[Digitalis]

Learning how to use flash and the proper technique is far more important than getting a FF body.

I agree, sure Canon have their fast wide and long lenses, Nikon have their excellent CLS system which I use for quick work with flash* but mostly - I use manual settings on my flash units because of the control and consistent results I get from it. If I were you I would find and attend some photography courses - of you want to really learn how to get the most of out of your camera doing a digital photography course with a well equipped training institution will help you develop skills and technique.



*I use a Nikon D3s and I own an extensive flash set up, however I do throw in a few Pentax strobes in with my Nikon flash units especially the AF540 FGZ because it is really quite powerful at wide settings Nikon SB900's can only match it at the long flash zoom settings.

[tuco]

What if your customer's ask for large prints? I'd think a FF with a higher MP can deliver better in that area. And something to consider is a comprehensive set of accessories available for the camera system.

[Digitalis]

I'd think a FF with a higher MP can deliver better in that area.

A 645D would be better still...Ad infinitum.

[Rondec]

I don't personally agree with "better images", as samples I've seen from the K-5 is outstanding. But I am in a similar position where I would like to update my K10D. The choice is either K-5 or 5D Classic. My reasoning for the 5D is access to the 17-40/4. I mainly use Sigma 10-20 for my wides now and find that for the style that I shoot, more often than not I get people that stands on the edge of the frames that are severely distorted. I try to fix my sigma to 20mm so that this isn't too bad, but sometimes it's still an issue. I really like this focal range and I think getting a fullframe with equivalent length would fix the issue. I'm not looking to replace the pentax right now, more for going dual system. 5D/17-40L + K10D/primes + K-x as backup and for darker times.

Perhaps rather than 5D I should fix my shooting style though

Other reasons to go 5D:
* I'm looking forward to buying some M style pentax lenses to shoot manually. Pentax lenses on the 5D gives wonderful wonderful rendering (well K-5 too, but getting FA 31 as the normal is really already 70% towards a 5D!)
* shooting architecture with the 17-40L (need to research how correctable the distortion is though)
* Canon's 85mm in lieu of FA 77 lim
* 70-200/4! in lieu of Pentax's buggy 50-135

Distortion is more of a lens issue than a sensor size issue. I think you will find less distortion with a Pentax 12-24 than with the Sigma you have.

I do think the SDM issues are improved if not resolved. Seems like you hear a lot less about them. The 50-135 is a lens that I would heartily recommend. Just really high quality in every respect. Mine is four years old, so far without a hiccup.

[aleonx3]

I don't personally agree with "better images", as samples I've seen from the K-5 is outstanding. But I am in a similar position where I would like to update my K10D. The choice is either K-5 or 5D Classic. My reasoning for the 5D is access to the 17-40/4 (and perhaps 70-200/4). I mainly use Sigma 10-20 for my wides now and find that for the style that I shoot, more often than not I get people that stands on the edge of the frames that are severely distorted. I try to fix my sigma to 20mm so that this isn't too bad, but sometimes it's still an issue. I really like this focal range and I think getting a fullframe with equivalent length would fix the issue. I'm not looking to replace the pentax right now, more for going dual system. 5D/17-40L + K10D/primes + K-x/28-75 (and to replace K10D during darker times).

Perhaps rather than 5D I should fix my shooting style though

Also with the 5D I'm looking forward to buying some M style pentax lenses to shoot manually. Hopefully I can do it reversibly.

Andi, I am with you... I have seen too many pictures taken with wide-angle lens (and even 24-105 L glass on FF) with people in there having huge broad shoulders.

[Digitalis]

Distortion is more of a lens issue than a sensor size issue. I think you will find less distortion with a Pentax 12-24 than with the Sigma you have.

the DA 15mm f/4 possesses even lower distortion - however the smearing Andi Lo mentions is a side effect of the FOV stretching all UWA lenses have and the EF17-40L isn't any better than any other UWA zoom lens out there- the Nikkor 14-24mm f/2.8G I use handles it pretty well though it suffers from flare and it is very difficult to get filters for it (unless you use Lee filters like I do).

speaking of filters, Andi - I hope you have plenty of money to buy 77mm filters for the 17-40 f/4L for architecture you will need ND,GND and polarisers - all in low profile filter frames, especially if you intend on stacking them or you can fork out even more money for a complete for a Lee filter system - the "big stopper" 10 stop ND from lee works great, but it will cost you.

if you want to use an UWA without the smearing, you should try the Pentax D-FA 645 25mm f/4 AL [IF] the images I have seen from that lens doesn't suffer as badly from the smearing 35mm UWA lenses have which is impressive considering it is effectively a 19.5mm focal length on the 645D - oh and did I mention the D-FA 645 25mm f/4 AL [IF] is a full frame 645 lens?

[liukaitc]

What if your customer's ask for large prints? I'd think a FF with a higher MP can deliver better in that area. And something to consider is a comprehensive set of accessories available for the camera system.

I am very agree with the second part...
It is quite difficult to find second hand stuff of pentax...also some manufactory only make asscessory for canon and nikon..
more if u work as a pro，u can perheps borrow gear from ur coworkers if u use canon or nikon。 most of them do not use pentax。

but still I use Pentax.......

---

Last edited by liukaitc; 08-08-2011 at 08:41 AM.

[tuco]

A 645D would be better still...Ad infinitum.

And an H4D-60 is even bigger still. But that is another subject.

[aurele]

What if your customer's ask for large prints?

with a K-x and it's 12Mpx you can have some prints at 240 dpi (wich is very good) 30*45 cm, so i guess with the K5 you can have more. I saw some 1.5*2m prints done with some D80 and it's 10mpx.

So i don't think it's an issue.


If the "pro" didn't not say you had to move, there would have you think for yourself ? If not, there is no point thinking of it.

just my 2 cents.

[Doanh]

"Pros" are not always good photographers, and good photographers are not always "pros".

One thing for sure, I'm neither "pro" nor good photographer

[aurele]

One thing for sure, I'm neither "pro" nor good photographer

same for me

[RioRico]

"Pros" are not always good photographers, and good photographers are not always "pros".

+1! Photographic professionalism has various aspects, whether just making a living shooting weddings with a kit lens and a big flash; or making a living after mastering one set of tools, or several sets of tools. Photography was my job long ago and I used various tools, but I'm no pro, not now.

I don't claim any more than superficial knowledge of much of photography past and present. But I do know that we can take many different approaches, with different tools and expectations. And I know that anyone who says that only one approach is valid, knows nothing, except maybe how to exploit that one approach. Their views of other approaches are bogus. Feh.

[Andi Lo]

the DA 15mm f/4 possesses even lower distortion - however the smearing Andi Lo mentions is a side effect of the FOV stretching all UWA lenses have and the EF17-40L isn't any better than any other UWA zoom lens out there- the Nikkor 14-24mm f/2.8G I use handles it pretty well though it suffers from flare and it is very difficult to get filters for it (unless you use Lee filters like I do).

speaking of filters, Andi - I hope you have plenty of money to buy 77mm filters for the 17-40 f/4L for architecture you will need ND,GND and polarisers - all in low profile filter frames, especially if you intend on stacking them or you can fork out even more money for a complete for a Lee filter system - the "big stopper" 10 stop ND from lee works great, but it will cost you.

Never thought of the cost of filters. I'm still just starting out so I've been mostly exposure blending. Thanks for the food for thought though before I jump on the 17-40

As for the broad shoulders, I know that 17-40 L isn't free of this issue, but with the same framing, wouldn't 20mm FF be better than 15mm APS-C? If you don't think it makes alot of difference, maybe I should just rethink my methods and increase my comfortable shooting distance, so I can use longer lenses to minimize broad shoulders.

[SpecialK]

It seems to me that what should be decisive is what your customers want, not what you want or what some self-styled pro imagines you should want. How many of your customers would be able to distinguish an image taken with a FF sensor from an image taken with an APS-C sensor? I suspect very few.

+1, especially the last. Saved me a lot of typing.

[bkpix]

For a slightly contrary view, I shoot both Pentax (K-7 and K20D) and Canon FF (1Ds) at the moment.

If I were embarking on a career doing wedding or assignment photography I would choose Canon, for two reasons.

First, it's more reliable under pressure. The autofocus and exposure are perfect every time. Unfortunately, I can't say that about the K-7 even with DA* or Limited lenses.

Second, the files from the 9-year-old,11 meg 1Ds are richer and cleaner than anything I get from Pentax when printed at 20x30. Extensive postprocessing on the Pentax files narrows the gap, but even with a lot of work on the Pentax files the differences are not subtle, and anyone can see them.

The 1Ds and an L 20-35/2.8 lens, bought used, cost me about the same ($1,250) as a K-5 body alone. While it's slow and heavy and the screen sucks, the images are drop dead gorgeous.

So why keep the Pentax gear? Because I like Pentax. It's fine for most uses. The gear is light, unobtrusive and weather resistant, and that 1Ds weighs as much as a cinderblock.