[TER-OR]

To me, with modern sensors, the "slowness" of a lens is rarely a problem. Occasionally it's nice to get below f3.5, but usually that's only used to get a specific DOF. Meanwhile, out in the field or indoors with plenty of light the lenses pose no problems.

As for considering our gear as more than mere tools - I think that just means we think about the gear more than the typical T3 user. We have to remember a couple sampling biases, though. First, we're the few percent enthusiastic enough to spend significant time in a camera forum and second we're the few percent with a collection of specialty lenses.

[GlennG]

From trolling these forums for a couple years, Pentaxians like "charm" and "quirk" more than the other brand's devotees. I've noticed that we never really talk about the "perfect" lens (i.e. is it super sharp, has no aberrations, and super fast, and, preferably, super expensive). We talk more about the "character" of glass here. And, from browsing other forums, we have the most in common with Leica people, we're almost obscenely attached to our glass. Canikon people, for the most part, seem to see their glass as a mere tool, more than us. Also, like Leica people, we're most likely to be discussing really old glass with interesting flaws.

I really like your input here. I have often wondered how we, as Pentax devotees, might be different, generally, from other brands' users. I'll take your word here because it sounds like you at least have some experience to compare, and I have none. Thanks.

[krema]

Thanks to everyone that replied to my thread.

I concluded this debate for myself by viewing thousands of photos on Flickr (and elsewhere) and reaching a sort of understanding of what these manufacturers tried to achieve with their lenses and how one or two of them could be useful to me.

Each manufacturers preferences or "tradition" have their own particular emphasis as to what constitutes an ideal lens. We only need to spend enough time viewing properly exposed photos taken with their better lenses for their "tradition" to make itself clear. One problem with this is that we're overwhelmed with Canon & Nikon photos so naturally we lean in that direction. I have some Canon point and shoots that I've kept because of this, but to have a more "serious" camera setup produce that same look is something that I would tire of very quickly.

By isolating what images I've been viewing strictly to other manufacturers for several days or weeks at a time, I could see that I could acclimate to their preferences and find some that suit my temperament. Fortunately I found I made the right choice with the K-01 (and Q) and by further isolating only K-01 images taken with various lenses, I could finally make a choice.

K

[Omestes]

Thanks to everyone that replied to my thread.

I concluded this debate for myself by viewing thousands of photos on Flickr (and elsewhere) and reaching a sort of understanding of what these manufacturers tried to achieve with their lenses and how one or two of them could be useful to me.

Each manufacturers preferences or "tradition" have their own particular emphasis as to what constitutes an ideal lens. We only need to spend enough time viewing properly exposed photos taken with their better lenses for their "tradition" to make itself clear. One problem with this is that we're overwhelmed with Canon & Nikon photos so naturally we lean in that direction. I have some Canon point and shoots that I've kept because of this, but to have a more "serious" camera setup produce that same look is something that I would tire of very quickly.

By isolating what images I've been viewing strictly to other manufacturers for several days or weeks at a time, I could see that I could acclimate to their preferences and find some that suit my temperament. Fortunately I found I made the right choice with the K-01 (and Q) and by further isolating only K-01 images taken with various lenses, I could finally make a choice.

K

Congratulations!

I've always been intrigued by the K-01, and at the price you can find them for these days, its a very good buy. Ditto with the Q.

So now you need to move on to the horrible, paralyzing, debilitating, case of LBA.

[KDAFA]

While I want to completely agree with this, I still think the IQ differences in equipment (particularly lenses) matter enough to make a difference. There was some old internet article that claimed Pentax and Olympus were two of the top four lens makers in IQ (the other 2 being more "exotic" brands). Nikon and Canon were definitely not on that list. I was skeptical when I read it.

Funny thing is that I recognized - even way back - that on my old, cheap, compact Olympus XA (my first 35mm camera) yielded exceptionally nice photo quality. And Olympus lenses are still excellent.


I still have a long way to go in my technique, but I'm slowly coming to the conclusion that when I hit a shot with my Pentax, it's not an accident how good it looks. I actually now believe it might not be possible to get as nice a result with Canon or Nikon - that there's a reason those shots don't appeal to me as much as my best Pentax shots...

Agreed.

Even back in film days, I discerned a difference in lens rendering between Pentax, Nikon, Canon and Zeiss glass, and I see it carried over into digital. The glass does makes a difference. Some may not see it, and that's ok. For those who do see it, this becomes a factor for consideration - for some, a critical factor.

My overall favourite is Pentax. More specifically, the FA Ltd & DA Ltd glass, which are without parallel in their rendering characters - period. Having said that, I do appreciate other brands too, in certain photographic contexts.