Win a Pentax Limited Lens: Raffle Now Live!

Reportage · 05-09-2010, 08:56 PM

the K20D`s 21fps is very handy but cant beat these high speed sports camera as they take in larger resolutions with arguably more accurate subject tracking sensors.

opinions?

writeb · 05-09-2010, 09:13 PM

With the existing line up?
No. Check back later.

EOM

imtheguy · 05-09-2010, 10:51 PM

Not even close.
....good thing I only shoot wildlife. But I have used the 21 fps mode to catch some of the best, albeit small, shots of wildlife in action. I think I used it succesfully twice in the last year. Its THAT useful.

wlachan · 05-09-2010, 11:36 PM

Pentax already have... in some people's wild imagination... Pentax don't need to improve anything to match the best of Canon or Nikon, they only need to brainwash more people... or some Pentax users just brainwashed themselves for the comfort...

creampuff · 05-10-2010, 03:54 AM

How can the K20D even hope to compete with the likes of a flagship Canon or Nikon?
The 21 fps burst mode can only be shot in Jpeg with quality at a measly 1.6M (1536 x 1024 pixels). The focus is locked and there is no way for the AF to track the subject.

mel · 05-10-2010, 04:12 AM

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.

K-7, FA 50/1.4 at f/2, AF-C, burst mode (about a 4-shot sequence)
The, um, "pro" that was there shooting was shooting a Canon 50D, not even the flagship, and shooting jpegs. He's widely published in mags such as The Ring, etc. I'm pretty sure he wasn't firing 21 fps either.

MPrince · 05-10-2010, 04:53 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.

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."

Ben_Edict · 05-10-2010, 05:37 AM

Originally posted by Reportage

the K20D`s 21fps is very handy but cant beat these high speed sports camera as they take in larger resolutions with arguably more accurate subject tracking sensors.

opinions?

I am sorry, I find the question completely irrelevant. It is like asking, whether a Ford Focus can compete with a Formula 1 racer. There are dozens of threads (if not more) which make these misleading comparissons. We all know, that the prerequisites for shooting sports professionally (fast AF, fast AF-C, fast long glass and high fps) are the exact weakness of the Pentax system. Also, the Pentax camera costs just a fraction of the CaNikon. Even comparing apples with pears is more to the point.

Ben

Urkeldaedalus · 05-10-2010, 08:00 AM

Honest question for the original poster -- are you ready to spend $5,000 on a Pentax camera body and more thousands on lenses and additional equipment? If Nikon and Canon are so great, I don't know why we expect a company like Pentax to do what those two companies do and sell it for 1/10 of the money.**

So to answer your question, no, the K20D can not hold a candle to Nikon and Canon autofocus systems designed for shooting sports.

The 21 Fps mode is sort of gimmicky unless you plan on only using your images on the web, in which case it could actually be useful in sports. I've found that the K-7 was a big improvement in the sports shooting department over the K20D, especially when shooting things like basketball in dimly lit high school gymnasiums, where the K20D could struggle sometimes. If they improve the next camera a bit to narrow the gap between the Pentax model and, say, the Canon 7D and Nikon 300s bodies, I think that's all most people will really need, imo.

** I'm not saying Pentax doesn't have room to make improvements in future cameras, as they certainly do.

**Ahab** · 05-10-2010, 08:35 AM

Originally posted by imtheguy

Not even close.
....good thing I only shoot wildlife. But I have used the 21 fps mode to catch some of the best, albeit small, shots of wildlife in action. I think I used it succesfully twice in the last year. Its THAT useful.

Yah, I think I used it once.

EricT · 05-10-2010, 09:10 AM

Originally posted by Ben_Edict

I am sorry, I find the question completely irrelevant. It is like asking, whether a Ford Focus can compete with a Formula 1 racer. There are dozens of threads (if not more) which make these misleading comparissons. We all know, that the prerequisites for shooting sports professionally (fast AF, fast AF-C, fast long glass and high fps) are the exact weakness of the Pentax system. Also, the Pentax camera costs just a fraction of the CaNikon. Even comparing apples with pears is more to the point.

Ben

To turn your analogy around: If you put me in the Formula 1 car, and Michael Schumacher in the Ford Focus, who do you think would win the race?

Sure, if you're shooting professionally, choosing Pentax would be just silly. But for amateurs (which most of the people who post here are), a Pentax camera/lens combo is more than good enough to churn out some decent sport photos. To claim otherwise is just as silly, IMO.

Ben_Edict · 05-10-2010, 01:24 PM

Originally posted by EricT

To turn your analogy around: If you put me in the Formula 1 car, and Michael Schumacher in the Ford Focus, who do you think would win the race?

Sure, if you're shooting professionally, choosing Pentax would be just silly. But for amateurs (which most of the people who post here are), a Pentax camera/lens combo is more than good enough to churn out some decent sport photos. To claim otherwise is just as silly, IMO.

I have nothing against using Pentax cameras for jobs. But if you compare them to the top of the line Canon's or Nikon's, which cost five times or more, than this comparisson alone is simply wrong. That is, why we are talking about professional use, not amateurs.

You can ofcourse shoot sports, you can shoot whatever you want and a competent photographer will get the shot of the day even with a rangefinder on fully manual. But sports photography, to use the TO's example today, is not only about getting one shot a day. It is about covering a whole event from A to Z. If you see pro soccer journalists (just one example), they often work with three cameras (with different lenses, because there is no time for changing) at their hands and two or three more cameras at critical locations with radio control. That is pretty much standard now - but mostly with Canon and a few with Nikon.

Ben

PentaxPoke · 05-10-2010, 01:38 PM

Originally posted by Reportage

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

No.

But that is not to say that you can't use Pentax cameras for sports. Heck, you can just about use disposable cameras for sports if you know what you are doing. People were taking fantastic sports shots long before the fps race.

Wheatfield · 05-10-2010, 06:53 PM

You could still shoot sports with a Speed Graphic if you wanted to. Just don't expect to sell the results to Sports Illustrated.

jake14mw · 05-11-2010, 01:45 PM

Firstly, the 20fps burst thing is just a novelty for specialty situations, not really useful for sports photos. After that, there is nothing from Pentax that compares with the high end Canon and Nikons. FPS is a minor part of it. The biggest of course is the AF-C performance. Next, for indoor sports, Hi-ISO performance is very important as well. I take a great deal of youth sports photos, and I'm hoping Pentax comes up with a K-7 successor that has a completely new focus system and better hi-iso performance.

05-09-2010, 08:56 PM	#1
Reportage Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2009 Photos: Gallery Posts: 739	do you think Pentax can go head to head with Canon 1Dx and Nikon Dx series in sports? the K20D`s 21fps is very handy but cant beat these high speed sports camera as they take in larger resolutions with arguably more accurate subject tracking sensors. opinions?

05-10-2010, 04:12 AM	#6
mel Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: Virginia Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 2,531	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. K-7, FA 50/1.4 at f/2, AF-C, burst mode (about a 4-shot sequence) The, um, "pro" that was there shooting was shooting a Canon 50D, not even the flagship, and shooting jpegs. He's widely published in mags such as The Ring, etc. I'm pretty sure he wasn't firing 21 fps either. Last edited by mel; 05-10-2010 at 02:10 PM.

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

05-09-2010, 09:13 PM	#2
writeb Senior Member Join Date: Nov 2009 Location: San Jose Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 150	With the existing line up? No. Check back later. EOM

05-09-2010, 10:51 PM	#3
imtheguy Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Virginia Beach Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 2,950	Not even close. ....good thing I only shoot wildlife. But I have used the 21 fps mode to catch some of the best, albeit small, shots of wildlife in action. I think I used it succesfully twice in the last year. Its THAT useful.

05-09-2010, 11:36 PM	#4
wlachan Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Canada Photos: Albums Posts: 2,625	Pentax already have... in some people's wild imagination... Pentax don't need to improve anything to match the best of Canon or Nikon, they only need to brainwash more people... or some Pentax users just brainwashed themselves for the comfort...

05-10-2010, 03:54 AM	#5
creampuff Veteran Member Join Date: May 2007 Location: Singapore Photos: Gallery Posts: 3,953	How can the K20D even hope to compete with the likes of a flagship Canon or Nikon? The 21 fps burst mode can only be shot in Jpeg with quality at a measly 1.6M (1536 x 1024 pixels). The focus is locked and there is no way for the AF to track the subject.

05-10-2010, 04:53 AM	#7
MPrince Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: WV Posts: 1,495	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. 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."

05-10-2010, 05:37 AM	#8
Ben_Edict Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: SouthWest "Regio" Photos: Albums Posts: 3,309	Originally posted by Reportage the K20D`s 21fps is very handy but cant beat these high speed sports camera as they take in larger resolutions with arguably more accurate subject tracking sensors. opinions? I am sorry, I find the question completely irrelevant. It is like asking, whether a Ford Focus can compete with a Formula 1 racer. There are dozens of threads (if not more) which make these misleading comparissons. We all know, that the prerequisites for shooting sports professionally (fast AF, fast AF-C, fast long glass and high fps) are the exact weakness of the Pentax system. Also, the Pentax camera costs just a fraction of the CaNikon. Even comparing apples with pears is more to the point. Ben

05-10-2010, 08:00 AM	#9
Urkeldaedalus Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2008 Location: Iowa Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 1,369	Honest question for the original poster -- are you ready to spend $5,000 on a Pentax camera body and more thousands on lenses and additional equipment? If Nikon and Canon are so great, I don't know why we expect a company like Pentax to do what those two companies do and sell it for 1/10 of the money. So to answer your question, no, the K20D can not hold a candle to Nikon and Canon autofocus systems designed for shooting sports. The 21 Fps mode is sort of gimmicky unless you plan on only using your images on the web, in which case it could actually be useful in sports. I've found that the K-7 was a big improvement in the sports shooting department over the K20D, especially when shooting things like basketball in dimly lit high school gymnasiums, where the K20D could struggle sometimes. If they improve the next camera a bit to narrow the gap between the Pentax model and, say, the Canon 7D and Nikon 300s bodies, I think that's all most people will really need, imo. I'm not saying Pentax doesn't have room to make improvements in future cameras, as they certainly do.

05-10-2010, 08:35 AM	#10
Ahab Site Supporter Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Arnold, Md. Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 762	Originally posted by imtheguy Not even close. ....good thing I only shoot wildlife. But I have used the 21 fps mode to catch some of the best, albeit small, shots of wildlife in action. I think I used it succesfully twice in the last year. Its THAT useful. Yah, I think I used it once.

05-10-2010, 09:10 AM	#11
EricT Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2008 Posts: 484	Originally posted by Ben_Edict I am sorry, I find the question completely irrelevant. It is like asking, whether a Ford Focus can compete with a Formula 1 racer. There are dozens of threads (if not more) which make these misleading comparissons. We all know, that the prerequisites for shooting sports professionally (fast AF, fast AF-C, fast long glass and high fps) are the exact weakness of the Pentax system. Also, the Pentax camera costs just a fraction of the CaNikon. Even comparing apples with pears is more to the point. Ben To turn your analogy around: If you put me in the Formula 1 car, and Michael Schumacher in the Ford Focus, who do you think would win the race? Sure, if you're shooting professionally, choosing Pentax would be just silly. But for amateurs (which most of the people who post here are), a Pentax camera/lens combo is more than good enough to churn out some decent sport photos. To claim otherwise is just as silly, IMO.

05-10-2010, 01:24 PM	#12
Ben_Edict Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: SouthWest "Regio" Photos: Albums Posts: 3,309	Originally posted by EricT To turn your analogy around: If you put me in the Formula 1 car, and Michael Schumacher in the Ford Focus, who do you think would win the race? Sure, if you're shooting professionally, choosing Pentax would be just silly. But for amateurs (which most of the people who post here are), a Pentax camera/lens combo is more than good enough to churn out some decent sport photos. To claim otherwise is just as silly, IMO. I have nothing against using Pentax cameras for jobs. But if you compare them to the top of the line Canon's or Nikon's, which cost five times or more, than this comparisson alone is simply wrong. That is, why we are talking about professional use, not amateurs. You can ofcourse shoot sports, you can shoot whatever you want and a competent photographer will get the shot of the day even with a rangefinder on fully manual. But sports photography, to use the TO's example today, is not only about getting one shot a day. It is about covering a whole event from A to Z. If you see pro soccer journalists (just one example), they often work with three cameras (with different lenses, because there is no time for changing) at their hands and two or three more cameras at critical locations with radio control. That is pretty much standard now - but mostly with Canon and a few with Nikon. Ben

05-10-2010, 01:38 PM	#13
PentaxPoke Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: Oklahoma Posts: 1,411	Originally posted by Reportage do you think Pentax can go head to head with Canon 1Dx and Nikon Dx series in sports? No. But that is not to say that you can't use Pentax cameras for sports. Heck, you can just about use disposable cameras for sports if you know what you are doing. People were taking fantastic sports shots long before the fps race.

05-10-2010, 06:53 PM	#14
Wheatfield Moderator Join Date: Apr 2008 Location: The wheatfields of Canada Posts: 15,991	You could still shoot sports with a Speed Graphic if you wanted to. Just don't expect to sell the results to Sports Illustrated.

05-11-2010, 01:45 PM	#15
jake14mw Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: Connecticut, USA Posts: 977	Firstly, the 20fps burst thing is just a novelty for specialty situations, not really useful for sports photos. After that, there is nothing from Pentax that compares with the high end Canon and Nikons. FPS is a minor part of it. The biggest of course is the AF-C performance. Next, for indoor sports, Hi-ISO performance is very important as well. I take a great deal of youth sports photos, and I'm hoping Pentax comes up with a K-7 successor that has a completely new focus system and better hi-iso performance.