Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
08-18-2009, 04:39 PM   #31
Junior Member




Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Vienna / Austria
Posts: 30
For me it comes down to lenses. There is no subsitute for the Canon 24 1.4 and 35 1.4 in Pentax land, this is my biggest complain, and I don't understand why Pentax isn't making an equivalent lens for APS-C.

As for the bodies, I don't think that the 5D (II) is so much better than the K20D.

My lenses for weddings are the 16-50 which can't be rated high enough and the 31 Ltd. which is a top lens not only within the Pentax stable. I would call this an M-Leica lens, rendering- and handling-wise, a little jewel.

I have thought about buying a Canon 5D with 35 1.4 for weddings, but I remembered that I hate Canon bodies when I tried one out. So I am also considering a FA* 24/2 or Sigma 24 1.8 for my K20D as I have written here.

For the bodies I would also recommend the K20D, especially if you are on a budget. You can buy two K20Ds and be happy. My only complaint with the K20D is focus consitency as it was with the K10D. There is no FF/BF but the focus sensor is too big. No way to work around here, sometimes the focus is just off by a big margin. And I doubt that this has changed with the K-7. Correct me if I am wrong.

The rest I would invest in glass. The glass makes the difference. But Pentax should not look away and finally bring a fast wide angle! In the meantime you can go Sigma here. I cannot see why you can't shoot a wedding with ISO 1600 and 1.8. Sean Read used to shoot weddings with an Epson R-D1 (same sensor as Nikon D50) and some nice M glass. And his high profile clients didn't complain.

On final word towards shooting dancing. Focus manually at 1,5 or 2 metres, f4-5,6 @ 16-20mm and off camera flash. Learn to keep the distance. The shots will show consistency in framing and compostion and look great. More dof here is an advantage of APS-C.

08-20-2009, 03:09 AM   #32
Senior Member
paulsoucy's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 126
Original Poster
Since I've talked about some wedding stuff on here

I wanted to introduce you to a guy that dominates the high end wedding cinematography market down here in South Florida, seriously I cannot believe his stuff is not all over Canon's website... his starting price goes for something above $5,000.00 I believe which is something you might hear of for a photographer but for a videographer??? Kind of unheard of... but I think worth it....

Recently he has completely replaced all of his high end video equipment and shoots with nothing but the 5d mark ii and L glass, and he uses various stabalization and tracking stuff to very well, but I cannot believe all of his stuff is done with the 5d... its really sick!!

Ray Roman Blog

Here are links to some of the other videos also shot with the 5d:
Ray Roman Blog Michelle & Andrew’s Highlight Reel

I was talking with him tonight via facebook and says he can't even believe canon killed their own video camera line with the mark ii, he says its video is friggin incredible!! I asked him if the sensor heats up and he says its no problem after hours of shooting...

but anyways... the video is true art so enjoy!!

Paul
08-20-2009, 07:45 AM   #33
Senior Member




Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Kansas City, MO
Posts: 174
QuoteOriginally posted by paulsoucy Quote
So as luck would have it about 3 weeks ago I wrecked my K10 pretty good...

....

Anyways with the destruction of my K10d, I'm sure the cost to fix the hotshoe ripping out of the camera is more than the camera is actually worth I find myself at a crossroads... My goal is to jump more into wedding photography but to do that requires a considerable investment in equipment and lenses ( I'd go the D700 / triple play lens route ) and I can't really afford that right now

So I'm at a crossroads of whether to get a K20 or a K7 or just bail from Pentax all together, I have loved my K10 and it has served me well but I think per my goals I may need to jump systems...

Any thoughts are welcome
I am at a similar crossroads. I love the design of the K10d and what I hear about the newer Pentax models makes me confident that the bodies are just fine to make money with. What I am concerned about is the lenses from Pentax. Pentax built a fine reputation on some prime lenses, many of which are not even made anymore. Most of the new designs that have come out I am not impressed with and I believe they have not kept up with their previous reputation or the newer Canikon lenses. Now the prices have increased quite a bit. I would like to invest in excellent lenses and know that they will keep their value such that I can confidently resell them at a reasonable price in 5 or 6 years. Just as an example, how many buyers will there be for a Pentax mount Zeiss 85 mm lens in 5 years? With Nikon, this is a reasonable investment. Yes, the new Nikon and Canon zooms are expensive but you are getting top performance for your investment (including fast, durable AF) and the resale market is very good and will be in the future. I would miss the in-body SR but I have been known to use a monopod or tripod. It is a bit frustrating, because Pentax seems so close to being there.

Hoya does not seem committed to Pentax at a level to give me comfort investing several thousand dollars (see recent comments by Hoya about needing an outside alliance for Pentax to survive. Code for, they do not want to risk their own money for the future.) A couple thousand dollar write-off on Pentax over three years for personal photos is OK, but I would rather invest much more than this confidently for business use.
08-20-2009, 07:56 AM   #34
Senior Member




Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Kansas City, MO
Posts: 174
QuoteOriginally posted by paulsoucy Quote
Thank you all for the comments...

If you've ever seen Jeff Ascough's work witht the 24 1.2 II then you'll know the difference between using a system to get by versus having one that allows you to take shots that were previously only available by using a flash.... and thats my point....
Actually, I believe it is 24 1.4 II not 1.2, but still very fast for such a wide lens. You make some very good points in your post. Thanks a lot.

08-20-2009, 08:03 AM   #35
Senior Member




Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Kansas City, MO
Posts: 174
By the way, most small business owners would love to start a business that requires less than $10,000 in initial equipment investment. Think about getting a small business loan for part of this amount if that is what it takes to get the equipment that will help make you more confident and successful. You are right, times have changed. In the old days, 1980s and before, everyone had the same film choices and everyone did manual focus so much more of an even playing field. Now, new technology can in some cases make a difference in how you compete.
08-20-2009, 08:28 AM   #36
Senior Member




Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Kansas City, MO
Posts: 174
QuoteOriginally posted by Pentaxor Quote
if you guys think that only a FF a.k.a professional dslr could do an excellent wedding photography, well you guys are clearly mistaken. an APS-C dslr is very much capable of that and can produce excellent pictures as well.
I agree 100% in theory. In reality, the 16-50 2.8 DA * lens does not come close in performance and reliability to the Nikon 24-70 2.8. This is the most important lens range for wedding and event photography and the reason I bought into Pentax when they announced this lens was coming. Now I do not want to spend the money on the product they came out with. See the problem? If you use Pentax like I do, you have to live with compromises on the lenses relative to the competition. Maybe the 50-135 lives up to the APS-C matching theory. The K7 body I am sure is close enough in performance to the D300 and other similar competitors (if you get a good one). I guess I am bashing Pentax a bit because I really want to stay with them but am finding it hard. But, my one bit of bashing is not going to make a bit of difference I am sure.
08-20-2009, 09:21 AM   #37
Veteran Member
nostatic's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: socal
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,576
QuoteOriginally posted by paulsoucy Quote
I was talking with him tonight via facebook and says he can't even believe canon killed their own video camera line with the mark ii, he says its video is friggin incredible!! I asked him if the sensor heats up and he says its no problem after hours of shooting...

but anyways... the video is true art so enjoy!!

Paul
They aren't killing their video camera line at all. The 5D is a specialized tool that will give great results in talented hands for a subset of shooting styles/conditions. For everything else a good video camera will crush the 5D or any dSLR.
08-20-2009, 09:50 AM   #38
Veteran Member




Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Iowa
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 1,368
QuoteOriginally posted by Photomy Quote
I agree 100% in theory. In reality, the 16-50 2.8 DA * lens does not come close in performance and reliability to the Nikon 24-70 2.8. This is the most important lens range for wedding and event photography and the reason I bought into Pentax when they announced this lens was coming. Now I do not want to spend the money on the product they came out with. See the problem? If you use Pentax like I do, you have to live with compromises on the lenses relative to the competition. Maybe the 50-135 lives up to the APS-C matching theory. The K7 body I am sure is close enough in performance to the D300 and other similar competitors (if you get a good one). I guess I am bashing Pentax a bit because I really want to stay with them but am finding it hard. But, my one bit of bashing is not going to make a bit of difference I am sure.
You do realize the Nikon lens costs almost three times as much? It's also probably the best 24-70 offering of any manufacturer (How does the Sony Zeiss version compare?) I agree with you that it's superior to the Pentax offering, especially on things like corner sharpness wide open, but it all depends on what you're willing to pay. Not to mention lug around.

Saying this, I've read the Pentax DA*16-50 compares well quality wise with the larger and more expensive Canon 24-70 f/2.8L. On top of this, the Zeiss, Pentax, and Olympus (Zuiko 14-35 f/2) lenses all benefit from in camera shake reduction, which the Nikons and Canons do not have. Given this, the Olympus or Zeiss packages might even be the best of the whole bunch.

24-70 mm lenses are kind of like portrait lenses -- every manufacturer has one, and because of this the best of the best get placed on a pedestal. Also like portrait lenses, all of the 24-70s (or equivalents) are pretty good, but you have to pay a ton for incremental improvements. The Pentax DA*16-50 is probably toward the back of the pack comparatively, but it is still a great lens in my experience, and for its price (even if they raise prices) a great deal.

08-20-2009, 10:12 AM   #39
Veteran Member




Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: New Mexico
Photos: Albums
Posts: 1,125
QuoteOriginally posted by Photomy Quote
I agree 100% in theory. In reality, the 16-50 2.8 DA * lens does not come close in performance and reliability to the Nikon 24-70 2.8. This is the most important lens range for wedding and event photography and the reason I bought into Pentax when they announced this lens was coming. Now I do not want to spend the money on the product they came out with. See the problem? If you use Pentax like I do, you have to live with compromises on the lenses relative to the competition. Maybe the 50-135 lives up to the APS-C matching theory. The K7 body I am sure is close enough in performance to the D300 and other similar competitors (if you get a good one). I guess I am bashing Pentax a bit because I really want to stay with them but am finding it hard. But, my one bit of bashing is not going to make a bit of difference I am sure.
Have you actually tried a recently produced sample of the DA*16-50? I own one, and I consider it to be superb. This is the lens that stays on my camera semi-permanently and has nearly put my 31 Ltd out of business.

Rob
08-20-2009, 11:47 AM   #40
Senior Member




Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Kansas City, MO
Posts: 174
I would love to have someone really demonstrate this to me, including how it does outside the center region at 16mm. Your lens which took this shot (at bottom of page https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/pentax-slr-lens-discussion/22297-da-16-50...tabase-26.html) could have a terrible defect and you would not even know it. Of course, I have to assume you tested it on a wide variety of images based on your positive statements. But, I would rather go with a more thorough testing than a few narrow DOF, center subject shots. It is too bad with all the smart and talented people on the forum we could not get some resources together to actually have Pentax lenses tested in this manner:

Canon EF 70-200mm f/4.0 L IS USM Lens ISO 12233 Resolution Chart Results

Seeing is believing, and this method is better than graphs in my opinion.
08-20-2009, 12:45 PM   #41
Veteran Member




Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Iowa
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 1,368
QuoteOriginally posted by Photomy Quote
I would love to have someone really demonstrate this to me, including how it does outside the center region at 16mm. Your lens which took this shot (at bottom of page https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/pentax-slr-lens-discussion/22297-da-16-50...tabase-26.html) could have a terrible defect and you would not even know it. Of course, I have to assume you tested it on a wide variety of images based on your positive statements. But, I would rather go with a more thorough testing than a few narrow DOF, center subject shots. It is too bad with all the smart and talented people on the forum we could not get some resources together to actually have Pentax lenses tested in this manner:

Canon EF 70-200mm f/4.0 L IS USM Lens ISO 12233 Resolution Chart Results

Seeing is believing, and this method is better than graphs in my opinion.
You're right about me being not the best tester for things like that -- not only do I not have exacting technical standards, I also admit that I lack the patience to do technical tests so from that standpoint you can take what I say with a grain of salt. My lens could have a defect and I wouldn't know it, because when I get bad image results I tend to blame myself rather than the lens or the camera.

I also have to admit that I have never used any of the other 24-70s I talked about, although I've read about the other lenses and watched tests of them (like this: ). I know a professional photographer friend who owns the Canon 24-70 and it seems quite bulky, but I've heard the autofocus is very fast, which is something I didn't mention in its favor before.

There was a blog that showed comparative pictures from the DA*16-50 and the Canon 24-70L but it looks like they have taken it down, as the link no longer works.

All this said, my copy of the 16-50 for me so far has performed admirably well compared to the lenses I own and have already owned like the DA16-45. I tend to prefer the FA31 when taking images between f/1.8 to f/4, but once you get to f/4 the 16-50 starts to really hold its own. When factoring that in with other happy users of the lens, like Ben Kanarek who has done some amazing things with it, I feel comfortable recommending it as long as you get a good copy.

In one final note, if I had the money for my idea wedding combo, I'd pair a Nikon D700 with that Nikon 24-70 lens with a Pentax K-7 and a 50-135 lens. I think this would be the ideal combo of low light ISO imaging, HD video if I wanted it, weatherproofing, telephoto shake reduction and portability. But, alas, I have not the money for this idea.
08-20-2009, 02:34 PM   #42
Veteran Member




Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: New Mexico
Photos: Albums
Posts: 1,125
QuoteOriginally posted by paulsoucy Quote
Now seriously is someone going to tell me that if I had the 24 L 1.2 II on a 5d Mark II I would not have had more flexibility when taking the photo?
My feeling is that a good photographer learns how to get the most from whatever system he/she has. Your own samples from the K10D certainly exemplify that fact. For low light shooting, FF is unquestionably superior, but at a significant cost in terms of size, weight and $$. If you feel that your need is great enough to justify paying those costs, then by all means go for it.

I'm just a lowly amateur enthusiast who likes making pictures. My K10D has served me well for that purpose, and I anticipate that a K-7 will serve me even better.

Good luck with your decision.

Rob

Last edited by robgo2; 08-20-2009 at 02:41 PM.
08-21-2009, 06:26 PM   #43
Junior Member




Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Vienna / Austria
Posts: 30
Laurence Kim is a high dollar wedding tog who makes gear recommendations on his blog here. Despite that he doesn't know about Pentax or Oly, I find it indicative that only the highest budget set consists of brand 2.8 zooms for Canikon, whereas the next lower set (still $6500 - $7500) has the Tamron 2.8. People compare a lot, but you can't overlook that the Canikon zooms cost twice to three times as much as Pentax, let alone the FF offerings.

Same applies to the fast prime rec. Especially Nikon sucks in this regard. On APS-C you have nothing like the 31 1.8 Ltd., neither on FF. You can buy the 35 1.8 or the 35 2, neither of which can be compared to the 31 1.8 Ltd.

My recommendation is that you write down everything you need with prices and see what the sum is like. Then you will know.

Still I understand that people get insecure about the future of Pentax. This is another consideration to be taken into account when making a buying decision. Have no answer here.
08-24-2009, 10:26 AM   #44
Veteran Member
benjikan's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Paris, France
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 4,312
QuoteOriginally posted by Photomy Quote
I would love to have someone really demonstrate this to me, including how it does outside the center region at 16mm. Your lens which took this shot (at bottom of page https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/pentax-slr-lens-discussion/22297-da-16-50...tabase-26.html) could have a terrible defect and you would not even know it. Of course, I have to assume you tested it on a wide variety of images based on your positive statements. But, I would rather go with a more thorough testing than a few narrow DOF, center subject shots. It is too bad with all the smart and talented people on the forum we could not get some resources together to actually have Pentax lenses tested in this manner:

Canon EF 70-200mm f/4.0 L IS USM Lens ISO 12233 Resolution Chart Results

Seeing is believing, and this method is better than graphs in my opinion.
Check out many of my images shot with the 16-50 here...

PublishedWorks Photo Gallery by Benjamin Kanarek at pbase.com
08-24-2009, 02:39 PM   #45
Veteran Member




Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Southern Calif
Posts: 564
Yikes Bob, Sounds like you have a bad one. I would think returning the K-7 for a replacement would be a good idea.

QuoteOriginally posted by shutterbob Quote
Paul, sorry about your K10. I am not in your league professionally. I do own the K10, the 20 and the K7. After a month of using the 7, I would recommend you save the money and buy the 20. I find it a much more reliable and consistent machine than the K-7. Just when I think I'm getting the hang of the 7, it blows me aways with hot spots (gross overexposure), off color renditions, and, in general, my photos from the 7 require much more post processing, which is one of your stated no-no's. I find the 20 more consistent and reliable and frankly, I think the build is more robust and in the Pentax tradition. I haven't put my finger on it yet, but I just get the impression there are compromises built into the k-7 that had I know from the start, I would have by passed it for the next generation. It has some nice features, but it is quirky. I also own a Canon G10 as a backup for quickies, and honestly, it's more reliable in terms of shot-to-shot integrity than the k-7.

You've got some decent Pentax/Tamron glass in your stable, so I would advise you to take advantage of it find a good buy on the K-20 which is already at bargain prices.
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, flash, focus, grip, k10, k7, lens, lenses, pentax, photography, sdm
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
How do you change your lens quickly? Anya Troubleshooting and Beginner Help 5 04-24-2009 11:08 AM
Help me out quickly!! losecontrol Pentax DSLR Discussion 36 02-06-2009 05:02 AM
2 myths i would like clearing up quickly please... Isaac314 Pentax DSLR Discussion 9 12-09-2008 02:57 PM
Had to catch this guy quickly siric Photo Critique 4 07-15-2008 06:43 AM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 10:45 PM. | See also: NikonForums.com, CanonForums.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