Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
05-11-2010, 05:20 PM   #16
Veteran Member
creampuff's Avatar

Join Date: May 2007
Location: Singapore
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 3,955
You get what you pay for. The K20D is a fine camera but is not even in the same league compared to the serious stuff from other makes, and which will cost heck of a lot more.

My own example of an uncropped shot that I took of my son with the Canon EOS 1Ds Mark III with the Canon EF 300mm f/2.8 L IS USM. The K20D's 21fps burst mode just can't hack it because the AF is locked, and with a subject that is sprinting at an angle towards camera, no way is it ever gonna get the shot. The downside is matched with a Gitzo monopod, it's about 5kg of gear to lug around but the camera's superior AF tracking, higher fps and 21megapixel output, means that if there's any limitation, it is definitely not the gear but with the photographer.



05-11-2010, 08:53 PM   #17
Veteran Member
Pentaxie's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Kuala Lumpur Malaysia
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 429
Nice shot of your son, Denis.

Quote " .....but the camera's superior AF tracking, higher fps and 21megapixel output, means that if there's any limitation, it is definitely not the gear but with the photographer."
IMO, in the hands of a good photographer, only the limitation of the camera on hand will determine the resulting picture.

Cheers.
05-12-2010, 07:24 AM   #18
Senior Member




Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: colorado
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 140
How on earth did anyone ever take sports photos in the 80's and 90's? I mean without the ability to chimp, frame rates in the 5-8 fps range, 20 year older autofocus, limited to 24 or 36 exposures at a time, low ISO. My point being, while Pentax cannot compete with todays current top models, unless you are looking to shoot sports professionaly, any Pentax should be able to capture some great images. I used to shoot snow cross races with my PZ1p and got some stunning shots uver the years.

Shu
05-12-2010, 07:40 AM   #19
Pentaxian
Wheatfield's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: The wheatfields of Canada
Posts: 10,043
QuoteOriginally posted by shuie Quote
How on earth did anyone ever take sports photos in the 80's and 90's? I mean without the ability to chimp, frame rates in the 5-8 fps range, 20 year older autofocus, limited to 24 or 36 exposures at a time, low ISO. My point being, while Pentax cannot compete with todays current top models, unless you are looking to shoot sports professionaly, any Pentax should be able to capture some great images. I used to shoot snow cross races with my PZ1p and got some stunning shots uver the years.

Shu

The paradigm has changed over the years. What technology makes possible becomes adopted, and then becomes the norm.
One could as equally ask how did sports photographers manage to do their work before fast super telephoto lenses?
The answer is, they did, and they took some superb photos, photos that to this day stand up as being excellent for their genre.
The genre has, however, moved past that and we no longer see people with stogies hanging out of their mouths working Graphlexes at football games.

05-12-2010, 09:41 AM   #20
Pentaxian
reeftool's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Upstate New York
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 8,009
QuoteOriginally posted by Wheatfield Quote

The paradigm has changed over the years. What technology makes possible becomes adopted, and then becomes the norm.
One could as equally ask how did sports photographers manage to do their work before fast super telephoto lenses?
The answer is, they did, and they took some superb photos, photos that to this day stand up as being excellent for their genre.
The genre has, however, moved past that and we no longer see people with stogies hanging out of their mouths working Graphlexes at football games.
I have shot sports for years, starting with all manual 35mm SLR's in the early 70's. It started with surfing and skiing pictures of friends and on to my kids as they participated in soccer, gymnastics, skiing and rowing. You can get some very good shots with a manual camera but also a lot of misses. My first auto focus camera with auto film advance changed my results from a couple of keepers from a roll to sometimes a whole roll of keepers. When I first switched to a DSLR, I thought it was the fastest thing I had ever seen. Since then, I have seen some high end Nikons and Canons that friends used and to be honest, if I was a pro shooting sports for a living, I would probably be using something other than my K10D. That said, as a guy shooting sports of my kids and friends, the K10D is more than adequate and any bad results are the fault of me, not the camera. I have had some shots used in some skiing magazines. I have had some good wildlife shots too but I don't do this for a living and I'm on a limited budget. A professional needs good tools, no matter what his profession is.
05-12-2010, 09:51 AM   #21
Veteran Member
tpeace's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Florida
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 430
QuoteOriginally posted by mel Quote
But here's a question. Do you really NEED 21 fps to shoot sports? I don't think so. Relying on burst speed is a poor substitute for knowing your sport, knowing how to shoot, and anticipating the action.
Just saying.
Shutter lag is far more important to me than FPS rate. The top end Pentax models are about 20ms slower than the Nikon/Canon pro bodies (assuming prefocused shooting).

It doesn't make it impossible to anticipate the action at a fast paced event, but it doesn't help.

These are both with a K20 @ 200 mm from shore:


Regards,
-tom
05-12-2010, 05:17 PM   #22
Pentaxian
Arpe's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: New Zealand
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 4,330
Focus tracking is more important than fps, to me.

I would be very happy if the K-7 tracked like the Nikon, and everything else can stay the same.
05-12-2010, 07:35 PM   #23
Pentaxian
Wheatfield's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: The wheatfields of Canada
Posts: 10,043
QuoteOriginally posted by reeftool Quote
and any bad results are the fault of me, not the camera.
Without wanting to seem argumentative, are you saying that you've never missed a shot because the AF was just a notch to slow, or because the shutter lag was just a bit too long, or because the meter got it just a little bit wrong?
I don't shoot a lot of sports, but I have missed shots for all of the above reasons in the work that I do.
Now before someone decides to jump in and decry me as a wannabe crappo photographer who has his head up his butt, because obviously, if I knew what I was doing, all my shots would be award winners, I freely admit that most of my work is of relatively static subjects and I do tend to depend on the technology that is built into my equipment to work as advertised.

09-28-2010, 11:50 AM   #24
Forum Member
climbertrev's Avatar

Join Date: May 2009
Location: Plymouth,United Kingdom
Posts: 62
QuoteOriginally posted by MPrince Quote
I agree with you 100%. I know a photographer who used to be a professional figure skater. He was shooting a figure skating event once, at one point all the other photogs were rapid-firing away. During a lull they all heard a single click. Of course the other photogs wanted to see his shot, and were stunned. "How did you do that?" His answer--"It's easy when you know what to look for."
OMG! You are so right

Technology is so mistaken for knowledge and skill now-a-days

There were guys working in sport 30 or 40 years ago who produced photos whose content (but not necessarily quality) would stand at the top today - think cricket for example (OK I'm biased, but I'm English!)

Their secret
Know your subject --- in great depth

I once heard rumours concerning "The Decisive Moment"!!!
09-28-2010, 01:47 PM   #25
Veteran Member
alexeyga's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Montreal, Canada
Posts: 838
Bloody hell... My first serious sports shooting was done with K10d and a fully manual SMS K 300/4 brick of a lens... And in all honesty my keeper rate was fairly high... well, the fact that the subject was always near the ininity end of the the focusing range was kinda helpful too...

That being said.... in sports photography lens choice is just as important, if not more important than AF-spees, FPS and buffer size... And here lays the biggest Pentax weakness... Fast long glass in non-existent... When was the last time somebody'd seen the Sigma 120-300/2.8 for sale in classifieds?
09-28-2010, 01:53 PM   #26
Site Supporter




Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Prince George, BC
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,254
No need for f2.8 with ISO51200 or more unless you are going for focus separation.
09-28-2010, 06:49 PM   #27
Pentaxian
Arpe's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: New Zealand
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 4,330
QuoteOriginally posted by jbinpg Quote
No need for f2.8 with ISO51200 or more unless you are going for focus separation.
Which I think most sports photogs do, especially with the busy backgrounds they have to put up with.
09-28-2010, 08:36 PM   #28
Veteran Member
Laurentiu Cristofor's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: WA
Photos: Albums
Posts: 3,044
QuoteOriginally posted by shuie Quote
How on earth did anyone ever take sports photos in the 80's and 90's?
They developed that skill. Technology can be seen as a way to compensate for lack of skill. Can't run - build a car. Can't fly - build a plane. Can't manual focus - use auto-focus. Eventually we'll get to the point where people who can't shoot can buy cameras that can. The big question is: at what point do you stop being a photographer and you just become a technology user?
09-28-2010, 09:53 PM   #29
Veteran Member




Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Melb. Aust
Posts: 841
QuoteOriginally posted by jake14mw Quote
Firstly, the 20fps burst thing is just a novelty for specialty situations, not really useful for sports photos.
Agreed, but one of the specialty situations is examining technique of an athlete. Yes you can pull individual frames out of a video, but that's just more work. Wish my K7 had it!
09-28-2010, 10:08 PM   #30
Inactive Account




Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: New York
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 388
QuoteOriginally posted by MPrince Quote
I agree with you 100%. I know a photographer who used to be a professional figure skater. He was shooting a figure skating event once, at one point all the other photogs were rapid-firing away. During a lull they all heard a single click. Of course the other photogs wanted to see his shot, and were stunned. "How did you do that?" His answer--"It's easy when you know what to look for."
^That!
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!
camera, canon 1dx, dslr, head, head to head, photography
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
For Sale - Sold: Amvona Carbon Fiber legs, pro head, travel head jleecifer Sold Items 4 01-21-2010 09:43 AM
Interesting head to head reviews K-x and Sony 550 NaClH2O Pentax News and Rumors 15 12-10-2009 02:54 PM
pentax canon head to head davebris33 Pentax News and Rumors 35 09-02-2009 02:16 PM
Gear head vs. 3-way pan tripod head heatherslightbox Pentax Camera and Field Accessories 3 05-22-2009 06:54 PM
pan-tilt head vs ball head raider Pentax Camera and Field Accessories 9 11-02-2008 09:13 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 12:49 AM. | See also: NikonForums.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