Shop now Shop now Shop now  Up to 70% Off Fashion  Shop all Amazon Fashion Cloud Drive Photos Shop now Learn More Shop now Shop now Shop Fire Shop Kindle Shop now Shop now
Customer Discussions > photography discussion forum

Nikon D7100: worth switching from a Pentax K-5?

Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 1-19 of 19 posts in this discussion
Initial post: 7 May 2013 07:13:23 BDT
I've always had leanings towards Nikon, mainly because (a) I've never read a bad review of their cameras or lenses, and (b) Nikon DSLRs are largely responsible for the most impressive illustrative shots in the half-dozen or so photography books I own (most of them written by a pro photographer whose work I particularly admire). All that said, I've never actually owned a Nikon camera of any kind in my life! When I finally took the plunge and bought my first DSLR a year ago, having done loads of research beforehand, including trying out various cameras in-store, I opted for a Pentax K-5, simply because I felt at the time that there wasn't a DSLR in the Nikon range to rival the K-5's combination of performance (especially in low light), build quality (especially weather-sealing), ergonomics, and price.

However, the Nikon D7100 looks like a game-changer.

Other reasons for switching (some possibly based upon false assumptions stemming from my relative inexperience - more on that later - of DSLRs in general and Pentax in particular)...

Nikon cameras and lenses are widely-used, and so the second-hand market is more buoyant. Consequently, I could approach future upgrades (as either a 'new-or-used' buyer or a 'used' seller) with confidence.

Pentax have a smaller market share, with fewer stockists, and a correspondingly less fluid second-hand trade, while I am also aware that the company has changed hands more than once over the years. Taken together, these factors make me feel slightly apprehensive about being 'locked in' to the Pentax system going forward.

Pentax always seems to be the 'poor relation at the back of the queue', behind Nikon (plus Canon and Sony, for that matter) when it comes to compatible lenses and accessories offered by third-party vendors - a good example being teleconverters: Pentax offer none of their own, while Kenko's Pentax-fit teleconverters are only available as DG versions (not DGX, therefore no enhanced EXIF data) for lenses with screw-drive AF (not SDM); Kenko teleconverters for Nikon, on the other hand, will accommodate Nikon lenses that Nikon's own teleconverters will not!

I've been a keen photography enthusiast since Adam was a lad, but still consider myself a relative novice when it comes to DSLRs. I've also been delighted with the K-5, and would be absolutely gutted, having given it up, to be disappointed by its replacement.

Obviously, I want the hassle and expense of switching formats only once (if at all), so the bottom line is: would you or wouldn't you, and why?

Posted on 7 May 2013 12:10:52 BDT
T.J.Byford says:
Hi, K.S.

I am not a Nikon or Pentax user, so I have no axe to grind in getting you to switch or not. But it does seem to me that mostly you've answered your own question. All the negatives you point to in owning the Pentax are praying on your mind and it seems it is more about compatibility and future availability rather than image performance.

If it were a simple matter of better image performance from the D7100, then judging by the images on dpreview, differences are not really noticeable until one hits ISO 6400, and so on this criterium, not a game-changer, IMHO. Unless, of course, you are a photo night owl. :-) On this basis alone, and assuming the K5 and its lenses are presently giving you what you want, why change now and incur a financial cost to do so? Wait a couple of years to get the most out of your existing kit, and change when, with the onward march in technology, you will be certain to be effecting a true upgrade in image terms.

I've no idea what your gadget bag comprises of, but if it presently houses the lenses you use most, what Nikon lens is there that can't be accommodated by Pentax or TP manufacturers, and that you simply must have?

But getting back to what is praying on your mind, then it may be that you will only be content by switching brands and buying yourself a nice new Nikon badged shoulder strap, etc. etc.

In reply to an earlier post on 7 May 2013 13:44:44 BDT
I agree with TJ. I have a Sony A700. It takes great pics and is very pleasing coming from film with 400 iso max. However, cameras have moved on and eventually I shall get a new one. I may go for a Nex style camera with EVF for lower weight and bulk, or I may stick with the Alpha mount. I may even go to the Nikon system for the long term. Or I could even get a large sensor compact as I seldom use anything other than 17-50mm.
My point is that I see no reason to get a new camera until there has been a step change in performance - and in particular tonal range. Film is still more capable of handling contrast. You are probably right that your Pentax will have a poor secondhand market and you will take a big loss on it as a result. So why not hang on a bit with a very good camera until it is worth getting the next advance in camera performance? if you went to a compact system camera you could even use your Pentax lenses after all.
Of course if your money is burning a hole in your pocket then I imagine you will change brand anyway.

In reply to an earlier post on 7 May 2013 13:58:13 BDT
Last edited by the author on 11 May 2013 13:01:41 BDT

Thank you for taking the time to respond, and for your valuable input, which I reckon amounts to a full and frank understanding of precisely where I'm coming from... almost. In fact, I was with you all the way until I reached your last sentence. :-)

The reasons for my long-standing admiration of Nikon, and for choosing a Pentax DSLR regardless, are precisely as stated in my opening paragraph. Brand reputation alone is not sufficient to sway me (as I think my ultimate choice proved)... and I actually use a third-party shoulder strap! ;-)

Put simply, much though I would have preferred to buy Nikon from the outset, I thought the K-5 was the better option AT THE TIME. Had I waited a year until now, the D7100 would almost certainly be my first choice. Sod's Law, I suppose, although you have to take the plunge sometime, or else risk waiting forever!

I also think (admittedly with hindsight) that, in spite of my extensive research before deciding, I still didn't know as much about DSLRs as I thought I did. Buying my first DSLR was a steep learning curve, prone to misjudgement (as I suspect it is for the majority), and it is only now that I'm forming a clearer picture of what I'm after. As a result, here's what I think would have been right for me...

Buy my DSLR 'body only', not with a kit lens... and certainly not with two, as I did with the K-5. In terms of performance, build quality, and ergonomics, there is probably little to choose between the D7100 and the K-5, so neck-and-neck so far.

Add a general-purpose 'all-in-one super-zoom' telephoto lens to cover most situations, saving on weight and bulk, and avoiding frequent lens-swapping, thereby protecting the camera against dust ingress. Here, lenses such as the Pentax 18-270mm and Sigma 18-250mm macro lose out to Nikon's 18-300mm in terms of range.

Add a teleconverter for use on the comparatively rare occasions when I need greater reach. Again, the above-mentioned Pentax and Sigma lenses are at a disadvantage here because they have SDM/HSM AF, and are therefore incompatible with any currently available teleconverter that I know of. I have recently scoured the Internet in the hope of finding a vendor who still has old stock of the long-discontinued Pentax 18-250mm lens, which has screw-drive AF, but the very few I've found are located overseas and don't offer international shipping.

Add a dedicated wide-angle lens. Here, the Pentax 12-24mm lens loses out to Nikon's 10-24mm in terms of range and cost.

Add a dedicated long macro lens. Little to choose here between the Pentax 100mm and Nikon's 105mm, which is slightly longer, but costs more.

I realise that much of the above will cause the purists to hold up their hands in horror (using teleconverters with zoom lenses certainly will), but I know I'm not alone in this approach, which is still preferable to, say, using a bridge camera (I've got one for travelling light but, as good as it is, I get better results, not surprisingly, from my DSLR).

If you've got this far, I suppose I should congratulate you on your stamina! :-) Writing it all down has helped to make things a little clearer for me, however, and I now know what I would do in an ideal world... though whether I can afford it or not remains to be seen! If there ever was a time when money was burning a hole in my pocket, it was a year ago when I bought the K-5; it certainly isn't now!

In reply to an earlier post on 7 May 2013 15:19:02 BDT
Last edited by the author on 8 May 2013 09:46:18 BDT
T.J.Byford says:
Hi, K.S.

Well, I made it to the end and was with you all the way. There's life in the old (68) dog yet! I hope my tongue in cheek comment about the new Nikon shoulder strap wasn't found offensive, I simply wished to make a light-hearted comment about what the etc. etc. bits would cost you in changing brand.

Hindsight is wonderful, but we make our decisions on the here and now, and not what we don't know that could be round the corner. I found myself in a similar position some years ago.

By the time I was interested in a dslr, Olympus had released the E-500, and being very pleased with my then camera, the Olympus WA8080, I bought one on a trip to Cologne one Christmas, along with their Pro 14-54mm lens. I was aware that at the same time Sony had launched its top of the range bridge camera, the R1. This had an APS-C sensor, a fixed Carl Zeiss 5x zoom, starting at the equivalent FOV of 24mm, an electronic v/f and a rotatable lcd. Even based on this spec, it still couldn't compete with the allure of an slr, could it, what with the myriad of lenses etc I could fit on one and the optical v/f? And who'd want a bridge camera when you could have an slr for roughly the same money? So the R1 very much passed under my radar, until a couple of years later a dealer was selling some off at £399, including a 4gig Memory Stick Duo Pro, which then retailed at £94!!! The R1's original US price was $999, so based on the fact that in £'s it was often the same, you can see it wasn't cheap.

By the time of this offer, I was now familiar with dpreview's review (if you've got the time, visit the site and look for the review in 2005 or 6) and jumped at the chance to get hold of one. I was amazed at its performance, easily out-performing the E-500. Today, there are better sensors on the market, but for me the R1 produces the most un-digital like images I've seen. In fact, in modern terms, the only thing with which I can similarly compare its imaging quality, is my Sony Nex 5N shod with some of my Leica reflex lenses.

So had I known then what I later learnt about the R1 from the review, would I have still opted for a dslr? Probably yes, because it was more versatile. But later, coming to the R1 I wish I'd have bought it first. Later, I did get another dslr, the Panasonic LC10 with the Leica kit lens. Which is better? I wouldn't like to say, but I get more fun from using the Sony. Out with it one day, a photographer festooned with a large Canon dslr, motor drive et al, saw the R1 and simply asked "Is that the big Sony". Made my day.

In reply to an earlier post on 7 May 2013 15:36:32 BDT

Nah, the comment about the shoulder strap didn't offend in the slightest... gave me a bit of a chuckle, in fact! Never was one to take myself too seriously! :-D

Posted on 8 May 2013 02:57:52 BDT
Last edited by the author on 8 May 2013 03:34:51 BDT
Graham H says:
"...Nikon DSLRs are largely responsible for the most impressive illustrative shots in the half-dozen or so photography books I own (most of them written by a pro photographer whose work I particularly admire)"

"Wow! What a fantastic painting. You must own some really great brushes"

I would hazard a guess based on long experience that the pro photographer you admire would have produced equally stunning work if you'd handed him your current Pentax.

Personally, I own a Fender "Eric Clapton" model Stratocaster guitar. Does it make me play like him? Sadly not.
There's nothing wrong with having a desire for newer and better kit. If you can afford it, then go for it by all means. But I would advise against trying to justify it on the grounds that it will magically make you a better photographer.
Very few things depreciate like digital cameras. You may well pay hundreds now for a maybe 10% improvement in your camera at the outer limit of its operating parameters. But it really is money down the drain unless you're earning your living with it and the extra capability means the difference between getting shots that will sell and not getting them.

For the rest of us, me included, it's just the desire to have better toys. :-)

I'll tell you something though, and make of it what you will. When I first started out with my first Nikon DSLR, I tried to accumulate a range of lenses to cover every eventuality.
After a while, I noticed that probably 80% of my favourite shots were taken using my 18-70 F/3.5-4.5 zoom.
Then, I noticed that the absolute best shots were all taken with my Nikon 50mm F/1.8 prime.
So, I now use the 50mm almost exclusively. In fact, I can't remember when I last used any of the other lenses!

You see, I know that if I use my 18-70 zoom for a shot, then each time I look at that picture in the future I'll be thinking "Man, if only I'd shot that with the '50 instead. How much better would it have been?"
So now, I just use the 50. Because I know that, granted, it may not be the most convenient or easiest way to shoot, and I may or may not get the shot. But if I do get it, it will be a picture of the absolutely best technical quality that my kit is capable of.

"There is nothing worse than a sharp picture of a fuzzy idea" as the man said.
Not saying this approach is right for you, but I would respectfully suggest that maybe you should analyse your shooting style and see where your main interest lies. Take a look at the EXIF data on your favourite pics, and I'll bet that the majority of them were taken with very similar settings.
Is there a point to paying hundreds for slightly better low-light abilities if 90% of your shots are in the daytime, for example?

Oddly enough, I've gone the opposite way to you. I have a Nikon D90, but I resent all the gadgetry, bulk and noise. All I want is aperture, ISO, shutter speed and manual focus, along with a crackingly good prime lens.
To that end, the camera that I now use all the time is a 1970's Olympus OM-2n and it's excellent Zuiko 50mm F/1.8
It just does exactly what I want and nothing more. It doesn't put a barrier between me and the image like the Nikon does with its plethora of menus, AF point settings, WB settings, etc.
If I do need digital, my Fujifilm X10 is the camera I reach for.

The D90 comes out maybe a handful of times a year for motorsports events, where it's the best tool for the job. But other than that... Well, for the majority of my purposes there are better machines out there.

If you want the new Nikon, then go for it. But make sure you use it until it dies and take some great shots! There's no easier way to waste money than by upgrading your DSLR every couple of years.

In reply to an earlier post on 8 May 2013 07:24:42 BDT
Last edited by the author on 11 May 2013 13:06:27 BDT

Thank you for taking the time to respond in detail. As with TJB and Doctor Austin, I'm very grateful for your input.

Unfortunately, I infer from your opening statements that I have created in you the exact impression of my motives that I had hoped to avoid, namely that I just like to keep changing my toys because I have bottomless pockets - if only! - and an attitude towards impressive photographs of (as you so succinctly put it): "Wow! What a fantastic painting. You must own some really great brushes!" :-)

In fact, like you, I have not the slightest doubt that the pro photographer I admire would be perfectly capable of blowing me away if armed with my Pentax (loved the Strat analogy, btw, with which I completely agree). However, I see nothing wrong with using his work to inspire me; the fact that he uses Nikon gear is of secondary importance in that regard, and actually served only to reinforce the Nikon leanings that first arose in me several years before. As I've said previously, my ultimate choice of Pentax over Nikon was born of the market conditions (and my knowledge levels) at the time, and really ought to prove that I am not as 'Nikon-bound' in my thinking as I may have inadvertently implied.

There are some equally impressive shots in my photography books that were taken with Canon DSLRs but, unfortunately, my own experience with a Canon camera was a massive disappointment. Granted, it was a bridge camera, not a DSLR, so the comparison may be unfair, yet it was generally very highly rated. My point being that 'badge reputation' alone is not enough to sway me... though my reasons for disliking that particular camera (and I wasn't alone, although the majority of buyers and expert reviewers raved over it) would form a separate discussion topic all of their own! :-)

I think TJB hit the nail on the head with the inference that, with the experience of ownership, I have developed issues with Pentax that are beginning to prey on my mind. These were reinforced by my recent exchange of emails with Kenko regarding teleconverters (which I know I'm in danger of 'doing to death', but I'm not as hung up on the subject as I may seem; it merely serves as a good example of the kind of issues under discussion). Two days ago, I sent them quite a detailed email, basically enquiring as to the likelihood of them introducing DGX teleconverters in Pentax-fit. This morning, they responded with what amounted to a one-liner, stating that, far from expanding their range, they have decided to discontinue Pentax-fit teleconverters altogether! Considering that, until relatively recently, Kenko and Pentax shared the same parent company (Hoya), that news alone has given me much food for thought...

Add in the other Pentax factors I mentioned in my original post, and from a general, 'market' perspective (though not with regard to performance), I am no longer as enamoured of Pentax as I was when I bought my K-5... and now that there IS a Nikon DSLR on the market that 'ticks all my boxes' (there wasn't a year ago), this seems like as good a time as any to change systems. It's probably worth mentioning here that some of the most impressive shots in my photography books were taken with Nikon DSLRs from as far back in the range as the D40, proof positive (if it were needed) of your point that many a good tune can be played on an old fiddle - or Strat! :-) - so if I do bite the bullet, I fully intend to take your advice and use my new Nikon until it is positively ancient! :-)


In reply to an earlier post on 8 May 2013 10:06:47 BDT
I had a Canon S2 bridge. It was fiddly and I kept finding the file size reduced to 3Mp - no doubt due to my inadvertently touching a control. I was annoyed at the time but probably the best thing it ever did was to die after about 20 months. Canon weren't sufficiently interested in their image to fix it so I bought a compact Olympus (still going strong) and then a dSLR.
I spoke about a game changer yesterday - well I got talking to a chap with a Fuji XE 1. I was most impressed with the small size and the EVF. The 18-55mm kit lens was f2.8 to 4 which is a better spec than most and gets good write ups. There are several primes too. The reviews show it has a higher than average dynamic range too. I could definitely see myself going that route in a year or two, when the system has matured and I have properly learned digital with my dSLR. The bloke who owned it said he hardly used his Nikon gear any more. He, like you, had been searching for a system which really inspired him and in this he had found it. The only criticism of any note seems to be the auto focus which is fast for Contrast Detect but not up to Phase Detect speeds.

In reply to an earlier post on 9 May 2013 11:13:28 BDT
Last edited by the author on 9 May 2013 12:23:42 BDT
Hi everyone

Thanks to a combination of your valuable insight and clarifying my thoughts in writing, I have now made my decision, which is to go with Nikon, but NOT the D7100! :-O

Despite all my carefully-reasoned arguments (or self-serving b******t... you pays your money, etc.), I ultimately had doubts as to whether I could really justify the cost of the D7100, given my limitations as a photographer, and especially considering that I would be (part-)financing the purchase by the sale of my Pentax gear, which seems likely to take some time to accomplish if my views on the state of the Pentax second-hand market are anywhere near correct. So, is there an alternative approach? Well, yes, as it happens...

Oddly enough, when I was first in the market for a DSLR a year ago, there WAS a Nikon I strongly favoured. Indeed, there seemed very little to choose between it and the Pentax K-5 on image quality (which is obviously the main consideration), but the K-5 got my vote because of how much extra it appeared to offer for more or less the same outlay (as detailed in my original post). However, I would have done much better to concentrate less on what I thought I MIGHT require in future, and more on satisfying my actual needs, as suggested in the following Amazon customer review...

...and here, on Ken Rockwell's excellent website...

Taking this approach, let us examine the advantages of the K-5 - and now, the D7100 - as they apply to me (or not, as the case may be)...

Do I really need the build quality of a tank, when I'm a stickler for looking after my gear, and never subject it to harsh treatment/environments?

Do I really need weather sealing, when (a) not all of my lenses might offer it, and (b) I am strictly a fair-weather photographer whose gear heads straight for the gadget bag at the first sign of a shower?

Do I really need outstanding low light performance, when I am neither a night-owl nor a troglodyte?

Do I really need a plethora of buttons for faster-than-menu access to features I either don't know how to use, or would use very little?

By now, I think I've kept you waiting long enough so, if the above links haven't already given it away...

Step forward the Nikon D5100, a (near) D7k-performing superiority complex in a light, plastic body that, since the advent of the D5200, can be had for trouser buttons! I've just ordered one, complete with 18-55mm VR kit lens (yes, I know I'm contradicting my previous posting, but I've got Pentax gear I'd prefer to sell before I buy Nikon, and I've got to have SOMETHING to shoot with; also, as kit lenses go, this one doesn't seem too bad) for less than I paid for my Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ150 bridge camera last year!

A result! :-)

Cheers everyone

Posted on 9 May 2013 11:45:11 BDT
Last edited by the author on 9 May 2013 12:03:18 BDT
Graham H says:
Nice! A mate of mine bought a D5100 on my recommendation and he loves it. I bought the older D90 because it has mechanical AF drive, which means that as well as the modern AF-S lenses I can also use my old film camera AF-D lenses and have them autofocus. Can't remember whether or not the D5100 allows this too, but as the D5100 wasn't out at the time I bought my D90 it wasn't a hard decision.

I think you'll be surprised at just how good the D5100 is when you get it.

Will you let us all know how you get on with it? Many people who post on here for advice just clear off after they've bought their camera, and we're left thinking 'So, was what we said helpful or were we talking rubbish?'

Yes, Ken Rockwell's site is very useful. I had a bit of a falling out with him on a personal level some time back, but I still say that his site is an excellent resource as an aid to making up your own mind.

What you'll also find is that the lenses you use have by far the bigger impact on the technical quality of your pic. The body (within reason) is largely inconsequential at the level you and I work at.
If you need any suggestions on what lenses to buy, post a request. I have some lenses from my film cameras which are astoundingly good and are all well under a ton to buy used, even at a dealer.

Speaking of which, now you're in the Nikon Brotherhood, let me introduce you to the cathedral and holy grail of all things Nikon. The excellent Grays Of Westminster!

All the best,


In reply to an earlier post on 9 May 2013 12:02:00 BDT
Will it give better results/value than your Pentax though? - all things considered

In reply to an earlier post on 9 May 2013 12:41:49 BDT
Cheers GEH

I'll be happy to post an update to let everyone know how I get on, and happier still to seek your advice on lenses in due course, although the D5100 autofocuses only with AF-S.

Thanks also for the link to Grays, to which I've only been able to pay a brief visit due to the rapid onset of projectile salivating! :-D

Best wishes

Posted on 9 May 2013 16:42:06 BDT
T.J.Byford says:
Hi, K.S.

Thanks for the update, much appreciated.

As Graham says, it's the glass that matters. Have fun and do, please, come back with your experience of using you new toy.


Posted on 2 Sep 2013 17:12:25 BDT
Last edited by the author on 5 Sep 2013 12:02:01 BDT
Hello all

Well, it's taken a while, but I am finally fulfilling my promise to update you with how I got on... primarily because a promise is a promise, though I almost opted for discretion through fearing that the path I ultimately chose may well portray me as the most indecisive individual who ever drew breath! You see, after actually ordering a Nikon D5100, as I mentioned, I became beset by such serious fresh doubt that I ended up RETURNING the camera unopened on the very day it arrived!

My reasons? Well, firstly, if I really was contemplating selling my Pentax equipment at a doubtless substantial loss, then I needed to feel absolutely certain that it was worth not only switching to Nikon, but sticking with a DSLR, period. Once this had led me to re-examine my decision to buy a DSLR in the first place, I concluded that I had made the classic beginner's mistake of assuming that I 'needed' a DSLR as the logical next step in my hoped-for evolution into a proficient photographer. Unfortunately, like many before me, I was beginning to balk at the inherent bulk and weight, so much so that, as I mentioned in one of my later posts, I had meanwhile bought a Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ150 bridge camera... yet once I'd added wide-angle, telephoto, and macro conversion lenses to squeeze the utmost performance out of it, the AMOUNT of gear I was carrying around with me was about the same, if a little lighter in weight!

It got worse. The bridge camera was undoubtedly more convenient, but the DSLR was clearly the better performer, consequently a shoot with EITHER camera invariably left me wishing I'd brought the other one instead! Could there be an ideal solution that offered the best of both worlds? Well, yes, as it happened, and it left me rather annoyed to think I had previously been within touching distance of my ideal set-up at the very time I decided to change it for 'something even better'!

The upshot is that I'm now enjoying my second stint as a micro-four-thirds (MFT) user with the Panasonic Lumix G-series. I first used MFT from late 2009 until spring 2012 (starting out with a G1, subsequently upgraded to a G2), and MFT once again became my favoured format during the summer, after a somewhat uncomfortable fifteen-month digression, when I bought a used G2. I've mostly been able to buy second-hand, largely offsetting the loss on my Pentax gear, which I have now sold (along with the FZ150). I am absolutely delighted with the G2, as my review here...

...underlines, while the subsequent purchase of Lightroom 4 and Photomatix Pro 4.2 has allowed me to start producing very satisfying images, such as my most recent efforts here...

Just for absolute closure, I have since, for the second time, handled a D5100 in store, which confirmed my initial impression, from months ago, that it wasn't ergonomically ideal for me, personally, and didn't feel as 'right' in the hand as the K-5... or, indeed, the G2. I also found out that it has comparatively limited options for auto-bracketing, which makes it less useful for HDR photography, in which I have meanwhile become very interested, than the G2 (as mentioned in my G2 review, above).

So, the solution to my original 'Nikon or Pentax' dilemma turns out to be: NEITHER... and having returned to my roots, as it were, I couldn't be happier!

As always, thanks very much for your input... and above all, for your patience with my tortuous thought processes! ;-)


In reply to an earlier post on 2 Sep 2013 18:07:54 BDT
T.J.Byford says:
Hi, Kevin.

Thanks for sharing your experience(s) and some of your images. You've arrived at you goal; now you've only to resist the temptation of the sales ads that you simply must get the latest all singing all dancing model. :-D

Posted on 13 Sep 2013 00:05:17 BDT
Graham H says:
Hi again Kevin.

I know exactly where you're coming from. The best technical performing (Digital) camera I have is my Nikon D90. But the one I always carry is my Fujifilm X10! The best camera is the one you (like to) have with you.

Posted on 13 Sep 2013 07:33:51 BDT
ChrisJ says:
Micro Four Thirds and that gorgeous new Olympus OM-D EM-1..... YES PLEASE!!

Posted on 13 Sep 2013 07:46:48 BDT
Last edited by the author on 13 Sep 2013 07:50:07 BDT
Hi TJB and GEH

Thanks for your replies. Believe me, TJB, when it comes to resisting the temptation to buy the latest bells and whistles, I won't have ANY trouble! :-) Don't know whether this proves that point or not, but I was curious enough to check out a G6 recently, and was quite taken aback by its comparatively flimsy build. It also had a whole slew of fancy features I either wouldn't use or flat-out didn't need. This only reinforced my opinion, as expressed in my above-mentioned G2 review, that the G2 is still arguably the best camera in the series, and a used one in excellent condition represents a great bargain.

...which brings me nicely on to GEH's point that the best camera you can buy is whichever is best FOR YOU, a valuable lesson and the one big positive (which I always prefer to look for in any situation) I can take from my experiences over the last fifteen months or so.

‹ Previous 1 Next ›
[Add comment]
Add your own message to the discussion
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Prompts for sign-in

Recent discussions in the photography discussion forum (778 discussions)

More Customer Discussions

Most active community forums
Most active product forums

Amazon forums

This discussion

Participants:  5
Total posts:  19
Initial post:  7 May 2013
Latest post:  13 Sep 2013

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.
Tracked by 2 customers

Search Customer Discussions