Reasons to stay Pentax?? Don't hate me

68wSteve · 04-27-2009, 06:30 PM

Originally posted by Damn Brit

Steve I haven't seen you posting many pictures on the forum.
How about posting some so that we can try and deconstruct them? It's cheaper than buying a new system and it should help you improve as a photographer.

Please, no more operations though.

whats the matter, in grown toenail and mole removal sugeries arent to your likeing? guess i will have to come up with more..;

also side note, last night i got a copy of Adobe Light Room and immediatly saw a difference in my pictures just using the program for the first time. The problem is i was relying on picasa to do most of my editing. Most of the time im not a big PP guy, because i want my skills to be show in the original shot. However now having lightroom i think i will have better shots, to make up for whatever i might have missed on camera settings.

Thanks all for you input! Staying PENTAX!!

nulla · 05-01-2009, 12:55 AM

Originally posted by -=JoN=-

hm..I found the colours on the k20 come out more vibrant than on the d700...I tweak a bit more on post to get some colours right on some of my d700 shots...

here's a comparison i did not too long ago..not the best.. but...
i forgot the settings ( i have to look at the original exif...)
but here's the set up
k20d da*50-135
d700 micro nikkor 60mm

i found the greens come out more on the k20's shot...
both were on RAW "general punch" applied in LR

(sorry for the size)

Goes to show the grass is not greener on the other side

PentaxPoke · 05-01-2009, 07:01 AM

Originally posted by nulla

Goes to show the grass is not greener on the other side

Actually, I think in this case the shot from the Nikon looks much better. I think the reason the grass looks greener on the Pentax shot is because it is darker, not "greener". There is also a lot less detail in the trees in the Pentax shot, and the Nikon shot is sharper. I am assuming that the Pentax shot has the contrast set too high which is why the interesting tree detail is lost. I think you should take this shot down. It may make some of us want to switch to the D700!

pingflood · 05-01-2009, 07:10 AM

Yeah, "comparisons" like these are pretty pointless. Pull the Nikon shot into an image editor and tweak levels a bit and it looks about the same as the Pentax one. (Which IMO looks a little underexposed since the details in the trees are much worse.)

Jonathan Mac · 05-04-2009, 05:41 AM

The above Pentax photo does look a little underexposed to me. That´s not always a bad thing, if you want to show deeper colours then it´s an option, depends on the photo. Another option would be to change the saturation setting in the camera, but these things can be done even on most P&S cameras, it´s got nothing to do with brand or model (although the default will vary with model).

All this discussion over gear & brands seems very silly to me. Each person has their reasons for liking one system over another, dependant on what appeals to him & his intended uses. But regardless of make, the real issue is the limiting factor in the photography: the weakest link. For a poor photographer the limiting factor will usually be skill level & this can be improved by practice & education, even with a less-than-perfect camera. A photographer may be limited by his equipment as he pushes against the boundaries of what it is capable of. But (I think) in this case, the photographer will always know what the problem is & what it´s cause & solution are, with equipment or otherwise. If he doesn´t know the cause then how can he know the solution?

If the problem is that your friend´s photos "just look better" then you don´t know why they look better & it´s quite a leap to suppose it´s his camera. I suggest more practice with your Pentax.

Thumper · 05-04-2009, 08:47 AM

Originally posted by 68wSteve

All he had was the kit lens 18-135 kit lens. I had my K20D with DA* 18-50 and 50-135 through out the day.

Don't you hate to have to carry both the DA* 16-50 and the DA* 50-135 to match the range of one Nikon lens? I thought about this before buying the 24-105mm L lens for my 30d.

pingflood · 05-04-2009, 09:23 AM

Originally posted by Thumper

Don't you hate to have to carry both the DA* 16-50 and the DA* 50-135 to match the range of one Nikon lens? I thought about this before buying the 24-105mm L lens for my 30d.

I'm sure he enjoyed having two more stops of light gathering on the long end though...

rfortson · 05-04-2009, 09:26 AM

Originally posted by Thumper

Don't you hate to have to carry both the DA* 16-50 and the DA* 50-135 to match the range of one Nikon lens? I thought about this before buying the 24-105mm L lens for my 30d.

Yeah, because the 18-135 is superior to the 16-50/50-135 combo, as everyone knows.

If I was worried about range, I'd just slap the 18-250 on and be done with it (and I do that quite often). However, the 18-250 does not exceed the 16-50 or 50-135 in IQ, not even close. I'll say at f/2.8, the DA* combo wins every time.

alexeyga · 05-04-2009, 10:07 AM

Looks like another case of a user stuck in a disparate search of a camera equipped with the "masterpiece" button....

egordon99 · 05-04-2009, 10:19 AM

I would MUCH rather carry two bodies with fast(er) lenses than one body with a "super zoom" that maxes out at f/5.6

In fact, I usually carry around an 85mm f/1.8 on one body and a 30mm f/1.4 on another as I sometimes find f/2.8 too slow.

Regardless, the 16-50 and 50-135 combo will SMOKE THE PANTS off of the 18-135....

Originally posted by Thumper

Don't you hate to have to carry both the DA* 16-50 and the DA* 50-135 to match the range of one Nikon lens? I thought about this before buying the 24-105mm L lens for my 30d.

egordon99 · 05-04-2009, 10:19 AM

Oh good, looks like little Thumper has been exiled (again)

rfortson · 05-04-2009, 11:12 AM

Originally posted by egordon99

Oh good, looks like little Thumper has been exiled (again)

Thank goodness! I haven't been around here much lately and one of the first things I see when I come back is this genius. Glad to see he's gone (for now).

Damn Brit · 05-04-2009, 11:22 AM

Originally posted by rfortson

Thank goodness! I haven't been around here much lately and one of the first things I see when I come back is this genius. Glad to see he's gone (for now).

And a jolly good reason to stay with Pentax.

05-01-2009, 07:01 AM	#33
PentaxPoke Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: Oklahoma Posts: 1,411	Originally posted by nulla Goes to show the grass is not greener on the other side Actually, I think in this case the shot from the Nikon looks much better. I think the reason the grass looks greener on the Pentax shot is because it is darker, not "greener". There is also a lot less detail in the trees in the Pentax shot, and the Nikon shot is sharper. I am assuming that the Pentax shot has the contrast set too high which is why the interesting tree detail is lost. I think you should take this shot down. It may make some of us want to switch to the D700! Last edited by PentaxPoke; 05-01-2009 at 07:09 AM.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Why Pentax don't need a swivel LCD screen	Douglas_of_Sweden	Pentax Camera and Field Accessories	10	11-09-2010 04:26 PM
5 reasons why pentax is not rubish.. A nice read.	Adrian Owerko	Pentax News and Rumors	22	11-07-2010 08:54 AM
Should I stay with Pentax or not?	RUSBoris	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	29	10-26-2010 02:55 PM
Personal Experience: Reasons for not choosing Pentax	iQUIX	Photographic Technique	17	06-05-2010 10:33 PM
Why do I stay with Pentax?	Wheatfield	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	39	11-06-2008 04:26 PM

04-27-2009, 06:30 PM	#31
68wSteve Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Hurst, Texas 76053 Posts: 474 Original Poster	Originally posted by Damn Brit Steve I haven't seen you posting many pictures on the forum. How about posting some so that we can try and deconstruct them? It's cheaper than buying a new system and it should help you improve as a photographer. Please, no more operations though. whats the matter, in grown toenail and mole removal sugeries arent to your likeing? guess i will have to come up with more..; also side note, last night i got a copy of Adobe Light Room and immediatly saw a difference in my pictures just using the program for the first time. The problem is i was relying on picasa to do most of my editing. Most of the time im not a big PP guy, because i want my skills to be show in the original shot. However now having lightroom i think i will have better shots, to make up for whatever i might have missed on camera settings. Thanks all for you input! Staying PENTAX!!

05-01-2009, 12:55 AM	#32
nulla Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Melbourne Australia Posts: 1,560	Originally posted by -=JoN=- hm..I found the colours on the k20 come out more vibrant than on the d700...I tweak a bit more on post to get some colours right on some of my d700 shots... here's a comparison i did not too long ago..not the best.. but... i forgot the settings ( i have to look at the original exif...) but here's the set up k20d da*50-135 d700 micro nikkor 60mm i found the greens come out more on the k20's shot... both were on RAW "general punch" applied in LR (sorry for the size) Goes to show the grass is not greener on the other side

05-01-2009, 07:10 AM	#34
pingflood Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Borås, Sweden Photos: Gallery Posts: 3,169	Yeah, "comparisons" like these are pretty pointless. Pull the Nikon shot into an image editor and tweak levels a bit and it looks about the same as the Pentax one. (Which IMO looks a little underexposed since the details in the trees are much worse.)

05-04-2009, 05:41 AM	#35
Jonathan Mac Pentaxian Join Date: Apr 2009 Location: Madrid, Spain Posts: 10,911	The above Pentax photo does look a little underexposed to me. That´s not always a bad thing, if you want to show deeper colours then it´s an option, depends on the photo. Another option would be to change the saturation setting in the camera, but these things can be done even on most P&S cameras, it´s got nothing to do with brand or model (although the default will vary with model). All this discussion over gear & brands seems very silly to me. Each person has their reasons for liking one system over another, dependant on what appeals to him & his intended uses. But regardless of make, the real issue is the limiting factor in the photography: the weakest link. For a poor photographer the limiting factor will usually be skill level & this can be improved by practice & education, even with a less-than-perfect camera. A photographer may be limited by his equipment as he pushes against the boundaries of what it is capable of. But (I think) in this case, the photographer will always know what the problem is & what it´s cause & solution are, with equipment or otherwise. If he doesn´t know the cause then how can he know the solution? If the problem is that your friend´s photos "just look better" then you don´t know why they look better & it´s quite a leap to suppose it´s his camera. I suggest more practice with your Pentax.

05-04-2009, 08:47 AM	#36
Thumper Banned Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: New York Posts: 34	Originally posted by 68wSteve All he had was the kit lens 18-135 kit lens. I had my K20D with DA* 18-50 and 50-135 through out the day. Don't you hate to have to carry both the DA* 16-50 and the DA* 50-135 to match the range of one Nikon lens? I thought about this before buying the 24-105mm L lens for my 30d.

05-04-2009, 09:23 AM	#37
pingflood Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Borås, Sweden Photos: Gallery Posts: 3,169	Originally posted by Thumper Don't you hate to have to carry both the DA* 16-50 and the DA* 50-135 to match the range of one Nikon lens? I thought about this before buying the 24-105mm L lens for my 30d. I'm sure he enjoyed having two more stops of light gathering on the long end though...

05-04-2009, 09:26 AM	#38
rfortson Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Houston TX Photos: Gallery Posts: 2,129	Originally posted by Thumper Don't you hate to have to carry both the DA* 16-50 and the DA* 50-135 to match the range of one Nikon lens? I thought about this before buying the 24-105mm L lens for my 30d. Yeah, because the 18-135 is superior to the 16-50/50-135 combo, as everyone knows. If I was worried about range, I'd just slap the 18-250 on and be done with it (and I do that quite often). However, the 18-250 does not exceed the 16-50 or 50-135 in IQ, not even close. I'll say at f/2.8, the DA* combo wins every time.

05-04-2009, 10:07 AM	#39
alexeyga Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2008 Location: Montreal, Canada Posts: 838	Looks like another case of a user stuck in a disparate search of a camera equipped with the "masterpiece" button....

05-04-2009, 10:19 AM	#40
egordon99 Inactive Account Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: Outside of Philly Posts: 1,561	I would MUCH rather carry two bodies with fast(er) lenses than one body with a "super zoom" that maxes out at f/5.6 In fact, I usually carry around an 85mm f/1.8 on one body and a 30mm f/1.4 on another as I sometimes find f/2.8 too slow. Regardless, the 16-50 and 50-135 combo will SMOKE THE PANTS off of the 18-135.... Originally posted by Thumper Don't you hate to have to carry both the DA* 16-50 and the DA* 50-135 to match the range of one Nikon lens? I thought about this before buying the 24-105mm L lens for my 30d.

05-04-2009, 10:19 AM	#41
egordon99 Inactive Account Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: Outside of Philly Posts: 1,561	Oh good, looks like little Thumper has been exiled (again)

05-04-2009, 11:12 AM	#42
rfortson Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Houston TX Photos: Gallery Posts: 2,129	Originally posted by egordon99 Oh good, looks like little Thumper has been exiled (again) Thank goodness! I haven't been around here much lately and one of the first things I see when I come back is this genius. Glad to see he's gone (for now).

05-04-2009, 11:22 AM	#43
Damn Brit Guest	Originally posted by rfortson Thank goodness! I haven't been around here much lately and one of the first things I see when I come back is this genius. Glad to see he's gone (for now). And a jolly good reason to stay with Pentax.