
    >
    > Cordially,
    > John Turco <>


    Unfortunately, as Pentax don't offer in-lens IS, you still loose out. <G>

    But do try the test I suggested (300mm lens, switch IS on and off) to see
    just why I suggest in-lens IS is best.

    David
     
    David J Taylor, Feb 25, 2008
    1. Advertising

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. Replies:
    4
    Views:
    931
    gunner
    Feb 11, 2007
  2. Giuen
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    1,069
    Giuen
    Sep 12, 2008
  3. Charles
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    530
    Ray Fischer
    Jan 29, 2010
  4. LOL!
    Replies:
    11
    Views:
    637
    Ray Fischer
    Jan 30, 2010
  5. Wolfgang Weisselberg
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    486
    Wolfgang Weisselberg
    Feb 7, 2010
Loading...

Share This Page