[Eigengrau]

Size is almost a non issue, it's weight that counts and the K7 is a dense little bastard. OK the 7D is another story but still.

Price? Well bang for buck sure but but what price to ensure you nail that shot? It's more a bang for buck for a rank amature shooter like myself than for a even a semi pro who needs the shot and needs it now.

Discrete? The lense are no smaller than the competition unles syou shoot primes which is nice and all but super tricky if you are the only shooter.

There's more to consider, the ability to rent lenses, to buy good fast zooms on the used market at a fair price, a pro service arm ...... it never ends.

I just don't know why you'd do it unless you're looking through one eye.

Size:
Pentax has always tended towards smaller bodies than the competition (except maybe Olympus). And, comparing lens to lens, many of Pentax's are smaller. They had the smallest(and lightest) fast fifty last time I checked. Even if the camera is weighty for

On price:
There are a huge range of photographers out there, and I'd bet that the vast majority don't have top-of-the-line gear. There are a few high end photographers I know that have the latest and most expensive body from Canon or Nikon, but there are many more that I know that shoot with some mid-range stuff that does what it needs to at the right price. Pentax does well in this category. As well, being professional means having backup gear, and many of us just cannot afford 2+ bodies at $3k a pop.
Also, there are many pro level photogs that I'm aware of that shoot with outdated gear. They find something that works well enough, and then stop obsessing over gear and instead obsess over their work.
Having a super expensive camera doesn't mean you nail the shot. Having cheaper gear doesn't mean you miss it. The photographer has more to do with whether the shot is captured than the gear does.

On being discrete: I do shoot primes. They are small, sharp, and fast: perfect for weddings. If you want to talk about tricky to shoot with, how many zooms do you know of that shoot faster than 2.8? Also, how many stabilized lenses do Canon and Nikon have that are 2.0 or faster?


On Canon or Nikon, you cannot get something like a stabilized 1.4 lens. That means that in-body stabilization grants me about two stops of handheld shooting versus a lens-based system shooting in the same light. Maybe the highest of the high end can compensate with ISO, but still, that means shooting 6400 instead of 1600. For cameras in a similar category of ISO performance, this is an unmitigated advantage for Pentax (or another body-stabilized camera).


I think being realistic about prices and performance is what really decides this question. I heard recently that the average pro photographer in the US brings in $26000 a year. Assuming (generously) that 10% of that amount can be devoted to gear, that means $2600 to spend on camera stuff in a year. That won't even get you a single pro-level body from Nikon or Canon. However, that will get you a couple of mid range cameras from Pentax plus letting you pick up a lens or flash. The reality is that most photographers spend less than this - there are plenty of them on D40s and Rebels, and many of them do good work.

All you need for a wedding is an SLR. Auto focus and digital are probably basic expectations of your client, and I wouldn't be comfortable with less than 6 megapixels. ISO 1600 is a good thing to have. A bounce flash is a necessity for me now, although well-lit weddings can be done without them. If you have these things checked off, then I see nothing that would prevent you from shooting a successful wedding. The question isn't "what is the best gear at any price" but "does this gear meet the minimum requirements for the job".

[WMBP]

On being discrete: I do shoot primes. They are small, sharp, and fast: perfect for weddings. If you want to talk about tricky to shoot with, how many zooms do you know of that shoot faster than 2.8? Also, how many stabilized lenses do Canon and Nikon have that are 2.0 or faster?


On Canon or Nikon, you cannot get something like a stabilized 1.4 lens. That means that in-body stabilization grants me about two stops of handheld shooting versus a lens-based system shooting in the same light. Maybe the highest of the high end can compensate with ISO, but still, that means shooting 6400 instead of 1600. For cameras in a similar category of ISO performance, this is an unmitigated advantage for Pentax (or another body-stabilized camera).

Yes, and well said. This is why I started using nothing but primes. My f/2.8 lenses are my SLOW lenses, and I tend to favor the lenses that can go faster (Sigma 28 f/1.8, Pentax 35 f/2, Pentax 50 f/1.4, Pentax 70 f/2.4). I think, if you're going to shoot with Pentax bodies, the way to get the best possible results is to use good prime lenses. If you compare a Pentax system with zoom lenses no faster than f/2.8, with a Canon or Nikon comparably priced (or slightly more expensive) system with similar zooms, then I think Alfisti's objections have more force.

I do think that shake reduction isn't all that big a deal at these focal lengths. It's not useless, not at all. But remember, the shorter the focal length, the less important shake reduction. At some point, somewhere around 1/30th sec during a wedding ceremony, you have to start worrying more about subject movement than about camera shake. I'd note too that some Canon and Nikon photographers actually do use tripods at ceremonies. Moral here? Good photographers do what they need to do to get the best results from their equipment.

..... that means $2600 to spend on camera stuff in a year. That won't even get you a single pro-level body from Nikon or Canon. However, that will get you a couple of mid range cameras from Pentax plus letting you pick up a lens or flash. The reality is that most photographers spend less than this - there are plenty of them on D40s and Rebels, and many of them do good work.

Well, let me add another important point here. I have to spend money on a fair bit of stuff that isn't either a camera body or a camera lens. I have to pay for

• flash units and other light sources,
• light stands,
• umbrellas,
• light boxes,
• light meters,
• radio triggers,
• studio backdrops and backdrop stands,
• reflectors,
• batteries,
• carrying cases for the gear,
• memberships,
• insurance,
• web site hosting,
• prints and marketing, etc.

And I haven't even mentioned computers, computer monitors, monitor calibration equipment, raw processing software and other applications, storage, backup plans, and so on. Anybody who buys a K-7 (or a Nikon D3s), enjoys taking photos, and thinks they should go into wedding photography, without being aware of all of these other costs, is, well, not nearly ready to go into business as a wedding photographer or any other kind of photographer.

Will

[Rondec]

I would venture to say that of the wedding photogs out there, probably only 10 percent (just a made up number) shoot full frame cameras capable of significantly better high iso than is achievable with the K20/K7. I have said it before, but in my (quite rural) area of the US, the wedding photographers shoot with xxD Canon's, none of them new. There are still a couple using 20Ds.

It really isn't about the equipment in general, but about the person behind the camera.

[Eigengrau]

Well, let me add another important point here. I have to spend money on a fair bit of stuff that isn't either a camera body or a camera lens. I have to pay for

• flash units and other light sources,
• light stands,
• umbrellas,
• light boxes,
• light meters,
• radio triggers,
• studio backdrops and backdrop stands,
• reflectors,
• batteries,
• carrying cases for the gear,
• memberships,
• insurance,
• web site hosting,
• prints and marketing, etc.

Will

Agreed - although I do find that bodies and lenses are the biggest individual costs - the rest are smaller and usually more spread out, so while I've probably spent close to $1000 on flash gear this year, it was in $200 increments generally. We're trying to move gradually upmarket, though, so we've had extra associated costs: website redesign, better photo printing service, more elaborate flash setup, newer and faster bodies. I'd like to imagine (hopefully!) that we'll eventually stabilize and won't need to spend quite so much every year. We're going to have a pretty decent setup of glass for this summer, which I think will get us by for at least a year.

Me: 2 K20's, FA 35/2.0, FA 50/1.4, DA 17-70/4.0
Wife: K7, FA 31/1.8, DA* 16-50/2.8

I've actually found that having a limited amount of (high quality) gear makes the whole thing easier: not only are you lightening the load, but having too many options for a situation can get you distracted thinking about lenses when you should just be getting to work.

[WMBP]

Agreed - although I do find that bodies and lenses are the biggest individual costs - the rest are smaller and usually more spread out....

Quite true. I guess I mentioned all these other costs for two reasons.

First, I get the impression that a fair number of enthusiasts start thinking about wedding photography as a way to make money from their hobby, without realizing that it takes more than a K-7 (or whatever) and a couple of zoom lenses to run a photography business.

Second, once you've spent enough time and money on camera equipment to have broken free of consumerist craving for the latest thing, you start to realize that the Pentax K10D (or Nikon D80, or whatever) really is a terrific camera, and that, if you want to take better photos, what you may need is (a) better light and/or (b) better lenses. I'm selling my *ist DS now (see the marketplace if you're interested) but I've used it as a third camera at several weddings, alongside my K10D and K20D. It did a fine job and NOBODY was ever able to tell the pics taken by the *ist DS from those taken by the other, newer and better-spec'd cameras.

*

Now, I want to add that Alfisti has a very valid perspective. Obviously I don't agree with him about the K-7 (or K20D, etc.). But I certainly think anybody who is thinking about charging money for photographic work has to think hard about gear.

One of my all-time favorite bits of writing about photography is Ken Rockwell's essay "Your camera doesn't matter." It's a must-read, in my view. One quote:

If you're not talented, it doesn't matter if you buy a Nikon D3X or Leica; your work will still be uninspired.

It's always better to spend your time and money on learning art and photography, not by spending it on more cameras.

Anyway, the thing about this great essay is, it's making a philosophical point, and it's aimed at the beginner in all of us (even those of us who've been shooting for decades). He's NOT saying, you can be a pro photographer with a toy camera. Read his other camera reviews and you'll see that he understands that there are reasons to use expensive cameras.

So, yes, the photographer is more important than the camera, and no, your camera doesn't matter. EXCEPT when it does. Nobody is shooting Vogue covers with their cell phone. And if you want to be competitive as a wedding photographer, you probably need to shoot with something better than, say, a Pentax X90. And I have no problem acknowledging that a more expensive camera like the Nikon D700 or D3 or one of the Canon full-frame cameras might have SOME advantages over any Pentax DSLR.

So the real questions are, first, what's the MINIMUM requirement for a wedding camera? and second, if I go for something above the minimum, when do I reach the point of diminishing returns? Or to put it more simply, what camera is good enough, and what camera is better than I need?

I'd say the K-x (the cheaper Pentax DSLR) is definitely good enough. Actually the high-ISO performance of the K-x makes it an attractive camera. I've been tempted to add one to my kit, but I decided not too for a reason that has nothing to do with the camera's image quality. My problem with the K-x is that it doesn't have 2 e-dials, and I can't live without the 2 e-dials any more.

It's harder to say where the point of diminishing returns is reached, because it's really a matter of economics. Once you can afford a camera that's good enough, then the point of diminishing returns is reached either (a) when you can't tell teh difference between the photos you were taking with the cheaper camera and the photos you're taking with the more expensive one, or (b) when you can't afford to buy the better camera. For me, the full-frame cameras on the market now are unnecessary. If I win the Texas lottery, on the other hand, I'm buying both a D3s AND a 5D MkII.

Will

[johnmflores]

Quite true. I guess I mentioned all these other costs for two reasons.

First, I get the impression that a fair number of enthusiasts start thinking about wedding photography as a way to make money from their hobby, without realizing that it takes more than a K-7 (or whatever) and a couple of zoom lenses to run a photography business.

Second, once you've spent enough time and money on camera equipment to have broken free of consumerist craving for the latest thing, you start to realize that the Pentax K10D (or Nikon D80, or whatever) really is a terrific camera, and that, if you want to take better photos, what you may need is (a) better light and/or (b) better lenses. I'm selling my *ist DS now (see the marketplace if you're interested) but I've used it as a third camera at several weddings, alongside my K10D and K20D. It did a fine job and NOBODY was ever able to tell the pics taken by the *ist DS from those taken by the other, newer and better-spec'd cameras.

*

Now, I want to add that Alfisti has a very valid perspective. Obviously I don't agree with him about the K-7 (or K20D, etc.). But I certainly think anybody who is thinking about charging money for photographic work has to think hard about gear.

One of my all-time favorite bits of writing about photography is Ken Rockwell's essay "Your camera doesn't matter." It's a must-read, in my view. One quote:

If you're not talented, it doesn't matter if you buy a Nikon D3X or Leica; your work will still be uninspired.

It's always better to spend your time and money on learning art and photography, not by spending it on more cameras.

Anyway, the thing about this great essay is, it's making a philosophical point, and it's aimed at the beginner in all of us (even those of us who've been shooting for decades). He's NOT saying, you can be a pro photographer with a toy camera. Read his other camera reviews and you'll see that he understands that there are reasons to use expensive cameras.

So, yes, the photographer is more important than the camera, and no, your camera doesn't matter. EXCEPT when it does. Nobody is shooting Vogue covers with their cell phone. And if you want to be competitive as a wedding photographer, you probably need to shoot with something better than, say, a Pentax X90. And I have no problem acknowledging that a more expensive camera like the Nikon D700 or D3 or one of the Canon full-frame cameras might have SOME advantages over any Pentax DSLR.

So the real questions are, first, what's the MINIMUM requirement for a wedding camera? and second, if I go for something above the minimum, when do I reach the point of diminishing returns? Or to put it more simply, what camera is good enough, and what camera is better than I need?

I'd say the K-x (the cheaper Pentax DSLR) is definitely good enough. Actually the high-ISO performance of the K-x makes it an attractive camera. I've been tempted to add one to my kit, but I decided not too for a reason that has nothing to do with the camera's image quality. My problem with the K-x is that it doesn't have 2 e-dials, and I can't live without the 2 e-dials any more.

It's harder to say where the point of diminishing returns is reached, because it's really a matter of economics. Once you can afford a camera that's good enough, then the point of diminishing returns is reached either (a) when you can't tell teh difference between the photos you were taking with the cheaper camera and the photos you're taking with the more expensive one, or (b) when you can't afford to buy the better camera. For me, the full-frame cameras on the market now are unnecessary. If I win the Texas lottery, on the other hand, I'm buying both a D3s AND a 5D MkII.

Will

Some excellent points here, particularly about minimum requirements and the K-x almost being good enough (let down by controls, not IQ).

And if by agreeing with you I endorse an opinion of Ken Rockwell's, then so be it!

[Winder]

I think the K-7 is more than capable of shooting weddings, because the glass is more important than the body. You might find yourself stuck using fast primes (F/1.4), but that is how we did it for years anyway because zooms just did not have the quality at the time. You will have a lot more spent on lenses than you will on a K-7.

LR3 is doing some very good things with RAW files. I would never dream of shooting a wedding in JPEG, but I have seen it done.

Noise reduction software has come a long way as well. The new DeNoise 4.3 is doing some nice things, but I have not had time to play with it.

A good B&W conversion program can really help. Silver Efex Pro is my personal favorite and B&W is always a wedding favorite. I have played with some K-7 files and they create very nice B&W files.

So if you want to shoot weddings with a K-7 plan on spending $600 on software, $2,000 for 3 top quality primes (buy only FF primes if you think (hope) Pentax will introduce a FF body in the future), and then probably another $1,000 on odds and ends. Most weddings I have been to do not allow a flash, so don't spend a lot on lighting. I do not have a lot tied up in printing. I print proofs in house and some 11x14, but high volume stuff is outsourced.

With a setup like that you can provide a professional level of service.

[WMBP]

I think the K-7 is more than capable of shooting weddings, because the glass is more important than the body. You might find yourself stuck using fast primes (F/1.4)....

Well, I don't think of myself as "stuck". :-)

I chose, freely, to move to primes and I'm very happy with the choice.

You will have a lot more spent on lenses than you will on a K-7.

Correct. It's a subject I try not to bring up around the dinner table.

So if you want to shoot weddings with a K-7 plan on spending $600 on software...

I've spent a lot more than that, but I don't think that's essential. I would not want to process a large number of files using anything other than Lightroom (or perhaps Aperture, which I've never used). But I do my black and white conversions in Lightroom, de-noise in Lightroom 3 (excellent). I have lots of other software but I do nearly everything in Lightroom.

$2,000 for 3 top quality primes (buy only FF primes if you think (hope) Pentax will introduce a FF body in the future), and then probably another $1,000 on odds and ends...

My absolute minimum shopping list for somebody who's thinking of shooting a wedding would be:

1. TWO bodies
2. LENSES
3. TWO good flash units
4. Tripod
5. Plenty of battieries, storage cards, etc.

Showing up to shoot a wedding without a backup camera at the ready, in my opinion, constitutes professional malpractice. I've had every piece of equipment I use fail on me at some point: cameras, lenses, flash units, tripods, batteries. No, I take that back. I've never had a storage card fail on me. Yet. (Touch wood!)

Most weddings I have been to do not allow a flash, so don't spend a lot on lighting.

I think lighting equipment is essential: at a minimum, a couple of Pentax 540 FGZ or Metz 58 AF units. It's true that you cannot USUALLY use flash during the wedding ceremony, if it's a religious ceremony. But if it's NOT religious, you may be able to use flash; and sometimes even religious ceremonies will allow flash. And the ceremony ain't all there is, not by a long shot. I use flash before the wedding at the salon, in the dressing areas for the bride and groom, to capture the wedding party lining up before the processional, to get the bride and her father at the back of the church; and then AFTER the ceremony, I use a couple flash units to take the formals; and I almost always have to use flash heavily in the reception. Actually, I think flash photography is almost THE key to success in wedding photography.

With a setup like that you can provide a professional level of service.

Forgive me if I correct this. I know you didn't mean to say what this literally means, but for the sake of those who won't understand your intentions and will only read what you said, let me point out that this statement, literally, is quite wrong. With that setup, you'll be able to, um, bring a lot of expensive equipment to the wedding. Whether you provide a professional level of service, is another thing altogether. :-)

Will

[dadipentak]

I suppose a K-7 could be used for weddings but it seems like overkill to me.

[WMBP]

I suppose a K-7 could be used for weddings but it seems like overkill to me.

Heh. And with that coup de grace we should close this thread. :-)

Will

[Eigengrau]

I suppose a K-7 could be used for weddings but it seems like overkill to me.

Agreed. +1 to you good sir.

[JohnBee]

Is the K-7 okay for a shooting weddings or indoors for school functions (like plays, cameos, year book type things)? I know it is a semi-pro to pro camera but I don't know if I need weather sealing as much as I need it for indoor shooting.
some flash and some not.
Thank you.

This really comes down to your expectations and the conditions your shooting in. I've been shooting indoor gigs for the past two years with K20's, and I was not able to get the K-7 to maintain the same level of output(close but not quite) and so I held back with my K20's a little longer.

However... when it came time to do a wedding, I decided to invest in a FF camera for the job. Partly because I wanted better low light AF and partly because I wanted to gain more flexibility in the higher sensitivity range(ISO6400).

So I guess the answer really comes down to what your needs and expectations are. Though, I found that if you can't achieve clean ISO3200(no compromise) prints with your camera, then your most likely not going to be very satisfied. Though ideally, a working range between ISO200 to 4000 was what worked best for me.

Common setups were(two K20D's):
Prime camera: 28/2.8, 50/1.4, 85/2, 135/2.8
Zoom camera: *16-50mm and *50-135mm

PS. Most of my work took place at/or around ISO3200.

[Winder]

In the film days 800 ISO was as far as we dared go, and I have shot several events with 400 ISO B&W. We did not have image stabilization and did not worry about low light AF because everything was manual focus.

I don't own a Pentax, but I have shot with the K-7 on several occasions. I still use a rather old Canon 5D for my event work and the 85L is the primary lens. I use to carry a bunch of lenses with me, but I found I never needed them. I went through a phase where I used zooms, but I found I was taking more pictures not better pictures.

With primes I don't take as many pictures so post processing time is reduced. I do think the K-7 requires more post processing than my 5D, but the newer software is doing a very good job, and expanding the usable range of the cameras.

Weddings are changing. I was a guest at a recent event where you would have thought the bride was movie star on the red carpet. There were 100 point and shoot cameras with flashes going off as she walked down the isle, and some of them were on Facebook before the wedding was over. Flashes are becoming more acceptable. The primary photographer was running around with a Nikon D300s w/flash.

[kenyee]

LR3's noise reduction makes ISO1600 on the K20D usable as well and even ISO3200 somewhat ok at reduced size.

I think WMBP said it best with this: "It's harder to say where the point of diminishing returns is reached, because it's really a matter of economics."
IMHO, even the lowest level prosumer DSLRs are a lot better than what was used by the pros a mere 5 years ago. Sure you could get FF because that's what is best now, but the OP asked whether the K7 "could be" used....

[JohnBee]

LR3's noise reduction makes ISO1600 on the K20D usable as well and even ISO3200 somewhat ok at reduced size.

I manage very good full size prints all the way up to ISO6400 with LR3's raw. Granted, it requires other tools in the process(tinge removals, debanding) and I now use ACR6.2(same engine as LR3). However, ISO3200 is a walk in the park with Adobe's new RAW converter(10/10).

On the same note, we were able to extract excellent 128K output with the Kx and D700 output that could only be called, mind numbing...

Here's what I've found where maximum ISO goes with Pentax camera's:

K7 ISO4000 - Uncompromised full prints possible, difficulty: 10/10
K20D ISO6400 - Uncompromised full prints possible, difficulty: 8/10
Kx ISO12800K - Uncompromised full prints possible, difficulty: 9/10


Uncompromised: A term I like to use with regards to high ISO output that would result in; size reductions, sacrificing detail, BW conversion etc. etc.