[JinDesu]

So if you were a professional sports photographer you'd recommend a Pentax?

Really?

These cameras (I have the K-5, K-5IIs and K-3) are very good for what they're mean't for, but they're no good for professional sports shooting. A few keepers perhaps, but I wouldn't recommend relying on any of them to make a living.

I'm not making the recommendation. I am saying there are users who shoot sports professionally with the k-3. They then use the jpeg settings to allow the higher buffer (200 shots I believe). So unless you are going to go tell them that what they are doing is meaningless, then at least appreciate the fact that shooting jpeg with the k-3 is something useful for those users.

[IchabodCrane]

So if you were a professional sports photographer you'd recommend a Pentax?

Really?

These cameras (I have the K-5, K-5IIs and K-3) are very good for what they're mean't for, but they're no good for professional sports shooting. A few keepers perhaps, but I wouldn't recommend relying on any of them to make a living.

If Pentax DSLRs are "no good" for sports photography, at least it should not be because of a JPEG engine that can't handle strong reds.

[Parry]

I'm not making the recommendation. I am saying there are users who shoot sports professionally with the k-3. They then use the jpeg settings to allow the higher buffer (200 shots I believe). So unless you are going to go tell them that what they are doing is meaningless, then at least appreciate the fact that shooting jpeg with the k-3 is something useful for those users.

I wouldn't make the recommendation either.

[JinDesu]

I wouldn't make the recommendation either.

Fantastic.

The point is, you stated:

"Who uses this camera for jpegs?"

I responded "Sports photographers"

You asked "who buys this camera for sports?"

I gave you a thread with at least one professional sports photographer who would appreciate the function, as well as many other users in that thread who may or may not be professional - but certainly would and do use jpeg shooting too. Newsflash - not all people who shoot sports do so professionally.

[Parry]

Fantastic.

The point is, you stated:

"Who uses this camera for jpegs?"

I responded "Sports photographers"

You asked "who buys this camera for sports?"

I gave you a thread with at least one professional sports photographer who would appreciate the function, as well as many other users in that thread who may or may not be professional - but certainly would and do use jpeg shooting too. Newsflash - not all people who shoot sports do so professionally.

Audiences shoot sports using their camera phones.

Anyway, I'm sure it's great. Good luck to 'em. I just wouldn't recommend Pentax specifically for the task. For most other things, yes, but not sports and especially not sports in low light. Very hard work.

---------- Post added 15-03-14 at 23:15 ----------

If Pentax DSLRs are "no good" for sports photography, at least it should not be because of a JPEG engine that can't handle strong reds.

It's the Bayer crop sensor I think that can't handle reds. Not an issue exclusive to Pentax.

[Rondec]

That's too much noise for that kind of camera, it's a no way

It is iso 6400 on an APS-C camera. That said, these photos clean up just find with a little noise reduction and you could easily make an 8 by 10 print from them without noise being an issue (not that you'd want to).

Out of camera JPEGs, right? On my monitor the K5 has better WB than the K3. Look at the rocks. They are grey. The K3 has a hint of yellow in them as well as the greens being warmer too.

They are RAW photos, but basically developed with "neutral" settings in Lightroom, particularly with the noise reduction sliders pulled to 0.

[tuco]

...
I gave you a thread with at least one professional sports photographer ...

Does Ron make a living off sports photography? I mean does that put the bread on the table or is it part time? Most sports shots I've seen him post here on PF are shots that are not very demanding of fast AF especially of objects coming at you or moving away at a high rate of speed.

[Parry]

It is iso 6400 on an APS-C camera. That said, these photos clean up just find with a little noise reduction and you could easily make an 8 by 10 print from them without noise being an issue (not that you'd want to).



They are RAW photos, but basically developed with "neutral" settings in Lightroom, particularly with the noise reduction sliders pulled to 0.

I've found the same thing old boy. The colour noise is definitely worse with the K-3, but it's all easily correctable.

[IchabodCrane]

It's the Bayer crop sensor I think that can't handle reds. Not an issue exclusive to Pentax.

The sensor (I think you meant Sony, not Bayer) is not the problem as the RAW images are fine. It's only the JPEGs that get messed up.

[JinDesu]

Does Ron make a living off sports photography? I mean does that put the bread on the table or is it part time? Most sports shots I've seen him post here on PF are shots that are not very demanding of fast AF especially of objects coming at you or moving away at a high rate of speed.

I never mentioned fast AF. And I think he does it professionally, but I don't know if he has other income. Regardless, my reference of sports photography was for the fast framerate and high buffer depth that is afforded by going to jpeg (23 RAW vs 60 jpeg at 8.3 FPS, and up to 200 JPEG at 3FPS).

[Parry]

Does Ron make a living off sports photography? I mean does that put the bread on the table or is it part time? Most sports shots I've seen him post here on PF are shots that are not demanding of fast AF of objects coming at you or moving away.

My thoughts too.

Ron is quite brilliant and he does get the best out of the Pentax K-series. I'd love to see what he'd get out of a D3, D4 or a 1Dx, something designed for low light sports.

We often expect our little Pentax cameras to punch way above their weight. We have illusions that they can compete with £5000 cameras. We need to be realistic and enjoy them for what they were designed to be used for.

For me, I love the old manual focus primes the most, the M42's and old f/1.2 K-mounts.

---------- Post added 15-03-14 at 23:28 ----------

The sensor (I think you meant Sony, not Bayer) is not the problem as the RAW images are fine. It's only the JPEGs that get messed up.

Perhaps others can chime in, but I think this red detail problem is a Bayer issue.

[JinDesu]

But isn't that silly? I have a k-x and I use it for my recreational photography. By all rights, it is not a sports camera, it is not a low-light camera, and it is not at all a professional camera. So just because of that, I shouldn't use it for taking pictures of sports events? I should just use my cellphone? I should always shoot RAW on my k-x - where it drops to 1 FPS after like 6 shots and takes a minute to clear?

To briefly hyperbolize your statement - either I shoot everything jpeg on my cellphone, or I get a D4s/1Dx/D800.

I bought my k-x as a recreational tool. Same as what I intend on getting a k-3 for. I appreciate the features on the k-3 and would enjoy using it over many other cameras. In no way should that mean I can't use its jpeg engine for when it is suitable to do so.

[Parry]

But isn't that silly? I have a k-x and I use it for my recreational photography. By all rights, it is not a sports camera, it is not a low-light camera, and it is not at all a professional camera. So just because of that, I shouldn't use it for taking pictures of sports events? I should just use my cellphone? I should always shoot RAW on my k-x - where it drops to 1 FPS after like 6 shots and takes a minute to clear?

To briefly hyperbolize your statement - either I shoot everything jpeg on my cellphone, or I get a D4s/1Dx/D800.

I bought my k-x as a recreational tool. Same as what I intend on getting a k-3 for. I appreciate the features on the k-3 and would enjoy using it over many other cameras. In no way should that mean I can't use its jpeg engine for when it is suitable to do so.

Use it as you like old boy. But I would recommend RAW and Lightroom and/or CS6 with a bunch of plugins to get the best out it. Especially dealing with noise and at the same time extracting detail.

[tuco]

I never mentioned fast AF. And I think he does it professionally, but I don't know if he has other income. Regardless, my reference of sports photography was for the fast framerate and high buffer depth that is afforded by going to jpeg (23 RAW vs 60 jpeg at 8.3 FPS, and up to 200 JPEG at 3FPS).

I'm not a sports photographer. I just shoot some action now and then for fun like most people. But if I had to choose between a camera that could only shoot, say, 5fps but had killer fast AF and 3-D tracking vs a camera with, say, 12fps and slower AF, I'd take the 5fps/fast AF any day.

[Parry]

I'm not a sports photographer. I just shoot some action now and then for fun like most people. But if I had to choose between a camera that could only shoot, say, 5fps but had killer fast AF and 3-D tracking vs a camera with, say, 12fps and slower AF, I'd take the 5fps/fast AF any day.

Definitely.