-
Welcome to BirdForum, the internet's largest birding community with thousands of members from all over the world. The forums are dedicated to wild birds, birding, binoculars and equipment and all that goes with it.
Please register for an account to take part in the discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.
Canon 7D or Pentax K5 ? (2 Viewers)
- Thread starter AlbertoJ
- Start date
Think I would choose the Canon for the much better range of lenses for wildlife and bird photography, both cameras will produce excellent images.
I started the digital era with a Pentax and stayed with them for a while, but their lenses although excellent became so expensive and very limited in range. Hard to get on the secondhand market too, so changed over to Canon mainly for that reason.
One factor could influence you the other way though, the Pentax is weather sealed and can see that being a major factor in deciding
Hard one this and to be honest if it were me I would probably also have a good look at the Nikon D7000 , same sensor as the Pentax, great AF and better range of lenses
I started the digital era with a Pentax and stayed with them for a while, but their lenses although excellent became so expensive and very limited in range. Hard to get on the secondhand market too, so changed over to Canon mainly for that reason.
One factor could influence you the other way though, the Pentax is weather sealed and can see that being a major factor in deciding
Hard one this and to be honest if it were me I would probably also have a good look at the Nikon D7000 , same sensor as the Pentax, great AF and better range of lenses
Vectis Birder
Itchy feet
I'm probably biased as I have one, but my vote would be for the 7D, and you have access to a large lens system too. I don't know too much about Pentax these days (I owned a Pentax P30n back in the late 1980's) but you can't go far wrong with either Canon or Nikon and, if I were you, that's what I'd be looking at if, as Huntso says, the Pentax lenses have got hard to get hold of and expensive.
websurfer
Well-known member
It's a "no brainer" IMO. I think, the great range of lenses alone makes it an easy choice and the 7d is a great camera as well. - like Roy says. Cameras come and go, but lenses last if not forever, then for a very long time. I rate lenses over camera at any time, so you cannot get a better choice than Canon here.
Last edited:
skywatcher
Well-known member
7D. Brilliant bird/wildlife camera and Canon have a decent range of lenses.
I'm going to put the arguement for the Pentax, nothing wrong with the Canon, and as the guys have already written a nice choice of lenses.
That's where I begin to disagree, Canon lenses are not cheap, having a wide choice doesn't make them any cheaper.
The advantage for the Pentax is that the stabilising is within the camera not the lens, so a wider choice of lenses now becomes available, new and old.
The Pentax K-5 Digital SLR Camera features a 16.3 megapixel CMOS sensor with built in stabilisation. This in camera stabilising means that any lens mounted on the K-5 gets the benefit of image stabilising for images.
If we look at the Sigma F2.8, 300mm @ 2K, compared to Canon's price, there's a huge price difference. Pentax make the DA-300mm, another little gem.
I do believe in investing in top quality lenses, I regard camera's as a poor investment, unless purchasing the top pro bodies, but if you are not using them continously then they too are a waste of money, (unless you have money to burn).
The Canon and Pentax are about the same price, each has a slight advantage over the other in differing features. Sigma lenses can also be bought for the Canon, so your price difference is none existent, it will come down to personal choice.
That's where I begin to disagree, Canon lenses are not cheap, having a wide choice doesn't make them any cheaper.
The advantage for the Pentax is that the stabilising is within the camera not the lens, so a wider choice of lenses now becomes available, new and old.
The Pentax K-5 Digital SLR Camera features a 16.3 megapixel CMOS sensor with built in stabilisation. This in camera stabilising means that any lens mounted on the K-5 gets the benefit of image stabilising for images.
If we look at the Sigma F2.8, 300mm @ 2K, compared to Canon's price, there's a huge price difference. Pentax make the DA-300mm, another little gem.
I do believe in investing in top quality lenses, I regard camera's as a poor investment, unless purchasing the top pro bodies, but if you are not using them continously then they too are a waste of money, (unless you have money to burn).
The Canon and Pentax are about the same price, each has a slight advantage over the other in differing features. Sigma lenses can also be bought for the Canon, so your price difference is none existent, it will come down to personal choice.
Nothing over 300mm though which for me is a bit too short for many bird shots
Another factor is in my opinion Sigma are not in the same class image wise as Canon L Lenses. I did state that I thought Pentax make good lenses, but there range is far too small and a lot harder to obtain secondhand
Another factor is in my opinion Sigma are not in the same class image wise as Canon L Lenses. I did state that I thought Pentax make good lenses, but there range is far too small and a lot harder to obtain secondhand
BeadsbyClareScott
Well-known member
Have you thought about looking at Nikons? I have a Canon 50D, a few of my friends have Nikons... the photos @ higher ISO settings are great... still love my Canon though...
Thank you for reply.
My 2 options :
-Canon EOS 7D.
Size: 148 x 111 x 74 mm.
Weight: 820 + battery gr.
Canon 15-85 mm f3.5-5.6 IS USM EF-S : 575 gr.
Canon 300 mm f4 EF L IS USM : 2550 gr.
or Canon 400 mm f5.6 EF L USM : 1250 gr.
-Pentax K-5.
Size: 131 x 97 x 73 mm.
Weight: 740 gr.
Pentax 17-70 mm f4 DA SDM : 485 gr.
Pentax 300 mm f4 DA*: 1070 gr.
I think it´s better Canon 300 than 400, without tripod, because 400 isn´t stabilized.
But Canon 300 is too heavy.
I can´t pay objetives over 1500 €.
What magnification 300 and 400 mm gives with these 2 cameras?
Is there any good focal multiplier?
Pentax´s K-5 sensor is a step over Canon 7D.
It´s sid Canon 7D has a better focus AF than Pentax k-5, but why is it exactly better?
My 2 options :
-Canon EOS 7D.
Size: 148 x 111 x 74 mm.
Weight: 820 + battery gr.
Canon 15-85 mm f3.5-5.6 IS USM EF-S : 575 gr.
Canon 300 mm f4 EF L IS USM : 2550 gr.
or Canon 400 mm f5.6 EF L USM : 1250 gr.
-Pentax K-5.
Size: 131 x 97 x 73 mm.
Weight: 740 gr.
Pentax 17-70 mm f4 DA SDM : 485 gr.
Pentax 300 mm f4 DA*: 1070 gr.
I think it´s better Canon 300 than 400, without tripod, because 400 isn´t stabilized.
But Canon 300 is too heavy.
I can´t pay objetives over 1500 €.
What magnification 300 and 400 mm gives with these 2 cameras?
Is there any good focal multiplier?
Pentax´s K-5 sensor is a step over Canon 7D.
It´s sid Canon 7D has a better focus AF than Pentax k-5, but why is it exactly better?
a.dancy
Registered User
Sorry, but I'm not having that!
I use a Sigma 300f2.8 and a Sigma 500f4.5 and in my view both these lenses produce extremely high quality prints. Having processed many images taken with Canon 400 and 500 primes it is my view that the difference in quality is so narrow as to be almost non-existent. How you perform in the field will make a heck of a bigger difference than which lens you choose. Pixel poking is an art to itself and whacking out a photographic image of a bird at a size that most people view or a size that would be fit for an exhibition display is a different ball game.
A cropped image using the Sigma 300f2.8 plus 1.4 converter:-
http://www.birdforum.net/gallery/showphoto.php?photo=247877
You don't even need expensive glass or cameras...take a look at some of the images by Mike Warburton who uses a Sigma 50-500.
http://www.birdforum.net/gallery/showphoto.php/photo/336029/ppuser/38123
I stated recently that when it comes to gear there are too many emperors new clothing tales out on the internet.
I agree that it is the skill of the photographer that determines the quality of the final product
Think we will have to agree to disagree about the choice of lenses though, I have owned different models of both manufacturers over the years and prefer the Canon versions.
They definitely give a different colouration and that is more pleasing to my eye, to be fair i did say in my opinion and wasn't judging by internet reviews
Think we will have to agree to disagree about the choice of lenses though, I have owned different models of both manufacturers over the years and prefer the Canon versions.
They definitely give a different colouration and that is more pleasing to my eye, to be fair i did say in my opinion and wasn't judging by internet reviews
greypoint
Well-known member
After using Canon in the past and Nikon more recently, I'm now using a Pentax K-5. For me, the main reason is the size and build quality. I was using a combination of D300s and D3100 - the D300s is still one of the best cameras on the market but it was just becoming a pain to use it for long periods due to its size - the D3100 was wonderfully small and light but had a few irritants and issues with speed and controls - with mosts makers it seems to be a case of big and heavy if you want more than an entry level camera.With the K-5 [having improvements on the previous K-7] there's finally a small weatherproof, tank like option with all the controls of the enthusiast/semi pro Canons or Nikons. In use, the K-5 handles beautifully, controls are well thought out and the shutter is wonderfully quiet and smooth - AF is much improved over the earlier K20D I had and I don't really find it too different from the D300s in that regard - the K-5 does'nt have as many focus points as some but I tend to use single point most of the time. Image quality has been much discussed due to the high rating DXO mark gives it - seems pretty good so far. That's the upside, but, as has been stated, if you're really into bird photography and want long lenses it's mainly a case of third party options. As a walkaround lens the 55-300mm is very small and seems optically as good as the Nikon 70-300 vr. My main lens is the Sigma 70-200 f2.8 - AF with this lens is fast and smooth so I assume other HSM lenses would perform equally as well.
The K-5 is a really nice camera - but my main interest is photographing dogs/dog agility so the long lens options are'nt so much of a problem for me.
The K-5 is a really nice camera - but my main interest is photographing dogs/dog agility so the long lens options are'nt so much of a problem for me.
One other thing to watch out for with the K-5 is the sensor problem that affected some of the bodies
Looks like a patch of tiny oil marks and worth checking before accepting from the retailer,think Pentax accept there is a problem so exchange should be easy enough if you already own one
Check at f22 against a white background as you would for dust bunnies, not something that can be cured with a normal sensor clean either
Looks like a patch of tiny oil marks and worth checking before accepting from the retailer,think Pentax accept there is a problem so exchange should be easy enough if you already own one
Check at f22 against a white background as you would for dust bunnies, not something that can be cured with a normal sensor clean either
Sorry, but I'm not having that!
I use a Sigma 300f2.8 and a Sigma 500f4.5 and in my view both these lenses produce extremely high quality prints. Having processed many images taken with Canon 400 and 500 primes it is my view that the difference in quality is so narrow as to be almost non-existent. How you perform in the field will make a heck of a bigger difference than which lens you choose. Pixel poking is an art to itself and whacking out a photographic image of a bird at a size that most people view or a size that would be fit for an exhibition display is a different ball game.
A cropped image using the Sigma 300f2.8 plus 1.4 converter:-
http://www.birdforum.net/gallery/showphoto.php?photo=247877
You don't even need expensive glass or cameras...take a look at some of the images by Mike Warburton who uses a Sigma 50-500.
http://www.birdforum.net/gallery/showphoto.php/photo/336029/ppuser/38123
I stated recently that when it comes to gear there are too many emperors new clothing tales out on the internet.
I too used to use the Sigma 500 f4.5 prime lens and it is an outstanding bit of glass... but the Canon 500 f4 is significantly better. Trying one for a short while (even a full days shooting) won't give you a real idea of what it is capable of, when I got mine it took me ~2 months to really get the best from it (and I know I'm not alone in this). In my experience of having ownwed and lived with both these 500mm primes I don't doubt for a second that the Canon is the superior lens. It is faster focusing, sharper, has better contrast and colour rendition and my keeper rate is significantly higher with it.
It good conditions the difference between these two lenses doesn't seem too much but in lower light the Canon really shows it's worth. Images from the Canon need a lot less processing than those from the Sigma - which makes it easier to get naturally sharp images with smooth backgrounds. I think that with lenses that do not deliver so much sharpness out of the camera there is a real tendancy to over sharpen to compensate.
gary1952
Second childhood and loving it.
I am a Pentax shooter that has the Sigma 300 2.8 and the Sigma 500 4.5. Both excellent lenses. Take a look at: http://www.flickr.com/photos/avianphotos/
All of the photos there are with one of the two lenses. And most all birds.
Now back to the question. I would pick Canon. The Sigma 500 4.5 has been taken down for Pentax mount. Showes to be no longer avaliable. The 300 is still there, But you will want to go with a 500 fast prime believe me. The 300 is excellent but the 500 is really a good birding lens.
I am fixing to update to the k-5. But only because I already own the two Sigmas.
All of the photos there are with one of the two lenses. And most all birds.
Now back to the question. I would pick Canon. The Sigma 500 4.5 has been taken down for Pentax mount. Showes to be no longer avaliable. The 300 is still there, But you will want to go with a 500 fast prime believe me. The 300 is excellent but the 500 is really a good birding lens.
I am fixing to update to the k-5. But only because I already own the two Sigmas.
having had a d300, then a7d and now pentax k5 I have to say pentax is best so far ( on quick trial)
I got rid of 7d + 300 f2.8 because they were on verge of giving me hernia( possible hasty decision). I decided I might as well go for smaller size and am waiting for sigma 100-300 which is very highly regarded and very cheap compared to my canon 300.
whilst long primes are excellent the weight of them when carrying scope and bins in just not acceptable for me
I got rid of 7d + 300 f2.8 because they were on verge of giving me hernia( possible hasty decision). I decided I might as well go for smaller size and am waiting for sigma 100-300 which is very highly regarded and very cheap compared to my canon 300.
whilst long primes are excellent the weight of them when carrying scope and bins in just not acceptable for me
Keith Reeder
Watch the birdie...
Best in what sense, Capdegat?
I know from reviews and other forums that the K-5s AF doesn't really trouble that of the D300 or the 7D; and although it is very good at higher ISOs, it's unlikely to be better in Real World bird photography use than the 7D.
These for example are all at 1600 ISO, and although that's not high ISO these days (I'm happy enough to use my 7D at 12,800 ISO for gigs etc and handheld 6400 ISO indoor available light shooting is nothing), it's still pretty high for bird photography:
http://www.capture-the-moment.co.uk/tp/tfu29/upload/101010/goldcrest_st_marys_7b.jpg
http://www.capture-the-moment.co.uk/tp/tfu29/upload/101010/goldcrest_st_marys_12.jpg
http://www.capture-the-moment.co.uk/tp/tfu29/upload/101010/goldcrest_st_marys_1.jpg
It's a great little camera, the K-5, but I'm honestly interested to know where it's better than the D300 and 7D for bird photography.
That's not as cut-and-dried as you might think from reading the likes of DxOMark, Alberto - in the Real World the 7D's sensor lacks for very little compared to the K-5, and (even after re-shooting their tests) some reviewers still suggest that the K-5 doesn't provide as much in the way of fine detail/resolution as the 7D.
And at higher ISOs Pentax applies NR to its RAW data (which isn't speculation on my part, incidentally).
Nothing wrong with "cooked" RAW I suppose, but it's nice to make those choices yourself, rather than have the camera do it whether you want it or not.
Last edited:
