Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: Texas |
i started with Pentax on a K 1000 that was given to me, went from that to a KX, then ME and ME Super, and finally the A 3000. All got excellent pictures and slides, the same lenses worked great, and when I went to digital, I got a Pentax so I could use my existing glass. Seriously considered Minolta for the same reason, I have 3 or 4 lenses that cover 45 to 200mm, but Minolta dropped their camera line (really bad move) several years ago so about 7 megapixel was the best I could get, if that. So here I am with a K-x and it's doing a great job, I love it. I've always been pleased with Pentax so it was no surpeise this one was a keeper.
I have a friend who is a pro, just starting out, but a long time photographer, shooting a Nikon D40. He was pusjhing Nikon of course, and wanted me to look into the current ones, which I did, but the K-x was less expensive, got excellent reviews, and would use my existing lenses. I only have a couple, but they work great and many of you have seen the results.
When he saw the results, he was very impressed, he has made many very favorable comments about my shots, and on several occasions has looked at a new shot and said "That's National Geographic". I'm not sure if they're really that good, but the entry level K-x has really impressed him. But even before I got the camera, he never made any derogatory comments about Pentax, while telling me several times Canon sucks. I have no real opinion on Canon, I've never used one, but have seen plenty good shots I know were taken with Canon equipment, same as Nikon. His Nikon gets some very nice shots, I haven't used Nikon either and don't have anything bad to say about them.
If I were confronted by someone who wanted to ridicule my rig, I think I'd simply say well, the guy behind the lens makes more difference than a roomfull of equipment. Talk all you want, but at the end of the day I'm looking at some really nice pictures, that's what counts. I don't care if they came from a cheap P&S, and I"ve taken plenty nice macro shots with a Samsung S730 P&S, the same Nikon shooter I mentioned above LOVES that camera for macro shots and general P&S use, he's thinking about getting one.
As far as I'm concerned, I use what works for me, and of it does a good job, I keep it. I'd never used Minolta either, when my sister snagged a SRT101 at an estate sale, 10 bucks. So I grabbed some film, a friend gave me a 80-200, and out the door I went. I like the Minolta just as much as my Pentax gear, and found out a long time pro got pictures printed in National Geographic with the exact same camera.
So I still say, it's more the guy behind the lens than anything else. I can take good picturs with a cheap P&S, a 35mm SLR, 35mm instamatic, (I have 2) or a DSLR. Brand, I don't care...but if I have to pay for it, I'm getting the one that uses the lenses I already have...Pentax...Just like guitars, I play whatever I can afford that's good quality, and I've shown up at auditions with a 6 or 8 watt Fender Champ made in 1974 and gotten "that look" that someone else mentioned...but once they heard that little screamer, it was all over with, usually people are very impressed with that little amp. Ditto for my stage rig, I've seen die hard Marshall fans tell me how good my 1973 Fender Super Reverb sounds. Same thing, it's the guy behind the lens...the guy with the guitar in his hands. I've seen plenty amateur players that sound like crap on my rig. I let very few even touch it...If you can PLAY, you can make any guitar sound good. If you are a photographer, you can use anything and get good pictures, probably even an old Polaroid. One of the best pictures I ever shot was a hummingbird with my brother's old Yashica rangefinder camera...
Last edited by Paleo Pete; 08-06-2010 at 04:05 PM.
Reason: Score another point for the typo monster...
|