[reh321]

for G you need to be able to set aperture directly on the body.
for E the body need to be able to handle the electromagnetic aperture.

Of course Pentax has the same distinctions - just followed different path

KA-mount sets aperture directly from body

KAF4-mount handles electromagnetic aperture

[dubyam]

I have been looking through older photos for the post count and consistently the older cameras K-7, K5, Q, photos impress me. I think the main advantage of the recent DSLRs from Pentax is better controls and features. The pictures were already good long ago.

These comments (regarding equipment versus skill) are pretty much the crux of the issue for me. My use of Pentax stems from growing up with the brand (slightly) and wanting weather resistance and a good feature set (primarily) in my choice of DSLR. You just can't get a comparable DSLR with WR from CaNikon, even at a higher price point. I dont have expensive lenses, by any means, but have managed to gather a few decent ones. The original 18-55WR & 50-200WR kit lenses which came with my K-30 work well enough for decent pictures, and my new-to-me 18-135WR is even better. I have the little DA50 as my only prime right now, and have enjoyed the sharpness and DOF I can get with it. I have an old F100-300, which makes good pics if I'm in a steady spot (with a tripod, even better) and it's not so bright as to cause fringing and softness. I'm still learning the sweet spots for that lens.

What I'm trying to do now is develop my skill in composition and re-learn my technique in terms of what I once knew (35yrs ago on film) of exposure/aperture. It's a struggle, as I frequently see scenes I know would make good photographs, but can't seem to capture the essence with my camera - or at least not in the way I'd like. I'm pretty sure it's me, and not the system, as I've had the same results using my brother's Canon gear and my sister's Nikon gear.

This has been an interesting thread for comparison, as I've wondered now and then what the other brands look like comparatively. Sorry for the slight thread jack.

[Mikesul]

These comments (regarding equipment versus skill) are pretty much the crux of the issue for me. My use of Pentax stems from growing up with the brand (slightly) and wanting weather resistance and a good feature set (primarily) in my choice of DSLR. You just can't get a comparable DSLR with WR from CaNikon, even at a higher price point. I dont have expensive lenses, by any means, but have managed to gather a few decent ones. The original 18-55WR & 50-200WR kit lenses which came with my K-30 work well enough for decent pictures, and my new-to-me 18-135WR is even better. I have the little DA50 as my only prime right now, and have enjoyed the sharpness and DOF I can get with it. I have an old F100-300, which makes good pics if I'm in a steady spot (with a tripod, even better) and it's not so bright as to cause fringing and softness. I'm still learning the sweet spots for that lens.

What I'm trying to do now is develop my skill in composition and re-learn my technique in terms of what I once knew (35yrs ago on film) of exposure/aperture. It's a struggle, as I frequently see scenes I know would make good photographs, but can't seem to capture the essence with my camera - or at least not in the way I'd like. I'm pretty sure it's me, and not the system, as I've had the same results using my brother's Canon gear and my sister's Nikon gear.

This has been an interesting thread for comparison, as I've wondered now and then what the other brands look like comparatively. Sorry for the slight thread jack.

Thanks for sharing your situation. It is always interesting to see what others want and or are struggling with. There is a lot of overlap. I don't think you got us off topic too much.

[dubyam]

Thanks for your kind words. My point, which I didn't make well, was that I tend to agree with you and others regarding differences in skill being far greater than differences in equipment. Unless you really need specific features (as I determined I did in the WR department), the reality is, the photographs one can produce using Canon, Nikon, Pentax, Sony, Fuji, et al, are largely undifferentiated when "all things are equal." In the modern sense, one can get a top quality body and top quality lenses from/for each of these brands, if one has the money, and as long as the skill is there, make great photographs. If I were to decide to swap from Pentax to a different brand, my ability to take good photographs wouldn't arguably change a whole lot, unless there was a feature on the other system which provided something inherently necessary to the kind/type of photography in which I was engaging, that Pentax didn't provide. For instance, everyone says Pentax AF is lacking. It may well be. And for me, I can't seem to get decent Bird-In-Flight pics with my Pentax gear. But, I also know from the fortunate (or unfortunate, depending on how you view it) opportunity to try to take BIF pics with my sister's Nikon a few years ago, that apparently, Nikon AF doesn't provide any significant advantage for me, in taking BIF pics. I suspect the reality is, the weakest link in either system is the "loose nut behind the viewfinder" and swapping one system for the other doesn't change that aspect of photography at all.

As for what Nikon lenses make sense, a friend who is a professional portrait photographer (makes her living at it) uses Nikon, and she told me despite having to back off a lot on many photos, she liked the 85mm prime she has (Nikkor 85mm f/1.4G IF AF-S) better than any other lens, and uses it greater than 80% of the time. Now, knowing she's shooting FF, that compares to me trying to use a 50mm all the time on my APS-C Pentax. Maybe I could do that for indoor portrait work, but outdoor portrait really seems difficult to me with just a 50mm lens. I find myself feeling the need to back up a lot. Perhaps it's being used to having a zoom. Anyway, my point here is, depending on the photography technique/setting one is considering, the "right" lenses might change from one maker to another, depending on which lenses offer the best image quality and focus abilities in combination with the body in question. I can say that the pics I've taken with my little el cheapo DA 50 have come out very sharp and nice, and for my abilities, I can't see spending the kind of cash it would take to have a similar lens and body in another brand.

[UncleVanya]

Thanks for your kind words. My point, which I didn't make well, was that I tend to agree with you and others regarding differences in skill being far greater than differences in equipment.

I agree with the equipment isn't the end all be all part of this.

As for what Nikon lenses make sense, a friend who is a professional portrait photographer (makes her living at it) uses Nikon, and she told me despite having to back off a lot on many photos, she liked the 85mm prime she has (Nikkor 85mm f/1.4G IF AF-S) better than any other lens, and uses it greater than 80% of the time. Now, knowing she's shooting FF, that compares to me trying to use a 50mm all the time on my APS-C Pentax. Maybe I could do that for indoor portrait work, but outdoor portrait really seems difficult to me with just a 50mm lens. I find myself feeling the need to back up a lot. Perhaps it's being used to having a zoom. Anyway, my point here is, depending on the photography technique/setting one is considering, the "right" lenses might change from one maker to another, depending on which lenses offer the best image quality and focus abilities in combination with the body in question. I can say that the pics I've taken with my little el cheapo DA 50 have come out very sharp and nice, and for my abilities, I can't see spending the kind of cash it would take to have a similar lens and body in another brand.

I am confused how a FF 85 would be considered long and you "have to back up" and the same for the 50 on APSC. I routinely use the FA 77 on my crop and even the 100 macro. Using the 50mm I'm able to be quite close to my subject for a traditional head and shoulders portrait. Maybe we are meaning something different for portraits? Are you talking about full body shots? Outdoors I usually have more room than in the studio - I'm really thinking you are saying the opposite of what I am understanding.

[mee]

These comments (regarding equipment versus skill) are pretty much the crux of the issue for me. My use of Pentax stems from growing up with the brand (slightly) and wanting weather resistance and a good feature set (primarily) in my choice of DSLR. You just can't get a comparable DSLR with WR from CaNikon, even at a higher price point. I dont have expensive lenses, by any means, but have managed to gather a few decent ones. The original 18-55WR & 50-200WR kit lenses which came with my K-30 work well enough for decent pictures, and my new-to-me 18-135WR is even better. I have the little DA50 as my only prime right now, and have enjoyed the sharpness and DOF I can get with it. I have an old F100-300, which makes good pics if I'm in a steady spot (with a tripod, even better) and it's not so bright as to cause fringing and softness. I'm still learning the sweet spots for that lens.

What I'm trying to do now is develop my skill in composition and re-learn my technique in terms of what I once knew (35yrs ago on film) of exposure/aperture. It's a struggle, as I frequently see scenes I know would make good photographs, but can't seem to capture the essence with my camera - or at least not in the way I'd like. I'm pretty sure it's me, and not the system, as I've had the same results using my brother's Canon gear and my sister's Nikon gear.

This has been an interesting thread for comparison, as I've wondered now and then what the other brands look like comparatively. Sorry for the slight thread jack.

I can't speak for the Canons but the upper end Nikons all have weather sealing. For instance, here is the sealing on a D810:



But both Canon and Nikon have better 3rd party support so you can get underwater housings that can protect against 30+ feet of water pressure. If that is your thing. Sadly, there is no 3rd party support at the moment for Pentax on those type of housings... not even the K-1!

[dubyam]

Certainly not trying to thread-jack with the WR discussion, but to get into a Nikon D810, I'd spend 3x what I spent for the my K-3 body. That's my point. It's available, but not at anything like the pricepoint I paid in 2013 for my K-30 or in 2016 for my K-3.

And as for the 85mm or 50mm requiring "backing up" a bit, I'm thinking in terms of outdoor portrait shooting, where full length and waist-up shots of multiple people might be the norm (as most of our family shoots are), and indeed, it does require some distance versus a 35mm wide angle or something.

As you were, discussing Nikon lenses and such. Sorry for the detour.

[mee]

Certainly not trying to thread-jack with the WR discussion, but to get into a Nikon D810, I'd spend 3x what I spent for the my K-3 body. That's my point. It's available, but not at anything like the pricepoint I paid in 2013 for my K-30 or in 2016 for my K-3.

And as for the 85mm or 50mm requiring "backing up" a bit, I'm thinking in terms of outdoor portrait shooting, where full length and waist-up shots of multiple people might be the norm (as most of our family shoots are), and indeed, it does require some distance versus a 35mm wide angle or something.

As you were, discussing Nikon lenses and such. Sorry for the detour.

Ah you're a crop shooter.. that's right. D7200 is sealed too. That's in the price point of your K-3.


Backing up or forward to take a shot (aka 'zoom with your feet') changes your perspective. It is better to get the proper focal length lens than try to accommodate with moving physically.

No worries on changing the topic... I find it interesting.

[dubyam]

Ah you're a crop shooter.. that's right. D7200 is sealed too. That's in the price point of your K-3.


Backing up or forward to take a shot (aka 'zoom with your feet') changes your perspective. It is better to get the proper focal length lens than try to accommodate with moving physically.

No worries on changing the topic... I find it interesting.

Well, as I said above, at the time I bought my K-30, nobody else made anything in the same price bracket with weather sealing, and even when I bought my K-3, I paid about what the D7200 goes for now, but got the K-3 and the Pentax Battery Grip to go with it (for ~$850). Couple that with already having lenses in hand, and you see where my point is in terms of choosing Pentax because it makes sense for me, based on my needs, consistently. Other people with other needs may make different choices, and that's fine, too.

I agree, feet zooming is not ideal. But in some instances, it beats having to swap lenses a bunch, back and forth. Of course, that's why I like utility zooms like my 18-55 and 18-135. I just like the clarity of the DA 50 better than that of the 18-55.

Ultimately, I like Nikon glass. It's good, across digital camera and sport optics options. But for me, the choice came down to a few key things and Pentax had the right mix. And I still don't think I'd make any better pics with a nice Nikon and a bunch of great Nikkor prime lenses. My issue isn't equipment quality, right now. It's the steep learning curve and my personal level of impatience. You'd think after some 80-90k digital images over the past 18yrs, from P&S to DSLR, I'd have learned something along the way. Maybe I'm hopeless. Maybe not.

[mee]

Well, as I said above, at the time I bought my K-30, nobody else made anything in the same price bracket with weather sealing, and even when I bought my K-3, I paid about what the D7200 goes for now, but got the K-3 and the Pentax Battery Grip to go with it (for ~$850). Couple that with already having lenses in hand, and you see where my point is in terms of choosing Pentax because it makes sense for me, based on my needs, consistently. Other people with other needs may make different choices, and that's fine, too.

You're missing my point -- I thought we were discussing CaNikon gear that is weather sealed like Pentax. I was offering examples of Nikon gear that is similar in that regard. This isn't a one is better than the other discussion.

I agree, feet zooming is not ideal. But in some instances, it beats having to swap lenses a bunch, back and forth. Of course, that's why I like utility zooms like my 18-55 and 18-135. I just like the clarity of the DA 50 better than that of the 18-55.

Ultimately, I like Nikon glass. It's good, across digital camera and sport optics options. But for me, the choice came down to a few key things and Pentax had the right mix. And I still don't think I'd make any better pics with a nice Nikon and a bunch of great Nikkor prime lenses. My issue isn't equipment quality, right now. It's the steep learning curve and my personal level of impatience. You'd think after some 80-90k digital images over the past 18yrs, from P&S to DSLR, I'd have learned something along the way. Maybe I'm hopeless. Maybe not.

Yes I think Pentax might be better for you. Though I picked up very quickly with my Nikon gear after 7 years of digital pentax shooting. There was some menu diving but I got it squared away in a couple of days and off to the races. Earlier I think it was you who said it is the photographer and basic photography skills that matter more.. and I agree. You can use any system and make nice photos if you know the basic principles.


Though I find for some shooting, different gear makes that a lot easier... and in a few cases even possible. Knowing your gear, knowing your skills, and knowing how the two can pair to make the favored outcome is paramount.

[dubyam]

Though I find for some shooting, different gear makes that a lot easier... and in a few cases even possible. Knowing your gear, knowing your skills, and knowing how the two can pair to make the favored outcome is paramount.

This is precisely what I was trying to say, and what I meant in terms of my original purchase of Pentax as my first DSLR. At the time, nobody offered the key element I wanted (WR) in anything close to the price point. Looking back at the old purchase receipt, I paid less than I thought, and bought it in 2012, not 2013, as I mistakenly stated above. At the time, based on the best overall pricing, I bought a body, and two "kit" lenses, all as separate purchases. I paid $575 after a discount for the body alone. Since I could have used that discount on any body, the comparable price was $600 for the K-30 body, in November 2012.

So, ultimately, it really is about the loose nut behind the viewfinder, more than anything, although there are occasionally features (WR, articulating rear screen, ISO range, shutter speed range, etc.) which might legitimately differentiate one system from another, and make it more suitable for a specific set of needs. For general photography, as you succinctly put it, what matters most is skill in using the gear you have properly and to the maximum extent of your and its capabilities.

[mee]

This is precisely what I was trying to say, and what I meant in terms of my original purchase of Pentax as my first DSLR. At the time, nobody offered the key element I wanted (WR) in anything close to the price point. Looking back at the old purchase receipt, I paid less than I thought, and bought it in 2012, not 2013, as I mistakenly stated above. At the time, based on the best overall pricing, I bought a body, and two "kit" lenses, all as separate purchases. I paid $575 after a discount for the body alone. Since I could have used that discount on any body, the comparable price was $600 for the K-30 body, in November 2012.

So, ultimately, it really is about the loose nut behind the viewfinder, more than anything, although there are occasionally features (WR, articulating rear screen, ISO range, shutter speed range, etc.) which might legitimately differentiate one system from another, and make it more suitable for a specific set of needs. For general photography, as you succinctly put it, what matters most is skill in using the gear you have properly and to the maximum extent of your and its capabilities.

Yes back in the day Pentax was a big player in DSLR weather sealing for the money. Today many brands offer decent sealing for a comparable price point (mostly due to used pricing being cheaper). The K-30 in a lot of ways really punched above its weight. I wish it had 14-bit RAW output though and support for a battery grip (as well as a quieter shutter).

The auto focus system, image sensor, image processor, software, and a few other performancy bits inside the camera body also matter. For instance, if you're sport shooting you're probably using something like a 7d II, D500, D5, or the like. You're probably not taking a D810 or K-1.. different camera for a different type of shooting. The lens performance also plays a factor...

But any of these can easily photograph a flower or a cat.

[reh321]

I agree with the equipment isn't the end all be all part of this.

But "gear" can make some difference. I know that my photography improved after I got a Sigma 10-20mm, because now I find myself getting close enough to subjects that distracts like sidewalks and fences are literally out of the picture. This is not an issue of brand {I had one in EF-mount and now I have one in K-mount} but it is still an example of how a purchase can change what I think of doing in the field.

[UncleVanya]

But "gear" can make some difference. I know that my photography improved after I got a Sigma 10-20mm, because now I find myself getting close enough to subjects that distracts like sidewalks and fences are literally out of the picture. This is not an issue of brand {I had one in EF-mount and now I have one in K-mount} but it is still an example of how a purchase can change what I think of doing in the field.

Absolutely. The DA 15 was transformative for me. It was the first time I had ever shot for any real length of time wider than 28mm on full frame (18 on crop). On the other hand I'm not sure I was ready to play with wide angle lenses a long time ago. There is a time and place for some gear in your journey.

[mee]

Absolutely. The DA 15 was transformative for me. It was the first time I had ever shot for any real length of time wider than 28mm on full frame (18 on crop). On the other hand I'm not sure I was ready to play with wide angle lenses a long time ago. There is a time and place for some gear in your journey.

I agree with that.. I got a 10-20 lens years after I started and I'm glad I waited (or at least didn't discover them until later). I researched ultra wide angle lenses online but no text really prepared me for actually using one. It is the only lens type that took me awhile to figure out how to optimally use it. And, initially, I set it aside and was a bit disappointed in it (due to my lack of understanding). Several more outings and it clicked with me... then it was tons of fun. Once you get that 'ah ha' moment oh the frown turns upside down.


Plus you can exaggerate distortion with it by getting right next to objects and shooting really really wide. That can be fun too.


But something like a normal length focal length was far more practical for starting out... (at least for me).