[falconeye]

I read on a photo magazine about an interview to a Nikon engineer who designed and created the F5. He said there are two type of subjects on Earth which are the most challenging to the AF system (tracking ability) of a SLR. Do you know what he stated? Kids and Monkeys!

Nice quote!

But what's about the Peregrine Falcon? I found it VERY challenging to keep it tracked with my K20D's AF.C when he approached at a measured 320 km/h ...

[Old Timer 56]

It always amuses me to read posts about how such and such a camera has slow autofocus or has slow fps compared to other models. When I began as a newspaper photographer over 50 years ago, there was no such thing. I used two Contax IIA rangefinders and a Nikon SP for sports (it took me a while to convince the editor that the Speed Graphic the paper provided was maybe not the best tool for action), each with a different lens with the distance preset. Cameras were all-manual, auto nothing whatsoever. No zooms either. For some reason, we didn't know we were deprived. For sports we learned about the game and learned how to anticipate the action.

I'm sort of semi-retired now and rarely shoot for paying clients. But I wouldn't want to go back to the "good old days". My tired eyes (and brain) really need autofocus now and I've really come to rely on SR. But I almost never use continuous shooting mode. Rather, I still try to understand the action and sort of work with it, just as years ago. Occasionally I miss but not often.

I currrently use two K10D bodies and the three "pancake" lenses and I'm very happy with them all. Had a BF problem with the 21mm DA but Pentax fixed that. Still, if I were still a full-time PJ, I would probably shoot with a Nikon DSLR and zoom lenses. But for my purposes nowadays, Pentax does just fine and fits my current budget.

One final thought. Great photos can be captured with any camera. Some may be better at particular applications than others (or at least easier to use). But if you don't have the skills, it doesn't matter what camera you have. This is not intended as a reflection on the skills of the OP or anyone else but I believe it's just as true today as it was when I began.

Richard

[Wheatfield]

Amateurs can still ask for better or even the best things, can't they?

Amateurs tend to have higher standards than pros. The studio I partner with is still using Nikon D70s for a lot of work.
We don't care if the "IQ" is the highest, since we aren't pixel peeping looking for problems, we just want to sell portraits.
Amateurs buy what they can afford, the well heeled ones can afford more, and tend to be less satisfied, especially now that they can go to bitching and whining websites to have their complaints justified.
Pros tend to use what they have, and have to justify every purchase to their accountants, amateurs buy what they can afford, and don't have to justify anything.

[Wheatfield]

Pentax are a company building marketshare they aren't doing to badly either.

Pentax is a company that pissed away a huge marketshare advantage a couple of decades ago, saw no reason to try to do anything about it for the past 15 years, and put themselves in a position where they either accepted a buyout from a larger company (Hoya) or most likely go bankrupt.
They aren't doing that badly?
HAR!!!
They have gone to great lengths to commit suicide, and have only recently realized that playing brinksmanship with their corporate lives is stupidity in the extreme.
I expect that their change of heart was caused by the Hoya people coming in and bitchslapping the lot of them, from the president right down the line to the guy that mops the floor at night.

[reeftool]

Pentax gives you a very camera for the price. Nobody offered the features the K10D had for any where near the 700 dollar price. The K20D, although priced a little higher is still a lot of camera for the money. I don't really care if Pentax does or doesn't make a three thousand dollar camera to compete with high end Canons and Nikons because I won't buy it anyhow unless I win the lottery. I agree they should advertise their products because I think they are relying too much on customer loyalty and that can only carry you so far. They need to sell cameras to a younger generation that didn't grow up shooting with Pentax film cameras and they are doing nothing to to attract those customers.

[Confused]

Hi Wheatfield

I'm afraid I only had a rudimentary grasp of the serious situation which Pentax's finances were in when Hoya eventually came to their rescue. From what I could ascertain, Pentax's main problem seemed due to an inexplicably deep-seated resistance to change, exhibited by certain short-sighted/stubborn Board members, who thought that the best policy was to simply stick their corporate heads in the sand and pretend everything was just tickety-boo !

I believe the underlying reason why the company got into such terrible financial trouble in the first place is that the Board of Directors at Pentax totally failed to grasp the full implication of the seismic digital juggernaut that was about to hit them head-on, in a market-place full of conventional 35mm film cameras. It's as though their management team became temporarily dazzled by the full beam of the oncoming headlamps and literally froze on the spot in abject terror, not knowing which way to jump !

Best regards
Richard

[oxford_artist]

Amateurs tend to have higher standards than pros. The studio I partner with is still using Nikon D70s for a lot of work.
We don't care if the "IQ" is the highest, since we aren't pixel peeping looking for problems, we just want to sell portraits.
Amateurs buy what they can afford, the well heeled ones can afford more, and tend to be less satisfied, especially now that they can go to bitching and whining websites to have their complaints justified.
Pros tend to use what they have, and have to justify every purchase to their accountants, amateurs buy what they can afford, and don't have to justify anything.

It always amuses me to read posts about how such and such a camera has slow autofocus or has slow fps compared to other models. When I began as a newspaper photographer over 50 years ago, there was no such thing. I used two Contax IIA rangefinders and a Nikon SP for sports (it took me a while to convince the editor that the Speed Graphic the paper provided was maybe not the best tool for action), each with a different lens with the distance preset. Cameras were all-manual, auto nothing whatsoever. No zooms either. For some reason, we didn't know we were deprived. For sports we learned about the game and learned how to anticipate the action.

I'm sort of semi-retired now and rarely shoot for paying clients. But I wouldn't want to go back to the "good old days". My tired eyes (and brain) really need autofocus now and I've really come to rely on SR. But I almost never use continuous shooting mode. Rather, I still try to understand the action and sort of work with it, just as years ago. Occasionally I miss but not often.

I currrently use two K10D bodies and the three "pancake" lenses and I'm very happy with them all. Had a BF problem with the 21mm DA but Pentax fixed that. Still, if I were still a full-time PJ, I would probably shoot with a Nikon DSLR and zoom lenses. But for my purposes nowadays, Pentax does just fine and fits my current budget.

One final thought. Great photos can be captured with any camera. Some may be better at particular applications than others (or at least easier to use). But if you don't have the skills, it doesn't matter what camera you have. This is not intended as a reflection on the skills of the OP or anyone else but I believe it's just as true today as it was when I began.

Richard

Well said both of you!

For critical focus, I still use manual. I don't need machine gun speed for my work. I'll be sticking with Pentax thanks. It does the job at the right price.

[OniFactor]

RH, if a consumer wants high FPS to capture their children in such a moment...


they should get a video camera. or a P&S with video capture.

seriously, machine gunning off at 10+fps doesn't really help such a person, because, at 10fps, the viewfinder goes black. if you're a consumer, you're just gonna point and click, and won't have the idea of 'maybe i should track the action.'

also, what do you think 10fps can achieve, capturing pictures of children and pets, that 3fps with a good buffer can't?

[babelphotos]

I took exactly the same strategy as yours. But I got a Canon 5D instead. However the real problem is: after using the 5D and compared to the Pentax DSLRs, I used less and less the Pentax as the camera performance difference, image quality difference are so obvious.

Honestly speaking, even sometimes I really need to carry a more compact DSLR and I did want a built-in flash, I still hesitated to pick up my Pentax or not owing to the above two simple reasons.

Canon 5D is at 3fps........
10.2 Mpixel CMOS.......
And it cost twice as much.
I tested it and wasnt impressed at all. 15% of the pics i took were out of focus...not by a little...by a lot. And i used a "top of the line" USM lens with shake reduction in it (a 70-210 f2.8 ). For me it was just another bad experience again with Canon.
Naturally the seller got some lame excuse about the camera being a demo!!!

Nope if Pentax goes, i will jump with Nikon

[kent vinyard]

Boy do I love this -- Everyone blasting the OP for changing systems and he didn't even bad mouth Pentax. At the same time several posters said that if the D3 or D300 or D700 was in their budget they would buy one--go figure? Please no more lame excuses that if you are a good photographer you could work around the weaknesses of Pentax. I have been a free lancer for over 25 years and have used canon, nikon and Pentax and I can get excellent results with my K10 but, there are some thing I just cannot do with slow af tracking and slow fps that I can do with my D2H. Machine gunning is not the answer. it is the focus tracking and the fact that Pentax slows down in afc. once again I will say that if Pentax had introduced the K20 with better af tracking and 6 fps this post would not even happen! I will keep my Pentax gear for now, and wait and see what this fall brings. I would love to buy a Pentax that has improved fps and af tracking and I know that there are a lot of others on this forum that would also. just my 10 cents.

[oxford_artist]

Boy do I love this -- Everyone blasting the OP for changing systems and he didn't even bad mouth Pentax.

No and yes. No, no one's blasted the OP, and yes, he did bad mouth Pentax. He's entitled to his view, some of us have a different view because we have different needs, no one shouted at him because his needs are different.

May I recommend another look at the preceding posts?

[falconeye]

[...] literally froze on the spot in abject terror, not knowing which way to jump [...]

I enjoyed the language

[kent vinyard]

Well I guess I just did not see where he bad mouthed Pentax--just said he was very dissapointed with the K20 specs. (as I was) and complained how long it was taking to get the mysterious DA60-250 into production. I was at almost the same point on the DA*300 f4.0 and finally got one aprox. 2 years after the announcement. Any way no need to defend Pentax, just wish him well and let it go.

[nasty nat]

I worked at the one in Dover.

That's one of those gray areas I think. To the average consumer, I'd say the lenses are the same because they mostly print 4x6's. But from the pictures I've seen and the reviews I've read on here, the Pentax 50-300 is in a different league.

Thanks, Good to know.

[egordon99]

First off I believe the 5D is 12MP and it costs twice as much as the K20D because it's a full frame sensor. Secondly either the lens or the camera body must have been busted.

My 40D and 70-200mm f/4 IS have NO problems nailing focus (and it does it very quickly as well) Ditto for my Sigma 30mm f/1.4, Canon 85mm f/1.8, Canon 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 IS, and Canon 17-85mm f/4-5.6 IS.

Canon 5D is at 3fps........
10.2 Mpixel CMOS.......
And it cost twice as much.
I tested it and wasnt impressed at all. 15% of the pics i took were out of focus...not by a little...by a lot. And i used a "top of the line" USM lens with shake reduction in it (a 70-210 f2.8 ). For me it was just another bad experience again with Canon.
Naturally the seller got some lame excuse about the camera being a demo!!!

Nope if Pentax goes, i will jump with Nikon

When I was debating making the switch to Canon, folks tried to warn me with the "Oh, Canon may autofocus quicker, but I heard it's not as accurate" line, and they were wrong. Quicker AND just as accurate.