Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
12-03-2012, 08:47 AM   #511
Veteran Member




Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 1,167
QuoteOriginally posted by normhead Quote
You'd never know people actually used to take pictures with none of the above. I think you might be caught up in that "impressive gadget" school of photography.

Well, I think we need to qualify what kind of photography we are looking at. A typical wedding photographer would value these things. A fashion photographer probably dont care. And there is a 100 or a 1000 to 1 ratio on the market here.

12-03-2012, 09:00 AM   #512
Pentaxian
normhead's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Near Algonquin Park
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 24,317
QuoteQuote:
A typical wedding photographer would value these things.
I hate it when people state assumptions as if they were fact. My cousin used to shoot weddings with a Hassy (well a couple of Haasies actually). How many of those things did his camera have? Why do people think they know what other people, not themselves , want?

This is a Pentax forum. How many of the people on this forum are wedding photographers? Even if you're right, and wedding photographers might want those things, (I know it's a crazy unsupported assumption but hey, lets be creative and assume it's true) why is that relevant? Does the fact that a dump truck driver has 30" tires on his truck, mean I want them on my car?

Last edited by normhead; 12-03-2012 at 09:22 AM.
12-03-2012, 09:12 AM   #513
Pentaxian




Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: GMT +10
Photos: Albums
Posts: 10,660
QuoteOriginally posted by falconeye Quote
At 1599,- Euro in Germany, the D600 does already occupy the niche the K-5 populated at launch.
Interesting. Europe is cheaper than Australia - EUR1599 = AUD 2000, cheapest D600 locally is about $2300 non-grey. Australians are being ripped off!

But the current K-5 II price locally is about $1100, current D7000 body price is also about $1100... that's still about half the price of a D600 in this market.
12-03-2012, 09:35 AM   #514
Site Supporter




Join Date: Sep 2012
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 1,728
QuoteOriginally posted by normhead Quote
I hate it when people state assumptions as if they were fact. My cousin used to shoot weddings with a Hassy (well a couple of Haasies actually). How many of those things did his camera have? Why do people think they know what other people, not themselves , want?

This is a Pentax forum. How many of the people on this forum are wedding photographers? Even if you're right, and wedding photographers might want those things, (I know it's a crazy unsupported assumption but hey, lets be creative and assume it's true) why is that relevant? Does the fact that a dump truck driver has 30" tires on his truck, mean I want them on my car?
I'm not a wedding photographer or any other kind of professional photographer. However, the woman who handled the photography at our daughter's wedding this year most certainly is. I noticed she uses a D4 and during the reception I asked her what drove her to that camera. She mentioned the best-in-class high ISO performance (especially useful for reception shots), two card slots, and very reliable AF performance under many conditions. The very good flash system was mentioned as a plus for any higher-end Nikon as well.

12-03-2012, 09:41 AM   #515
Pentaxian
normhead's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Near Algonquin Park
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 24,317
QuoteQuote:
I noticed she uses a D4 and during the reception I asked her what drove her to that camera. She mentioned the best-in-class high ISO performance (especially useful for reception shots), two card slots, and very reliable AF performance under many conditions. The very good flash system was mentioned as a plus for any higher-end Nikon as well.
I'm not saying a wedding photographer won't think that way. Almost every photographer of any stripe will justify their camera purchase. I'm just saying... others get the job done with way less. I have noticed however with wedding photographers, hainvg gear that looks impressive sell them to future clients. My cousin's Hasselblads said to his clients "I'm worth the 5k it's going to take to get me out the door in the morning." There are other things involved besides the actual images produced when you discuss wedding photography. So I'll agree, if you are a wedding photographer, you want the showiest most expensive equipment you can afford and that probably isn't a D600. (Or a K-5).

You want everyone of those bridesmaids walking out of there drooling over your set up.

Last edited by normhead; 12-03-2012 at 09:47 AM.
12-03-2012, 10:02 AM   #516
Veteran Member
MrPetkus's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Long Island, NY
Posts: 388
QuoteOriginally posted by normhead Quote
You'd never know people actually used to take pictures with none of the above. I think you might be caught up in that "impressive gadget" school of photography. There's absolutely no reason not having any of those things, listed above, will prevent you from taking better pictures than those who have them, based on your technique and vision. If you pay for what you don't need, you'll have less money left for what you need. Paying $2000 for a D600 as opposed to 800 for a K-5 costs you $1200 in lenses, for most of us who don't have unlimited income. Once you've taken the picture framed it, hung it up in your booth or gallery, no one cares if the camera had "few (#card slots, uncompressed hdmi out, better AF.C, 39 point AF with 3D tracking, viewfinder, rgb metering sensor, tethering, sensor size)".
I've seen the pics on your site, Norm, and they're quite nice. But dismissing those seeking the latest advancements in photography as gearheads and gadget lovers is not entirely fair. Yes, photographers 20, 30, 50 years ago took great pics with their all-manual cameras and lenses.
I can speak for myself as a dance and theater photographer. Sometimes I work in near darkness and am forced to shoot from the back. Last week I did a ballet performance and the lighting was so dim the dancers looked like a bunch of silhouettes zooming around in darkness. I had ISO between 4500 - 6400 and had to boost another ~2 stops in post. Luckily, motion blur is acceptable to capture the sense of movement.

My long-winded point is that I personally could benefit from the things Falk mentioned as a photographer and not a gadget freak. Namely
- 2 card slots so I can either mirror for fault-tolerance or overflow to maintain continuity
- UHS-1 speed bus (if SD) so I can clear the buffer faster than ~20MB/s
- Better AF-C performance with 3D tracking

For now I'm staying put with my 2 K5s as the 6D and D600 aren't significantly better enough to warrant a switch. But I like what I see in these new cams.

Last edited by MrPetkus; 12-04-2012 at 08:01 AM.
12-03-2012, 10:03 AM   #517
Site Supporter




Join Date: Sep 2012
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 1,728
QuoteOriginally posted by normhead Quote
I'm not saying a wedding photographer won't think that way. Almost every photographer of any stripe will justify their camera purchase. I'm just saying... others get the job done with way less. I have noticed however with wedding photographers, hainvg gear that looks impressive sell them to future clients. My cousin's Hasselblads said to his clients "I'm worth the 5k it's going to take to get me out the door in the morning." There are other things involved besides the actual images produced when you discuss wedding photography. So I'll agree, if you are a wedding photographer, you want the showiest most expensive equipment you can afford and that probably isn't a D600. (Or a K-5).

You want everyone of those bridesmaids walking out of there drooling over your set up.
I'm sure that's the case for some wedding photographers. In this woman's case, she made no mention of what equipment she uses though I wasn't part of some of the advance discussions. She certainly doesn't say anything about it on her website. What was interesting is she told me she recently sold her D700 to get the D4. I asked her why, since a D700 is such a good camera already, and she said it was for the extra card slot and the better low light performance (focus and capture). Seems she thinks a wedding photographer can never have too much low light capability.
12-03-2012, 10:49 AM   #518
Pentaxian
normhead's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Near Algonquin Park
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 24,317
QuoteQuote:
Seems she thinks a wedding photographer can never have too much low light capability.
Based on my limited experience, I certainly am not going to argue with that. My sisters wedding was in an old mansion that had been divided up and rented out specifically for wedding shoots and similar functions. In the fireplace room where people gathered the light was dreadful. But while those shots are nice as a record for the wedding, I'm not sure they are bread and butter shots for a wedding photographer. Everyone I know has gone off location to a local park or flower garden for their formal wedding portraits.

But I'm really curious about this. Now I'm wondering how much better her D4 is than her D700. I often read how much better things are, but then when I see actually photos I end up thinking ," not such a big deal." So it's hard to know if the low light thing was a confidence thing for her, or a necessity for her work. Same with the double memory card. One of my buddies has a D4 and many of his shots are amazing. I'd never say having a D4 is a bad thing... I'm just not sure it's a necessary thing.

Reasons for buying a new camera.

1. To take pictures.
2. To a new toy to play with.
3. To try and combat deep seated fears and insecurities that interfere with your creativity.
4. You've had failure that could have been avoided with better equipment.
5. A need to explore a photo technique that is ineffective on your camera because of technical limitations.
6. You need more MP for larger image size.
7. You want something easier to use.
8. YOu want something more complicated with more "control."
9. You want to "take it to the next level".
10.-100. All the ones I couldn't think of.

There can be lots of reasons to go for different equipment. Not all of them are technical. And sometimes there's not even one of them that will appeal to a given photographer at a given time. It's quite possible to look at a list like that and say "I don't need any of those things." I'm not sure that says anything about the cameras though. The fact that if you have 100 camera owners, one or two of them might need something more from their camera, in no way affects the 98 that don't.

I still find it fascinating reading the accounts of those that do need something else. You just have to keep it in perspective. Someday I may miss a great shot, because of my K-5's lack of predictive focus while tracking. But it hasn't happened yet, and it may never happen. How much do I plan to gamble on actually needing that function. $1000 seems like a lot. $2 or 3 thousand seems like a lot more. I'm comfortable taking my chances and keeping my money.

12-03-2012, 11:26 AM   #519
Site Supporter




Join Date: Sep 2012
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 1,728
QuoteOriginally posted by normhead Quote
Based on my limited experience, I certainly am not going to argue with that. My sisters wedding was in an old mansion that had been divided up and rented out specifically for wedding shoots and similar functions. In the fireplace room where people gathered the light was dreadful. But while those shots are nice as a record for the wedding, I'm not sure they are bread and butter shots for a wedding photographer. Everyone I know has gone off location to a local park or flower garden for their formal wedding portraits.

But I'm really curious about this. Now I'm wondering how much better her D4 is than her D700. I often read how much better things are, but then when I see actually photos I end up thinking ," not such a big deal." So it's hard to know if the low light thing was a confidence thing for her, or a necessity for her work. Same with the double memory card. One of my buddies has a D4 and many of his shots are amazing. I'd never say having a D4 is a bad thing... I'm just not sure it's a necessary thing.
According to her, it's not so much the ceremony that puts pressure on low light performance though in the case of your sister's wedding, I'm sure it did. It's the reception where the need is most acute. Light levels are almost always low (right up to "dark") while there's a preponderance of what can best be called action shots. As for two cards, I think she said she has them set up for recording onto both (or one automatically backs up the other) as insurance against the unthinkable.
12-03-2012, 11:57 AM   #520
Veteran Member




Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 1,167
Hi Norm,

Having encountered your comments on the forums, I have found myself more times in agreeance with your opinion. In fact, one of your comments is a quote in one of my site (i asked your permission for it),

" Saying you don't post process is like saying you worship camera technology.. it is your god and you can't mess with it. it really is as superstitious as that. There is no magic to what a camera captures. There is no technology that captures what your eye sees and how it makes your spirit feel. Once you put the limitations of what the camera sees ahead of your own vision, you stopped being a photographer and become a technologist. The camera should help you express your vision, the camera has no vision to express."

However, I think i will have to disagree with your comment below:

QuoteOriginally posted by normhead Quote
I hate it when people state assumptions as if they were fact. My cousin used to shoot weddings with a Hassy (well a couple of Haasies actually). How many of those things did his camera have? Why do people think they know what other people, not themselves , want?

This is a Pentax forum. How many of the people on this forum are wedding photographers? Even if you're right, and wedding photographers might want those things, (I know it's a crazy unsupported assumption but hey, lets be creative and assume it's true) why is that relevant? Does the fact that a dump truck driver has 30" tires on his truck, mean I want them on my car?
First of all, I did not state my assumption as if they were fact. I specifically use the words "typical", "probably", and missed my ratio by a 100% margin to show that my opinion was in fact, an anecdotal one.
Furthermore, your statement, "Why do people think they know what other people, not themselves , want?" contrasted much with the general tones of your postings, in fact, I can find an example in the preceeding sentence : "My cousin used to shoot weddings with a Hassy (well a couple of Haasies actually)."
Are you implying your cousin's shooting preference should be taken as a general reference for wedding photography? if not, why mention it? I know you mentioned it as way of proving a point of contrast - but in the process, you also set an example.

Second, i love my pentax - and I love my nikon. I am in fact, agnostic to camera brand.
I am also a glamour shooter, and a wedding shooter. And I can argue my shooting preferences for both sides.
But, I am not agnostic to camera features.

I hope I have kind of clarify my position as a neutral entity. That said, i would like to be creative, and declare that maybe we can take my general statement as fact. Lets try and come up with a logical argument that ends up with a conclusion, without introducing too much fallacy:
Fact :
- More wedding photographers use nikon and canon semi-pro to pro bodies than pentax.
- Nikon and canon bodies are larger than pentax
- pentax are praised for their durabilities, design, and all around weather resistant
- pentax bodies are not in limited supply at the store
- pentax bodies are lacking in the following department : #card slots, uncompressed hdmi out, better AF.C, 39 point AF with 3D tracking, viewfinder, rgb metering sensor, tethering, sensor size

Conclusion:
Wedding photographers value #card slots, uncompressed hdmi out, better AF.C, 39 point AF with 3D tracking, viewfinder, rgb metering sensor, tethering, sensor size, more than size, durability and design of a body, because otherwise they'd be buying out pentax.

In here i have neglected the effect of marketing - but because marketing is a self-fulfilling prophecy, a chicken and egg, my ignoring it is probably a leniency towards pentax. A good marketing begets customers begets good product begets good marketing.

Furthermore, there are organizations such as WPPI, PPOC, PPO whose membership includes large amounts of wedding photographers. A really quick survey about what these photographers use would prove interesting.

Finally, notice what i said : "A typical wedding photographer would value these things.". I did not say that these valuations were justified, right, or even necessary. In fact, i am one of your sample cases who have shot weddings with a K5 - my customers paid me, everyone was happy? I am not arguing that it can't be done. All I am saying is that - while it can be done - more effort, skill, time, precision has to reside in the photographer who wields a k5 or a manual camera or a camera that doesnt have the following feature : #card slots, uncompressed hdmi out, better AF.C, 39 point AF with 3D tracking, viewfinder, rgb metering sensor, tethering, sensor size than those who wield what is basically an automatic machinegun photographic tool. And effort, skill, time, and precision cuts into the profit of the wedding photographer.

Enter your glamour/fashion/high fashion photographer - those who values precision, exposure, meters every single corner of their scene. A hasselblad with 4 buttons (1 for aperture, 1 for shutter speed, 1 for iso and one for capture) is all they need. Or a pentax. Or a leica. Whatever. As I said, i am brand agnostic. Not feature agnostic. I realize the features of the camera that would support the kind of shooting I am doing.

I hope that clarifies things. I hate to be the person who state generalized assumption as fact. But after a quick examination, I am confident that if we go on a fact finding search, we'll find arguments to support my statement. cheers.
12-03-2012, 12:47 PM   #521
Pentaxian
normhead's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Near Algonquin Park
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 24,317
QuoteQuote:
I hope that clarifies things. I hate to be the person who state generalized assumption as fact. But after a quick examination, I am confident that if we go on a fact finding search, we'll find arguments to support my statement. cheers.
And I'm sure that if we go on a fact finding mission we will also find photographers who achieve good results going against the grain what ever that grain is in whatever shooting style, and that you still have to find out what suits you, even if everyone else does something different. My way of looking at it would be, you can find as many arguments as you want, but each of us is a unique individual with a unique shooting style. If you find equipment that works for you, it doesn't matter what everyone else does. So while I'm sure you can do what you say you can do, I'm also certain it makes no difference to the point I was making. Sorry I triggered such a long involved response.

But you will never catch me believing that because everyone does something on away, it can't be done effectively other ways. Especially with camera gear. I'd also point out that since 90% of photographers in general use Canon and Nikon equipment, it's to be expected that 90% of wedding photographers would. If that were the case, then statistically there would be no advantage to one over the other technically. If 3-4% of wedding photographers shoot Pentax and 3-4% of the general population own Pentax's then you need something other than "wedding photographer preferences" to determine a bias. The only way you might have a point here would be if no wedding photographers shoot Pentax, then you could assume there's probably a reason why they don't. And those people at least the ones who migrated from Pentax can probably tell you why they don't. I just don't know any people like that. Maybe one will come forward.

In the meantime have a look at....this. Isn't it a little odd she'd be shooting with a D90 but I'd be crazy to shoot with a K-5?

It's been years since I shot a wedding, but I'd be happy to go as a second shooter and try it out with my K-5. Someone invite me, I'll even wear a suit.
12-03-2012, 01:01 PM   #522
Veteran Member
jsherman999's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2007
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 8,228
QuoteOriginally posted by normhead Quote
... Someday I may miss a great shot, because of my K-5's lack of predictive focus while tracking. But it hasn't happened yet, and it may never happen. How much do I plan to gamble on actually needing that function. $1000 seems like a lot. $2 or 3 thousand seems like a lot more. I'm comfortable taking my chances and keeping my money.
You're almost exclusively a landscape photographer, though. You might need predictive focus in an earthquake, but that's about it

Predictive focus is very useful in just about any situation where you're tracking any moving subject, like a toddler or child walking through a room, a dog running across a park, a bride swirling through a dance floor, a wide-receiver moving through his route, a bird taking off, etc.

And regarding low-light performance - I've slowly moved into the camp of "more is never enough". Not because you need to take shots of a black cat in a coal mine at ISO 512,000, but because almost every day you (or: many people) could use very, very clean ISO 800, 1600, 3200, 6400 output to keep your shutter speeds up there, to keep your shots crisp and sharp and detailed (detailed, meaning less NR needed,) even your indoor-handheld shots.

Having an ISO 6400 shot in the near future look like an ISO 400 shot of today's top-tier cameras is something I eagerly await. The day can't come soon enough. I've predicated that want on how great it is to take ISO 6400 shots today that look better than my ISO 400 shots of five years ago. My shots are crisper, sharper, cleaner than five years ago and that's only 10% because of technique improvement - the rest is sensor performance allowing me higher shutter speeds with less noise at the same time.

So... predictive focus and high-ISO SNR capability just isn't as important to a daylight, low-ISO, tripod-using landscape photographer. If you're struggling with trying to articulate/realize the reasons that you don't find these features compelling... that's simply why.

.
12-03-2012, 01:16 PM   #523
Pentaxian
normhead's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Near Algonquin Park
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 24,317
QuoteQuote:
You're almost exclusively a landscape photographer, though. You might need predictive focus in an earthquake, but that's about it
No argument there, and also no argument with some one with more demanding needs looking for something that suits them better. In fact I'd say to anyone "If you keep having technical issues in your photography, whether it be low light, tracking or whatever, you need to look at system that improves on what you have." But I'd also say try and find someone who does what you do and see if they have a different solution first. It's almost any top tier camera today will do 90% of what any other one will do. As I've pointed out in other threads, I have a 5 frame 1 second sequence of my dog running at a ball with every frame in clear focus. You don't need the best if what you have is good enough. And if what you have is good enough, having the best may provide no practical advantage. That's the problem with most of these types of discussions. You can show what you got with the camera you have but not with the camera you don't have. If you say "I could have done this better with a better camera", that's considered reliable information, whether true or not. If you say "My crummy old camera could have done just as good", that's suspect whether true or not. There's a bias towards overkill in these types of discussions.
12-03-2012, 01:25 PM   #524
Veteran Member




Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 1,167
QuoteOriginally posted by normhead Quote

In the meantime have a look at....this. Isn't it a little odd she'd be shooting with a D90 but I'd be crazy to shoot with a K-5?

It's been years since I shot a wedding, but I'd be happy to go as a second shooter and try it out with my K-5. Someone invite me, I'll even wear a suit.

Oh. I wrote something similar to that in my own blog the other day. Here, its a fun read :

What your photographer uses to shoot you with....and whether it matters!
There are very specific situations when you really need your photographer to have the equipment for your photoshoot.

These are:
- Sports photography.
- Underwater photography
- Low light (nighttime), no flash photography.
Other than these situations, the best camera your photographer can use for their images is the one they are holding. Amazing photographers around the world has done wonders with all types of cameras - simply because camera is only one part of the photography equation.
Does the brand matter? Not really. Unless your photographer is carrying a hasselblad or a phase one or a RED camera...in which case they are holding a 40 thousand dollar equipment in their hands - then no, the brand doesnt matter. The way we see it, when you need to solve a most impossible math problem , do you rather have stephen hawking helping you with a normal calculator, or cousin A with their scientific calculator? We rather have stephen, really!
Now...on the other hand, the worse lighting your photographer can possibly have is the one they are holding on top of their camera. Now situation sometimes doesnt permit any other application - but there is the reality, folks!"


I am culling 2000 images from my last wedding, 400 of which was taken with Pentax, 1600 of which was taken with Nikon. I put my longer tele on the Pentax, and the small rooms dictated the wider angle. Thats why the number discrepancy. But i agree with you, you do need to shoot wedding, and you need to handle a few Nikon and Canon's. While I think you can do anything you need to do with a Pentax - I disagree that you can do it as effectively in some cases. And I think to give it a fair assessment you need to actually handle the competition's camera, and give it a good chance.

Dont worry about the long response, thats pretty short by my standards ;p.
12-03-2012, 01:59 PM   #525
Site Supporter
cali92rs's Avatar

Join Date: May 2011
Location: Long Beach, CA
Posts: 3,262
QuoteOriginally posted by normhead Quote
No argument there, and also no argument with some one with more demanding needs looking for something that suits them better. In fact I'd say to anyone "If you keep having technical issues in your photography, whether it be low light, tracking or whatever, you need to look at system that improves on what you have." But I'd also say try and find someone who does what you do and see if they have a different solution first. It's almost any top tier camera today will do 90% of what any other one will do. As I've pointed out in other threads, I have a 5 frame 1 second sequence of my dog running at a ball with every frame in clear focus. You don't need the best if what you have is good enough. And if what you have is good enough, having the best may provide no practical advantage. That's the problem with most of these types of discussions. You can show what you got with the camera you have but not with the camera you don't have. If you say "I could have done this better with a better camera", that's considered reliable information, whether true or not. If you say "My crummy old camera could have done just as good", that's suspect whether true or not. There's a bias towards overkill in these types of discussions.
I think this is a well-reasoned post and you offer great advice.

That being said, if you have the money to spend and would rather spend it on a new camera than maxxing out your camera to the razor's edge, I don't have a problem with that either. If people didn't spend the money, there would be no incentive for any company to progress technically.
Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
d800, ff, full-frame, pentax, pentaxian, reps, seminar, tokyo, week
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
ready to go! first development coming soon dj_saunter Film Processing, Scanning, and Darkroom 17 05-15-2011 09:14 PM
Development: Rwanda style. ihasa General Talk 16 04-07-2011 11:37 PM
two bath development icywarm Film Processing, Scanning, and Darkroom 22 01-08-2011 12:27 AM
UN Human Development Report mikemike General Talk 5 11-05-2010 05:55 AM
Any Arrested Development (TV) fans here? RolloR General Talk 8 10-21-2010 08:25 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 03:33 AM. | See also: NikonForums.com, CanonForums.com part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top