do you think Pentax can go head to head with Canon 1Dx and Nikon Dx series in sports?

creampuff · 05-11-2010, 05:20 PM

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.

Pentaxie · 05-11-2010, 08:53 PM

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.

shuie · 05-12-2010, 07:24 AM

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

Wheatfield · 05-12-2010, 07:40 AM

Originally posted by shuie

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.

reeftool · 05-12-2010, 09:41 AM

Originally posted by Wheatfield

♠
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.

tpeace · 05-12-2010, 09:51 AM

Originally posted by mel

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

Arpe · 05-12-2010, 05:17 PM

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.

Wheatfield · 05-12-2010, 07:35 PM

Originally posted by reeftool

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.

climbertrev · 09-28-2010, 11:50 AM

Originally posted by MPrince

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"!!!

alexeyga · 09-28-2010, 01:47 PM

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?

**jbinpg** · 09-28-2010, 01:53 PM

No need for f2.8 with ISO51200 or more unless you are going for focus separation.

Arpe · 09-28-2010, 06:49 PM

Originally posted by jbinpg

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.

Laurentiu Cristofor · 09-28-2010, 08:36 PM

Originally posted by shuie

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?

HGMonaro · 09-28-2010, 09:53 PM

Originally posted by jake14mw

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!

Abstract · 09-28-2010, 10:08 PM

Originally posted by MPrince

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!

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

05-11-2010, 05:20 PM	#16
creampuff Veteran Member Join Date: May 2007 Location: Singapore Photos: Gallery Posts: 3,953	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
Pentaxie Veteran Member 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
shuie 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
Wheatfield Moderator Join Date: Apr 2008 Location: The wheatfields of Canada Posts: 15,975	Originally posted by shuie 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
reeftool Pentaxian Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Upstate New York Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 9,553	Originally posted by Wheatfield ♠ 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
tpeace Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Florida Photos: Gallery Posts: 431	Originally posted by mel 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
Arpe Pentaxian Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: New Zealand Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 4,452	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
Wheatfield Moderator Join Date: Apr 2008 Location: The wheatfields of Canada Posts: 15,975	Originally posted by reeftool 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
climbertrev Forum Member Join Date: May 2009 Location: Plymouth,United Kingdom Posts: 72	Originally posted by MPrince 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
alexeyga Veteran Member 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?

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

09-28-2010, 01:53 PM	#26
jbinpg Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: Prince George, BC Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 3,546	No need for f2.8 with ISO51200 or more unless you are going for focus separation.

09-28-2010, 06:49 PM	#27
Arpe Pentaxian Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: New Zealand Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 4,452	Originally posted by jbinpg 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
Laurentiu Cristofor Banned Join Date: Nov 2009 Location: WA Photos: Albums Posts: 3,055	Originally posted by shuie 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
HGMonaro Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: Melb. Aust Posts: 840	Originally posted by jake14mw 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
Abstract Inactive Account Join Date: Sep 2010 Location: New York Photos: Gallery Posts: 388	Originally posted by MPrince 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!