[Tom M]

There is not one Canon or Nikon system that I am truly impressed with today. Maybe my tastes are above and beyond so instead of spending tons of money on sub-par equipment, I bought Pentax which is honestly priced for an honest product.. I think you should switch. Pissing money away is fun!!

[TaoMaas]

I don't disagree, BUT let's not build imaginary walls either. As I said earlier, and as stewart has also said, the bride and wedding party are not exactly moving at 200 miles per hour

Yeah, that's why I said "true" walls because there are areas where Pentax doesn't compete that well, like in flash control as someone pointed out earlier. One of the guys I had in mind had been shooting with a 6X7, but needed to go digital for a book project. The K10D didn't exist yet, so it was a fairly easy decision.

[pentaxkman]

wow, this is getting a little more heated than i intended...

i'll respond fully here shortly.

[Lowell Goudge]

Unless I am missing something here, people are, or seem to be saying that wedding photography has evolved to the point wherre clients are won or lost by the lucky shot that might never happen, "get images with just the right amount of blur on the dress during the dance, while keeping the eyes in focus," etc, and shoot machine gun style on the hope (perhaps prayer) that they are lucky enough to capture the perfect moment.

Also, as someone else has said, they believe the pentax image quality and pentax lenses are superior to the competition. what will win you more jobs, a low light low percentage photo that is as described above at just the right moment, or consistently better image quality and color. I would prefer the latter, because yoou will get it more often.

At one time, wedding photography, and probably fashon photography (although I have never tried it) is about your ability to manage people, and get them to do what you want naturally, almost subconciously. I'm sure the really successful wedding photographers do just this. Its not about equipment at all

---

Last edited by Lowell Goudge; 02-22-2008 at 10:43 AM.

[Peter Zack]

There is not one Canon or Nikon system that I am truly impressed with today. Maybe my tastes are above and beyond so instead of spending tons of money on sub-par equipment, I bought Pentax which is honestly priced for an honest product.. I think you should switch. Pissing money away is fun!!

I find that statement somewhat odd Tom. If you're simply looking at the options vs cost then I guess that makes sense. Even Pentax doesn't "give" their lenses away cheap even if the bodies are more reasonable. But all the major brands, N,C,P,O,S etc offer some truly amazing equipment, lenses and systems. Every brand has it's weak links but we are spoiled rotten compared to 5-10 years ago.

[pentaxkman]

Well, I think that it is safe to say that wedding photography had changed some. I can't say for sure, as I wasn't shooting weddings on the 80's or even the 90's. But if you look at the images being produced, there are differences.

There is a lot more PJ style shooting going on, and its what a lot of clients expect. I am not a full time pro, but I am part time and enough that I feel I need equipment that will do some of the more demanding things. While I do feel that Canon and Nikon are a little expensive, I think that there are some things they do better, as has become more obvious to me.

While I do feel that the image quality is a little better with Pentax, I don't think it is so significant that it far outweighs the competition. With post processing, I think most people would be hard put to tell the differences in lenses and sensors, given they are at least close in quality level.

And sometimes there is more to it than just the IQ. If I have split second chance to catch a moment, and the AF fails to lock, then it doesn't matter what the IQ is. An OOF shot is no good no matter what the IQ or color representation is.

Now, this isn't the same for everyone. For some people, using MF taking their time to do everything right to get that perfect image is just fine. for others, like sports shooters, I think that the highest priority is nailing the shot. While I am not saying that wedding photography is like sports, it is less static than it used to be, from my observations.

I would love to stay with Pentax. Its the brand I learned on, and I think some of their glass is wonderful. But I looking at it more from the perspective of a tool, and does it do what I think I need to do my job that way it needs to be done? The AF issue is a non-issue for a lot of the time. But there are enough situations where I think it could be harmful that I think that Pentax may not be the tool for me, regrettably. Time will tell...

[afs760bf]

At one time, wedding photography, and probably fashon photography (although I have never tried it) is about your ability to manage people, and get them to do what you want naturally, almost subconciously. I'm sure the really successful wedding photographers do just this. Its not about equipment at all[/QUOTE]

Not necessarily disagreeing in principle, but if you take a look at what's happening in wedding photography today:

Wedding Photojournalist Association® | WPJA® | Wedding Photojournalism Photos and Wedding Photographers Resources | Reportage and Candid

You'll see that the shots are not necessarily the type that can be obtained by managing people any more. It's about "capturing the moment." I hate that phrase, by the way

[benplaut]

I'm ashamed at the replies in this thread... someone pointed it out on "the other forum" last night, and I'll point it out again!

Pentax has fairly crappy autofocus. That's a fact, corroborated by many people. Why the hell are you telling someone to use manual focus, or that "manual focus was fine in the past, autofocus is a gift from above!?" It doesn't make a lick of sense--the market for photography equiptment is highly competitive, and this is an area where Pentax clearly falls behind. It's a rather important area, and some people are willing to live with the consequences (IE, you folks using MF or just living with so-so SAVOX). If fast AF is a first priority, Pentax may not be the brand for you. Then again, if you're willing to learn the workarounds--focusing on the contrasty spots, etc, it does a decent job. Not as good as Canon, Nikon, or even Sony, but it's certainly sufficient for people shots. I regularly shoot at below 5EV, and in the beginning it really pissed me off. Still, it was unwise at that point for me to switch systems, so I decided to live with it. Now, after nearly a month of missed and misfocused shots, I'm finally figuring out how it all works.

So, is it worth screwing up a month's worth of pictures to figure it out? That's for you to decide.

[TaoMaas]

I don't mean to be harsh, but if you had a Canon 5D and that wasn't enough camera for you, then that's a huge clue that the answer to your dilemna isn't equipment based. You already owned about as good a DSLR as there was and you still felt you needed something else. It's not the gear...sorry.

[pentkon52]

I have two systems, Nikon and Pentax.
Nikon, only due to the fact that when i wanted to go digital for my horse shows, Nikon had the equipment and Pentax did not. I hate holding the Canons, so that was a no brainer. I up graded Nikon gear as it came out, and when Pentax finally got in the sand box to play, i bought into their systems as i used Pentax film cameras since 1971, and wanted to stay with them..

I take both to the shows, and both on photo trips. Lenses i have in Nikon, i don't in Pentax etc, so i wind up shooting scenes with two cameras a lot. The K10D is fine for doing action shots in the ring, but the Nikons do a great job, and feel better, if that makes sense.

No need to abandon your 5D. Just find out what works best for you in your situations. If you can afford to keep em both, my suggestion is to do so. If not work the Pentax and see if there are more pros or cons, then make a decision on what to keep.

Dave

[Lowell Goudge]

At one time, wedding photography, and probably fashon photography (although I have never tried it) is about your ability to manage people, and get them to do what you want naturally, almost subconciously. I'm sure the really successful wedding photographers do just this. Its not about equipment at all

Not necessarily disagreeing in principle, but if you take a look at what's happening in wedding photography today:

Wedding Photojournalist Association® | WPJA® | Wedding Photojournalism Photos and Wedding Photographers Resources | Reportage and Candid

You'll see that the shots are not necessarily the type that can be obtained by managing people any more. It's about "capturing the moment." I hate that phrase, by the way

With the exception of the dance shots, I would suggest that every one of the shots is posed, or pure liuck. While I agree they may be what is selling today, I think what you are really suggesting is that the way forward is to have 3-4 assistants each armed with a DSLR randomly shooting the entire crowd. Otherwise, you could not cover enough places by yourself to get it all. If that is what it has evolved into, I'm glad I didn't do more weddings.

In the "old days" many of these shots are what you got from the guests.

ps. no need to SHOUT

How much has changed since I shot a wedding with Manual focus? people took photos for years with out AF at all.

True......

and



I find that I use manual focus far more than I do AF.

I simply feel that I need to operate the camera system and not vice versa.

Now, having said that, I don't do weddings and AF may be the do all, end all when it comes to shooting weddings.

[pentaxkman]

I don't mean to be harsh, but if you had a Canon 5D and that wasn't enough camera for you, then that's a huge clue that the answer to your dilemna isn't equipment based. You already owned about as good a DSLR as there was and you still felt you needed something else. It's not the gear...sorry.

Hmm... I don't think I ever said that the 5D "wasn't enough camera" for me.

As I said in the original post, the lure of having IS on all my lenses and having my money go a little farther overall was what prompted me to try a change.

The 5D was an amazing camera, and I may still regret selling it. I just didn't feel that the IQ that it offered was so much above the K10D that it justified it's nearly 3x price. So I thought I'd try something new. Don't think it is going to work out.

I'm not a full time pro, so price/performance ratio is important. This time I don't feel that price advantage was enough to justify the performance loss in an area I deem important. Oh well. you win some and you lose some. After all, it is just a camera, right? Its all about what fits and works best for what you do.

[stewart_photo]

(snip) ...the case is very simple: If reliable/fast AF and accurate exposure are essential to you (alone??), then just go back to Canon.

Of course, buying a Canon camera like yours solves everything, doesn't it, RiceHigh? Lets see what other Canon users have to say about that by peeking at some of the many messages about various focusing problems with various current or recent Canon cameras...

- Canon Europe Issues Statement: Canon EOS-1D Mark III AF

- Enough About the AF Problems In Every Thread (Canon EOS-1D/1Ds/5D Forum)

- Canon Discovers AF Glitch (Canon EOS 20D, EOS-1D Mark II)

- Canon 400D AF problem (back-focusing)

- Canon 10D Focus Tese (Canon EOS 10D Focusing Problems)

- 20d Long Range Af Problem? (Canon EOS 20D Focusing Issue)

- Autofocus Challenge (Low Light)(Canon 350D)

- Focus Issue (Canon EPS 20D)

- 1D Mark II - Focusing Problems? (Low Light)

A quick search revealed hundreds, perhaps thousands, of such messages all over the internet. While we're at it, lets also see what Canon users say about various exposure problems with current or recent Canon cameras...

- What's wrong with exposure histograms? (Canon EOS 5D)

- Banding problem with Canon 5D (Canon USA Letter)

- Canon EOS 300D Exposure Problems

- Canon EOS 400D Exposure Problems

- Canon D30 Over Exposure Problem

- Exposure Problem With Canon 20D

- Underexposure (Canon D-30)

- Exposure Problem (Canon EOS 20D)

- Exposure Problems (Canon EOS 350D)

Again, hundreds, perhaps thousands, of such messages. Clearly, in spite of your particular preference for Canon cameras (owning an EOS 5D yourself), Canon cameras are not immune to little issues here and there. Gee, I guess that would make them very similar to Pentax cameras in that regard.

stewart

[Peter Zack]

I think the Navy calls that a "direct hit"!!

pentaxkman, if you haven't guessed, our dear friend Rice High is a little less than revered around these parts.
Pentax may or may not suit your needs but you may just want to give yourself a bit more time and practice to get used to it's way of operating. Each system has it's quirks and with some time, you may find that it does just fine before you go dumping/loosing another ton of money switching again.