I found the opposite. I ran a Pentax setup(first spotmatic bayonet mount)can't remember the model). I had some real nice Pentax lens. In the mid 80's I got into Contax, first buying a used 159, then later a RTS II. I had five Zeiss lens, a 25f2.8/28f2/50f1.4/85f1.4&135f2.8. Most every pic I shot was many times better than any Pentax I'd seen at that time. My other photo friends with money, shot Nikon and Canon. They also agreed that the Contax pics looked better than there Nikon/Canon pics. There was just something very special about those Zeiss lens. And the flash control was years ahead of the other brands.
Now a days(for the last 10 years) I've shot Pentax DSLR's because I feel brand is less important now, as every few years anything from Pen/Can/Nik will be bested by whatever is current. Plus I really do believe that the man/woman makes the shot, and not so much the gear(better gear can help).
When ever I run into an Ahole going on about there superior Nikon/Canon gear, I ask them why they think so little of there abilities, that they feel the need to only use Nikon/Canon.
And if my pics look so good, does that not make me the better photographer? Because I did it with a mere Pentax?
Originally posted by cpk I've posted this story before, but I think it's still apropos. Before you read it, I'm very happy with my current Pentax gear (MX, LX, K-7 (infrared converted), K-5, K-5 II). I still have the original Pentax kit used 30 years ago. The Leicas have been sold and are not missed; they were good in their time.
Back in the early 80s I had a chance to test a Leicaflex side by side
with my Pentax LX. I shot a series of pictures comparing the following
lenses:
Leica 35mm - Pentax-M 28mm f2.8
Leica 50mm - Pentax-M 50mm f4 macro
Leica 135mm - Pentax-M 100mm f2.8
I cannot remember the Leicaflex model or the maximum apertures of
Leica lenses; but they were the ones current at that time. They were
supplied by Leica Canada as part of a promotion to "try a Leica for a
day" In the hopes that one would buy one.
The pictures were taken on Kodachrome 25 for maximum sharpness, and
both cameras were mounted on tripods. The first slide on each roll of
film was a photograph of the other camera. Both films were processed
by Kodak Canada.
When the films were processed and returned uncut in strips, I asked
the son of the owner of the camera store where I dealt, to choose the
Leica slides. He inspected both film strips with a Pentax 20X
magnifier and selected one as being shot by the Leicaflex. I then
asked him which camera was pictured at the front of the strip. It was
the Leicaflex. The pictures he thought were taken by the Leicaflex had
been taken by the Pentax LX. His father, who was a bit of a
Leicaphile, also inspected the film strips and appeared somewhat upset
by the results.
At the time of the tests I used Leica Ms for all of my available-light
work. Therefore, having no need for high-speed lenses, when I
purchased Pentax lenses, they were the slower f2.8 and f4 ones. These
ones, I expect, would be easier to correct. Also the pictures were
taken outside at around f8, rather than wide open.
This was not a definitive test; but it proved to me that, certainly in
some areas, the Pentax lenses could hold their own against some of the
best. I was happy with the results because the circumstances of the
test mirrored the situations in which I expected to use the Pentax and
its lenses, outdoors for architectural and other work.