[rparmar]

Get the FA77 and nab the focus in low light, enable yourself to be a good distance from the action and (with the K20D) be able to crop 50% and still have lots of pixels to work with. Or the FA50/1.4 if that's long enough. Save yourself money and don't shoot wide open but stop down one or two.

If you think you can be a photographer without processing images then think again. Shooting in RAW is like taking negatives. Processing them is like working in the darkroom. Pentax preserves detail at the expense of noise, unlike the competitors. That means it's up to you to smooth out excessive noise (say, at ISO 1600 or higher) after the fact, using the tools you choose. I use Noise Ninja, but rarely have to touch it.

The combination of high resolution, a fast lens, the Pentax sensor, minimal in-situ processing and smart post-processing results in images of a quality the competition has a hard time in touching.

[lapeen]

I am not sure where anyone got the idea that I was comparing my 18-250 with her 30mm 1.4 -that would be nutty!! I never said that at all, I said...


"The d90 has a Sigma 30mm 1.4 on it... her camera pretty much lives with that lens on it, she LOVES it. My 'equivalent' to that is my pentax 50mm 1.4"

I KNOW that the 18-250 is not a good lens for the cheerleading stuff, but a 50mm in a gymnasium where I don't know where I will be sitting will not work at all. Neither will a fixed focal lens because I am not just shooting the action on the mats, but also the action going on around me in the bleachers.

I really do not enjoy my 50mm, it hunts like CRAZY... and I get way more blurry shots than with any other lens I have ever had. When it DOES lock on, the pics are sharp and fantastic!

[Erik]

I KNOW that the 18-250 is not a good lens for the cheerleading stuff, but a 50mm in a gymnasium where I don't know where I will be sitting will not work at all. Neither will a fixed focal lens because I am not just shooting the action on the mats, but also the action going on around me in the bleachers.

So regardless of camera system, you will need to plunk down big cash on a 2.8 tele zoom!

[Emotive45]

AF system employing high-density 51-point AF
Two Liveview modes available
Large, bright viewfinder that achieves 100% frame coverage
Exclusive Wireless Transmitter WT-4 (optional)

and I surmise I will also get to feel like everyone else on my Visual Imaging degree and blend in with the other guys instead of being the only one with a Pentax. It's a bit of a standing joke at the moment and I don't feel professional. Images are no less quality, but somehow I feel left out when they're all raving about their kits etc. The college is actually sponsored by Canon and most of the lecturers use Canon except the odd lecturer using Nikon but most of the students have gone the Nikon way.

What do those benefits translate back to in terms of the K20D? Different terminology used between the two manufacturers so not really sure. The wireless function on the Nikon - does that translate to me having the ability to upload the images wirelessly to my iMac?

Megapixels in the Nikon 300D = 12.3 effective and in the K20D 14.6 effective. I shoot in RAW in any case and am standing on 10 megapixels now so it's an improvement upwards either way.

Not sure about the D90. To be honest the camera I buy need to feel right in my hands, the more compact the better. I'm pretty dainty with small hands and it makes a difference in how something feels when your handling it. Well does to me.

Nikon NZ. 2007. Nikon D300. Retrieved February, 23rd 2009 fromhttp://www.nikon.co.nz/announcementarticle.php?announcementid=38-d8c246fd74

[chalion]

So regardless of camera system, you will need to plunk down big cash on a 2.8 tele zoom!

Erik is correct in this one. Even if you change systems (and looking at your pics, yours are much better than I ever could hope for), you'll still need to plunk down a load of money for quality glass.

I also own a K100D and i've been buying glass for the last month or so. ($600 ish for 8 lenses). Most are telephotos, with very few being primes. I figured to get the less expensive first, then save up for the quality lenses. This I feel will let me get to know my camera, before I shell out for the "heavy guns". Of course, i'm more interested in wildlife shooting than doing group events, so I can take the time to line up for the shots I want. I've shot about 1000 pics and only feel 1 is worth keeping, but I feel that one was worth the effort to get.

[MrApollinax]

I am not sure where anyone got the idea that I was comparing my 18-250 with her 30mm 1.4 -that would be nutty!! I never said that at all, I said...


"The d90 has a Sigma 30mm 1.4 on it... her camera pretty much lives with that lens on it, she LOVES it. My 'equivalent' to that is my pentax 50mm 1.4"

I KNOW that the 18-250 is not a good lens for the cheerleading stuff, but a 50mm in a gymnasium where I don't know where I will be sitting will not work at all. Neither will a fixed focal lens because I am not just shooting the action on the mats, but also the action going on around me in the bleachers.

I really do not enjoy my 50mm, it hunts like CRAZY... and I get way more blurry shots than with any other lens I have ever had. When it DOES lock on, the pics are sharp and fantastic!

So here is a question for you then. How is it that a fixed focal length lens works for your friend but not in your case? Are you taking the same types of photos? I would have thought that the FA35 which would put you at least in the same footing length-wise would have been your best option.

[Emotive45]

With regards to cost when changing brand, it isn't an issue for myself really as i intend to go into business as a photographer and once I settle with something, i'll stick with it. Had nil experience when purchasing my K10D and have 33 yrs experience compacted into 33 months due to being in the second yr of a Photography degree. This yr I graduate and I feel the K10D will be a good back set up which is something every professional photographer should have in any case.
What I buy now I'd like it to see me through a few good years in a photography business.

[Erik]

So here is a question for you then. How is it that a fixed focal length lens works for your friend but not in your case? Are you taking the same types of photos? I would have thought that the FA35 which would put you at least in the same footing length-wise would have been your best option.

Well, or he could, you know, get the Sigma 30/1.4 in Pentax mount if he likes that lens. Though I think it's HSM/SDM only so if I recall correctly it won't AF on a K100D body...

[MrApollinax]

I think the OP said they had a K100D Super. So if the Sigma 30 1.4 is HSM only then it should work... or at least in theory it should work

[Arpe]

I too am keeping an eye on the Nikon D300, but for only 2 reasons - faster autofocus and faster frame rate - and this is because recently I have been getting into sports photography. If I wasn't doing sports I wouldn't even consider ditching my K20D.

As I can't afford to change at present anyway I am eagerly awaiting Pentax's next move.

[kenyee]

I am not sure where anyone got the idea that I was comparing my 18-250 with her 30mm 1.4 -that would be nutty!! I never said that at all, I said...

The part that threw us off was the part I quoted in my reply to you "I definitely am pondering trying to start by getting a 2.8 zoom lens. I know my 18-250 is not optimal for the cheerleading events"

Sorry about my part (b) too...a 30/1.4 will have more DOF so even if you use AF-C and fire the shutter when it's not precisely focused, you'll likely get decent shots. I keep thinking DOF = background fuzziness for some reason
One other thing is your camera will run AF w/ the lens wide open. The 50/1.4 doesn't have much contrast wide open (I have one as well and it's actually pretty soft looking to me wide open, even for portraits).

I'd again suggest borrowing a 2.8 lens if you can, or asking a fellow Maine Pentaxian to attend an event w/ you so you can see how fast a K20D w/ a 2.8 lens can be and whether this is fast enough or whether you'd rather have a D90 w/ a 30/1.4 (which is actually quite good, but I'm surprised you don't think it's too short for the cheerleading photos)...

[Jodokast96]

But you are comparing the two, whether it's your intent or not. You don't compare bodies by using two dissimilar lenses on them.

[lapeen]

So here is a question for you then. How is it that a fixed focal length lens works for your friend but not in your case? Are you taking the same types of photos? I would have thought that the FA35 which would put you at least in the same footing length-wise would have been your best option.

I am talking about different situations. The FA35 I think would be wonderful for our evening get-togethers and dinners out... always very low light... always a challenge with my camera w/ my 50mm 1.4.

The Cheerleading thing is a whole other ball o' wax THAT is where I will be needing to "plunk down a lotta cash" for a 2.8 zoom at some point.

[Emotive45]

Hi Arpe,
Have done a few shot's of my son dirt biking and he motors at times. Ok in that situation as I can get him to do an action replay but you can't do that in a situation where the scene is playing out in front of you on the sport field etc. I think it's probably better that I borrow a D300 for a day and compare that with what I have to be honest. It's a big decision to make switching from brand to the other and I'd rather put them both to the test and make the right one.
Most of my photography is with models in studio, not sport photography and I think I'll need to compare the two in the type of photography (i.e. modelling) and the environment (studio) that I intend to use it in the most. A lot of the time I think it's important to consider what type of photography you'll be doing with the camera.

[B Grace]

To restate the obvious, modern SLR cameras meter a scene and AF the lens with the lens aperture wide open stopping down only for the shot. For fast AF in difficult light situations a person needs the fastest lens he or she can find in order to give the AF system as much light as possible to work with. The Nikon 70-200/2.8 is a masterpiece of a lens which is used to the Nth degree by pro-PJ's and sports photogs because of it's image quality and fast, constant aperture. If you shoot Nikon, the 70-200 is a definite wish-list lens.

I shoot both a K200D and a D40x. Both cameras either are or will soon be one generation old. I read comments about poor image quality from different brands of cameras but I just don't see it with my Pentax and Nikon gear. Sure, they're two different cameras and that's why I bought them. There are wide-open aperture images I can take at close distances with my Nikon AF 60/2.8 Micro that I would challenge anyone to duplicate.

So the point of all of this is simply that switching to a D90 will also entail the purchase of at least a few lenses that will not be cheap. The cheapest, good quality portal of entry to indoor sports-type photography in the Nikon camp is the AF 85/1.8D which new is $400 ballpark (I wish I had one). I know several folks who shoot with the Nikon 18-200 and are confused about why they can't take decent low-light shots and all of their images show a weird pattern of barrel distortion.

I suggest researching the longer, fast aperture lenses available in Pentax mount. It's not the camera.