[er1kksen]

As an enthusiast, not a pro by any means, it strikes me a little odd that someone using a camera for "income" would even flinch at the price of even the best Pentax glass. I'm surprised that changing systems is being considered as the best approach. Get the system that works for you, regardless of cost. If you're using it to produce revenue, get what you need, produce revenue and don't look back. Declaring that you can't afford the Pentax system is just not a valid argument IMHO.

It's not my primary job. It provides supplemental income. And since I can't focus all my resources on it, it doesn't draw enough to pay for pricier kit.

[MRRiley]

...
I love my K20D. It's just such a nice camera and the results are great. But the 40D is quite nice too, having played around with one a few times, and it'll certainly meet my needs, as well as possibly letting me branch out to sports and events due to its greater speed and versatility.

(rant on)

I guess those of us right here on this forum who shoot things such as MotoGP racing or soccer or boxing or any number of other "sports" quite succesfully are deluding ourselves. We should all give up and switch to Canikon. Afterall, everyone knows you simply can't shoot sports or "events" (whatever that is) with a Pentax camera. Perhaps we are all really hacking the EXIFs to make it look like we are shooting Pentax.

(rant off)

Shoot whatever system you want to, but don't blame your camera for limiting your photographic opportunities!

Mike

[pingflood]

(rant on)

I guess those of us right here on this forum who shoot things such as MotoGP racing or soccer or boxing or any number of other "sports" quite succesfully are deluding ourselves. We should all give up and switch to Canikon. Afterall, everyone knows you simply can't shoot sports or "events" (whatever that is) with a Pentax camera. Perhaps we are all really hacking the EXIFs to make it look like we are shooting Pentax.

(rant off)

Shoot whatever system you want to, but don't blame your camera for limiting your photographic opportunities!

Mike

There's no denying one can do great things with most any camera system.

However, one implication of your argument is that those who HAVE switched systems for reasons like the above are somehow bad photographers who can't get good shots without relying on the gear. Being one of those who went from Pentax to Canon I do find that a little insulting; believe it or not there ARE advantages to other camera systems. Pentax has their strengths (SR, weather sealing), Canon and Nikon theirs (fps, auto focus performance). While either system can be used successfully I don't think one can ignore that some systems are better suited for a certain type of shooting. If one picks a system that is well suited for their style, is that a bad thing?

[dylansalt]

There's no denying one can do great things with most any camera system.

However, one implication of your argument is that those who HAVE switched systems for reasons like the above are somehow bad photographers who can't get good shots without relying on the gear. Being one of those who went from Pentax to Canon I do find that a little insulting; believe it or not there ARE advantages to other camera systems. Pentax has their strengths (SR, weather sealing), Canon and Nikon theirs (fps, auto focus performance). While either system can be used successfully I don't think one can ignore that some systems are better suited for a certain type of shooting. If one picks a system that is well suited for their style, is that a bad thing?

Very true - I love my Pentax gear for sure but can't understand the fixation of Pentax only,of others.

I held a Nikon D90 & a K7 the other day and let me tell you, the Nikon felt really really good and solid in the hand and the viewfinder is the brightest in its class and is def the champ wrt clean high iso - the K7 is a stunning cam as well

dYL

[er1kksen]

(rant on)

I guess those of us right here on this forum who shoot things such as MotoGP racing or soccer or boxing or any number of other "sports" quite succesfully are deluding ourselves. We should all give up and switch to Canikon. Afterall, everyone knows you simply can't shoot sports or "events" (whatever that is) with a Pentax camera. Perhaps we are all really hacking the EXIFs to make it look like we are shooting Pentax.

(rant off)

Shoot whatever system you want to, but don't blame your camera for limiting your photographic opportunities!

Mike

I think you're getting the wrong impression from my statement. I have myself defended the idea of using Pentax (or even old manual film cameras) for sports, given proper technique. I have myself used my K20D and 75-300 for sports (mostly track and field and softball). However, the point is that I wouldn't want to be relying on my current setup for actual jobs in such fields. This isn't a bash on Pentax; really, the limiting factor is the lens, and it's a pretty old Tokina. It does the job to an extent, but it's just not getting the results I desire (need to stop down for decent IQ, need high shutter speed to freeze motion, so a high ISO is required in broad daylight). It's not about Pentax vs. Canon for me, it's about the glass. Regardless of the brand. I have to be able to afford it. That's what I started this thread about: Pentax glass is becoming less and less affordable for those of us with low levels of disposable income.

[Ash]

Where you are, erikksen, is Canon's glass more affordable than Pentax's?

[Ratmagiclady]

Where you are, erikksen, is Canon's glass more affordable than Pentax's?

I gathered that he saw inflated prices of like twice the going rate on an FA 50 and decided it'd be cheaper than that to change systems and get an 85 1.8 from Canon.

Don't get me wrong, my old 85/1.8 SSC for my old film Canons is my very favorite lens, (On full-frame, anyway: with a crop factor, and especially Canon's slightly more severe one of 1.6x, we're kind of out of very useful 'portrait' fields of view for me. We're getting toward a 135 equivalent, there) but I'm not seeing how it's cheaper to buy one of those, doubtless something wider, and a new system, than to replace a Pentax 50mm, beautiful ones of which are really all over the place.

Half the reason I *got* into Pentax is the ease of getting into that range.

[MRRiley]

There's no denying one can do great things with most any camera system.

However, one implication of your argument is that those who HAVE switched systems for reasons like the above are somehow bad photographers who can't get good shots without relying on the gear. Being one of those who went from Pentax to Canon I do find that a little insulting; believe it or not there ARE advantages to other camera systems. Pentax has their strengths (SR, weather sealing), Canon and Nikon theirs (fps, auto focus performance). While either system can be used successfully I don't think one can ignore that some systems are better suited for a certain type of shooting. If one picks a system that is well suited for their style, is that a bad thing?

I did not mean to imply that and if I did I apologise. I understand that other systems have sometimes superior "out of the box" performance for shooting fast subjects, however that does not preclude Pentax cameras from being used to shoot those same fast subjects. I simply get tired of hearing the myth that "Pentax can't shoot sports."

Mike

[rparmar]

Regardless of any other aspect of this thread, it should tell us (and Pentax if they are listening) that the super-inflated price rise this year was a terrible idea.

[MRRiley]

I think you're getting the wrong impression from my statement. I have myself defended the idea of using Pentax (or even old manual film cameras) for sports, given proper technique. I have myself used my K20D and 75-300 for sports (mostly track and field and softball). However, the point is that I wouldn't want to be relying on my current setup for actual jobs in such fields. This isn't a bash on Pentax; really, the limiting factor is the lens, and it's a pretty old Tokina. It does the job to an extent, but it's just not getting the results I desire (need to stop down for decent IQ, need high shutter speed to freeze motion, so a high ISO is required in broad daylight). It's not about Pentax vs. Canon for me, it's about the glass. Regardless of the brand. I have to be able to afford it. That's what I started this thread about: Pentax glass is becoming less and less affordable for those of us with low levels of disposable income.

You implied that switching to Canon was the only way you could shoot sports or events and that is what I was responding to. You said nothing about that lens in relation to sports shooting in your original post. Whatever camera/lens you use you will still need to stop down (for sufficient DOF) and use high shutter speeds to stop motion. This will be just as true with a Canon camera as with your K20D.

I do not believe that lenses for Canon are any cheaper in general than lenses for Pentax especially among 3rd party vendors (which is where shooters on limited incomes will find themselves regardless of system). For instance the Sigma 100-300mm f/4 EX DG IF HSM for Canon and the similar Sigma 100-300mm f/4 EX DG IF for Pentax are both $1379 at B&H right now. Even the cheaper Tamron 70-300mm f/4-5.6 Di LD Macro is identically priced for Canon and Pentax at $169.95. I also do not believe you are going to find Canon glass any more affordable except on the most common and lowest quality lenses (and this is due mainly to numbers manufactured). Once you get to the point where you are able to buy higher quality lenses you will find similar and often much higher prices for any given Canon OEM lens type as for Pentax.

Again, I don't care what you shoot. I just think you are deluding yourself if you think that totally switching systems is going to be cheaper in the long run than buying what you can afford to work with a camera which you say you really like in general.

Mike

[pingflood]

I did not mean to imply that and if I did I apologise. I understand that other systems have sometimes superior "out of the box" performance for shooting fast subjects, however that does not preclude Pentax cameras from being used to shoot those same fast subjects. I simply get tired of hearing the myth that "Pentax can't shoot sports."

Mike

That we can agree on.

[er1kksen]

I did not mean to imply that and if I did I apologise.

Mike

You implied that switching to Canon was the only way you could shoot sports or events and that is what I was responding to. You said nothing about that lens in relation to sports shooting in your original post. Whatever camera/lens you use you will still need to stop down (for sufficient DOF) and use high shutter speeds to stop motion. This will be just as true with a Canon camera as with your K20D.

I do not believe that lenses for Canon are any cheaper in general than lenses for Pentax especially among 3rd party vendors (which is where shooters on limited incomes will find themselves regardless of system). For instance the Sigma 100-300mm f/4 EX DG IF HSM for Canon and the similar Sigma 100-300mm f/4 EX DG IF for Pentax are both $1379 at B&H right now. Even the cheaper Tamron 70-300mm f/4-5.6 Di LD Macro is identically priced for Canon and Pentax at $169.95. I also do not believe you are going to find Canon glass any more affordable except on the most common and lowest quality lenses (and this is due mainly to numbers manufactured). Once you get to the point where you are able to buy higher quality lenses you will find similar and often much higher prices for any given Canon OEM lens type as for Pentax.

Again, I don't care what you shoot. I just think you are deluding yourself if you think that totally switching systems is going to be cheaper in the long run than buying what you can afford to work with a camera which you say you really like in general.

Mike

See, we can both accidentally imply things we don't really mean. I did not mean to say (and didn't think I did) that switching to Canon was the ONLY way I could do such things; after all, I've done them before with Pentax. I understand what you mean about the lenses, except that there's an even broader used market (I wouldn't have expected it), a rental market, and I have a couple friends with 70-200 Ls I can borrow.

In the long run, it may or may not be cheaper. Like I said, I've got these photoshoots coming up in two weeks, so if I can break even on the switch right now, that's really my main concern.

[er1kksen]

I gathered that he saw inflated prices of like twice the going rate on an FA 50 and decided it'd be cheaper than that to change systems and get an 85 1.8 from Canon.

Don't get me wrong, my old 85/1.8 SSC for my old film Canons is my very favorite lens, (On full-frame, anyway: with a crop factor, and especially Canon's slightly more severe one of 1.6x, we're kind of out of very useful 'portrait' fields of view for me. We're getting toward a 135 equivalent, there) but I'm not seeing how it's cheaper to buy one of those, doubtless something wider, and a new system, than to replace a Pentax 50mm, beautiful ones of which are really all over the place.

Half the reason I *got* into Pentax is the ease of getting into that range.

...because I'm not doing it *just to replace a Pentax 50mm.* There are a number of other posts detailing this...

rparmar seems to have gotten the idea of why I originally posted this thread...

[johnmflores]

I know what you are saying - quality glass at a good price was one of the reasons I switched back to Pentax in the first place. Thank goodness I got most of my glass before the price increase. I guess the good thing is that the increases have cured my LBA.

That was then, this is now...

[palmor]

Erik, You may want to consider the Tamron 28-75mm f2.8. Excellent and affordable studio lens...

Mike

Yup, KEH has one for $349

KEH Camera: Pentax Auto Focus - Non-Mfg Zoom Lenses - 28-75 F2.8 TAMRON ASPHERICAL LD INTERNAL FOCUS MACRO XR DI (67) WITH HOOD, CAPS, 35MM SLR AUTO FOCUS ZOOM WIDE ANGLE LENS

Can probably find it even cheaper


John