[maleek]

I don't think Pentax is fooling anyone really. But of course I hope that glass will be easier availiable. In Sweden you have to search hard for to come by some lenses in Pk-mount. Esp Tamron and Pentax D-FA lenses is almost impossible. But right now I am just a happy camper. I got manual lenses to experiment with and the kit lens to fall back on.

[TaoMaas]

I'm sorry, wmmk, but your current equipment selection leads me to believe that you shouldn't really be worrying about L lenses at this point. You're shooting an inexpensive kit lens and a 35mm zoom which encompasses a zoom range that screams "compromise". If you were serious enough about your craft that you were being limited by your lenses, you'd already own more serious gear.

[davemdsn]

I am still amazed at the discussion of Pentax lenses not being available. I have always been able to find the lens I was looking for. The FA 50 f1.4 that seems to be so elusive is almost always in stock at my local shop.

Personally, I don't care what other people shoot. If people want to spend their money switching brands I don't care. Why should I? It doesn't effect me.

What does bother me is the reason. Here Will has stated that he can't find used gear for the price he expects. That is reasonable since it has become hard to find now that Pentax has become popular again. Not Pentax's fault that nobody wants to part with their FA* glass. I sure won't be parting with mine.

Canon gear is readily availabe used because so many Canon shooters are switching to Pentax. I would never switch brands because another brand had more used gear. Makes me wonder why everyone is dumping it. Why is someone selling this lens? If it was a great lens they would want to keep it, wouldn't they? What are they buying? Are they buying the newer version of the same lens, or are they getting something else entirely? What do they know that I don't?

Remember, the world's best sports photojournalists get to be known as such because they know when to squeeze the trigger, not by holding it down all day. Fast fps will get you lucky, but it won't get you good.

[rprii]

I am still amazed at the discussion of Pentax lenses not being available. I have always been able to find the lens I was looking for. The FA 50 f1.4 that seems to be so elusive is almost always in stock at my local shop.

Personally, I don't care what other people shoot. If people want to spend their money switching brands I don't care. Why should I? It doesn't effect me.

What does bother me is the reason. Here Will has stated that he can't find used gear for the price he expects. That is reasonable since it has become hard to find now that Pentax has become popular again. Not Pentax's fault that nobody wants to part with their FA* glass. I sure won't be parting with mine.

Canon gear is readily availabe used because so many Canon shooters are switching to Pentax. I would never switch brands because another brand had more used gear. Makes me wonder why everyone is dumping it. Why is someone selling this lens? If it was a great lens they would want to keep it, wouldn't they? What are they buying? Are they buying the newer version of the same lens, or are they getting something else entirely? What do they know that I don't?

Remember, the world's best sports photojournalists get to be known as such because they know when to squeeze the trigger, not by holding it down all day. Fast fps will get you lucky, but it won't get you good.

You hit the nail on the head! My biggest problem with lens availability is that I have found too many . . . need to sell a few . . . . . . LBA strikes again!

[TomE]

Exactly, using mediocre lenses on the K100 and then complaining about the results is a bit strange to say the least.

Get or borrow some good glass and then see what your results are, especially since you seem to be inexperienced to say the least.

Once you have perfected your craft, then you will be able to make a informed decision on what gear to buy, but not now when you know little about what you are doing. Your present gear is perfect to learn with and purchasing expensive Canon or Nikon gear won't help the learning curve, it will just cost you money better spent on practice.

If your class requires you to get a film camera get a fully manual one like a K1000 so you will be able to learn how photography works, not allowing the camera to do the work for you.

Tom

[Avantphoto]

Also just because it's 'L' glass dosen't mean it perfect either. I've owned quite a few L's in my past and none were perfect, granted some are very good, but some were to the point I returned it before I was stuck with it. I know I cannot find that much Pentax glass around my local area but I can find tons on line, both new and used in about every focal length and range I could ever want.

[GaryML]

Hello all,
I think I might be switching to Canon soon. I'd love to stay with Pentax, but I can't find as much used FA* glass as I can L glass. Pentax also isn't currently able to offer an 8fps body, whereas I can get a 6 year old can for $780. Not bad.

I know I'm wasting my time with this post, but ...

Why do you need 8 frames per second? If you were a professional journalist covering a war or a professional sports photographer being paid thousands of dollars for that one superb shot from the Superbowl, then it would makes sense to invest a huge sum of money in the very best equipment available (and deduct the cost as a business expense on your tax return). But for most purposes, the Pentax K100D will give you results that are 100% as good for a fraction of the price.

As I recall from a prior post, you are an incoming high school freshman who will be taking pictures for the school newspaper and yearbook, and you have limited interest in sports photography. I would venture to say that your K100D with a couple of decent lenses will be more than adequate for these projects and other similar projects for the forseeable future. I would also venture to say that your nearly new K100D will be more reliable and more comfortable to use than an old and heavy Canon 1D that may already have a hundred thousand shutter activations, worn-out battery and has been banged around and dropped for the past 6 years.

I have a 13 year old daughter, and I was 13 years old once myself (although my kids dispute this). I understand your feeling of wanting the essential tools that you need and wanting to have them now. But if you simply add a couple of good lenses to the K100D you will have the essential tools that you need, even if it isn't "what the pros use." For example, the DA* zooms available soon or the Sigma zooms discussed in your prior thread will cover everything you need with results that are going to be as good as the Canon L lenses (or better). Add a decent TTL flash (AF540FGZ) and perhaps a fast prime lens for indoor available light use and you're all set. Then save the extra money you would spend on all of the Canon gear for the next essential acquisitions you are going to want in the future, such as a car, a new stereo, a new computer, video gear, etc.

[WMBP]

I know I'm wasting my time with this post, but ...

Correct, Gary. Young Will has the good fortune to have a personal mentor (or mentors) outside this forum, and he's getting his advice from them. One can only hope that they're doing a good job.

Perhaps he'll offer his mint-condition K100D kit for sale here in this forum and somebody can pick it up for a good price.

(Old) Will

[davemdsn]

Some time ago I worked in a camera shop. I sold a very nice young couple a Pentax ZX-5N 35mm canera. This was long before digital SLRs were available to the general market (at that time they were under a megapixel and cost around $10,000). The ZX-5N was a fantistic camera, very well designed, perfect for serious shooters.

A year later the young man came in saying that he had been given some compliments on his photography and had decided to turn pro. I was eager to help. At that time FA* glass was still in production and easy to get. I believe the MZ-S had also just come out. Magnesium body, inteligent design, even beat out the Nikon F100 in American Photo magazine's review. Not that he even needed a new camera to get started. After all, it was with his current camera that he got those compliments.

Someone had told him that in order you go pro you had to have a Nikon. I sold him the F100, someone else sold him an outdated 80-200 f2.8. For what he spent he could have upgraded his Pentax with more lenses.

Here's the really funny part. He came in a couple weeks later complaining that his pictures were coming out horrible! He had spent all that money and because of a lack of any real understanding of photography he had actually made his photos worse, not better.

The moral of this story is - make sure you know what you are changing for. Don't do it because someone told you to.

Remember, people are professionals - cameras are tools.

[smcclelland]

Frankly from a newcomer standpoint I don't really see where the disappointment in the K100D comes from or why you feel the need to have such "professional equipment" right away. As others have stated, learn the ropes of photography and the art behind it by shooting as much as you can with the K100D. As you progress and adapt then buy lenses you find you require to obtain certain shots and build your collection. Spending $2000+ right away on glass or replacing your K100D with a high end Canon or Nikon sounds like more money than sense to me.

I hear the same type of thing every day at work (I work in computer animation for film, working on stereoscopic IMAX 3D features currently) and at least a few times a week an artist says "I need a new machine" and they think that spending the $6000+ is going to turn their work into this dazzling piece. The hardware's just a pencil, it's the person who holds the pencil that dictates the outcome and how they put it to use.

goodluck with your choice.

-shawn

[ChrisA]

I think I might be switching to Canon soon. I'd love to stay with Pentax, but I can't find as much used FA* glass as I can L glass. Pentax also isn't currently able to offer an 8fps body

About the fact that the 1D is 4.1MP, I can't say that I'm bothered by this.

I'm quite interested by this thread. I have a Pentax camera; it's a K10D, and I like it, but I'm not a Pentax fanboy by a long way.

So.

Two thoughts occur to me. If 8fps compared with 3fps is really going to make the difference between good shots and not-good-enough shots, wouldn't video be better?

And is an FA* lens at 4.1 MP going to give better results than an FA lens at 10 MP? Really?

If so, I'd be interested in a totally objective, considered analysis of exactly why and in what circumstances.

[ChrisA]

All this reminds me...

Consider the following situation.

You take 100 shots, at 3 frames per second. That's about 33 seconds of elapsed time.

Each time, the shutter is open for, say, 1/250s, since it's action photography.

So 100 x 1/250 is 0.4 of a second.

So while you have the button pressed, and the camera is banging away, click click click...

... you've captured 0.4 seconds out of 33 seconds elapsed. Just a tiny bit over 1% of the total.

You now get an 8fps body. Ok, so now you can capture a massive 264 shots in that 33 seconds - and at 1/250s, that's now a colossal 3% of the total.

The shutter is still closed for 97% of the total time.

You think you're going to get many great shots with those odds? Think again.

It's when you press it, not how long you hold it down that will make the difference.

[Eaglerapids]

"you now get an 8fps body. Ok, so now you can capture a massive 264 shots in that 33 seconds"
Better be picking up a LOT of SD or compact flash cards (or whatever ones your new camera uses), lol.

[Mr CJ]

As a sports shooter I can understand wanting 8fps. If he's not shooting sports then it's a definite overkill. But there is more to it than just 8fps. It's all about how many useable images you capture. Combine 8fps with the faster AF of USM, now we're talking business. Capturing 264 shots in 33 seconds means nothing if you only have 8 useable shots because your AF can't lock-on fast enough (or correctly). I do ok with the K10 and sports, but I also miss a lot cause the AF just isn't fast enough.

[little laker]

I hate sorting through all the pic's that I take
I'd sure hate to have 3 times more to sort through.

In the last week I've probably taken around 400 photo's and sorted through about 75 of them And I won't have time to for at least another week.