Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
09-28-2010, 11:39 PM   #31
Pentaxian
Clicker's Avatar

Join Date: May 2008
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 3,241
For some ridiculous reason sports photography like other genres of it fell into the paparazzi domain sometime ago, why it happen is open to discussion.

09-29-2010, 12:46 AM   #32
Veteran Member




Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 923
QuoteOriginally posted by Clicker Quote
For some ridiculous reason sports photography like other genres of it fell into the paparazzi domain sometime ago, why it happen is open to discussion.
Just an aside .....
There is a segment sports photographers whose main priority is to get shots of celebrity Sportsmen/women in action and off the field or arena.
Such photos are sought after by editors too...some of those who earn a living within that domain will naturally gravitate towards such photos.

Back to the main topic....If my main interest were sports photography, I wouldn't have gone into Pentax in the first place.
Improved AF speed is always welcome, and I'd pay for an improved new body, but I don't think Pentax is "ever" going to be right up there with the best sports-oriented cameras.
09-29-2010, 03:56 AM - 1 Like   #33
Senior Member




Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Colorado
Posts: 173
QuoteOriginally posted by Laurentiu Cristofor Quote
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?
That's like saying Formula 1 drivers only use paddle shifters because they can't drive manual transmissions. Skill eventually reaches a plateau and is bound by the laws of physics; at some point one can not react or move any faster. Technology is simply a means of expanding human potential. To further the race car analogy, traction control and paddle shifting may make the cars easier to drive, but as a result they go much faster. Thus in the end skill is the same: being able to extract 100% from the technology at hand.

Photographers were able to get shots in the 80s and 90s because they were competing against other photographers using the same technology. I'm sure there are photographers that can get good shots using a film camera and manual focus, but it's naive to think they'd be able to compete with a 1Dx/D3x wielding pro who can hand off a CF card with a thousand JPGs to their media contact and have shots published the same day. There is a difference between being an art photographer who uses sports as his subject matter, and a professional sports photographer whose job it is to cover a venue. Also, if technology makes things so easy why aren't we all pros? All you need is a pro body camera, right?

Fundamentally, shooting with a SLR has always been an act of using technology. And like any piece of technology, one should buy what they need. If you're a pro and your livelihood depends on getting shots, why wouldn't you buy the best piece of equipment that gives you the best chance of getting them? Why gamble your job using a piece of equipment that isn't as suited simply to stroke your own ego? Alternately, if you're simply shooting as a hobby, what's the point of spending 10 grand on a setup?
09-29-2010, 04:13 PM   #34
Pentaxian
Arpe's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: New Zealand
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 4,329
QuoteOriginally posted by Kirivon Quote
That's like saying Formula 1 drivers only use paddle shifters because they can't drive manual transmissions. Skill eventually reaches a plateau and is bound by the laws of physics; at some point one can not react or move any faster. Technology is simply a means of expanding human potential. To further the race car analogy, traction control and paddle shifting may make the cars easier to drive, but as a result they go much faster. Thus in the end skill is the same: being able to extract 100% from the technology at hand.
Nicely said. +rep

09-29-2010, 05:08 PM   #35
Senior Member




Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: colorado
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 140
I still believe if Pentax wanted to make a run at the pro sports photogs, it would not prove that difficult to do. For one thing most sports are outdoors, hence WR is very important. Often Longer lenses are used, so the APS-C 1.5 crop works to your advantage. (People cry we don't have a 300 2.8, no we have a 200 2.8( that acts like a 300 2.8)). For Pentax to compete in sports we need, high fps, large buffer, cutting edge AF, high ISO, good ergonomics, WR. Lets see here, K-5 meets many of these specs(at least on paper, we'll see when production units are in hand). Should Pentax want to move forward in specific areas as sports, video, studio etc, I think a more modular system using different grips would be most advanageous. If you shoot sports, offer a sports grip with additional card slots and increased buffer size. If you shoot video a grip that offers sound inputs and perhaps shoulder support might be better. If studio a grip that offers uber flash control and tethering. The possibilities are amazing. Buy this one body, customize it to your needs.
OK starting to ramble , too much Vodka!
Shu
09-29-2010, 05:28 PM   #36
Pentaxian
Wheatfield's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: The wheatfields of Canada
Posts: 10,042
QuoteOriginally posted by Laurentiu Cristofor Quote
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?
Technology can also be seen as a way to make that which was once impossible, possible.
People who go on about how could sport photography possibly get done 50 years ago never seem to mention, or they conveniently forget to tell us, that sports photography today looks very little like what was being shot on Speed Graphics in the 50s.
And while there is no excuse for not knowing something about your subject, the apologist who say that a craftsman never blames his tools is out to lunch as well.
Craftsmen don't use 30 dollar B&D circular saws to do what they need a granite topped table saw for.
Just like how in the sports photography profession, the craftsmen seem to shy away from Pentax in favour of cameras that have faster, more flexible autofocus.

Consider that if you are blaming your equipment, it is just possible that you know what you are talking about, and you have discovered that the equipment isn't up to the task you are asking it to perform.
09-29-2010, 09:16 PM   #37
Pentaxian
Clicker's Avatar

Join Date: May 2008
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 3,241
yes I would say they can because its the image you're selling regardless of technology you still have to get "that" image faster doesn't always get the shot. The race between the tortoise and hare can be applied here; you can rip as many fps, af on their nose hair but it stillbwon't garauntee that selling shot, that's what I was referring to the papparazi post. Even seasoned papparzo admit the newer photographers think technology over skill will get you the money shot.
09-29-2010, 10:32 PM   #38
Veteran Member
Laurentiu Cristofor's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: WA
Photos: Albums
Posts: 3,044
QuoteOriginally posted by Kirivon Quote
That's like saying Formula 1 drivers only use paddle shifters because they can't drive manual transmissions.
Actually, that's not what I'm saying, but that's what the OP seems to assume - more on this later.

QuoteOriginally posted by Kirivon Quote
Skill eventually reaches a plateau and is bound by the laws of physics; at some point one can not react or move any faster. Technology is simply a means of expanding human potential.
Yes, skill is limited by laws of physics, but so is technology. I'm not so sure about the human potential, but let's not open that can of worms here.

The fact is, sometimes people use technology not because they've reached a physical limit that they can't get over, but because they lack skills. As people start relying on technological crutches more and more, they find it harder and harder to believe that some things could be achieved without their current technology. And with new technology, skills of using older technology are also lost. This is fact.

This thread was started based on the assumption that to shoot sports you need a high frame rate and super autofocus. I say that those are not *necessary*, but they could improve your odds. Saying that you need those, to reuse your example, is like saying that Formula 1 racers need paddle shifting to drive a car. See the point now.


When guns where introduced to Japan, Japanese gunsmiths flourished for a while and guns played a big role in Nobunaga's victories. But after they did their job, they were prohibited, because they would enable a simple peasant to kill a skilled samurai from a distance. Read about it here in section IV. It's a case where technology was adopted because it compensated for lack of sword skills, not because people had mastered sword skills to the point where they couldn't make more progress. And it's also an interesting example of reverting back to an earlier technology.

QuoteOriginally posted by Kirivon Quote
To further the race car analogy, traction control and paddle shifting may make the cars easier to drive, but as a result they go much faster. Thus in the end skill is the same: being able to extract 100% from the technology at hand.
I'm not sure if they go faster - you probably meant they accelerate faster or can drive faster more safely. And yes, skills evolve. Like swordsmanship which gave way to shooting skills when guns were adopted. But this is a different point that doesn't contradict what I said earlier.


The question I was trying to ask is how much can technology change so that we can still call ourselves photographers. Because a swordsman that took up a gun, could no longer call himself a swordsman, but became a gunslinger/shooter. After how much progress, do we stop being photographers and we just become operators of some future technology?

Search for "plenoptic camera". Take that technology, combine it with a large sensor size, a large frame rate, great ISO capability, and lots of storage, put it on a car moving around cities (or put it around a stadium, since we started from sports photography), then have some guy just sit at a computer, sifting through the uploaded images, occasionally croping and refocusing an image - would that be called photography?

09-29-2010, 10:51 PM   #39
Veteran Member
Laurentiu Cristofor's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: WA
Photos: Albums
Posts: 3,044
QuoteOriginally posted by Wheatfield Quote
Consider that if you are blaming your equipment, it is just possible that you know what you are talking about, and you have discovered that the equipment isn't up to the task you are asking it to perform.
I agree with your point, but is this the case here?

The initial post is not very clear about what it asks:

- is the OP limited by his equipment, or just making conversation?
- has the OP discovered that higher framer rate and better AF are the only limiting factors?
- is the OP asking whether today's Pentax cameras can compete in practice with Canikon models, or whether Pentax could build cameras with similar specs as Canikon models?

I don't have anything against statements like "I want this", but I am bothered by all encompassing statements like "you can't do this without having that".
09-30-2010, 02:22 PM   #40
Veteran Member




Join Date: May 2009
Location: Scotland
Posts: 581
Regarding the original question:

No.
10-01-2010, 12:29 AM   #41
Pentaxian
johnmflores's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Somerville, NJ
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 4,994
If you're taking photos of sports where the action is predictable, and you're doing this for fun, the answer is yes:







If you're taking photos of sports where the point of action is less predictable or fact moving, and you're doing this for fun, the answer is yes, but with a fair amount of effort:



(FWIW, I struggled mightily to get these shots and had to do strong sharpening to make them usable for publication)

If you're going to put food on the dinner table with your photos, then be prepared to go hungry some nights.

P.S - The K20d's 21FPS is a curious feature. Fun to play with but ultimately not very useful for sports.

The Look of Love | Flickr - Photo Sharing!
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 05:24 PM. | 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