[paulsoucy]

but I am still a fan of PENTAX, just feeling pushed up against a wall and not certain of what direction to take!!!

[cwood]

At the moment I certainly do not have the money to switch over to Nikon or Canon and I am not looking for an excuse to really just being honest about what I want for the kinds of images I want to take...

Get a K20 - there is virtually no advantage for wedding photography for getting a k-7

at ISO 800 and pushed some this image is not clean as far as noise goes... shutter is 1/10th f-stop: 4


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?

I would never try to tell you that your K10 with a $300 zoom lens is better than a 5D with a $1500 lens... however have you considered that a K20 with with a 24mm F1.8 would also work? edit - that would be an F2 lens -- sorry

If we are going simply off screen peeking, there is no comparsion to a K20d and D700 or 5d mark ii ISO 3200 shot... you are paying for that advantage which can be huge in certain circumstances......

If you are selling a service where clean shots at ISO 3200 or 6400 shots are a necessity then you have no excuse for not buying a FF camera (except not Sony from what I hear...). That is a decision that you need to make

I'm just saying, I appreciate everyone's fierce defense of Pentax and i would be the first to defend them as well.....

I did not notice anyone fiercely defending Pentax in your thread. We have simply pointed out flaws in your logic. For me Pentax did not offer everything I needed so I added a second system (Canon). If you need a Canon or Nikon then go buy one.

My main concern goes like this:

Pentax offers a lot for the money, but how long will it last and how consistent and reliable is it given that I am forced to use my camera and equipment like a workhorse... no doubt I can take my K10 to the Grand Canyon while my fingers are freezing off and the camera continues to operate but if I invest in say a 16-50 DA* and some idiot accidently lightly hits it at a wedding and my SDM fails what is the point? ( I've been reading about the failures and a couple of times that seems to be the case ) At the very least I know the Nikon while 3 times as much is built like a tank and has 5 year pro service behind it...

My main concern is just pouring more money into a system that is buggy at best... why not just go the extra mile and really pay for something I know there will hardly be a reliability issue about...

I would not buy a car that I thought was going to fall apart and I would not buy a camera that was unreliable. But I've been shooting Pentax gear for 16 years and I have not had one single equipment failure. But that does not mean you don't have a right to be concerned ...

Can you imagine the problem that would ensue for a wedding job if I purchased a K7 only to find that in half my shots I was getting a green line ( see busted sensor thread ), or there were hot spots or whatever, I would be SO SCREWED!! My reputation is on the line....

That would be inexcusable for you to shoot a wedding with an unreliable piece of gear. I carried the k-7 to a wedding 2 days ago as a THIRD body just to see how it performed. It will see much more testing before it goes to a wedding as my primary body.

And your reputation is the last thing you should be concerned with when you are shooting a wedding. Its best to leave the ego at home for that line of work.

So these are just some of the considerations I am facing now having to upgrade and get a second camera... its almost feels like buying a sub at the local supermarket, already a foot long is 6 dollars, which is a bit much for a sub if you ask me but for only 2 dollars more you get much better tasting meat..... so if your going to spend 6 why not just go 20 or 30 percent more and really get the good stuff, same with the camera systems...

no doubt on paper the K7 wins because it is sooooooooo feature rich but I really just need equipment that allows me to do the job and not necessarily so feature rich.....

Just my thoughts

K-7 does not win on paper... 5d mkII wins. Similar features but better in many ways. If you need it you should buy it.

[Ash]

Kunik's said it all, Paul.
No one here needs to defend Pentax - it's another system offering good results at a much more reasonable price comparatively. If you want to compare systems in performance, you can line up all the features of the K-7 with the 5DMkII and D700 and come to the obvious conclusion... But if these 2 others are out of your price range, you'll rather need to compare with the 50D and D300... even then you may be stuck from the price differences. In any case, just get the camera you want - money available for the 5DMkII or the D700? - just get one - very few doubts that these are extraordinary bodies - just keep some change for the glass that you need to go with it.

[paulsoucy]

Get a K20 - there is virtually no advantage for wedding photography for getting a k-7

Seriously? I thought the main advantage would be the improved focus system?

I mean if I am aiming it at a dance during a reception and there is no contrast is the K7's updated features not helpful?

Paul

[cwood]

Seriously? I thought the main advantage would be the improved focus system?

I mean if I am aiming it at a dance during a reception and there is no contrast is the K7's updated features not helpful?

Paul

Like I said... as long as the bride keeps it under 20 miles per hour the K20 has always served me well. The k-7 is faster and its got that green death ray light... but people don't really cover much ground when they are dancing. You should be able to manually focus those shots without a problem if need be. I have a 1D mkIII which is supposed to be the fastest camera in the world and just out of curiosity I tested it against my K20 in dim lighting the other day and it (of course) blew the Pentax away. I found that really fascinating because without conducting a "test" I would never have guessed it was that much better. The moral of the story is that K20 works well enough in real world conditions.

[paulsoucy]

That is something to think about except I don't have the best eyes when it comes to MF, so anything that can assist me is definitely helpful...

When I tested the K7 out at the road tour on Sunday it seemed much faster in situations where my K10 would just die and hunt for awhile.....

I guess I should ask do you find you are switching to MF often with a K20 during a wedding? This approach may work well for you but for me not so sure? Because if you are that would not be something I would want to do myself.... unless I absolutely had no better choice...

Paul

[cwood]

I rarely shoot manual focus. K20 will hunt a bit but it always locks on in the end. I don't recall ever missing important shots because of it. You can always use the flash AF assist function...

Of course I'm in San Diego so almost everything I shoot is outside so what works for me may not work for you...

[Pentaxor]

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. FF will be always be better in terms of eliminating HIGH ISO NOISES and of course FOV. some features of an FF dslr can help you achieve a high success shot rate rather than misses. features such as expanded focus points or faster processor meant for faster focusing and better AI. but it doesn't mean that not having those features on an APS-C would cripple or would make an APS-C camera unusable for wedding photography. you could produce excellent photos as long as the user knows how to handle or use the camera's potential at it's optimal level and know it's limitations. I know a famous sports individual who owns an MK II but can't even produce a decent image. he merely uses the camera for candid photos. man, even an Optio 60 result is way better than he could probably produce.

I'm not saying that an FF is no good, I'm saying that an FF is good. so does an APS-C, in it's own right.

unless we talk about FOV here and high iso noise critiques, then go for an FF. but for real world usage, just about any camera would work these days, including P&S.

[cwood]

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.

???

Have you read this thread? Are you sure you responded to the correct thread?

[paulsoucy]

Kunik - if those are the conditions you shoot in well then I can see your point about the K20d being ok, there is like 1000 points of contrast for the camera to hone in on the picture you are showing me...

I am referring more to that in between lighting that is always present at every wedding... like for example when the bride is coming down the aisle with her dad in a high top ceiling church with window light... but not enough ambient light to land on either therefore no contrast..

I should also point out I don't have a Pentax flash I actually use manual flashes as I find them more consistent so I have no guide beam to work with just strictly the whim of the camera or manual focus, in the shots above they are dancing in near darkness.... and I missed many shots because my camera would hunt quite a bit....

Paul

[Pentaxor]

???

Have you read this thread? Are you sure you responded to the correct thread?

YES !!! just in case someone would still insist on FF = wedding photography. you know how stubborn some people can be.

[Pentaxor]

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.

it's too bad the exposure didn't work that good for you SB. as for me, I adjusted well enough to compensate for it. I guess that you got accustomed to the K20D exposure setup that the K-7's exposure made it quite awkward for you. in short, exposure works just fine. haven't really used the green button for reset for recalculations.

what does puzzle me is the off-color rendition that you were referring to. from my experience, I had never encountered such problem. the color rendering is really making me very happy.

to the OP, I suggest you should test the waters first before you make your decision. who knows, you might like it.

[Jasvox]

The improved metering alone would make me choose the K-7 over the K20D. All else is just nice to have.

Jason

[Rondec]

Kunik - if those are the conditions you shoot in well then I can see your point about the K20d being ok, there is like 1000 points of contrast for the camera to hone in on the picture you are showing me...

I am referring more to that in between lighting that is always present at every wedding... like for example when the bride is coming down the aisle with her dad in a high top ceiling church with window light... but not enough ambient light to land on either therefore no contrast..

I should also point out I don't have a Pentax flash I actually use manual flashes as I find them more consistent so I have no guide beam to work with just strictly the whim of the camera or manual focus, in the shots above they are dancing in near darkness.... and I missed many shots because my camera would hunt quite a bit....

Paul

It strikes me that you are using middle of the line to lower end Pentax equipment and comparing it to very high end Canon equipment. I don't shoot weddings, but if I did, I would certainly get an upper end flash and couple of FA limiteds. You could certainly do that for the price of an L lens and 5D. I also think that for what you do, even the K20 would be a big jump, probably the K7 would be too.

[nostatic]

If I were shooting weddings I'd have two bodies. And agree that K20d is a significant step up from K10d. You can buy a pair of K20ds for the price of the K7 and have a "real" wedding setup. With an FA ltd you can shoot available light as well.

Plenty of different ways to solve the problem. But you have to identify what the goal is first.