> So, what does Canon have to offer that might be a > reason to change? > IS & USM. > If you need/wants quiet af and is on your long lenses, > that may justify a change.
Faster frame rates, better AF, biggest line of pro lenses. By reputation the best mid-range teles and long teles on par with anyone elses. Better pro digital. Better selection of third-party lenses if that matters to you. > What might Nikon have to offer a person to change? > More-solid PJ-grade bodies. > If one needs/wants this then there would be cause to change. Bazillions of great lenses on the used market that still work with some currently availible cameras. Very durable gear. IS & USM like canon's, for what it's worth. Wider array of lenses present and past than Pentax. > What does Pentax have to offer? > Best optics. Limited, FA*. Pretty much all in the > shorter focal lengths. (Nikon users might argue some > specifics, but the whole range of Pentax optics, My tests show that Nikons are sharper in the corners than Pentax, whereas Pentax is sharper in the center than Nikons. In fairness to Pentax, I haven't had the opportunity to test any of their newer FA* and Limited lenses. I did at one time own a number of A* lenses that were for the most part at least on par with Nikon. Ironically, the old screw-mount lenses test as better than Pentax M and K lenses and often better than pro Nikkors except at the extremes of focal length. > both current and past, are clearly outstanding.) Many of the "past" lenses now have limited functionality, however. It can be worked around, but in some shooting situations you don't want to be working around limited functionality. Also, many of the pentax greats are basically impossible to find now as they are only availible used and are hoarded by collectors--things like the A* lenses and early K lenses. The fact that Pentax made great lenses only helps right now if you already HAVE them. > If this is what one needs/wants, Pentax is a consideration. Smaller cameras and lenses--most Nikon and Canon pro and mid-level cameras and lenses are very big and heavy. Bazillions of decent lenses on the used market that DON'T work with many of the currently availible cameras. Lower price for equivalent functionality in most cases. > I think Pentax has done fine job of establishing a place > in the top 3, with Olympus & Minolta continually fading > into photographic oblivion. Minolta makes some pro lenses that consistently test at the top of the heap, but I wonder who uses them? Olympus just threw in the towel on traditional SLRs and may have a tough time making its digital line competitive. > Pentax has survived a rough marketplace. It'll be interesting > to see what they do in medium format in the next 2 years. It'll be interesting to see if medium format survives the next 2 years. As digital technology matures, image quality is less tied to camera size. Sure, a bigger camera will always give a higher quality image with equivalent technology, but at some point the 35mm digitals will be as good as is reasonably needed for most uses, and are smaller, cheaper, and more flexible than larger formats. I don't see all larger formats dying immediately any more than I see 35mm film dying immediately, but I suspect more guys are buying EOS 1DSs now than Hasselblads. DJE
