Originally posted by JayR Actually had been considering the 6D which has a much better low light and noise capability than the 5d3, otherwise yeah I wouldnt be so blase about jumping ship. Sadly, I havent had a chance to try the Sigma 8-16 on a K3 - no stores locally had both a K3 AND the 8-16 in K mount to even test them...
The software thing really just doesnt cut it for perspective control beyond anything minor, just too many pixels lost, squeezed or bloated out for images to be usable let alone acceptable for clients. Its pretty much the combo of wide angle full frame and quality shift lenses.
If money werent so much an issue I'd probably keep running the Pentax stuff for 'fun' (I prefer the size and feel) and use the canon for more commercial applications... Though in all likelyhood I think the sales of the Ltd and DA* lenses will go someway to buying new lenses on the new system.
JayR,
I switched from Canon about a year ago. The last Canon I owned was the 6D. I now own a pair of K3s, the three amigos, a Sigma 10-20 among a few other lenses. The 6D is FF, yes and it is better at ISO 6400 compared to my K3. I still switched because of a combination of reasons. I cannot bad mouth Canon because it served me well for almost 14 years. High ISO was bad on anything before 6D but with 6D, that one issue went away.
TIlt/shift, SDM and lack of a few key fast focusing zooms are an issue with Pentax. However, for most of the stuff I do the K3 matches or surpasses anything Canon offers currently. Especially, when you factor in costs of body and lenses.
I photographed a brand new broadcast video truck for a client just last week. Mostly with the 10-20 at F9. Lots of interior, tight spot shooting. I ended up doing a painting technique with the strobes and combine as many as seven images to obtain the final result. We might use the shots for posters for their showroom. The images the way I have them will make nice 30x45" prints but beyond that the K3 may not hold up. If I switch from the K3, it would be for a 645z for better resolution and bigger prints, otherwise K3 does what I need.
I have considered the Sony mirrorless option. Especially with their upcoming 46MP body. If i do the switch, I can still use my FA lenses and a few older Takumars, Konicas and other lenses I have. I am sitting on the fence on this issue as I do not have the funds to go 645Z and I do not want to go back to Canon either.
If I were you, I would get a K3 to solve some immediate problems and wait to see what happens with Pentax this year. One feature that no Canon or Nikon can claim is the SR feature. Pentax offer it to us for free. With the other guys you pay for that feature and only in select lenses,. Certainly not in their fixed focal lenses.
Just my two cents.
---------- Post added 01-25-15 at 04:46 PM ----------
Originally posted by DSims True about Tokina making an excellent macro (and even a good WA or two) for Canon mount, but that's just my point, of course - it's not from Canon. And naturally this means no IS either, which matters to many of us.
Canon's been slowly fixing their problems, so I wouldn't put it past them to actually make the 11-24 pretty good. But we'll have to see. After all, they're still acting a bit complacent, as far as I can tell.
I understand a TS may be important in this case. But it was a little hard to believe someone serious about this wouldn't have looked beyond the Sigma 10-20 a while ago, let alone insisting on using it on nothing newer than the K-7!
---------- Post added 01-25-15 at 02:52 PM ----------
Hope you enjoyed taking a little abuse from me in my first post!
I'd genuinely be interested in seeing what your clients expect, and what kind/size of output you're producing. Even an example posted and/or a RAW file would be of interest to me (PM me one if you like). But the lens will be a part of the problem anyway. The Sigma 8-16 and Tokina 11-16 are really the only high quality APS-C UWA zooms out there (hopefully the new Tokina 11-20 will be good too). Nevertheless, since you're looking at $2K TSE prime lenses, it's only fair to compare to primes. DA15 is close to 24mm on FF; samyang has 16/2 and 10/2.8 lenses, and Zeiss makes a nice 12mm for Fuji cameras.
Most importantly, however, I've never seen Capture One's keystone adjustment 'destroy pixels' like you appear to be describing, so even a K-7/Sigma 10-20 image should come out OK. A TS camera would still be ideal, but I'd sure like to see how challenging these shots are. Since money's an issue it's worth trying.
DSims,
I like all your points. For me, if the client base is a high paying one, then I would get whatever delivers the ultimate image. If we have to shoestring it, like I do, then we get into alternative solutions.
If I shot architectural type subjects, I would minimally get a 645Z. If the clients pay big dollar then I would look at a system that offers higher resolution and tilt shift option. Even if it means a solution well north of $50k.
For me and most of us regular folk, the challenge of finding high end solutions without high end money is part of the fun.
If I were to go beyond K3, my current camera, it would be for bigger pixel count as current Pentax DSLR lenses are fantastic and the system is as good as anyone else. Yes there are holes in the lens system but there are always ways to deal with any system's limitations. No one system offers perfect solution for every photographic challenge.