Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
10-27-2008, 02:53 PM   #46
Veteran Member




Join Date: May 2007
Location: York Region Canada
Posts: 642
QuoteOriginally posted by kenyee Quote
Believe it or not, the last two Nikon wedding photogs (old film-timers) used their flashes in manual an auto-thyristor modes. I was a bit surprised to say the least. One of them claimed he didn't trust the nikon flash system so he always ran it that way..I tried to convince him to try full e-TTL w/ no luck; in his case, the D700's low-light capabilities and dynamic range easily trumped the K10D/K20D though...
I trust my Nikon flashes well over my Pentax gear. Besides my older D1 and D1H have a flash sync speed of 1/500 which allows for a cleaner shot when shooting indoor horse shows.

The sync speed of the K10D just does not cut it.

A lot more consistant results, all though the K10D and the 360 is better than what i had Pentax wise.

Dave

10-27-2008, 04:04 PM   #47
Pentaxian
Duplo's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Copenhagen
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 916
QuoteOriginally posted by kenyee Quote
Believe it or not, the last two Nikon wedding photogs (old film-timers) used their flashes in manual an auto-thyristor modes. I was a bit surprised to say the least. One of them claimed he didn't trust the nikon flash system so he always ran it that way..I tried to convince him to try full e-TTL w/ no luck; in his case, the D700's low-light capabilities and dynamic range easily trumped the K10D/K20D though...
Well I have had good results with the pTTL from pentax, but the iTTL or whatever and the Nikon CLS system has a consistancy that is quite a step above.
And the FV lock is something I do not know how I ever lived without.

However, if the distance between Speedlights and camera is odd or you work in very bright conditions, you may be using radio triggers and thus being forced to go full manual.
10-27-2008, 04:06 PM   #48
axl
Veteran Member




Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Nove Zamky, Slovakia
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 7,181
I have just spent nearly 1hr, reading this thread form first to last post... I have to say I'm speachles. Apples and oranges is what comes to mind. If somebody considers Pentax gear a "toy cameras", well I'm sorry. IMHO K10/20 are are in the same league as their competition. And sorry to say, but for many D80/90 or EOS30,40,50 are cameras of their dreams and not toys...
people keep moaning about ISO and cat farts in total darkness, and if we can capture it with 5 or 50 fps. Who cares. With K10/20 we can do all we need, but hey there comes another human factor - greed. I want to do more...
For all of you PROs who have money to spend, be happy with top end C&N&S supergear. For average joes like me, Pentax is best value for money without having to remortgage house...
Do D300,700 and D3 and their Canon alikes perform better?!? Well they bloody should for the money. I'm sure they are great cameras, better then K20. Having said that, K20 is not meant to be compared to them.
PS: after seeing what Ben Kanarek coud do with his K10, I know it's more of a camera then I'll ever need. If I'll get newer faster.... It's gonna be just greed, not need.
... just a quick thought...
10-27-2008, 04:08 PM   #49
axl
Veteran Member




Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Nove Zamky, Slovakia
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 7,181
QuoteOriginally posted by Duplo Quote
...And the FV lock is something I do not know how I ever lived without.....
but once you did live without it, and you could manage just well I bet...

10-27-2008, 04:28 PM   #50
Pentaxian
Duplo's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Copenhagen
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 916
QuoteOriginally posted by axl Quote
I have just spent nearly 1hr, reading this thread form first to last post... I have to say I'm speachles. Apples and oranges is what comes to mind. If somebody considers Pentax gear a "toy cameras", well I'm sorry. IMHO K10/20 are are in the same league as their competition. And sorry to say, but for many D80/90 or EOS30,40,50 are cameras of their dreams and not toys...
people keep moaning about ISO and cat farts in total darkness, and if we can capture it with 5 or 50 fps. Who cares. With K10/20 we can do all we need, but hey there comes another human factor - greed. I want to do more...
For all of you PROs who have money to spend, be happy with top end C&N&S supergear. For average joes like me, Pentax is best value for money without having to remortgage house...
Do D300,700 and D3 and their Canon alikes perform better?!? Well they bloody should for the money. I'm sure they are great cameras, better then K20. Having said that, K20 is not meant to be compared to them.
PS: after seeing what Ben Kanarek coud do with his K10, I know it's more of a camera then I'll ever need. If I'll get newer faster.... It's gonna be just greed, not need.
... just a quick thought...
Now I actually agree with you.
And if I have been giving you or anyone else the impression that the K10D/K20D is a toy camera or anything else, then I do ove quite a few here an apology.
I do however sincerely think that I have been saying smething down the same lines, a couple of times in this thread...
Including the ben K reference.

QuoteOriginally posted by axl Quote
but once you did live without it, and you could manage just well I bet...
True I did, it was meant as an example, nothing more.
Yes I did just as well, but getting there with less fuss is always nice.
Did you note my comment about the pTTL being not bad at all?

I think the fact that I have chosen to keep my pentax alongside the Nikon gear should tell you a lot about what I think of pentax and the results delivered from them.
10-27-2008, 04:33 PM   #51
Senior Member
Eigengrau's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Colorado
Photos: Albums
Posts: 250
QuoteQuote:
Why is it so dangerous to admit that there are better cameras out there, they are just more expensive.
I think this is a two way street my friends. Why can't you admit that there are things the K20 does well enough to be indistinguishable from the $3k Nikons?

I understand there are some benefits to the Nikon - autofocus being the big one in my mind. I am arguing, however, that there are circumstances, even low light ones, and even in weddings, where the advantage of the Nikon is negligible.

There's an article on Luminous Landscape about the fact that for some shots, a $500 Canon is, at print size, every bit as good as a $40,000 Hasselblad.

I think this is the case here also. Could I get faster autofocus, depth-of-field advantages, or some other tools with a more expensive Nikon? Yes. Does every wedding photographer need those? No. I can't agree that the Nikon is better in every case. Image stabilization may be more useful to me than super high iso. Imagine a scene where I want to follow a moving subject and have the background streaked - slower shutter speed and a stabilized image are exactly what you want here, and if your lens doesn't have VR you are out of luck. It might be better to have no monopod and stay unobtrusive in some situations. It might be worth it to have the extra $2k to spend on lenses.

Cameras are good enough now that the high end gives you diminishing returns. It is conceivable that you might be able to give your clients some more value by saving some money on the body and spending elsewhere, isn't it?

Sorry, my feeling is just that people are trying to justify their purchases by asserting that their investment is absolutely necessary, when the fact of the matter is that it isn't. It is a preference.
10-27-2008, 05:03 PM   #52
Pentaxian
Duplo's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Copenhagen
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 916
QuoteOriginally posted by Eigengrau Quote
I think this is a two way street my friends. Why can't you admit that there are things the K20 does well enough to be indistinguishable from the $3k Nikons?

I understand there are some benefits to the Nikon - autofocus being the big one in my mind. I am arguing, however, that there are circumstances, even low light ones, and even in weddings, where the advantage of the Nikon is negligible.

There's an article on Luminous Landscape about the fact that for some shots, a $500 Canon is, at print size, every bit as good as a $40,000 Hasselblad.

I think this is the case here also. Could I get faster autofocus, depth-of-field advantages, or some other tools with a more expensive Nikon? Yes. Does every wedding photographer need those? No. I can't agree that the Nikon is better in every case. Image stabilization may be more useful to me than super high iso. Imagine a scene where I want to follow a moving subject and have the background streaked - slower shutter speed and a stabilized image are exactly what you want here, and if your lens doesn't have VR you are out of luck. It might be better to have no monopod and stay unobtrusive in some situations. It might be worth it to have the extra $2k to spend on lenses.

Cameras are good enough now that the high end gives you diminishing returns. It is conceivable that you might be able to give your clients some more value by saving some money on the body and spending elsewhere, isn't it?

Sorry, my feeling is just that people are trying to justify their purchases by asserting that their investment is absolutely necessary, when the fact of the matter is that it isn't. It is a preference.
I think this is a slight quote out of context, at least if you tried actually reading
the whole thread and what I have been stating in the various posts.

Yes it is indeed a two way street, but traffic is mainly one way

Let me explain what I meant with the comment you at least partly quoted.

You will be able to find individual aspects or specific uses where i.e. a K10D will do as good or even better than say a D700, as you will find aspects where a D700 will do as good or better than a MFDB.

But overall I do not think we disagree on that the D700 is a more advanced and yes better camera, delivering ultimately better IQ than what is currently available from pentax. as the same is true in the case of a D700 vs. a MFDB.
That little extra comes at significant larger cost of the overall system and yes proportionally much larger than the extra quality or versatility gained.

What each of us have to do, is to consider the pros and cons of each format and decide what meets our needs and valet the best.
10-27-2008, 05:18 PM   #53
Inactive Account




Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Niagara, Wisconsin U.S. of Ay.
Posts: 394
Time and time again I wonder to myself, how many people spend their waking hours arguing / discussing camera performances instead of getting out there and taking pictures. I mean, just how many highly technical comparisons really make a huge difference when it comes to picture quality. I deem a person that has "that something" that makes a great photographer more important than some of these techno threads.

Sorry, but I think more is learned out in the field than a spec book.

JMO

10-27-2008, 05:25 PM   #54
Pentaxian
Wheatfield's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: The wheatfields of Canada
Posts: 10,043
QuoteOriginally posted by Duplo Quote

What each of us have to do, is to consider the pros and cons of each format and decide what meets our needs and valet the best.
And apparently not mention that all we want is a better Pentax, and are willing to pay for it. If other people aren't willing to pay for better cameras, they don't have to. That's why Canon Rebels, Nikon D90s and Pentax K20's exist. It would be nice to be able to be able to choose to buy a K mount camera that can play in the big boy's sandbox without getting sand kicked in it's face
10-27-2008, 05:27 PM   #55
Pentaxian
Wheatfield's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: The wheatfields of Canada
Posts: 10,043
QuoteOriginally posted by magnum1 Quote
Time and time again I wonder to myself, how many people spend their waking hours arguing / discussing camera performances instead of getting out there and taking pictures. I mean, just how many highly technical comparisons really make a huge difference when it comes to picture quality. I deem a person that has "that something" that makes a great photographer more important than some of these techno threads.

Sorry, but I think more is learned out in the field than a spec book.

JMO
Given equal skill sets, the photographer with the more responsive camera will bring home better pictures from the field every time.
10-27-2008, 06:39 PM   #56
Veteran Member
dantuyhoa's Avatar

Join Date: May 2007
Location: California
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,245
FWIW , I have always valued Duplo's posts . He is a long time Pentax user and I did learn quite a thing or two from his advices .
10-27-2008, 06:49 PM   #57
Site Supporter
Marc Langille's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: NW Arkansas, USA
Posts: 4,702
Agreed, and a question for Thomas....

Agreed with Duplo and Wheatfield. Didn't read the whole thread though... the bottom line is that there is too big a variance in price/features between the tier slot of a D700 and the K20D.

Sometimes I've struggled using Pentax in wildlife photography, but other times it's been quite good. A great deal depends on the shooting conditions. A more responsive camera (AF and FPS) only makes my work easier. As you know, a top notch camera is no substitute for mastering the tools.

That being said, I've managed to take a few nice images with Pentax...

Duplo/Thomas: what do you think would happen to both my image quality and my "keeper" rate if I started shooting with a D300 or better, and the best Nikkor lenses? I already use some of the best Pentax lenses has, so I thought it's an interesting question.

Regards,
Marc
10-27-2008, 07:20 PM   #58
Veteran Member




Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Norman, Oklahoma USA
Posts: 350
Marc,
I have seen enough of your work to know that you could get excellent results with an old K1000 if you had to. Better equipment just increases your keeper rate and helps to keep up with the competition. New and used lens availability is another reason to have Nikon or Canon. But better equippment won't help those that use sloppy technique. You know what I mean Marc and your work proves it. Your good technique produces excellent results no matter what equipment you use.
10-27-2008, 07:47 PM   #59
Site Supporter
Marc Langille's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: NW Arkansas, USA
Posts: 4,702
QuoteOriginally posted by kent vinyard Quote
Marc,
I have seen enough of your work to know that you could get excellent results with an old K1000 if you had to. Better equipment just increases your keeper rate and helps to keep up with the competition. New and used lens availability is another reason to have Nikon or Canon. But better equippment won't help those that use sloppy technique. You know what I mean Marc and your work proves it. Your good technique produces excellent results no matter what equipment you use.
Thank you Kent - actually my first 3 published images were with a K1000... and two were sports images...

I agree with your points - and hopefully it reminds folks that the image quality ultimately rests on the skill/knowledge of the photographer. Only the keeper rate is the issue that is more dependent on the camera's spec's (depending on it's application, of course).

Sincerely,
Marc
10-27-2008, 08:11 PM   #60
Pentaxian
Duplo's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Copenhagen
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 916
QuoteOriginally posted by Marc Langille Quote
Agreed with Duplo and Wheatfield. Didn't read the whole thread though... the bottom line is that there is too big a variance in price/features between the tier slot of a D700 and the K20D.
Agreed... the price variance is troublesome and make it a D3 and we ar talking a worrying variance in price. pretty much as worrying as the variance between 35mm and MFD.
QuoteOriginally posted by Marc Langille Quote
Sometimes I've struggled using Pentax in wildlife photography, but other times it's been quite good. A great deal depends on the shooting conditions. A more responsive camera (AF and FPS) only makes my work easier. As you know, a top notch camera is no substitute for mastering the tools.
Totally agree.
QuoteOriginally posted by Marc Langille Quote
That being said, I've managed to take a few nice images with Pentax...
Now you are being way too modest and you know that...
QuoteOriginally posted by Marc Langille Quote
Duplo/Thomas: what do you think would happen to both my image quality and my "keeper" rate if I started shooting with a D300 or better, and the best Nikkor lenses? I already use some of the best Pentax lenses has, so I thought it's an interesting question.

Regards,
Marc
That marc is probably the one question that I would hate to answer.
First of it would cost you a minor fortune, but you already know that.

Now say with a D300, wou would be at a status quo in terms of IQ.
Sure Nikon got a wide selection of Superteles that you would benefit from, but you already have something equal to most of them IIRC.
So your gain would be a more advanced AF system and more FPS.

Now with a D700/D3, you would gain some in the IQ Department (especially when we talk high DR and lower light), and an AF system as fast and advanced as it gets and in case of the D3 or D700+ grip quite a lot on the FPS front, however you would need some seriously expensive glass.

Your would be looking at lenses like the 200/2, 300/2.8, 400/2.8, 200-400/4 or 500/4 and for sure a 600/4 to get just some of the reach back.
All of these are VR so no issues there.

Now begin adding up and my guess is you would even out somewhere in the 20-30K range easily. Not to mention with a heavier kit than you already have.

The big question is if it will make a difference for you. I think it will, but enough to justify the cost? that is a question I have no real answer for.
Especially considering how skilled you are...

If I were the owner of any of the above which I am not as wildlife is not what I do, I would gladly have given you a go at my D3.
If we are ever in the same area that can be arranged, with at least a 70-200VR.

It may sounds as if I am trying to pursuade you either way, but I really am not.
I honestly think there is something to be gained in IQ, but I am not sure if you will loose it in terms of reach? and the D300 is not the right camera to make such a swich for IMHO. A D300+D700(or D3) combo would maybe be ideal.

On a personal level, unless you got the moeny ready to spend, then I would probably hold out to see what direction pentax will move in next before making a decision and then evaluate all the available options.

I am rambling as you can obviously read, did I make sense to you?
Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
camera, dslr, iso, leap, pentax, photography, price, quantum, uber
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Pentax K5 or Nikon D700??? Help!!! conradcjc Pentax K-5 83 09-05-2011 12:31 PM
For Sale - Sold: Nikon D700 w/Nikon Battery Grip, Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 16-35mm f/4G ED VR II (US) luke0622 Sold Items 1 11-04-2010 10:41 AM
Pentax K-7 to Nikon D700 thoughts Samsungian Non-Pentax Cameras: Canon, Nikon, etc. 9 04-06-2010 07:16 PM
Lumolabs: Nikon D700 vs. D5000 vs. Pentax K-x, Dynamic range and noise falconeye Pentax News and Rumors 12 12-18-2009 05:34 AM
Pentax K20D vs Nikon D700 at The Online Photographer cateto Pentax News and Rumors 19 12-13-2008 06:39 AM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 03:07 PM. | See also: NikonForums.com, part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top