[BigDave]

If you are looking for tilt shift lenses, you might as well go whole hog! Here's what's on my wish list for this (and they have mounts for K bodies).

Attached Images

 

[AquaDome]

I'm not living the glamorous life traveling the world shooting bikini models, but I get paid to take photos all day, every day with a Pentax K-3. I have traveled, photographed rock bands, telecommunications facilities, boat races, cars, RVs, construction equipment, cows, one wedding (never again), and a few family reunions. Now I do product photography in an auction house. The Pentax is paying my bills. I started with a Canon, but it was too plastic and fragile, so I bought a Nikon. I loved the Nikon, but the menu system was too difficult to navigate without sitting down and spending some time with it when I needed to change something. The K-3 with an Eye-Fi Mobi Pro card is a perfect fit for what I do.

[Outis]

So, I haven't read all six pages of this thread, but I thought I would weigh in on the OP.

My thought is, if you're only driven by this vague feeling that you "should" invest in better camera equipment, and you're not driven by a specific need or a specific set of needs, you shouldn't be investing in more camera equipment at this time. The only time to invest in new/better camera equipment is because you've run up against the limitations of your current gear. For instance, you're a landscape shooter using the 18-55, but there are shots you wish you could get but can't because you're lens isn't wide enough. Time to buy a wide-angle lens. You shoot portraits of people, but it's hard relying on the ambient light for good lighting. So, you buy an off-camera flash. And so on. This way, you're not going to waste money on gear you don't need, and you're going to have a much more nuanced idea of what you're looking for when you buy the gear you do need.

[macman24054]

So, I haven't read all six pages of this thread, but I thought I would weigh in on the OP.

My thought is, if you're only driven by this vague feeling that you "should" invest in better camera equipment, and you're not driven by a specific need or a specific set of needs, you shouldn't be investing in more camera equipment at this time. The only time to invest in new/better camera equipment is because you've run up against the limitations of your current gear. For instance, you're a landscape shooter using the 18-55, but there are shots you wish you could get but can't because you're lens isn't wide enough. Time to buy a wide-angle lens. You shoot portraits of people, but it's hard relying on the ambient light for good lighting. So, you buy an off-camera flash. And so on. This way, you're not going to waste money on gear you don't need, and you're going to have a much more nuanced idea of what you're looking for when you buy the gear you do need.

This is the perfect approach for a business that is efficient and STAYS in business.

[normhead]

So, I haven't read all six pages of this thread, but I thought I would weigh in on the OP.

My thought is, if you're only driven by this vague feeling that you "should" invest in better camera equipment, and you're not driven by a specific need or a specific set of needs, you shouldn't be investing in more camera equipment at this time. The only time to invest in new/better camera equipment is because you've run up against the limitations of your current gear. For instance, you're a landscape shooter using the 18-55, but there are shots you wish you could get but can't because you're lens isn't wide enough. Time to buy a wide-angle lens. You shoot portraits of people, but it's hard relying on the ambient light for good lighting. So, you buy an off-camera flash. And so on. This way, you're not going to waste money on gear you don't need, and you're going to have a much more nuanced idea of what you're looking for when you buy the gear you do need.

Sounds like a plan to me.

Some people seem to content to let companies like Nikon and Canon define their needs. ie. "Canon makes a tilt shift so i must need it." That's backwards.

Those of us who have actually used tilt shift cameras are not so confused. It's a nice to have kind of thing, but it's time consuming, and unless you have a client who is actually going to pay you for the extra work getting the image you want, it will reduce your hourly wage, not increase it. There's a lot of tilt shift work i see on the net that would have been better shot with a non tilt camera. The fact that it's there doesn't mean people understand how to make best use of it.

[Outis]

This is the perfect approach for a business that is efficient and STAYS in business.

Thanks for the vote of confidence! I'm only a hobbyist, but this is the approach I've taken when it comes to buying gear. I have spent a lot of money on my kit, but at the same time, everything in my bag sees regular use. And now that my gear handles pretty much every situation I could conceivably shoot given my current interests, I've stopped buying gear. No LBA for me!

[Poit]

Wow. My ears are burning. Because I shoot weddings at an increasing rate over the last 2.5 years with nothing but Pentax bodies. My customers are yet to complain. The lack of lens selection for Pentax, be it modern or legacy is just plain false. I carry and use 3 bodies to every wedding I shoot. I carry with me 17-50 2.8, 28-75 2.8, 50-135 2.8, 35 2.4, two 50's, 85 1.4 and 135 2.5. I have yet to use every lens I carry at a single wedding. Not to mention the other 8 lenses that set at home in my camera cabinet. It is the person behind the camera that is the most important factor in the end result. The camera is just a tool. On any photo sharing website and on this forum you will find plenty of photos taken with Pentax cameras that are as good and sometimes better than photos taken Canikon.

Well, good for you! I'm glad you and your customers are both happy. So, if you were starting out and had no equipment would you go with Pentax gear? Seriously?

The OP asked for opinions, and I gave mine. Until very recently, there was no FF in the Pentax line-up, which made low-light situations (dark chapels & receptions) a stressful experience with less-than optimal results. I'm an available-light shooter, and prefer not to use flash if it all possible. So, high ISO shooting and fast, quality glass is the order of the day for me. Not to mention reliable AF...

With Pentax the K-3 is workable but not ideal. With the K-1, the glass isn't there yet, nor is the AF.

And before anyone says 'why don't you just switch brands', I will repeat myself: the OP asked for opinions. Sorry if mine spoils your day.

---

Last edited by Poit; 11-13-2016 at 10:38 PM.

[lithedreamer]

I'm an available-light shooter, and prefer not to use flash if it all possible.

This is a big source of your stress.

[Poit]

This is a big source of your stress.

True, but it gives better and more true-to-life results.

[clackers]

True, but it gives better and more true-to-life results.

Well ...

The best portrait photographers of our age would disagree.

In fact, if your portfolio didn't show mastery of flash techniques, you've probably crossed yourself off almost every editor's shortlist for a job, right there!

[lithedreamer]

True, but it gives better and more true-to-life results.

If you say so. I took these a couple of hours ago with flash. The alternative would have been cranking the ISO up from 100-400 to 256000 on my K-1. Never enough ambient light in the house!

[Poit]

Well ...

The best portrait photographers of our age would disagree.

In fact, if your portfolio didn't show mastery of flash techniques, you've probably crossed yourself out of almost every editor's mind, right there!

OK, so Pentax flash is behind the competition too. Happy?

I actually disagree with you. Flash is useful and important, but given the choice most, if not all, would opt for available / natural light. Particularly in a wedding scenario.

FYI, one of the 'best portait photographs' of our age is The Afghan Girl....no flash in sight

[lithedreamer]

OK, so Pentax flash is behind the competition too. Happy?

I actually disagree with you. Flash is useful and important, but given the choice most, if not all, would opt for available / natural light. Particularly in a wedding scenario.

FYI, one of the 'best portait photographs' of our age is The Afghan Girl....no flash in sight

In what way have you found Pentax flash limiting?

[clackers]

I actually disagree with you. Flash is useful and important, but given the choice most, if not all, would opt for available / natural light. Particularly in a wedding scenario.

FYI, one of the 'best portait photographs' of our age is The Afghan Girl....no flash in sight

Steve McCurry is a photojournalist, Poit ... because there are better portrait takers than him, he won't get many of those jobs.

You should check out the work of people like Mark Seliger, Joel Grimes, Annie Liebowitz, Chase Jarvis, Benjamin von Wong, David Chappelle, Mario Testino, Dan Winters, et al for technique and art.

All of us hobbyists *begin* shooting with available light, but if that's all we can ever do ...

[Poit]

Oh my giddy aunt, this place should be called Pentax Defence Forum.

I give up. Enjoy your gear folks. Pentax is without a doubt the best pro gear available. All the additional lens options are superfluous, autofocus speed and accuracy is a myth, and why anyone doing paid photography work with anything but Pentax is beyond my comprehension.