On Jul 29, 2011, at 3:00 PM, Steven Desjardins wrote: > I checked the Nikon D7000, D700, and Canon 7D. The D700 seems better > but is over $2000. The other two have no real advantage over the K5 > and the K can actually get to higher iso. Lenswise, the comparable N > and C offerings in the 12-36 range are much more expensive. It does > appear that the K5 is genuinely competitive and maybe even the best in > this group for low light.
You could make an argument for a K-r rather than a K-5 to have a bit more money left over for good glass, but I'd still suggest going with the K-5, it's just that much better in so many ways. I've done side-by-sides with the D700 and the D7000. At 3200 the D700 is a little better in brighter light, but the K-5 is better in dim light. I spent a bit of time playing with a friend's D7000 with a 50/1.4 (or 1.8 ?) on it, and I was able to get much better quality in low light with the K-5. Someone proficient with the D7000 could probably come a bit closer, but I really think that the K-5 is still going to edge out the D7000, especially hand held at anything faster than f/2.8. Can you find out what focal length(s) he needs? Maybe do some test shots with your gear? Despite my gripes with it, the Sigma 20/1.8 is a pretty good lens for the money, half the cost of the 16-50 and over twice as fast. It has its rough bits, but can also be an awesome macro lens. The K-5 + 16-50 is an excellent combination. Sharp enough and fast enough for most reasonable conditions. More versatile and less expensive than the basket of primes it would take to replace the 16-50, even if it would be slower than primes. > > On Fri, Jul 29, 2011 at 5:17 PM, Paul Stenquist <[email protected]> > wrote: >> It's a very nice lens. I sometimes use it for auto interiors, and I've used >> it for room interiors as well. My landscape for the September PUG was shot >> with it. I believe that Robb said it was as sharp as the 14/2.8. I've read >> more than once that it's sharper than the A or K 15/3.5. It's certainly >> not a dog and more than adequate for this type of shot. >> Paul >> >> On Jul 29, 2011, at 4:56 PM, Steven Desjardins wrote: >> >>> I was thinking about the the 12-24 but I haven't heard much about it. >>> >>> On Fri, Jul 29, 2011 at 1:23 PM, Paul Stenquist <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>>> Then I would go with the DA 12-24/4, which sells for around $700 He's not >>>> going to want to shoot wide open anyway. because he'll need a bit more >>>> depth of field, and I'm a little concerned about the angle of view at >>>> 16mm. He won't be able to step back very far from the sideline, since >>>> there will be other people there. >>>> >>>> I'm surprised at how expensive the 16-50 is now. I believe it used to be >>>> about half that price. >>>> Paul >>>> On Jul 29, 2011, at 12:59 PM, Steven Desjardins wrote: >>>> >>>>> The K5 is obvious for $1327. The DA* 16-50 is less obvious for $1500. >>>>> The K5 leaves me about 650-700 for a lens. >>>>> >>>>> On Fri, Jul 29, 2011 at 12:55 PM, Steven Desjardins <[email protected]> >>>>> wrote: >>>>>> Amen to that. I was actual using a random school laptop while my own >>>>>> computer was being refit with a new flash drive. i..e, the &*^$@$ hard >>>>>> drive crashed. >>>>>> >>>>>> On Fri, Jul 29, 2011 at 11:45 AM, Ann Sanfedele <[email protected]> >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On 7/29/2011 11:21, Steven Desjardins wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> This will be a fun exercise. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I have a firend who wants a camera to take pituctrues of a marching >>>>>>>> band at night from the field. So we need high iso, espceially sicne >>>>>>>> the Tv needs ot be reasoanble. Further, he needs to get about >>>>>>>> 60-80yards in the picutre from the sidelines. He can spend up to >>>>>>>> $2000 and needs a body and lens(es). Suggestions? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Not for him - for you I suggest a blackberry with larger keys >>>>>>> >>>>>>> ann ducks >>>>>>> >>>>>>> -- >>>>>>> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List >>>>>>> [email protected] >>>>>>> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net >>>>>>> to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and >>>>>>> follow the directions. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> Steve Desjardins >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> Steve Desjardins >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List >>>>> [email protected] >>>>> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net >>>>> to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and >>>>> follow the directions. >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List >>>> [email protected] >>>> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net >>>> to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and >>>> follow the directions. >>>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Steve Desjardins >>> >>> -- >>> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List >>> [email protected] >>> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net >>> to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and >>> follow the directions. >> >> >> -- >> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List >> [email protected] >> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net >> to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and >> follow the directions. >> > > > > -- > Steve Desjardins > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > [email protected] > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow > the directions. -- Larry Colen [email protected] sent from i4est -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
