Pentax or Sony DSLR?

[LouiseTopp]

I have just found out from U Tube that the Pentax has an optical view finder, as the Sony has a digital one. Optical is better is it not?

[Melkus]

I have just found out from U Tube that the Pentax has an optical view finder, as the Sony has a digital one. Optical is better is it not?

There pros and cons to both but generally Optical is prefer over EVF more so if you doing fast action work.

[GrahamH]

1. If in-camera stabilization is your primary reason for going to these cameras, this feature is less important with the focal lengths you are likely to use in landscape and architectural shots;
2. There are some technical things that I do not like about the Sony design; the fixed pellicle mirror is going to reduce the amount of light that hits the sensor and that is never a good thing, as it puts the design at a disadvantage to a true DSLR right away.
3. The mirror is a huge dust and dirt trap as it is totally exposed to the environment whenever you change lenses and looks to be more problematic than sensors. As it is in the optical path, anything on the mirror is going to affect your image, and keeping it clean / cleaning it would be a concern. This is not an issue in a DSLR, as the mirror flips out of the way during exposures. The sensor is protect by the shutter between exposures.

Being a Sony user both as DSLR and DSLT (and have used Canons/Nikon): -
1. As long as the user limits themselves to landscape and architectural, true.
But most of us here do wish to progress and so then it becomes more important. In other words, take into consideration the effect of time. In time many of us will change our shooting habits. No need to create unnecessary limitations even at this early stage. Also comes with a certain cost increase as image stabilised lenses cost more (usually).
2. DSLR's of yesteryear had much poorer ISO control. Today's cameras produce a much better image at higher ISO's than they used to, making this a minor issue.
So, while the comment is true, in terms of comparing the camera to other MODERN cameras, the difference is slight. Add into consideration modern software is always improving so a little time post processing will reduce any effect ONLY when in comparison to a modern camera. Go back to film days, an image taken with ISO 800 would nowadays be considered unacceptable (unless you like grain). Taking an image at 1600 and above is very common. In summary, the reduction in amount of light hitting the sensor is really not a big deal unless you are shooting at seriously high ISO's. The same argument about light reaching the sensor reducing the quality of the image could equally be used with most new cameras that come out using newer technology (soft or hardware). So the comment about being at a disadvantage with a DSLR is only true (to a small extent) when comparing the same generation of cameras. Comes with a certain cost increase as well of course.
3. I am currently using my Sony A77 in a very dusty, sandy environment. Have cleaned it about as often as I did my mirrored Sony A350. Very easy to clean. Apparently looks can be deceiving unless you have direct experience with them. In comparison, I find it no harder to clean than Canon 7D.

4. Oops no 4. However, without a mirror to continuously flip out of the way, less likelihood of wear and tear on that mechanism (as other minor aspects have been considered, thought I would put this one in as well). Of course, how many people (a few I am sure) will use the camera until it wears out, most people will be upgrading before they reach that stage. It also allows for different advances at lower cost. My Sony A77 shoots at up to 12fps at a far lower cost than DSLR's with a similar frame rate.
5. Electronic viewfinder - most people I have had look through the camera don't even notice the electronic viewfinder until I mention it, then the camera goes back up to their eyes for another look. Usually with a wow comment. I notice the difference after many years using OVF, but it is different. Different is not always bad (unless you are the type who doesn't like change). I quickly became adjusted to the differences and I use various options that were not available to me before with the OVF. It's a tool with a difference set of functions to an OVF. I remember when liveview was such a big deal and so many people were vociferously against it. As far as I can tell, the VAST majority of photographers now find they love the functionality.

As to the OP's original question, I have no experience of Pentax so I cannot advise between the two cameras. However, unless you are a seriously advanced photographer, pretty much all DSL whatever cameras will give you a wide range of tools. Locking yourself into a given brand is the main thing to consider. Third party manufacturers reduce any differences to a minimum in all but a very few areas.
Graham

[GrahamH]

There pros and cons to both but generally Optical is prefer over EVF more so if you doing fast action work.

Unless you want continuous autofocus. Once the mirror flips up, you lose that focussing ability for that period of time. However, unlikely to be a significant issue in real terms for most of us. Also, the EVF allows for increased fps (at a lower cost).
So, increased fps along with actually continuous autofocus (rather than very fast intermittent focus) may or may not be important compared to OVF useage.
Graham

[GrahamH]

Also something to consider:
Canon and Nikon are the two major brands, Pentax and Sony are, relatively speaking, small players. That means that there's a lot more stuff available for Canon and Nikon than for Sony and Pentax.

And, Sony has some (non-standard) quirks in several (many?) of their cameras, like non-standard hot shoes, no standard connections for wired remote controls, and such. That makes getting certain accessories tricky and/or expensive (think off-camera flash with sync cables).

A lot more stuff for the Canonikons ONLY when NOT considering third party manufacturers (AFAIK). There may be a few differences when looking at the bigger picture. But what stuff did you have in mind?

Non-standard quirks? Tricky/expensive?Apart from having to buy an adaptor for the hotshoe, I haven't had any problems buying accessories for my camera. Wireless remotes and off-camera controllers. Not a problem. Not sure why you think it is tricky. Also picked them up pretty cheap, so I didn't find cost was an issue.

Are these comments based on personal experience? Second hand, third hand?
Graham

[Manfred M]

probably wouldn't get another lens for it in a long time.

Funny, I said exactly the same thing when I first bought a DSLR. I was wrong. It didn't take me very long to realize the limitations of the kit lens that I bought with the camera and the collection started to expand.

It is Weather Resistant, 81 protection joins for a complete protection of the electronic circuits against splashing water, snow, dust and sand which is good.

While that may be true of the camera body, it can be a bit of a moot point, as most amateur lenses are not, so you still have to protect you camera in conditions when shooting in bad weather conditions. No matter how waterproof your camera is, a wet front lens element generally does not result in very many good shots.

One of my camera bodies is weather sealed and the other is not. I use a rain hood on both, when shooting in bad weather. I look at the weather sealing more as insurance, than my primary defense against rain and snow. In some ways, this can give a false sense of security; as a single bad seal can let water in (I found out the hard way).

[Melkus]

Unless you want continuous autofocus. Once the mirror flips up, you lose that focussing ability for that period of time. However, unlikely to be a significant issue in real terms for most of us. Also, the EVF allows for increased fps (at a lower cost).
So, increased fps along with actually continuous autofocus (rather than very fast intermittent focus) may or may not be important compared to OVF useage.
Graham

OVF boils down to more loose composition and framing whereas EVF allows a more final prediction of the image you’re after. Looking through an OVF gives you the same rendering of an image seen with the naked eye and produced by the brain. EVF, however, previews an image as rendered by the digital camera. Sounds brutal, but EVF is just more honest.

[MrB]

Re. Pentax K-30:

While that (weather-resistance) may be true of the camera body, it can be a bit of a moot point, as most amateur lenses are not, so you still have to protect your camera when shooting in bad weather conditions.

Louise, you must take care, as this can be correct. The K-30 kit you quoted from Amazon at £499 does NOT have the weather-resistant lens. The kit from SRS in Watford does - "Pentax K-30 Black Digital SLR with 18-55mm WR Lens - £569.00" - note the "WR" for weather-resistant, and it has just gone down in price (it was £579 yesterday). It would be pointless having a WR body but the cheaper (and inferior quality) non-WR lens, if you intend it to be your only lens for a while.

Cheers.
Philip

[revi]

Non-standard quirks? Tricky/expensive?Apart from having to buy an adaptor for the hotshoe, I haven't had any problems buying accessories for my camera. Wireless remotes and off-camera controllers. Not a problem. Not sure why you think it is tricky. Also picked them up pretty cheap, so I didn't find cost was an issue.

Are these comments based on personal experience? Second hand, third hand?
Graham

Personal experience, I use a Sony A330.

That camera has: a proprietary hot shoe, dedicated IR remote control and no connections for wired remote controls. I did find what I needed, but the choices are more limited than for Canon/Nikon. At least here in France, and if I order from the US, P&P does add to the price... Sony tends to be rather expensive, and the 3rd party stuff is from unknown brands mostly.

Whether that's going to be a problem for the exact camera OP wants, I can't judge, but I thought a warning might be justified so that aspect is checked for.

[GrahamH]

I actually went originally with the A350 based on the substantially lower price when comapring functionality.
I find it interesting that availability, price and so on can change so much between countries. I can understand market economies affectin availability (Cayman Islands are no more than a small town with the associated small town problems) for all sorts of accessories, but a mainland location? Interesting. Here I haven't seen anything other than Canonikon. I wouldn't be surprised if I have the only Sony A77 around. But it is a good point to consider depending on location.
Graham

[jcuknz]

That is fighting talk Louise "optical is better than electronic" Very much a personal thing. The point is are you going to use AF mostly? If so the electronic viewfinder will be just as good and does not go 'all dark' on you in low light. Remember also that the digital camera is made with AF in mind and normally does not have the features that our SLRs had to help us focus in the old days. The real answer is to know how to use AF properly ... you do not simply have to point the camera at the subject and hope the camera knows what you are thinking ... it doesn't ....you use a small AF target area and place it on the point you want to be your principle focusing point. Hold that and reframe for the shot.
As a Pentax user in film days I have regard for them though I also used Sony professionally and respect them ... hard
I hope you will not make a practice of handling stuff in a store and then buying on-line.

[kris]

Dear Louise,

here you can find a review of both cameras.

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/pentaxkr

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/sony-alpha-slt-a57

As already suggested, before buying go in a camera shop and take the cameras in your hands.
It can make the difference.

[ajohnw]

I have just found out from U Tube that the Pentax has an optical view finder, as the Sony has a digital one. Optical is better is it not?

There are a number of problems associated with electronic viewfinders and don't know it trying to use an Olympus Pen for everything. Being fair though I did know this before I bought it as I still have my Dimage. Trying to keep it simple and using the Pen as an example kitted out with the clip on 1.4mp viewfinder.

A 1.4mp viewfinder can't show what a 12mp sensor is actually seeing. This means that the AF has to be relied on or a 7x magnified view used. That gets rather difficult to keep sufficiently steady at even modest focal lengths for focusing. The camera screen has fewer pixels. I have tried 5x on one Pen I've found that images can still be out of focus. 10x may be ok using the screen but not all Pens allow that. Panasonic and Sony score in this area as they have full time image stabilisation but the magnified view is still needed. Where this area can be a real pain is using the mag view for a focus check. A dslr always has that feature. Screens aren't as good as they could be but still aren't too bad.

Both dlsr's and mirrorless have live view now. Mirror less cameras have nothing else. There are problems in this area relating to light levels. Live view is effectively a rapid series of photographs typically at 30 frames per second. Lower light levels cause a lot of noise in the view and can make it useless for anything other than framing and no good what so ever for focusing. I have seen comments complaining about slow update rates through electronic view finders. That's one answer to the problem but no one seems to use it any more.

Mirrorless use contrast auto focus. Taking 2 Pen's the E-PL1 struggles in a typically dimly lit living room. An E-P3 just about manages but has a focus assist lamp. Neither of my dslr's have this problem and don't need an assist light under the same conditions. Basically the mirrorless can't focus on something I can see fairly clearly. Sony Nex seem to have the edge in this direction but still need a surprising amount of light compared with a dslr. My son has one.

Putting it in a nutshell the mirror in a dslr is very useful if some one wants a very flexible camera and phase detection AF has several advantages over contrast detection other than speed. The mirrorless are really nothing other than a step up from a compact if they have a decent sized sensor. Costs are interesting too. Take an E-P3 with viewfinder added. Getting on for £700. An E-PL1 around £430. The difference is down to controls and firmware changes. Neither really stand comparison with dslr's in the same price range. Where they score is when some one want some small and light kit to carry around. Shots will generally need a lot more post processing. I don't own one but Panasonic use the same basic kit and are bound to have the same problems. Sony have made it very clear in the past that their Nex's are very definitely aimed at people who want to step up from a compact - simple to use. You might say Panasonic are doing their own thing - more dslr like on some. Olympus are an odd mix as any one would be aware if they looked deeply into their range of menu options. For simple users 90% of them are hidden and enabled via an option. Couple of hundred shots now and I am still exploring the options. One real silly for serious use is no ability to select manual iso values without going into a several button press menu. Another is the available options for the use of the 2 rotary controls on an E-P3. Some Panasonic's have one and a button press sorts out what it will do - a bit more logical.

People often say that the AF on these cameras is ok if there is contrast there but one can never be totally sure what contrast it might use. This bee is a typical example even though it formed the major contrast boundary. The only reason it looks sharp is that it has had a huge amount of sharpening. If it had been in focus there would be detail in the fur. Being fair it's an extreme example but I have also had the same thing happen using compacts that also use contrast AF. If I had pressed a button twice and twisted the manual focus ring the bee would have been razor sharp - twice because they assume I may want to move the square to some other part of the view. If a dslr missfocused for some reason as badly as this it would be clearly visible through the viewfinder. I can't see one doing that with a lit AF sensor on the bee - one af square on the Pen. The other point is evaluation focusing where available. Lets just say due to it's limitations contrast af seems to have a lot of trouble sorting this out. I find repeated 1/2 presses of the shutter button occasionally help,



-

[ajohnw]

That is fighting talk Louise "optical is better than electronic" Very much a personal thing. The point is are you going to use AF mostly? If so the electronic viewfinder will be just as good and does not go 'all dark' on you in low light. Remember also that the digital camera is made with AF in mind and normally does not have the features that our SLRs had to help us focus in the old days. The real answer is to know how to use AF properly ... you do not simply have to point the camera at the subject and hope the camera knows what you are thinking ... it doesn't ....you use a small AF target area and place it on the point you want to be your principle focusing point. Hold that and reframe for the shot.
As a Pentax user in film days I have regard for them though I also used Sony professionally and respect them ... hard
I hope you will not make a practice of handling stuff in a store and then buying on-line.

Doesn't go dark ??? You must be kidding. Pens have a live view boost mode to allow as bright a picture as the sensor can give but even that has it's problems before you might expect them. The really bad aspect though is if there are only slight problems in that area the AF will often sale through what can be seen through the viewfinder. Sony's are better but still have the same problem.

-

[revi]

John,
I think you're mixing up a few things here:
the cameras under consideration are both reflex cameras with a mirror.

The difference is that one has a classical opaque mirror that flips out of the way when taking a picture,
the other has a semi-transparent mirror that stays in place, and therefore has to use an electronic viewfinder.
Neither is mirror-less, and both have an APS-C sensor (with a crop factor of 1.5)

Not at all the same kind of camera as the Olympus PEN.

[ajohnw]

Not really mixing things up Remco and electronic view is an electronic view. The basic problem is that our eyes can cope with a tremendous light range and give live view - a sensor can not match that and also in live view mode can't match the eyes resolution. My main reason for posting was the quoted post - optical view against electronic view. I just used Pens as an example.

Can a semi transparent mirror help really? I don't think so. Less light to the main sensor and even less light to the live view sensor. I thought Sony had given up on that approach completely.

On crop factor I am in favour of 4/3 providing the pixel count is sensible. For most purposes up to A4 prints it's adequate and can probably go a lot further subject to suitable subject matter.

The main point I wanted to make was - one camera - the same range of capabilities as a dlsr - stick to an optical view and phase af. There are other reasons why some one might choose to own an additional camera such as the Pen. Or even buy a Pen or such like as a sole camera but easy flexible photography in dslr terms isn't really one of them. Just my opinion but I have used a number of different types of camera.

-

[Inkanyezi]

Louise Topp, as you can see, there are differing opinions on viewfinders and their relative advantages/disadvantages. I declared from start that I am firmly on EVF ground, and no technical arguments will change my opinon on that issue. But I have only about fifty years experience in using SLR cameras, and a mere four years with EVF. Much of the "going dark" issues is when it really goes dark, i.e. you won't take any pictures, because they wouldn't work out anyway. Under some conditions, of course they would, but I cannot see any other circumstances where OVF is superior than when conditions rapidly change, as when taking sports.

Number one in my complaints about phase detection systems is that about half of all cameras with phase detection AF don't focus correctly at all, which for me is a considerable drawback. Mostly the error is due to the lens that is not adjusted, but also a fair amount of the camera bodies must be calibrated before they focus decently. And whenever you get a new lens, it's the same journey to the repairshop to calibrate. So the major difference between phase detection and contrast detection is not speed, as modern contrast detection systems these days are up to par with phase detection, but the sad fact that phase detection systems do not check that they achieve focus and in many cases they don't. I would never accept an SLR camera with its focusing screen off, so that images come out with focus in a different plane than I supposed I set it, but that is the sorry backside with phase detection. It is fast, very fast, but often erroneous, far too often. The root of the problem is that NO phase detection system does a double check. The phase detection system decides in what direction to adjust focus, and then it tells the lens to hop there, while the contrast detection system iterates around the point where focus is found. It screws the lens till it passes its best contrast, then back, analysing the image underway. It is slower, but it cannot miss focus.

Much of my photography includes manual focusing. That cannot be done reliably with most DSLR cameras, and even with the more expensive ones, you might have to change the focusing screen to get that ability. Another point where the EVF is superior. Moreover, with the EVF, it is possible to focus on any spot where you may move your enlarged focusing point, which is absolutely necessary when you use tilt to control focus. In an SLR viewfinder that cannot be done.

So, in order to get some balance, you should consider that the phase detection system has drawbacks as well, and that the optical viewfinder, even though you may see very clearly through it, does not represent what you capture on your chip, which may be a very different image.

And I haven't yet seen a reflex viewfinder that is a lot better than electronic viewfinders for photography. Most of the talk about finders comes from people that have no extensive experience with both types. There are drawbacks with both types, but also advantages. For me, the advantages of the EVF outweigh the disadvantages, but YMMV.

[Inkanyezi]

/.../ People often say that the AF on these cameras is ok if there is contrast there but one can never be totally sure what contrast it might use. This bee is a typical example even though it formed the major contrast boundary. /.../

The statement above is misleading, and it is in no way a typical example of what AF with an EVF is capable of. All EVF cameras can focus on a rather small section of the viewfinder, and it is child's play to focus it on the fur of the bumblebee. Some of the EVIL cameras even have an articulated touch screen, so that you may point with your finger where you want it to focus, and it will shoot when focus is achieved at the exact point where you set your finger. With the articulated screen, this can be done also in awkward positions. I have several wildlife pictures that couldn't have been taken with any SLR viewfinder, mostly because the action was too fast and the position such that an eye could not have been brought to the viewfinder, but also because in some instances, moving my head to the camera position would scare my subject to flight, while I could hold the camera and move it close, just looking at the screen and centering the AF point where I wanted it, without doing any such swift movement that would alarm my intended target. I shot snakes in the wild at distances of about 1' without disturbing them, and sometimes in positions where it would be physically impossible for me to set my eye to the viewfinder.

The image of a snake below is one example. I was sitting in the gulch beside the creek watching the snakes catch fish, and when this one had caught the perch and went ashore on the opposite side to swallow it, other snakes tried to steal the fish, disturbing the snake, so it escaped, coming right at me, climbing the brink and passing me so close that I could have touched it. The distance between me and the snake when I took the picture was about 1½' and I used the focusing spot to focus the camera. It moved rapidly, and I didn't get it completely sharp, but that is in part due to the rapid movement that took it out of focus, but which also creates movement blur. In no way is it because the camera would focus on something else. The camera is down on the ground, in a position where it is impossible to get an eye to the viewfinder.



In the thread Water snake with prey there is also a series of a rather large water (grass) snake having its dinner, taken at a distance of about 1'. I couldn't possibly have put my eye to the viewfinder for those closeups, because of the topography of the place. All those are taken with a first generation EVIL camera, Panasonic Lumix G1, that didn't have all the goodies of my present Olympus OM-D E-5. Even the older first generation camera beats the SLR for this type of work. The eating snake could be taken with just the camera over the edge over some obstacles, while I was hidden behind the same obstacles. The unobtrusive camera did not frighten the snake that continued her dinner. I could follow her work without making any sudden movements until it was all over after a rather long time. The EXIF markings are there, so you can see that it took more than half an hour for her to swallow that fish. And those are real wildlife shots. No terrariums, aquariums, boundaries of any kind, just their wild ambience.

I know I couldn't have taken those pictures with a DSLR camera, unless it also had an articulated live view screen and reasonably fast live view autofocus. The EVF and related fast AF has opened up possibilities that I never had before. And with my present camera, I am sure that I would pick that bumblebee just as easy as I caught the snake that caught a fish that tried to escape. But this one could have been taken also with a DSLR.

[geordie01]

I use K-r and have done for a couple of years and i find it a very capable camera i got it because i was able to use my old pentax lenses that i had from my film camera days and they work perfectly with great results and you get image stabilisation in the camera which is great. I have not had any probs manually focusing through the view finder.The new K30 is a lot of camera for the money and if you buy from SRS you will get 2 year warranty as they are a pro dealer and i can recommend them as i have used them many times.No experience of the Sony as i have Fuji with an evf and i do not care much for it
Have a look here http://www.pentaxphotogallery.com/click on cameras and lenses and sroll doen to kr and check it out.

[AB26]

Hi Louise,

The Sony EVF takes getting used to. The sensor on the Sony is superior to that of the Pentax. (Pentax is worst in low light noise)
I had a good look at the new Sony A99 and being used to my Nikon viewfinder I do not know if EVF is there yet.

Have a good look at a Canon or Nikon or a Nikon or Canon at the same price.