[normhead]

Your daughter does not look fierce enough in that picture to tear anyone's head off. Your grand-daughter is quite another matter. I'd be wary there.



Unfortunately, the reductio ad absurdum of this position is nothing short of unhealthy. Applied uncritically and outside the confines of the scientific method, it constitutes neither non-judgementalism nor curiosity but an almost nihilistic level of moral and intellectual relativism that can be dangerous if practised by anyone in a position of authority.

Holy poop pathdoc... that's all I have to say about that.

I'd break that down to see if I agree.. but it's my nap time.

And as for my grand daughter, she's cut out to be a professional rugby player, they don't come any tougher than her.

Her sister however is in competitive gymnastics and ballet. One is refined and disciplined, the other just bowls you over with sheer force. I'm not sure how they got into the same family.

---

Last edited by normhead; 05-25-2015 at 12:09 PM.

[traderdrew]

Unfortunately, the reductio ad absurdum of this position is nothing short of unhealthy. Applied uncritically and outside the confines of the scientific method, it constitutes neither non-judgementalism nor curiosity but an almost nihilistic level of moral and intellectual relativism that can be dangerous if practised by anyone in a position of authority.

That is an interesting take on questioning everything. I agree questioning everything should be used within scientific circles. I choose not to run my life like that. Mainly because the truth can resonate within me when I hear it. Good post. You and I could probably have a few good conversations.

[normhead]

That is an interesting take on questioning everything. I agree questioning everything should be used within scientific circles. I choose not to run my life like that. Mainly because the truth can resonate within me when I hear it. Good post. You and I could probably have a few good conversations.

Oh lordy, what have we started...

[jsherman999]

Today I was attending my six year old niece's ballet recital with my K-3 and Tamron 17-50 f/2.8. As I took my seat up front, the person siting next to me said "that's a nice little camera you have there."He then showed me his "dream camera' - a Canon 70d and the "awesome zoom lens" - a Sigma 18-300. He wanted me to hold it to feel how solid it was. I politely declined by saying "I'm good" and "You have a great set up." I'm not even sure how I was supposed to react to the brash and uninformed Canon fanboy - we'll let them live in their delusion while we Pentaxians just keep taking high quality pictures with the most intuitive, ergonomic, brilliant and underrated photographic system in the world

K3 + Tamron 17-50 2.8 ( a very fine lens, I used to own one) is going to get you better IQ than the 70D + sigma 18-300. Better sensor, better (and faster) lens.

I guess the 70D might have a little better AF, although I don't know for sure about that, and it will have that slow, bad, extra 70-300mm for those tight, slightly soft nervouse-bokeh telephoto shots, if you absolutely have to have those. But given those two combos I know which one I'd shoot with.

[Rondec]

People make their choices. Most people haven't heard of Pentax. I've had as many people think that it was some kind of upper end camera (like Leica) based on the photos I get from mine.

I guess I question the super zoom choice more than the camera body choice. I guess it is one size fits all lens, but the whole point of having an interchangeable lens mount is having the opportunity to get different lenses for different situations. A low light setting (I assume this was relatively dark) certainly begs for a faster f stop than you would get with a super zoom. Canon makes some cheap primes that would fit the bill if nothing else did...

[normhead]

People make their choices. Most people haven't heard of Pentax. I've had as many people think that it was some kind of upper end camera (like Leica) based on the photos I get from mine.

I guess I question the super zoom choice more than the camera body choice. I guess it is one size fits all lens, but the whole point of having an interchangeable lens mount is having the opportunity to get different lenses for different situations. A low light setting (I assume this was relatively dark) certainly begs for a faster f stop than you would get with a super zoom. Canon makes some cheap primes that would fit the bill if nothing else did...

I think anyone on this forum would probably question that choice.... but there are some who love their super zooms. I can think of a few long time forum contributors who fit the stereotype. If you're my age, you think back to the day when super zooms were the greatest thing since sliced bread. I had a Tamron 35-300 macro Adaptall mount myself. I was in heaven for a few years, but it wore off with digital. Maybe a phase everyone has to go through. The thing is in those days, even when I had the 35-300, I still had my 55 1.8, and it was my "standard lens". The thing these days is, people get the superzoom before they see what a prime can do, and have no reference. Every now and then I'd get an image with the 55, and you didn't have to be a genius to know you couldn't get the same image with the zoom. There's a level of ignorance around now that wasn't around then. People just haven't seen what their camera can do.

With that old 55 1.8, I took some images indoors in existing light that would make ElJay or jshemrman or any of the guys who love narrow DoF happy, and I took some stopped down ƒ16 that would make any landscape photographer happy. I knew what the camera would do, I just needed more different FL lenses to be able to do it. These days with your 3.5 kit lenses, you don't even know what your camera will do.

If I still had the 55 1.8, I could still use it... I've had 3 18-55s, one I gave away and the other two sit on my shelf. Unlike the 55 that would always have a place in my bag, and was the start of my lens collection, what comes with your camera now, is not the start of your lens collection, it's what they sell you to convince you to buy the body, so you can start your lens collection. And for a lot of people, they may never figure that out.

No one sells a lens as kit these days, that lets you see the full range of what's possible with your format, like the 55 1.8 did.

A lot of the fascination with FF and narrow DOF these days, is because people have to discover it, it used to come standard.

[LensBeginner]

*snip*
Unfortunately, the reductio ad absurdum of this position is nothing short of unhealthy. Applied uncritically and outside the confines of the scientific method, it constitutes neither non-judgementalism nor curiosity but an almost nihilistic level of moral and intellectual relativism that can be dangerous if practised by anyone in a position of authority.

That's the key word, IMHO.
An uncritical application of mostly everything will result almost certainly in undesired outcomes.
Surely the "everything" in said phrase should be read as a hyperbole, and not taken ad litteram.
Even the innocent prescription "drink lots of water" has lead to a few unwanted and certainly unexpected deaths...

[Kerrowdown]

because people have to discover it, it used to come standard.

And some of us remember it (just) from the first time round, but I'm also quite looking forward to going back to rediscover it all over again when FF finally gets here.

[TheOneAndOnlyJH]

This mentality always perplexes me. Why would anyone choose a DSLR if it's their intent and desire to not change
lenses?

Just to throw another viewpoint into the mix...

I have the 18-135 WR which you may or may not consider a 'super-zoom'. I also have a few other lenses that I purchased later. If I could only choose one, it would be the 18-135. One of the major advantages is the WR, but even without that it's the most versatile lens range and can get me through just about any situation with one lens. I bought a K-3 + 18-135 kit knowing that I could add more specialized lenses in the future if it wasn't enough. One of my main intentions was to take pictures in my house without flash and with blurred backgrounds, so I've been salivating over faster lenses and now own a 28mm F/2.8, A 50mm F/1.7, A 35-105mm F/3.5, and a 70-300mm F/4.5-5.6. If I had purchased a bridge camera to start, I would now be lamenting the fact that I couldn't expand and I'd have to start over with a new system. By starting off with a 'super-zoom', I had my foot in the door and was able to add lenses cheaply as I found them on eBay.

I will readily admit that if I had a more brightly lit house and didn't need fast lenses or smooth bokeh, I could see myself being entirely satisfied with my 18-135 in almost all situations. Even now, there are many times when I would rather not switch lenses and take a chance of getting dust or sand in the body, so a super-zoom is quite logical on a vacation or outdoors where nature might throw something your way. Another user on these forums even went on a long trip and admitted he only used his 18-135 even though he had a DA* 55 with him, and I don't think I'd dare consider him a novice. (link)

Sometimes a super-zoom just works...

[Matthew Saville]

My response is always this: I had a canon/nikon a few years ago, I've been moving up every since.

I'm very much looking forward to writing an article along these lines for SLRLounge.com.

IMO, these days it's not even something to be proud of to say you shoot Canon, although Nikon does have a bit of a good thing going for them. Really, the hot ticket seems to be Sony and Fuji etc. Everybody is posting about how they've "dumped" their Nikon / Canon system for the lighter and smaller and high-tech mirrorless systems from....Sonuji? Fujony? I dunno. But as a hardcore adventure photographer, neither of them seems to offer me what I want. Pentax does.

So, I dumped all my Nikon DX gear, and am happily awaiting the K-3 II and a 16-85 WR, Rokinon 10mm f/2.8, and Rokinon 16mm f/2. And when the Pentax full-frame body arrives, I may even happily dump my Nikon D750, too...

The next time somebody looks at your Pentax and rolls their eyes or scoffs, just shrug it off and then make them weep with confusion when they see your images. ;-)

=Matt=

---------- Post added 05-27-15 at 09:57 AM ----------

That is an interesting take on questioning everything. I agree questioning everything should be used within scientific circles. I choose not to run my life like that. Mainly because the truth can resonate within me when I hear it. Good post. You and I could probably have a few good conversations.

Not in every way, but at least in some, I do choose to live by this. As a Nikon owner, and as someone with extensive experience with both Nikon and Canon, I felt "inescapably" attached to my Nikon system, until I reviewed the K-3 last year. It was only then that I realized I needed to question my status quo.

I very carefully tallied up my wishlist of things that would comprise the ultimate camera for me. Adding the O-GPS1 to the equation, Pentax had more of these things than any other, by far. (Side note, for those who are interested: I also realized that mirrorless systems, though they are all the rage right now, were actually WORSE than DSLRs for what I do. But that's a whole different discussion!)

Next, I very carefully weighed my budgetary options, considering such high-end and high-performance options from the recent Sony + Zeiss marriage. Pentax bodies made anything else look laughably over-priced, and even some of the budget Pentax lenses offered weather sealing. As I've mentioned elsewhere I do wish that Pentax had partnered with Tokina for a 11-16 2.8, like they allegedly did for the 12-24 f/4, but other than that, the system is awesome!

Finally, last but not least I very carefully studied the interface and customizations of the K-3 in particular, because customizability and specific functionality is extremely important to me. Lo and behold, I found the Pentax interface / experience to offer enough of what I needed, at least for landscape and adventure photography. (For weddings and portraits, IMO nothing beats the latest generation of Nikon bodies, and their incredible leap forward in face detection both while shooting and during image playback.)

So, there you have it. Question EVERYTHING. Sometimes. :-P

[TER-OR]

Encourage the noobs. They're just starting out and many novices have not really done much research. We can disparage the "mommy lenses" on T series bodies, but they're getting great pictures of their kids, and that's what matters. They may become more technical in the future, but maybe not. I'll often ask them if they've tried taking the camera out of auto, to get better control over their images and it's a mixed bag.

If they ask me, I'll tell them what I have, how I value ruggedness and weather resistance, macro lenses for insects, long telephotos (when I can afford one) and such. I'll say I grew up shooting manual film cameras and like to get into the "guts" of the camera settings - it's something I enjoy. If they haven't glazed over I'll mention I want to have the internal filters removed from this K5 once I upgrade the body so it can record into the infrared and ultraviolet. The cameras are incredibly powerful if you want to take the time to learn them. And they're powerful if you don't - the fast shutter, good autofocus and ISO performance beats other cameras whether you're tracking kids, dogs, airplanes or bees.

[Des]

What a funny and an interesting thread. A credit to the forum.

On the DSLR + superzoom topic, I was that guy for 6 years. After years of swapping lenses on a film SLR - and missing shots for that reason - I could operate with just one versatile lens. Hallelujah! At the time there was no bridge camera/p&S that could match the quality, and the camera (K100D Super) was pretty compact. The whole kit was very light compared to my film SLR, so I took it everywhere. Mostly shooting outdoors, generally in good light, the quality was quite sufficient. I got thousands of enjoyable shots. And I learnt a lot with it. I still think it was a better option than a couple of kit lenses. I don't think it was an irrational choice.

Sure my kit has gone up a grade now and the superzoom has gone back to being a travel lens. My only real regret about the superzoom-only days is that I didn't shoot RAW. So many good shots that could have been better.

Nowadays I'd probably point someone with the needs I had back then towards a mirrorless camera, but I still wouldn't disparage anyone who went with a DSLR + kit lenses or DSLR + superzoom. Room to grow, and good enough if it's all they want.

[stevebrot]

I'm not even sure how I was supposed to react to the brash and uninformed Canon fanboy

Easy! Show all the enthusiasm due to the proud owner of a new camera.


Steve

[MJSfoto1956]

I have to say, I have many good memories shooting with a Nikon D200 + 18-135mm Nikkor back just a few years ago -- and it was a great travel setup if you ask me even without VR or WR. Today, I would happily recommend a K-3 + 18-135mm as a superb travel camera. I have to imagine that Pentax will keep a lens in this range as it is such a "logical" range for the vast majority of people.

Michael

[Tony Belding]

Today, I would happily recommend a K-3 + 18-135mm as a superb travel camera.

Oooh, umm. . . Really?

To me a K-3 + 18-135mm seems rather big, heavy, expensive, and over-specified for a travel camera -- unless your idea of "travel" is a NatGeo expedition through the Congo or the Kalahari. That's not what comes to mind, for me, as a family vacation camera, to take on a road trip or a cruise.

For most people today, their travel camera is their smartphone -- and it will actually work pretty well within its natural limits: good light, no fast action, fixed focal length. The next big step up would be something like a Canon PowerShot G16 with optical zoom, 12 FPS burst, and OVF, and it will still fit in your pocket.

We've had some people predicting the demise of the DSLR. I don't think it's going away, but I do think the DSLR is the new medium format. They've become as big and heavy as medium format film cameras, and the only people who really need one are the pros who used to shoot 6X6cm or 6X7cm film every day. I suspect mirrorless system cameras (MILC / CSC / EVIL / whatever) will inherit the legacy of the 35mm SLR for amateurs and hobbyists. Pros will look down on them with disdain, while the phone-wielding masses are intimidated by their price and complexity.