Originally posted by Miguel If you want to see "WOW" photos taken of moving objects by different camera brands and lenses, then I recommend you get beyond our extremely small sample size here and look at examples from a broader population of shooters. For sports,
Sportsshooter.com is worth checking out. Click on any photographer profile and view their work. I believe all were shot with either NIkon or Canon tools. Check the classified and you'll find one Pentax item.
For birds and wildlife, simply go to the
Avian gallery or the
Editor's Picks of the Nature Photographers Network and randomly click on what looks to be good. Pentax is represented by less than 1% of everyone. That doesn't mean that Pentax makes lousy stuff; it just means that other brands are used more frequently by a broad base of talented shooters who publish there. It's about technical capabilities of the cameras and broader lens choices available so you can get the shot
consistently. The brand itself doesn't matter, though there is a strong correlation between brand market presence and support services available.
Most of this is irrelevant for the majority of members here--their requirements (including budget) are simply less severe and a K-5 and a Bigma will bring satisfactory results. But for a handful of others it does matter, and with time and success the path almost inevitably leads to whoever makes the best tools. Personally I wish there were four or five brands to choose from for capturing action as both Nikon and Canon have bothersome constraints in their body and lens lineups.
M
The problem with this type of logic, is, if you have one brand at 5% market share, and another two at 40, then each of the main two brands should have 8 times the number of images as the smaller company, just by virtue of more shooters. That also means that if there's to be a "best in class" image, they are 8 times as likely to have one of those shots taken with thier camera even if the cameras are exactly the same. A few people said Pentax is not good at predictive focus, and looking at some of my pictures, my dog , moving straight towards me is always at the front of the area in focus, what I haven't seen would be even one image to suggest any other camera is different. The only other mention I've heard of this is sa guy with a K-30 took s few images with the bird in question, coming towards him and some of the in focus DoF was ahead of the bird, indicating predictive tracking. SInce that is what we are talking about, maybe that's what we should focus on, images with narrow DoF in which you can see from teh ground underneath the object where the DoF is. As I said with my K-5 therewas no evidence of predictive focus.
But I only have my own images so I'd like to see some image where there is clearly predictive focus at work.
For example in this image, there was about a 5 foot depth of field, but the dog clearly almost moved out of the DoF before the picture was taken. If the camera really has predictive tracking one third of the DoF should be in front of the Dog, two thirds should be behind him. That would be the type of image you'd need to prove predictive tracking in AF.