Sad but true, quitting Pentax

**Lowell Goudge** · 09-01-2009, 08:48 AM

Originally posted by gokenin

He simply starts another thread of how Pentax doesn't offer what I need so I feel abandoned and now I need to tell you all about it as I leave.

Actually, no he is stating that pentax dropped something that never existed.

B Grace · 09-01-2009, 10:39 AM

One comment on the Nikon zooms: The 70-200/2.8 has always been a 35mm or FX format lens. I was tempted to buy one for my N80 when I still shot film on a regular basis. It's an outstanding lens and nicely replaces the older AF-S 80-200/2.8 plus it includes VR. The only long Nikon DX zooms have been the 55-200 pedestrian lenses, one with VR, one without.

A co-worker has the D700 with a 24-70/2.8 and 14-24/2.8. Other than his resulting financial issues, he loves the combo.

The older Nikon AI and AIS primes are indeed nice and some are still available new from stocks but they're not Pentax lenses. Most of the Nikkors I've used have given out of focus areas that get very busy especially when shooting against backgrounds that are busy. It's just an observation but I've found that most of the Nikon shooters I know use only one or two zooms and don't see the flaws in their images created by their less expensive Nikkors. From what I've seen, the 24-70/2.8 and 70-200/2.8 are the only new Nikkor zooms I'd consider for FF.

ktwse · 09-01-2009, 01:35 PM

Originally posted by B Grace

One comment on the Nikon zooms: The 70-200/2.8 has always been a 35mm or FX format lens.

Both professional testers and users complain about severe vignetting and poor corner sharpness on FX, probably the reason Nikon has finally decided to do an updated version. The fact is it was released (and probably designed) at a time when Nikon didn't have a single FX DSLR in their lineup, and when they probably weren't optimizing lenses for their film cameras anymore.

As for zooms, the killer lens in the Nikon lineup is the 14-24, no other manufacturer has anything that comes even close to its performance. Of course, filters are a bit of an issue with that one. But that's really its only flaw and it's not much of a biggie considering how polarizers perform at such a wide angle. That lens is the only thing I truly miss, having switched from a D700 to the K-7. Sure, the D700 is a low light monster, especially paired with a 1.4 lens, but honestly due to my shooting preferences, I can't say I'll miss many shots by not having that.

I'm just curious as to why the OP has such a strong need for a full frame camera... Maybe he only shoots in extremely low light?

Thomas

wlachan · 09-01-2009, 02:37 PM

Originally posted by ktwse

Both professional testers and users complain about severe vignetting and poor corner sharpness on FX, probably the reason Nikon has finally decided to do an updated version. The fact is it was released (and probably designed) at a time when Nikon didn't have a single FX DSLR in their lineup, and when they probably weren't optimizing lenses for their film cameras anymore.

Nikon knows how to milk their fans. Look at how many AF80-200/2.8 they had? And the AF70-200/2.8 VR isn't that old either.

KungPOW · 09-01-2009, 06:09 PM

Many FF lenses that were initially designed for film will vignette on a digital full frame. It has to do with the angle of the light striking the sensor. With film, it did not matter so much. With digital, light striking the sensor at a high angle will cause a darker image.

DJEZRAJ · 09-01-2009, 11:11 PM

Originally posted by GLXLR

He did say he was looking for good ISO performance right? D700 comes to mind.

I really don't have anything against Sony and might consider switching in the future, but for the next few years of highschool and college, I think I have other things i need to save up on.

Well to me the Sony stuff does have good ISO performance. By my standards..I have a K10D and my good friend a a350 we both use Aperture and NIK Define for NR and we usually can get very Nikon looking results to the point that we question their methods. Anyway at the end of the day our performance is no deal-breaker and i simply want to illustrate that they are other qualities to images that are important. Noise is simply one and it can be overcome. i was also surprised that more Pentaxians did not waive the in body SR flag for Sony vs Nikon. Im surprised im just saying...
Anyway to eanch their own but again the Sony Low iso is real nice and i recommend anyone to read the reviews on Luminous Landscape regarding the A900. I say good NR software can cure the differences between cam's to a large degree
Cheers
Roger

jah3 · 09-02-2009, 11:06 AM

Originally posted by ktwse

Both professional testers and users complain about severe vignetting and poor corner sharpness on FX, probably the reason Nikon has finally decided to do an updated version. The fact is it was released (and probably designed) at a time when Nikon didn't have a single FX DSLR in their lineup, and when they probably weren't optimizing lenses for their film cameras anymore.

As for zooms, the killer lens in the Nikon lineup is the 14-24, no other manufacturer has anything that comes even close to its performance. Of course, filters are a bit of an issue with that one. But that's really its only flaw and it's not much of a biggie considering how polarizers perform at such a wide angle. That lens is the only thing I truly miss, having switched from a D700 to the K-7. Sure, the D700 is a low light monster, especially paired with a 1.4 lens, but honestly due to my shooting preferences, I can't say I'll miss many shots by not having that.

I'm just curious as to why the OP has such a strong need for a full frame camera... Maybe he only shoots in extremely low light?

Thomas

I do a lot of shooting in very low light, since my shooting is very wide latitude during the 24h and not in a constant place. The Pentax has been ok, but just havent seemed up to my needs, always missed something. I'll go testing the D700 when i'll set my foot on dry land again and see how its feeling. I'm a fan of primes and i would be fond of a set of 20/50/100, but i need to keep looking for what to go on, probably an 24-70/2.8 instead.
It seems some people are offended by my original post, all i did was to try getting personal experiences from those who shared similar experiences.

tcdk · 09-05-2009, 12:14 AM

Interesting thread - I've had some of the same thoughts about getting a D700.

Thing is - I evaluate all my shoots and look at where I was the weakest.

Previous shoot: Behind the scenes at ad video shoot. Only thing that didn't really work for me, was some remotely triggered shots. Just doesn't trust the IR remote - esp. in the sun. I just got a RF602 radio trigger set in my mailbox to fix that situation.

Last shoot: Wedding. Portraits and formals. Great. Low-light no-flash shots of bride/father and Bride/groom entering and leaving church... could have been sharper (did them with K20D/Pentax DA* 50-135/2.8). To few usable shots for comfort. And I was lucky, the sun was shining at just the right moments. If it hadn't... A D700 with a 70-200/2.8 VR would give me two maybe three more stops in a situation like that.

I'm thinking about keeping Pentax for the SR. I normally use two camera for jobs where "no mistakes must be made". For the the behind the scenes, I had a 50-135 on one shoulder and the Sigma 17-70 on the other. Wedding, is similar except, a second-shooter/assistant has the second house and we swap once in a while. I take care of the "must haves"...

It's all about what you are shooting. It doesn't matter if you don't do it often. If you need to do it once, you need to do it right.

Imagine this conversation:

Bride: "Why is there no good photo's of us leaving the church?"
Me: "Well, I don't really have the gear for low-light moving targets. Don't do it enough to justify the investment".
Bride: "You promised to do a job - and now you tell me you knew your equipment isn't up to the job?".
Me: "Eh, yes?"
Bride: "Are you serious?"
Me: "Yes? Pentax can't deliver the gear I need, and the guys at PentaxForums will stop talking to me if I buy another brand."

This is not the way to get recommendations and new jobs. And I'm really hoping to pickup more wedding jobs...

Sometimes getting it right 90% of the time isn't good enough and you have to pay the premium for getting those extra 9%. It's a huge premium, compared to what you get.

I had really hoped the K7 would deliver two things. Better high ISO and better lowlight AF (indoor low-light flash shooting with a slow lens can be .. rather tiring).

If you never enter those "must not fail" situations, non of this matters and you can work around it or try again.

I guess that's the difference between Semi-Pro and Pro.

The wedding season is over here, so I'm in no hurry, but next year I'll be shooting with something with better high ISO capabilities than Pentax can currently deliver. I would love for it to be a K7+ with two more stops of high-iso performance...

wlachan · 09-05-2009, 02:26 PM

Originally posted by tcdk

It's all about what you are shooting. It doesn't matter if you don't do it often. If you need to do it once, you need to do it right.

Right on. Some people just don't get it. It is not about getting some shots in tough situations, it is about getting THE shots that you NEEDED.

georgweb · 09-07-2009, 03:14 AM

Quote:

Creampuff said:
"... ex-Minolta friends using the Sony A900 who literally want to throw the camera against the wall in frustration because of the problems that plague this model (camera freezes with the mirror locked-up out of the blue, the occasional lens not being recognised by the camera issues, noisy images despite the high resolution)."

Creampuff, if you could give me a hint what would happen if I put together together the following gear. Before, I should say this would be to photograph single persons head and shoulders and/or groups of persons. AF should be working, skin tones should be allright out of the camera.

Sony DSLR (FF or not, still not decided)
Minolta AF 50/1.7
Minolta AF 85/1.4

Would you think the above combo would give for a constantly working AF and exposure ? I have experienced the lockup with my K100D and the very nice SMC-F 70-210 lens (AF will lock somewere and refuse to release the shutter). It drove me mad to the point I resorted to manual focus = peace of mind .-)

Best, Georg (the other)

ryan s · 09-07-2009, 09:28 AM

Originally posted by tcdk

Imagine this conversation:

Bride: "Why is there no good photo's of us leaving the church?"
Me: "Well, I don't really have the gear for low-light moving targets. Don't do it enough to justify the investment".
Bride: "You promised to do a job - and now you tell me you knew your equipment isn't up to the job?".
Me: "Eh, yes?"
Bride: "Are you serious?"
Me: "Yes? Pentax can't deliver the gear I need, and the guys at PentaxForums will stop talking to me if I buy another brand."

Is there any truth in this? If so...you might need to put down the internet for a while.

"I don't want to make more money because a forum will shun me"

tcdk · 09-07-2009, 09:41 AM

Originally posted by ryan s

Is there any truth in this? If so...you might need to put down the internet for a while.

"I don't want to make more money because a forum will shun me"

Of cause there's no truth in it - it was an imaginary conversation, slightly exaggerated for effect.

It's just some people take this brand stuff way to seriously. I love my Pentaxs. That doesn't chance the fact that their best is currently a couple of stops to slow for some of the stuff I want to do.

ryan s · 09-07-2009, 09:53 AM

Originally posted by tcdk

Of cause there's no truth in it - it was an imaginary conversation, slightly exaggerated for effect.

It's just some people take this brand stuff way to seriously. I love my Pentaxs. That doesn't chance the fact that their best is currently a couple of stops to slow for some of the stuff I want to do.

Slightly

You're on a brand-specific forum, with very few people who don't actually own a Pentax (and a couple who do, but seek to demean it whenever possible), so what do you expect?

On my "home" forum, everyone owns the same car. When people come on and say "Should I buy one?" what do you think the consensus is? Ya know?

aleonx3 · 09-07-2009, 09:58 AM

Most people can't tell good shots from average shots (just my own experience anyway)... I have been to 3 weddings in one months. The hosts just want more pictures.... in one of the wedding parties, there was a team of 5 photographers and one handling the camcorder. As long as the pictures showing the bride is "beautiful", that is all that matters. You can not take "all" the pictures because you can not be at all places at the same time. I have seen pictures taken by professionals using professional cameras that are out-of-focus and underexposed... have not heard any complaints from the hosts. They think that my Pentax camera produces some wonderful pictures, but they also think Pentax is not a professional camera, right? Would they have hired me instead? No... or may be because I don't use one of those "professional" cameras.

kristoffon · 09-07-2009, 11:18 AM

Originally posted by tcdk

Last shoot: Wedding. Portraits and formals. Great. Low-light no-flash shots of bride/father and Bride/groom entering and leaving church... could have been sharper (did them with K20D/Pentax DA* 50-135/2.8). To few usable shots for comfort. And I was lucky, the sun was shining at just the right moments. If it hadn't... A D700 with a 70-200/2.8 VR would give me two maybe three more stops in a situation like that.

I'm thinking about keeping Pentax for the SR. I normally use two camera for jobs where "no mistakes must be made". For the the behind the scenes, I had a 50-135 on one shoulder and the Sigma 17-70 on the other. Wedding, is similar except, a second-shooter/assistant has the second house and we swap once in a while. I take care of the "must haves"...

It's all about what you are shooting. It doesn't matter if you don't do it often. If you need to do it once, you need to do it right.

I saw some striking wedding photos the other day on an article about how the photographer behaves at the wedding. The bottom line was he used small prime lenses instead of huge zooms and all shots were spontaneous because the people didn't fell like the light was being sucked out of them by this humongous lens. And he took great photos in dim places. And he used Pentax primes.

Why weren't your shots sharp? ISO noise? Movement? You don't say.

So I'm unconvinced that your problem is equipment.

If I were to take wedding photographs I'd carry nothing but primes. With the price of a D700 + lenses you can get 3 pentax K20d bodies + a set of FA limiteds and have lots of change left, and a lighter weight kit. A FA ltd already gives you 1,5 stop.

Then don't forget the D700 will also miss shots. Because if you rely on autofocus it will sometimes focus on the wrong thing. So learn to autofocus well. I did and I'm no pro but I can take sharp shots. Therefore for the can't-miss shots MF is all that can be relied on.

But I'm saying all that for free so take it for what it's worth.

09-01-2009, 11:11 PM	#66
DJEZRAJ Junior Member Join Date: Aug 2009 Location: Vancouver BC Posts: 33	Good ISO Originally posted by GLXLR He did say he was looking for good ISO performance right? D700 comes to mind. I really don't have anything against Sony and might consider switching in the future, but for the next few years of highschool and college, I think I have other things i need to save up on. Well to me the Sony stuff does have good ISO performance. By my standards..I have a K10D and my good friend a a350 we both use Aperture and NIK Define for NR and we usually can get very Nikon looking results to the point that we question their methods. Anyway at the end of the day our performance is no deal-breaker and i simply want to illustrate that they are other qualities to images that are important. Noise is simply one and it can be overcome. i was also surprised that more Pentaxians did not waive the in body SR flag for Sony vs Nikon. Im surprised im just saying... Anyway to eanch their own but again the Sony Low iso is real nice and i recommend anyone to read the reviews on Luminous Landscape regarding the A900. I say good NR software can cure the differences between cam's to a large degree Cheers Roger

09-05-2009, 12:14 AM	#68
tcdk Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Copenhagen, Denmark Posts: 279	Interesting thread - I've had some of the same thoughts about getting a D700. Thing is - I evaluate all my shoots and look at where I was the weakest. Previous shoot: Behind the scenes at ad video shoot. Only thing that didn't really work for me, was some remotely triggered shots. Just doesn't trust the IR remote - esp. in the sun. I just got a RF602 radio trigger set in my mailbox to fix that situation. Last shoot: Wedding. Portraits and formals. Great. Low-light no-flash shots of bride/father and Bride/groom entering and leaving church... could have been sharper (did them with K20D/Pentax DA* 50-135/2.8). To few usable shots for comfort. And I was lucky, the sun was shining at just the right moments. If it hadn't... A D700 with a 70-200/2.8 VR would give me two maybe three more stops in a situation like that. I'm thinking about keeping Pentax for the SR. I normally use two camera for jobs where "no mistakes must be made". For the the behind the scenes, I had a 50-135 on one shoulder and the Sigma 17-70 on the other. Wedding, is similar except, a second-shooter/assistant has the second house and we swap once in a while. I take care of the "must haves"... It's all about what you are shooting. It doesn't matter if you don't do it often. If you need to do it once, you need to do it right. Imagine this conversation: Bride: "Why is there no good photo's of us leaving the church?" Me: "Well, I don't really have the gear for low-light moving targets. Don't do it enough to justify the investment". Bride: "You promised to do a job - and now you tell me you knew your equipment isn't up to the job?". Me: "Eh, yes?" Bride: "Are you serious?" Me: "Yes? Pentax can't deliver the gear I need, and the guys at PentaxForums will stop talking to me if I buy another brand." This is not the way to get recommendations and new jobs. And I'm really hoping to pickup more wedding jobs... Sometimes getting it right 90% of the time isn't good enough and you have to pay the premium for getting those extra 9%. It's a huge premium, compared to what you get. I had really hoped the K7 would deliver two things. Better high ISO and better lowlight AF (indoor low-light flash shooting with a slow lens can be .. rather tiring). If you never enter those "must not fail" situations, non of this matters and you can work around it or try again. I guess that's the difference between Semi-Pro and Pro. The wedding season is over here, so I'm in no hurry, but next year I'll be shooting with something with better high ISO capabilities than Pentax can currently deliver. I would love for it to be a K7+ with two more stops of high-iso performance... Last edited by tcdk; 09-06-2009 at 12:26 AM.

09-07-2009, 09:58 AM	#74
aleonx3 Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Brampton, Ontario Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 3,996	Most people can't tell good shots from average shots (just my own experience anyway)... I have been to 3 weddings in one months. The hosts just want more pictures.... in one of the wedding parties, there was a team of 5 photographers and one handling the camcorder. As long as the pictures showing the bride is "beautiful", that is all that matters. You can not take "all" the pictures because you can not be at all places at the same time. I have seen pictures taken by professionals using professional cameras that are out-of-focus and underexposed... have not heard any complaints from the hosts. They think that my Pentax camera produces some wonderful pictures, but they also think Pentax is not a professional camera, right? Would they have hired me instead? No... or may be because I don't use one of those "professional" cameras. Last edited by aleonx3; 09-07-2009 at 10:09 AM.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Quitting Pentax?	Deniz	Pentax DSLR Discussion	75	11-05-2010 05:47 PM
A true Pentax family	Canada_Rockies	Photographic Technique	6	11-04-2009 01:34 PM
The True Pentax Spirit Returns!	charlie_lucas	Pentax DSLR Discussion	40	05-29-2009 08:41 PM
Lightroom accept Pentax - TRUE?	marius	Digital Processing, Software, and Printing	4	08-10-2008 02:42 PM
Another sad, but true, Wolf Camera Story	Ed in GA	General Talk	19	06-17-2008 05:33 PM

09-01-2009, 08:48 AM	#61
Lowell Goudge Site Supporter Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Toronto Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 17,891	Originally posted by gokenin He simply starts another thread of how Pentax doesn't offer what I need so I feel abandoned and now I need to tell you all about it as I leave. Actually, no he is stating that pentax dropped something that never existed.

09-01-2009, 10:39 AM	#62
B Grace Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2008 Location: Western Missouri Posts: 429	One comment on the Nikon zooms: The 70-200/2.8 has always been a 35mm or FX format lens. I was tempted to buy one for my N80 when I still shot film on a regular basis. It's an outstanding lens and nicely replaces the older AF-S 80-200/2.8 plus it includes VR. The only long Nikon DX zooms have been the 55-200 pedestrian lenses, one with VR, one without. A co-worker has the D700 with a 24-70/2.8 and 14-24/2.8. Other than his resulting financial issues, he loves the combo. The older Nikon AI and AIS primes are indeed nice and some are still available new from stocks but they're not Pentax lenses. Most of the Nikkors I've used have given out of focus areas that get very busy especially when shooting against backgrounds that are busy. It's just an observation but I've found that most of the Nikon shooters I know use only one or two zooms and don't see the flaws in their images created by their less expensive Nikkors. From what I've seen, the 24-70/2.8 and 70-200/2.8 are the only new Nikkor zooms I'd consider for FF.

09-01-2009, 01:35 PM	#63
ktwse Forum Member Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: Stockholm, Sweden Posts: 57	Originally posted by B Grace One comment on the Nikon zooms: The 70-200/2.8 has always been a 35mm or FX format lens. Both professional testers and users complain about severe vignetting and poor corner sharpness on FX, probably the reason Nikon has finally decided to do an updated version. The fact is it was released (and probably designed) at a time when Nikon didn't have a single FX DSLR in their lineup, and when they probably weren't optimizing lenses for their film cameras anymore. As for zooms, the killer lens in the Nikon lineup is the 14-24, no other manufacturer has anything that comes even close to its performance. Of course, filters are a bit of an issue with that one. But that's really its only flaw and it's not much of a biggie considering how polarizers perform at such a wide angle. That lens is the only thing I truly miss, having switched from a D700 to the K-7. Sure, the D700 is a low light monster, especially paired with a 1.4 lens, but honestly due to my shooting preferences, I can't say I'll miss many shots by not having that. I'm just curious as to why the OP has such a strong need for a full frame camera... Maybe he only shoots in extremely low light? Thomas

09-01-2009, 02:37 PM	#64
wlachan Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Canada Photos: Albums Posts: 2,625	Originally posted by ktwse Both professional testers and users complain about severe vignetting and poor corner sharpness on FX, probably the reason Nikon has finally decided to do an updated version. The fact is it was released (and probably designed) at a time when Nikon didn't have a single FX DSLR in their lineup, and when they probably weren't optimizing lenses for their film cameras anymore. Nikon knows how to milk their fans. Look at how many AF80-200/2.8 they had? And the AF70-200/2.8 VR isn't that old either.

09-01-2009, 06:09 PM	#65
KungPOW Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: Vancouver, Canada Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,699	Many FF lenses that were initially designed for film will vignette on a digital full frame. It has to do with the angle of the light striking the sensor. With film, it did not matter so much. With digital, light striking the sensor at a high angle will cause a darker image.

09-02-2009, 11:06 AM	#67
jah3 Inactive Account Join Date: Aug 2008 Posts: 35 Original Poster	Originally posted by ktwse Both professional testers and users complain about severe vignetting and poor corner sharpness on FX, probably the reason Nikon has finally decided to do an updated version. The fact is it was released (and probably designed) at a time when Nikon didn't have a single FX DSLR in their lineup, and when they probably weren't optimizing lenses for their film cameras anymore. As for zooms, the killer lens in the Nikon lineup is the 14-24, no other manufacturer has anything that comes even close to its performance. Of course, filters are a bit of an issue with that one. But that's really its only flaw and it's not much of a biggie considering how polarizers perform at such a wide angle. That lens is the only thing I truly miss, having switched from a D700 to the K-7. Sure, the D700 is a low light monster, especially paired with a 1.4 lens, but honestly due to my shooting preferences, I can't say I'll miss many shots by not having that. I'm just curious as to why the OP has such a strong need for a full frame camera... Maybe he only shoots in extremely low light? Thomas I do a lot of shooting in very low light, since my shooting is very wide latitude during the 24h and not in a constant place. The Pentax has been ok, but just havent seemed up to my needs, always missed something. I'll go testing the D700 when i'll set my foot on dry land again and see how its feeling. I'm a fan of primes and i would be fond of a set of 20/50/100, but i need to keep looking for what to go on, probably an 24-70/2.8 instead. It seems some people are offended by my original post, all i did was to try getting personal experiences from those who shared similar experiences.

09-05-2009, 02:26 PM	#69
wlachan Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Canada Photos: Albums Posts: 2,625	Originally posted by tcdk It's all about what you are shooting. It doesn't matter if you don't do it often. If you need to do it once, you need to do it right. Right on. Some people just don't get it. It is not about getting some shots in tough situations, it is about getting THE shots that you NEEDED.

09-07-2009, 03:14 AM	#70
georgweb Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2008 Location: Berlin, Germany Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,386	Quote: Creampuff said: "... ex-Minolta friends using the Sony A900 who literally want to throw the camera against the wall in frustration because of the problems that plague this model (camera freezes with the mirror locked-up out of the blue, the occasional lens not being recognised by the camera issues, noisy images despite the high resolution)." Creampuff, if you could give me a hint what would happen if I put together together the following gear. Before, I should say this would be to photograph single persons head and shoulders and/or groups of persons. AF should be working, skin tones should be allright out of the camera. Sony DSLR (FF or not, still not decided) Minolta AF 50/1.7 Minolta AF 85/1.4 Would you think the above combo would give for a constantly working AF and exposure ? I have experienced the lockup with my K100D and the very nice SMC-F 70-210 lens (AF will lock somewere and refuse to release the shutter). It drove me mad to the point I resorted to manual focus = peace of mind .-) Best, Georg (the other)

09-07-2009, 09:28 AM	#71
ryan s Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: Madison, WI Photos: Gallery Posts: 2,383	Originally posted by tcdk Imagine this conversation: Bride: "Why is there no good photo's of us leaving the church?" Me: "Well, I don't really have the gear for low-light moving targets. Don't do it enough to justify the investment". Bride: "You promised to do a job - and now you tell me you knew your equipment isn't up to the job?". Me: "Eh, yes?" Bride: "Are you serious?" Me: "Yes? Pentax can't deliver the gear I need, and the guys at PentaxForums will stop talking to me if I buy another brand." Is there any truth in this? If so...you might need to put down the internet for a while. "I don't want to make more money because a forum will shun me"

09-07-2009, 09:41 AM	#72
tcdk Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Copenhagen, Denmark Posts: 279	Originally posted by ryan s Is there any truth in this? If so...you might need to put down the internet for a while. "I don't want to make more money because a forum will shun me" Of cause there's no truth in it - it was an imaginary conversation, slightly exaggerated for effect. It's just some people take this brand stuff way to seriously. I love my Pentaxs. That doesn't chance the fact that their best is currently a couple of stops to slow for some of the stuff I want to do.

09-07-2009, 09:53 AM	#73
ryan s Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: Madison, WI Photos: Gallery Posts: 2,383	Originally posted by tcdk Of cause there's no truth in it - it was an imaginary conversation, slightly exaggerated for effect. It's just some people take this brand stuff way to seriously. I love my Pentaxs. That doesn't chance the fact that their best is currently a couple of stops to slow for some of the stuff I want to do. Slightly You're on a brand-specific forum, with very few people who don't actually own a Pentax (and a couple who do, but seek to demean it whenever possible), so what do you expect? On my "home" forum, everyone owns the same car. When people come on and say "Should I buy one?" what do you think the consensus is? Ya know?

09-07-2009, 11:18 AM	#75
kristoffon Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2008 Location: Brazil Posts: 532	Originally posted by tcdk Last shoot: Wedding. Portraits and formals. Great. Low-light no-flash shots of bride/father and Bride/groom entering and leaving church... could have been sharper (did them with K20D/Pentax DA* 50-135/2.8). To few usable shots for comfort. And I was lucky, the sun was shining at just the right moments. If it hadn't... A D700 with a 70-200/2.8 VR would give me two maybe three more stops in a situation like that. I'm thinking about keeping Pentax for the SR. I normally use two camera for jobs where "no mistakes must be made". For the the behind the scenes, I had a 50-135 on one shoulder and the Sigma 17-70 on the other. Wedding, is similar except, a second-shooter/assistant has the second house and we swap once in a while. I take care of the "must haves"... It's all about what you are shooting. It doesn't matter if you don't do it often. If you need to do it once, you need to do it right. I saw some striking wedding photos the other day on an article about how the photographer behaves at the wedding. The bottom line was he used small prime lenses instead of huge zooms and all shots were spontaneous because the people didn't fell like the light was being sucked out of them by this humongous lens. And he took great photos in dim places. And he used Pentax primes. Why weren't your shots sharp? ISO noise? Movement? You don't say. So I'm unconvinced that your problem is equipment. If I were to take wedding photographs I'd carry nothing but primes. With the price of a D700 + lenses you can get 3 pentax K20d bodies + a set of FA limiteds and have lots of change left, and a lighter weight kit. A FA ltd already gives you 1,5 stop. Then don't forget the D700 will also miss shots. Because if you rely on autofocus it will sometimes focus on the wrong thing. So learn to autofocus well. I did and I'm no pro but I can take sharp shots. Therefore for the can't-miss shots MF is all that can be relied on. But I'm saying all that for free so take it for what it's worth.