Originally posted by smcclelland ...
...I'm not sure if you're a hobbyist or a paid photographer but I know the big reason for my change was that photography is a source of my income and I absolutely must have tools that meet my demands day in and day out and I also need availability to walk into a store in a pinch and get a lens right then and there both of which I didn't feel Pentax offered me for my motorsports needs.
Here's the deal - a pro sports photographer is almost assuredly a bit better off with Canon or Nikon, overall. A fashion or fine arts photographer -
-
or any discerning amateur / hobbyist -
Is better off with Pentax, overall.
99% of DSLRs owners are in the latter category.
You really have to hand it to Canon/Nikon marketing departments - they've convinced a large portion of the public that they need their brand to be in
any category.
Originally posted by sflights Can someone clear something up for me really quick, the cheaper priced old M42 Takumars and other lenses are said to be soft and have extreme CA on DSLRs. Is this true? I don't really want to argue the point that they don't (from what I've heard) unless I'm sure.
Anyone who says so just doesn't happen to know what they're talking about.
The shots in
this thread were taken with possibly the cheapest, single-coated Tak you can buy. Nothing spectacular, but the lens performs above & beyond.
.