I shoot Pentax at the moment - I have a kit which includes:
K100D
Sigma 70-300
Pentax 18-55 I
Pentax FA 50 1.4
1.7X AF converter (does anyone want this, btw? I haven't actually been using it much. PM me)
--
Anyhow, it's not as if I've reached the limits of the camera/kit or anything, but I've become increasingly irritated by:
1. focus speed in low light (the fact that the 50 1.4 is mounted 95% of the time probably doesn't help - of course, because it's low light that's somewhat unavoidable)
2. how noisy (in decibels) the focussing and shutter is
3. no fast zoom (yes. I can't bring myself to spend the money - yet )
Anyhow - a K20D / 16-50 looks like it's in my future, huh?
The thing is, while looking at the K20D/16-50 combo - I realised that there were other options at basically the same price. Specifically - the 40D/17-55 2.8 IS.
Here's how I think they stack up - please let me know if you disagree with any point? That would help me to decide
1. The image quality and image noise performance is effectively identical. The 40D manages this by having 33% less pixels (10mp vs. 14.6mp) but this is not very relevant.
2. weathersealing - yay for pentax! (also bonus points here for 24 vs 28 equiv)
3. focus speeds (especially in low light) - Does the 40D have an edge? The only comparison I could make myself was 40D + 18-55 IS vs. K100D + kit - and there's almost no comparison. The 40D is so much faster than it's criminal. Has anyone tried K20D + 16-50 vs. 40D + 17-55? I did try K10D + 50 1.4 against K100D + 50 1.4 and didn't notice any perceptible difference.
4. noise (decibels) - yay for canon!
5. everything else is basically identical. I prefer the pentax controls/menu generally, but that's probably just familiarity. Both cameras feel alright.
K100D
Sigma 70-300
Pentax 18-55 I
Pentax FA 50 1.4
1.7X AF converter (does anyone want this, btw? I haven't actually been using it much. PM me)
--
Anyhow, it's not as if I've reached the limits of the camera/kit or anything, but I've become increasingly irritated by:
1. focus speed in low light (the fact that the 50 1.4 is mounted 95% of the time probably doesn't help - of course, because it's low light that's somewhat unavoidable)
2. how noisy (in decibels) the focussing and shutter is
3. no fast zoom (yes. I can't bring myself to spend the money - yet )
Anyhow - a K20D / 16-50 looks like it's in my future, huh?
The thing is, while looking at the K20D/16-50 combo - I realised that there were other options at basically the same price. Specifically - the 40D/17-55 2.8 IS.
Here's how I think they stack up - please let me know if you disagree with any point? That would help me to decide
1. The image quality and image noise performance is effectively identical. The 40D manages this by having 33% less pixels (10mp vs. 14.6mp) but this is not very relevant.
2. weathersealing - yay for pentax! (also bonus points here for 24 vs 28 equiv)
3. focus speeds (especially in low light) - Does the 40D have an edge? The only comparison I could make myself was 40D + 18-55 IS vs. K100D + kit - and there's almost no comparison. The 40D is so much faster than it's criminal. Has anyone tried K20D + 16-50 vs. 40D + 17-55? I did try K10D + 50 1.4 against K100D + 50 1.4 and didn't notice any perceptible difference.
4. noise (decibels) - yay for canon!
5. everything else is basically identical. I prefer the pentax controls/menu generally, but that's probably just familiarity. Both cameras feel alright.