[btnapa]

Now if I was like my cousin and shooting 40 a year, then OK, buy a camera for it.

The last time I shot weddings for money was back in 2008 and that was with a Canon system. When I was asked to shoot my friend's wedding back in 2016, I had long left Canon in favor of Pentax. As a matter of fact, I only had the K1 so I ended up buying a K5IIs, a camera I had previously owned and sold just to have a back up for the wedding shoot. I knew K1 was solid in terms of not failing but as you know, you never show up on assignment with one body only. The same goes with flashes. In my Canon days, I had two Canon flashes fail on me on consecutive weekends. My "cheapo" Sunpak flashes saved the day until I bought Canon flashes a week later.

Canon (7D, 6D, 5D, 5D Mark II) keeper rates were much higher than Pentax. The sensor quality of their APSc, 7D namely, sucked. Their 6D was the best body I owned until I switched to K5IIs, then K3 and on to K1. If I shot weddings for pay again, my camera of choice hands down would be Nikon. I have shot my friend's various Nikons (7100, 750, 810) and the focusing in my opinion is the best in the DSLR world. I am comparing their mid-range cameras not their top $6-7K bodies.

For my apps K1 is king. It just is not cut for fast action tracking stuff. At leases not with my lenses which are the Tammy 70-200, the Three Amigos and the 28-105. I have a Samyang 14 which is manual and I did use it for the wedding shoot. I used it inside and mostly prefocused for a set distance (at f5.6 or 6.7) and just fired away. The pics came out perfect.

My wedding outdoor keepers were much higher than 45%. The church ceremony keepers were low but again more than 45%. My flashes acted up inside the church. Up/down exposures that drove me crazy. I shot RAW and I was able to salvage the day with the exposure variations, somewhat!!

Bottom line, I am looking for K1 to give me plenty of resolution, DR, clean high-ISO shots and it delivers brilliantly. K1 is my poor man's medium format. I personally know a lot of pro wedding guys and gals in Los Angeles and Boston and non of them shoot with medium format!!

[normhead]

MS cash infusion to Apple is a statement of fact, and should not be in dispute. Aug. 6, 1997: Apple Rescued ? by Microsoft | WIRED. PowerPC had significant advantages over x86 up until the Athlon64 where it started lagging behind, but the problem was System 7 (and 8 and 9 after it) was not a pre-emptive multitasking OS that NT (and to a lesser extent, Win9x) was; Apple wouldn't have a fully protected mode preemptive OS until OS X was released in 2001. For people who used computers casually, Macs offered little benefit over cheaper PC clones of the time.


IBM's noncompetitive hardware aside (which wasn't absolutely true, they just weren't competitive at the same price point, but instead you got full 100% PC BIOS compatibility except for the PCjr), OS/2 was their operating system to replace DOS. It failed, for multiple reasons, but primarily due to lack of consumer and developer support, hurt by their ineptitude on how they treated small developers.

From the article you posted posted.

In a remarkable feat of negotiating legerdemain, Apple co-founder Steve Jobs got needed cash — in return for non-voting shares — and an assurance that Microsoft would support Office for the Mac for five years. Apple agreed to drop a long-running lawsuit in which they alleged Microsoft copied the look and feel of the Mac OS for Windows and to make Internet Explorer the default browser on its computers — but not the only choice.

Cash for dropping the lawsuit... cash they would have had in any case. Exactly as I said. law suit settlement is not the same as an infusion of money voluntarily handed over. Its an admission of damages caused.

---------- Post added 05-30-20 at 08:35 PM ----------

BM's noncompetitive hardware aside (which wasn't absolutely true, they just weren't competitive at the same price point, but instead you got full 100% PC BIOS compatibility except for the PCjr),

Seriously, did you misunderstand that Microsoft wasn't part of IBM, no one cared about 100% PC BIOS compatibility. I didn't. I just wanted the software my school paid 2 grand for to work. I was told no IBM would run it, at any price. We are talking about AutoCad, AutoCam, not some fly by night company of no particular importance. The big thing with PC software at the time was lack of standards, compatibility and software that didn't follow protocols. Software in the PC world was a crap shoot.

Apple had less software available, not everything was available on the Apple platform at the time, but if you got it on your Apple, it worked. Before you start posting that kind of thing, maybe you might look at who's slant you're taking. I was heavily involved on Ars Techica during the 90s. There were people who shared some of your rhetoric and ideas, but bottom line, they were wrong then and they're still wrong. They all said Apple would be dead by 2000. There isn't actually much they were right about.

At one point in the 90s I was running an over-clocked Apple with a 6102 that was faster than any PC in the world.

I literally used to advise people to take the software they wanted to run and run it on the PC they were thinking of buying on the actual machine they wanted to buy, there were so many conflicts in the PC world.

I had to run both PCs and Mac at home because of my teaching environment and to this day my advice is the same. "By a Mac if you can afford it, by a PC if you can't."

Buy the way, my school board ran side by side PC and Mac media labs, and the PCs were 10 times as expensive to keep running as the Mac.s The Macs cost more, but after six months the total cost was cheaper. By the time the life of the machines was up they had saved thousands of dollars. So much so that the board actually dumped it's PC labs and went all Apple. Apple was known to use better components, most of them military grade and had much better performance records. You're only telling the PC side of the story with a very heavy PC slant. There were two sides.

---------- Post added 05-30-20 at 08:50 PM ----------

My wedding outdoor keepers were much higher than 45%. The church ceremony keepers were low but again more than 45%. My flashes acted up inside the church. Up/down exposures that drove me crazy. I shot RAW and I was able to salvage the day with the exposure variations, somewhat!!

Ya my outdoor keepers were over 90%, and as I said I shot 3-4 images in each burst on focus priority and always got an image from each burst. But if you look at my finished work, I got 100% coverage of each pose and set. Sometimes I got 1, sometimes I got 4. I didn't use flash. That created bit more work in post, shooting a burst cost me next to nothin, 1 second instead of a quarter second. Hardly worth buying camera for.
As I said, if I was shooting 40 weddings a year I would consider a different camera. But "pro " equipment is only worth it if it pays for itself.

My cousin loved getting dressed up in Tux's and going to weddings and hobnobbing with the guests. Personally, I hate it. It makes my skin crawl just thinking about buying a wedding camera.

[btnapa]

By a Mac if you can afford it, by a PC if you can't.

Looks like you and I may have crossed paths!! I worked for a college in Boston and by default ended up being the "computer guy" for the media center and the library which were combined into one entity. We bought the first Mac in 1984 when it was first introduced. I was a Mac guy until 2012 which is when I decided to build a PC with the help of my cousin who had built one himself. in 2012 the PC cost me $2,800 to build. We had top of the line everything. 6-core i7, 32GB RAM, 4GB graphic card, RAID 10! you name it. It served me well for about 2-3 years until I had a need to be portable. So I bought an i5 then an i7 HP laptop to augment. NEVER ever again am I buying an HP laptop. I still have them and use them as door stops. So the PC era came to an end with the purchase of a MacBook Pro in 2015 (i7, 16GBRAM, 512GB-SSD, 2GB graphics card) which I am still using today with zero issues.

The only regret I have in the world of Mac vs. PC is not buying some Apple and Microsoft stock when they went public. I get sick thinking about it. If you invested $1,000 in each company, a total of $2k in mid 80's, it would be worth $2.8 million today. Holy cow!!

[Serkevan]

I had to run both PCs and Mac at home because of my teaching environment and to this day my advice is the same. "By a Mac if you can afford it, by a PC if you can't."

Nowadays? Why would I want to pay more than twice as much for the same or worse hardware and about the same durability?

To be precise, my 999€ i7 Asus laptop from 2012 had the same components as a 2400€ i5 Mac. Considering the laptop still works perfectly fine, either the Mac is outright eternal or it's overpriced.

[pres589]

I like where this thread has gone.

[Serkevan]

NEVER ever again am I buying an HP laptop.

HP has build quality on par with Acer, unless you go for the ultrabooks or the Omen gaming range, but ultrabooks are overpriced* by default and the Omens are overpriced because it's HP .

*Unless you really, really need the portability.

[bertwert]

Apple was known to use better components, most of them military grade

Translation time...

Military grade = lowest bidder

[Serkevan]

Translation time...

Military grade = lowest bidder

About ten years ago or so Apple started using run of the mill components, except for the laptop CPUs, which are -at least for Intel CPUs- underclocked versions of the PC ones. It's done to increase battery life and reduce heating because apparently "cooling" wasn't part of the design brief

[RGlasel]

I like where this thread has gone.

This thread is so far gone, it will never find its way back.

[reh321]

Translation time...

Military grade = lowest bidder

In the US, that has definitely not been true.
"Military grade" has meant components that will withstand more heat, shock, etc than "commercial grade" does -
the US military is unwilling to have stuff they depend on fail in the middle of trying conditions.

[totsmuyco]

Ok, I'll try to swing it back to the topic.

Pentax is military grade equipment. I've dropped my k-5II the second time last February and it's still alive. However, my poor 18-135 was damaged. I bought an excellent copy from Ebay and got it before the lock down. Now I'm up and about again. I don't think Samyang is military grade so I'll try and stick with Pentax.

[luftfluss]

Oddly enough, I did something similar. I did not migrate but augmented my system. I needed video, so I tried Panasonic GX8 for a short period and then committed to Fuji about two years ago. I did that for video capabilities. Although I am liking the still results very much too. For now, and for that "high end" shoot, my K1 and the Pentax glass rule. Who knows if there is one system that has all the answers at a reasonable price. It seems to me that no single brand has all the answers for top notch stills, video, super long lenses for sports, super fast autofocus for sports, tilt-shift for architectural... and the list goes on. Again the caveat is a solution for "reasonable prices." Pentax checks most of the boxes for the type of shooting I do, so Pentax it is for the foreseeable future.

Perhaps there is an "ultimate" solution or system out there from Sony, Canon, Panasonic, Nikon, Fuji etc., but is at a reasonable price? The long term "enemy" if you will, is not the other brands but the other technologies such as smart phones, drones and god knows what else is coming down the pike. Throw in a little pandemic curve-ball into the mix, then all hell breaks loose for the camera industry as whole and not for a brand specifically!

Good question. I was going to elaborate but did not want to make the post too long. You are absolutely right. What is reasonable. So here we go. A system with an $1,800 K1 at the heart of it is reasonable and easier on my pockets as opposed to a Sony A7RIII which was the contemporary of Pentax K1 when it first came out.

Today, I can build a two camera K1II kit with the trio of the zooms, 15-30, 24-70, 70-200 all f2.8 for about $8,000 US vs. a Sony A7RIII with the same trio of lenses is around $12,600. Go to a 7RIV and add another $2,000 for a grand total of $14,600 give or take. They all produce similar still image quality. Many will argue myself included that the overall image quality of the Pentax is better. A sizable sum of $4,600 to $6,600 in savings is substantial in my book. The only advantage of Sony besides the obvious MLC vs DSLR is that Sony has better video specs, much better specs. So if I strictly shot stills, the K1 set up is more reasonably priced for the quality I get.

I am sure what I just stated can be debated all day. I don't think anyone on this forum or any other forum will dispute that Pentax as a whole is a value system. The most bang-for-the-buck so to speak.

Combining your two posts, I'm going to answer Canon as having "all the answers at a reasonable price". Canon comes closest to fulfilling "...top notch stills, video, super long lenses for sports, super fast autofocus for sports, tilt-shift for architectural..." And thanks to the huge used market and third-party support, there is a vast array of fairly affordable quality gear available. Not saying Canon is the best at everything, but you could build a system around the $2000 USD Canon 5D Mk IV (under $1500 used) that will be at least good at nearly everything. And lenses like the 300/2.8 or 100-400L or Tamron 150-600 are available for under $1k used. Samyang 24mm Tilt-Shift for $800. Used Sigma 180 Macro for $400.

I suppose a Nikon fan could make a similar argument.

A mirrorless system is interesting because with adapters you can use nearly any lens, even for AF. For instance, I know of a couple Fuji users who prefer using a Sigma 150-600 with an adapter instead of the native Fuji 100-400 + 1.4x TC because they feel the AF performance actually favors the Sigma, as well as having a price advantage. So there is a lot of versatility in the MILC world in both selection and cost, thanks to adapters.

[Ian Stuart Forsyth]

I suppose a Nikon fan could make a similar argument.

Actually its hard too make, as there is a great deal on the used market for Canon and if you are looking for TS lenses then Nikon has some slim pickings

[thibs]

Canon (7D, 6D, 5D, 5D Mark II) keeper rates were much higher than Pentax. The sensor quality of their APSc, 7D namely, sucked. Their 6D was the best body I owned until I switched to K5IIs, then K3 and on to K1. If I shot weddings for pay again, my camera of choice hands down would be Nikon. I have shot my friend's various Nikons (7100, 750, 810) and the focusing in my opinion is the best in the DSLR world. I am comparing their mid-range cameras not their top $6-7K bodies.

Something tells me it might change a little bit with K-New. But I'm not surprised one bit by your comment.
A pity Nikon 7xxx and lower have such crap UI IMO.

[Wasp]

In somewhat related news, Canon and Nikon are not in good shape:

Canon: Imaging Profits Down 80% in Q1, But the Worst is Yet to Come

Nikon Releases Brutal Financial Report, Lays Off 700 in Southeast Asia

Not sure what sort of shape Pentax is in. Ricoh is not saying - not even a footnote mentioning Pentax by name in their latest annual report.