Originally posted by builttospill As a photography professor at the university I have access to just about any gear I want, but I choose to use my K-1 over all of it. The K-1, and Pentax in general, meet more of my shooting needs than any other system. I've considered switching to Nikon's D5, but they don't have the FA Limited lenses and the lab tests I posted earlier don't give me a reason to. I don't care much for lab tests either, because I don't make a habit of shooting brick walls. That's why I posted real-world examples first, then went to lab tests second.
FA Limited lenses offer a distinct bokeh to images, but most of them are slow to focus, not the sharpest ones when shooting with them at the widest aperture and they have chromatic aberrations (quite bad some of them). I'm not considering FA Limited lenses as good lenses for weddings, at least not compared with the new Pentax zoom lenses. For street or for portraits on the other hand those FA Limited lenses will give some interesting results.
Originally posted by builttospill I respectfully disagree with you regarding showcasing images by posting them online, where we can view them on our phone or a monitor. Most of us know this is no replacement for large prints. If I really want to test equipment, I rent it, borrow it from a colleague, or check it out from the university. Real-world shooting beats viewing images online any day. It's 2018. Just about every brand with a kit lens will produce a adequate image when viewed on a mobile device's screen. I've never blamed my gear for any of my photographic shortcomings. None of the FA* lenses are mediocre, which is what I used on the K-1 in one of the three images.
Oh, but there are lots of benefits by posting images online. We can see:
- composition
- editing skills
- if the image was cropped or not by looking at the DOF, knowing also what lens was used
- the shooting conditions and which settings were applied if we have the exif (I can post an image taken at ISO 10.000 with almost no noise and I can post the same image taken at ISO 1000 with visible noise; all I changed was the shutter speed and the light I put on the model)
- if the photographer is an experienced one because sometimes turning the odds his favor can be spotted by looking at images
- etc.
And we can always print images if you provide the raw files of your test so that we can see for ourselves the quality of the noise. Proving the fact that the af from one camera is better than the one from other camera can be time consuming, but when comes to noise at high ISO... 2 tripods, 2 cameras with similar lenses (24-70mm let's say because all systems have this lens) and a dark room with mixed light is enough. And you have the cameras at your disposal.
Originally posted by builttospill A discussion about knowing the limitations of our gear shouldn't even occur between you and me; that's for beginners and weekend warriors. I'm familiar with some of your work, and it's very impressive. I mentioned choosing the right tool for the right job earlier, and I make a full-time living with my photography. I've never considered the Canon 85 mediocre, and never said so. I wasn't a fan of the 150-600 so I chose the Pentax 250-600 instead. Having experience with both lenses, I'm happy with my choice. That said, both lenses can do the job. If I own a mediocre kit lens and a high-end lens, I can get good results with both, but I'm leaving the kit lens behind every time. Because I get better results with better lenses, every time.
Let me say thank you first and continue by telling you that I'm not attacking anyone here. If we were face to face you would realise that I love to talk about photography and I shoot with anything I can put my hands on. I spend more than what K1 Mark II costs in renting gear from Fuji, Sony, etc. because I love how technology evolves. What I undestand from your initial post was that Normhead would have had greater images by having better lenses. What I was trying to say was that those better lenses would be even greater on a better camera than K1 (better for wedding, not in general). And since some people are sensitive when they hear the word Canon, let me refrase by adding K1 Mark II into discussion. As I said, to me there is no Pentax camera that can match Canon or Nikon for weddings and I gave my reasons why a few comments above. K1 Mark II seems to have an improved af.
Those who know the importance of a good af in some situations, weddings being among areas of photography where fast and accurate af are important by today standards (I specified today standards because at the end of the day you can shoot weddings with manual focus lenses),
will probably pay the 500$ and upgrade their K1 to K1 Mark II just for the benefit of the 5-10% improved af. And for someone who has invested 10.000$ in Pentax gear, paying those 500$ to get that 5-10% improved af may be the short term solution for continue shooting with Pentax. I'm saying short term because Pentax has to hurry a little to release some new fast prime lenses and it also has to upgrade the flash system.
For the one that has not invested a single dollar in gear and he wants to start shooting weddings, despite the fact that as I said, I really don't think that Pentax current gear can match Canon or Nikon for weddings, I can only recommend renting Pentax, Canon, Nikon, Sony, etc. and go shoot one wedding with each camera as an assistent, for free.
Originally posted by builttospill Wait? What? A full frame camera certainly offers some advantages over APS-C cameras, but investing in lenses will make a greater impact on photography than investing in a newer camera body or moving from APS-C to FF. Personally I prefer a FF, but there's nothing stopping professional wedding photographers from getting great results from an APS-C.
Read my comment where I mentioned Karl Taylor's experiment. There was nothing stopping him to get a very good product image with more than basic gear, but at the end of the shoot he said that as a professional photographer having the best tool for the job (product, fashion and comercial photography in his case) will allowed him to concentrate on composition and other stuff. I posted 2 random movies from Youtube so that you can see how some weddings in Romania looks like. I know that I'm able to shoot those weddings with K3/K1 and the Pentax 24-70mm f2.8 lens. The question is: am I willing to shoot with K3 or K1 and appeal on all my knowledge and experience in order to get the job done at every wedding for the next 3-5 years, or I invest in a proper gear to get the job done easier?
Originally posted by builttospill The 6D is a great example of sloppy AF. It has the same AF system as the Rebels up to the T6. As I mentioned earlier, the dual-pixel AF system Canon has been putting into more cameras has been a substantial upgrade in focus accuracy.
Yes it is, if you compare it to 5D Mark IV, D850, A7 III, D750, D810.
6D paid for all my gear and for all my trips from this year (that's more than 12.000$). I don't do photography for a living because I have a solid income doing what I like. I'm taking paid job not because I don't have money, but because:
1. I like challanges
2. I have other hobbies that can't pay for themself (watches for example)
Photography is a hobby that is auto financing and in the same time it relaxes me and gives me opportunity to meet new people, to socialise and to mantain my negotiating skills up to date.
None of my clients knows at the end of the day which images is taken with 5D Mark IV, with 6D or with K1 (I had my friend's K1 with me on 2 or 3 paid corporate portraits). I upgraded to 5D Mark IV despite the fact that I was satisfied with the results I was getting with 6D. After 8 months of using 5D Mark IV, I still can go and take paid job with 6D, but I have to appeal to my knowledge and experience to get the job done as fast and as good as I do it with 5D Mark IV.
Originally posted by builttospill The OP isn't asking about an action camera for sports for fast-moving subjects, they are asking about Pentax for weddings and portraits.
Agree. But a camera that is capable of consistent results when shooting sports or fast flying birds can always be handy for weddings, especially when you encounter difficult conditions. And you confirmed it when you said that D5 is fast and K1 is slow to focus. I know K1 is slow to focus despite the fact that is accurate when you give it time to lock focus. The things I didn't agree with you were (still are): the sloppy af on 5D Mark IV and its terrible noise.
---------- Post added 05-11-18 at 09:01 AM ----------
Here is the short video of Karl Taylor that I was talking about. He is using Broncolor lights and modifiers with a Hassleblad camera. But for this image he used a DSLR with desk lamps. This sums up pretty well what I was trying to say from the begining, and that is: you can get great results with mediocre gear, but when comes to consistency, when comes to dealing with tough situations, when comes to spending less time editing images due to the inconsistency of your flash in TTL for example, then you invest in proper gear for the kind of job that you do. If it would have been available one camera suited for everything, we wouldn't have so many options to choose from depending on what we're shooting. I understand and I agree with everybody who say that K1 is a great camera, but we have to be honest and specify where K1 is great (landscape, portraits) and where is behind competition (weddings, sports, wildlife).
And since I mentioned again and again Karl Taylor, I do recommend Karl Taylor education platform to anyone. For 14$/month I don't think that you can find something better on internet. Here is the link to his website (
Karl Taylor Education | Photography training by Karl Taylor ). The nice thing is, if you don't like what you see, you don't have to pay the next month (you can leave anytime). Spending 14$ just for curiosity to see what you will find on his website worth every penny in my opinion.