Canon EOS 5D

Apparently the Canon 5D is actually real. It brings 13 megapixels in a 36mm sensor (popularly known as "full-frame"). But with almost a kilogram (900g) of body weight with battery, no built-in flash, a viewfinder that doesn't seem to be anything special and no AF assist, I have no desire to own one.

Plus, I like 6.1MP and APS-C. More that this is probably too much for me anyway, considering the increased effort to store and process the big files those 900g would spit out. This definitely is NOT my cup of tea, but I understand it will seduce many PROs that couldn't afford the Canon 1D(s)(MkII), mainly since Nikon still has no 36mm-sensor body.

P.S.- I got the chance to look through a Canon 1DsMkII viewfinder. I thought it would have all the bells and whistles, manual focus aids, great magnification and coverage. None of that, my *ist DS is much, much better on that regard! Holding that 1.5Kg with such a lousy viewfinder really made me feel like driving an Aston Martin Vanquish with a sloppy steering wheel and foggy windscreen...

As a working photographer, it gives me a kick to see the Nikon/Canon crew boasting about how superior their gear is, when the *st D puts most of them to shame.

Six megapixels is enough for full page ads, posters, or any other job I'm called on to do. I can still use my old M lenses or screw-mount Takukars and others the way they were meant to be used - in manual. Try putting an old FD (or whatever) lens on your new expensive toy! Not a chance!

Hopefully Pentax has learned from experience to use the full KAF mount in the next version of the *st D (the chip will have 12 megapixels, way more than anyone actually needs for commercial work).

My clients don't give a rat's posterior what I use to get the image, as long as it's quality. And Pentax, who makes pro-format cameras for 120 film, has the quality to deliver.

In the New York commercial world, of ad agencies and such, they've bought their own propaganda and are demanding 22 megapixel Leaf medium format backs for jobs they were happily using 6 megapixels for a couple of years ago. Talk about hoist on your own petard!!

WOW how exciting!

The fact is the *istD does not put them to shame - I know - I've stupidly I've stuck with using one for 18 months, for semi-pro use, with hind sight probably out of brand loyalty. I eventually got tired of soft jpegs, innacurate white balance, sluggish AF and slow write speed. I was using it for sports events and it was always just a little bit dissapointing, even with the Sigma EX 100-400 f4 on it.

Fact is, if you get a 10D or 20D in your hands you'll soon find it puts the istD to shame.

Pentax glass is the best thing, no mistake. Pentax film cameras are superb. But now that Pentax has to deal with 'electronically' processing the image rather than leaving it to the film manufacturer, they have lost any advantage they had.

It's a great camera of amateur use, but make no mistake Canon out classes it when it comes to pro use event photography.
[

Thank heavens you broke it to us gently....

Seriously, though, different camera do have different applications. I like the lenses and the build quality of my Pentaxes and also the consistent ergonomics between the film and digital versions.

I've never been fond of Canon, but that's just my opinion....

It's horses for courses. If you need to use long, fast, lenses with super-fast AF, then buying a Pentax is probably not a very wise decision.

For many other applications, such as people or landscape photography, buying a Canon is probably not a very wise decision.

G

Aw, gee, I just got rid of a lot of Canon gear because it is so "clunky" and not especially responsive. Even doing events. Does this mean I have to sell the Pentax and buy more Canon so I can be a real "professional"? Do I give my clients back their money because I didn't have a Canon?

Get real!! '' Everyone finds the equipement that works best with their style and workflow. If we were all the same, life would be insufferably boring!!

Whatever.