Автор: dent
Дата: 06-03-09 07:43
After around 10K of images put through the Canon 40D, and 4K through the K20D... it's my hope that I can put forward an honest opinion for both cameras. All images for the Valley Land Fund Wildlife Photo Competition must be shot in RAW, so I really get to see what the native sensor image captures each camera is capable of.
Disclaimer: I am using older, excellent FA* glass for Pentax, but the image technical excellence, clarity and capturing the moment is the bottom line - nothing else. These are my personal observations after going through over 140GB of RAW image shooting, much of it with the Canon system. I hope that would give some validity to my observations. However, they are being used under VERY demanding conditions, and I learned the weaknesses of both systems.
The K20D is a great camera, and generally I prefer it's image quality to Canon's IQ. To be honest, the Canon 40D is NOT in the same league as the Pentax K20D in terms of it's handling of underexposed images (intentionally done quite often to ensure a higher shutter speed in low light conditions or shooting shaded subjects). Therefore keep in mind my observations under the conditions I would often have to deal with - they are not across the board in all lighting conditions!
The K20D handles the underexposures much better in terms of detail retention and with less noise - that has been a consistent factor.
Canon 40D... Pros
1) 5 FPS - sometimes a big deal for capturing the action
2) Fast longer lens availability - like the Sigma 500/4.5 (but no image stabilization)
3) Very, very good ISO performance up to ISO 800, reasonable ISO 1000 and ISO 1250.
4) VERY quiet AF (HSM lens)
Canon 40D... Cons
1) AF hunting in low light
2) OOF images - sometimes 50% or more (especially in low light or small subjects)
3) ISO 1250 and above (when underexposed) is almost always noisier than the K20D
4) No weather sealing - I was always concerned about it's care in the very sandy/dusty conditions. (rocket bottle blower was always at hand to even blow away dust on the body)
5) Disable AF on the Sigma 1.4x APO TC - only the most expensive bodies (MKII and MKIII) can AF this TC. Not very useful when shooting wildlife if it's moving!
6) A personal grip: the diopter adjustment is completely and utterly unlike Pentax or Nikon - it's not a slider switch built in above the viewfinder. It's a dial on the upper corner of the viewfinder, and you cannot easily have a visual cue if it's moved from your originally desired setting...
7) NO image stabilization - therefore shutter speeds must be in the 1/1000 to 1/1250 sec. range - below that was a roll of the dice.
Pentax K20D... Pros
1) 3 FPS at 14.6 MP is quite a feat
2) RAW images are better quality, for the reasons aforementioned.
3) OOF images - usually less than 25% - due to double check AF
4) ISO 1000 --> ISO 1600 is excellent - utmost confidence in shooting at these ranges.
5) Incredible image IQ with the FA* series lenses
6) WEATHER SEALING - a huge deal in dry, dusty conditions. A LensCoat helped give some protection to the FA* 300/2.8.
6) Wonderful image quality with TC's: the Tamron 1.4x Pz-AF MC4 and Pentax 1.7x AF TC. However, they were not employed in low light situations (due to AF hunting), so focal length options were reduced. That situation is common to any camera system.
8) Built in SR - a huge deal! I could, in certain situations, shoot as low as 1/125 sec. with the FA* 300/2.8 (with no TC) and have a razor sharp image.
Pentax K20D... Cons
1) Higher FPS would be a real boon for wildlife work
2) Double check AF meant some lost image opportunities, since it slows AF speed.
#2 is a compromise I was willing to work with, given the OOF frequency with the 40D. I'd rather have assurance of 1 sharp image than 3-5 potentially OOF images.
Some NR with Noise Ninja gives all the necessary NR, but there is minimal detail loss for the K20D. This is more pronounced with the 40D (and NR at higher ISO's was enabled and disable to ensure I could see both results). I wish the screw-driven AF of the FA* was quieter, but in a blind or in the SUV, it was more a moot point. The wide aperture of the FA* 300/2.8 was a very big deal in the dusk/dawn shooting conditions - fast glass is very critical.
Bottom line: I have no desire to go to Canon, but I'd be curious to try the IS capable lenses. Perhaps that is the missing thing I needed. The Canon is superb under certain conditions with the setup I had, and best for the extra reach.
The Pentax camera system is my choice for lower light conditions - hands down. It's my choice for the finest in image quality and accurate AF. Sometimes the event unfolding in front of me only happens once, and I preferred the assurance of a higher probability of a sharp photo with Pentax, even though I missed some shots because of the double check AF. That is a compromise I was willing to deal with, given the image quality standards for the competition.
|
|
![[smilie11]](https://photo-forum.net/forum/smileys/smilie11.gif)
) Сравнявах изображенията ![[smile]](https://photo-forum.net/forum/smileys/smilie1.gif)
![[smilie3]](https://photo-forum.net/forum/smileys/smilie3.gif)
![[smilie24]](https://photo-forum.net/forum/smileys/smiley24.gif)
![[ezik]](https://photo-forum.net/forum/smileys/tongue.gif)
само да те е яд че си даваш парите
![[smilie5]](https://photo-forum.net/forum/smileys/smilie5.gif)
Но човек си избира и пак казвам на вкус и цвет таварищи нет!!!! За съжаление хвърлих доста пари докато напипам система за мен която ми угажда, но хич не отричам другите-напротив страхотни апарати и обективи!
Стани фен на Фото Форум във Facebook
Фото Форум в Instagram