[Dan Rentea]

Come on guys, let's not forget we are different and we have different needs, approaches, budgets, etc. If you start attacking each other, count me out of this thread.

[surfar]

Not true.

they can then choose 36/42/47 or a whopping 61mp and the prices don't differ lots.(to set up the system to shoot from wide angle to long telephoto).

Got a calculator?.....Pentax k-1ii versus A7r4 at release prices .

Comparing the 15/30 24/70 150/450(the best lenses available for K mount) with the best available for FE mount they are Tamron 17-28,28-75 and $$$ony 200-600.

Ive purposely omitted 70-200 because the best lens is still being developed by Tamron.

Pentax is cheaper,but when the Tamron 70-200 comes the prices will be

prices don't differ lots.

So put the calculator down, draw a line down the middle of a page...Stills one side,MOVING pictures the other....

List what each camera body is capable of!

---------- Post added 08-15-19 at 08:28 AM ----------

Come on guys, let's not forget we are different and we have different needs, approaches, budgets, etc. If you start attacking each other, count me out of this thread.

Sorry Dan, but biAz brings his bias to every non Pentax thread and converts it into a K-1 is best thread.He just wants to argue.

[clackers]

Sorry Dan, but biAz brings his bias to every non Pentax thread and converts it into a K-1 is best thread.He just wants to argue.

OMG. Surfar claiming someone on Pentax Forums has an agenda, wants to argue, and doesn't contribute to the community. Are you also going to accuse them of being an old drunk YouTube watcher with no photography skills who mouths off and hangs around even though nobody trusts or likes them?

[MarkJerling]

A friendly reminder to all to keep it friendly.

Carry on.

[Rondec]

Got a calculator?.....Pentax k-1ii versus A7r4 at release prices .

Comparing the 15/30 24/70 150/450(the best lenses available for K mount) with the best available for FE mount they are Tamron 17-28,28-75 and $$$ony 200-600.

Ive purposely omitted 70-200 because the best lens is still being developed by Tamron.

Pentax is cheaper,but when the Tamron 70-200 comes the prices will be



So put the calculator down, draw a line down the middle of a page...Stills one side,MOVING pictures the other....

List what each camera body is capable of!

---------- Post added 08-15-19 at 08:28 AM ----------



Sorry Dan, but biAz brings his bias to every non Pentax thread and converts it into a K-1 is best thread.He just wants to argue.

The majority of us here have a pro Pentax bias. You are one of the exceptions.

Biz Engineers comments mainly point out the fact that he has already invested in a K-1 and lenses to go with it. This being a Pentax Forum, many of us are in the same situation and when a new camera is release, we ask ourselves if this really makes our Pentax gear obsolete. The answer to this point is no.

I appreciate biz engineers perspective, knowledge and the photos he has shared. The photos are probably one of the things that is actually needed on a thread like this...

[biz-engineer]

When I upgraded from Pentax apsc to Pentax full frame the situation was different, I spend the whole bunch of money for a bigger sensor format, more resolution, more dynamic range and more modern lenses and more versatility (crop mode). If I was invested in a Canon or Nikon full frame systems , I wouldn't switch to a Sony A7R4 either. It's just that I don't see enough value for switching between two full frame systems that are 3 years apart, and especially when the sensors are made by the same manufacturer and with almost identical still imaging properties. If other people have money to burn for a little more gadget features here and there, that's their money not mine.

[les3547]

The same will happen with A7R IV: some will buy it for resolution, pixel shift, af, fps and others will buy the A7 III or A7 IV when it will become available.

Some will even get the A7RII who like me want improved ability to focus FF manual lenses that require stop down metering, and focusing manual fast lenses wide open. Actually I'd choose the A7R to save money if it had onboard image stabilization.

Then there's the added benefits of, of all things, auto focus Zeiss lenses that Zeiss is making for E mount; Sony even woke Voigtlander from hibernation to offer a new 110mm macro that looks awesome (rivaling or surpassing the 125). And then there's all the E mount adapters that give access to most all major brands of lenses including Leica M and R.

---

Last edited by les3547; 08-14-2019 at 11:41 PM.

[Dan Rentea]

When I upgraded from Pentax apsc to Pentax full frame the situation was different, I spend the whole bunch of money for a bigger sensor format, more resolution, more dynamic range and more modern lenses and more versatility (crop mode). If I was invested in a Canon or Nikon full frame systems , I wouldn't switch to a Sony A7R4 either. It's just that I don't see enough value for switching between two full frame systems that are 3 years apart, and especially when the sensors are made by the same manufacturer and with almost identical still imaging properties. If other people have money to burn for a little more gadget features here and there, that's their money not mine.

Depends on what you shoot and depends also on the system you invested in.

Some are willing to work arround the limitation of a camera (or lens) by shooting portraits at f4 or f5.6 instead of shooting at f1.4 or f1.8. Some are shooting wildlife in JPEG so that the camera can write faster on memory cards, etc. Nothing wrong with the fact that they chose this route. But there are others (myself included) that don't want to find works around every time they go out shooting. If I'm shooting a portrait on a crowded street I don't want to shoot at f4 because at this aperture all the people around the model will be recognizable and I don't want that. Those people will also be a distraction from the main subject. At f1.4 I don't have to worry about this or about not getting the shot due to tiny DOF because of this great feature (to me) called eye af.

The same thing on a corporate event when I'm not allowed to move much because some speakers are shy in front of cameras. I have to shoot with 135mm f2L lens at f2 to keep the distance, to isolate the subject and to keep the ISO around 4000. I don't want to shoot at f4 in this situation. Don't get me wrong, I can make it work with a K1, but it is easier with eye af and a fast lens and that's why I like the eye af feature.

And I do want more than 4 fps with fast Af and fast reading files on memory cards so that I don't need to reduce my keeper rate to 60-70%. It's a good percentage, but I rather have 80-85% keeper rate.

This not so important aspects to some are very important to others and even if it seems much money invested, with a good financial plan I have no troble paying for my gear and save also money for upgrades.

Sony improved in A7R IV some things I'm interested in: eye af, ergonomics and the EVF. Given the fact that EVF still gives me some headaches, if this EVF will be much improved and if it won't give me headaches, I would pay the money only for EVF if I were a photographer in need of a high resolution camera.

And again, I have my own training company. I don't live from photography. But this hobby is self sustaining so complaining about how expensive cameras and lenses are is not in my agenda. I don't have to save each month some money in order to buy a good lens two years later. There was a time when watches were a big passion of mine and if photography seems expensive to you, wait until you buy a Glashutte watch that won't produce any money.

[Rondec]

Somehow this thread has turned into an "all the problems with the K-1" thread. Clearly Pentax has room for development. From my standpoint, the biggest things I would improve on the K-1 have to do with buffer size. Auto focus actually is fine in AF-S and if you can't shoot portraits at f2 with it, then you just need to practice a bit.

I guess if we are going to talk about Pentax, I just really don't want Pentax to turn out Sony style cameras. Sony's read like gadgets, stuffed with things Sony thinks photographers want, while Pentax's feel like solid cameras with still photography in mind.

Sony will sell plenty of these, but they don't really carry with them the ethos that a camera like the K-1 does (even with its limitations). And yes, people who are satisfied with a K-1 probably wouldn't be with an A7r IV, even if it is the best camera since the Pentax LX.

[Serkevan]

Glashutte watch

They make them near here!


On topic, obviously if you need something that is not offered by Pentax, go ahead. But "shooting at f>1.4 because you don't have Eye AF*" is not necessarily a workaround. At F2.4-2.8 it's already easy to have good subject separation and you can blur everyone else, in my (very limited) experience. Talking about a 90mm on APS-C here, though. Not *that* difficult to focus, either...



*You do, LV AF goes for the eyes and if you are in the ballpark it won't take forever. Is it a workaround if it's not on VF?

[biz-engineer]

Some are willing to work arround the limitation of a camera (or lens) by shooting portraits at f4 or f5.6 instead of shooting at f1.4 or f1.8

I don't use f4 as a workaround to eye AF, I use f4 because that how portraits render the best, and I noticed that's also what professionals / corporate photographers do, they don't shoot portraits at f1.4 and they use a flash to emphasize subject vs background. In fact, photographers who shoot portraits with lens wide open without flash are often hobby photographers, and yes they need eye AF when shooting portrait at f1.4 with only the front of the face in focus, nose and ears not sharp. Pros shoot medium format studio at f5.6 and f8 (that's f4 and f5.6 equ. FF), and they use strobes. At some point, we have to stop blaming the gear and start opening up ourselves for learning. I find really amazing that some folks rave about the latest Sony gear and don't even have a decent tripod to mount the very expensive camera on. I've seen some guys owning a medium format camera but they don't have a flash. All this is because the amount of marketing for cameras is huge, and the amount of effort to promote photographic knowledge is ridiculous in comparison, all that because camera business is much more lucrative that teaching people how to get the max out of what they already have. Eye AF is an amateur feature for people who don't know what they are doing so they rely on camera automation to compensate for their lack of skills.

---------- Post added 15-08-19 at 13:19 ----------

P.S to be more exact, achieving good subject separation isn't about lens aperture, but it is about having a depth of filed deep enough to max out subject sharpness while still blurring out the background. When the depth of field is deeper that subject, eye AF isn't required.

[Dan Rentea]

They make them near here!


On topic, obviously if you need something that is not offered by Pentax, go ahead. But "shooting at f>1.4 because you don't have Eye AF*" is not necessarily a workaround. At F2.4-2.8 it's already easy to have good subject separation and you can blur everyone else, in my (very limited) experience. Talking about a 90mm on APS-C here, though. Not *that* difficult to focus, either...



*You do, LV AF goes for the eyes and if you are in the ballpark it won't take forever. Is it a workaround if it's not on VF?

I think I may have been missundedstood. I've shot quite a lot portraits at wide open apertures with all my cameras, starting from K-5 II, K-3 II and up to 6D and now 5D Mark IV. I never said I can't make it work. I just said that it's easier to shoot at wide apertures using eye af. My 5D Mark IV with the 85mm f1.4L lens delivers great results at f1.4. But with EOS R it's easier. Same with A7 III. I don't have to press the joystick to move af points to the eye of the model and I'm more focused on composition knowing that eye af will keep track they eye. It's the only feature that I like enough to go to mirrorless route.

---------- Post added 08-15-19 at 12:27 PM ----------

I don't use f4 as a workaround to eye AF, I use f4 because that how portraits render the best, and I noticed that's also what professionals / corporate photographers do, they don't shoot portraits at f1.4 and they use a flash to emphasize subject vs background. In fact, photographers who shoot portraits with lens wide open without flash are often hobby photographers, and yes they need eye AF when shooting portrait at f1.4 with only the front of the face in focus, nose and ears not sharp. Pros shoot medium format studio at f5.6 and f8 (that's f4 and f5.6 equ. FF), and they use strobes. At some point, we have to stop blaming the gear and start opening up ourselves for learning. I find really amazing that some folks rave about the latest Sony gear and don't even have a decent tripod to mount the very expensive camera on. I've seen some guys owning a medium format camera but they don't have a flash. All this is because the amount of marketing for cameras is huge, and the amount of effort to promote photographic knowledge is ridiculous in comparison, all that because camera business is much more lucrative that teaching people how to get the max out of what they already have. Eye AF is an amateur feature for people who don't know what they are doing so they rely on camera automation to compensate for their lack of skills.

---------- Post added 15-08-19 at 13:19 ----------

P.S to be more exact, achieving good subject separation isn't about lens aperture, but it is about having a depth of filed deep enough to max out subject sharpness while still blurring out the background. When the depth of field is deeper that subject, eye AF isn't required.

Please read what I said. I said that in studio I close my aperture and previous posts I said that my Godox flashes paid for all my gear. Where did you came with the conclusion I don't use flashes?!?

I can tell you the names of some professional photographers who shoot portraits at wide apertures (sometimes with flash, sometimes only with natural light): Dani Diamond, Sagaj (look for him on Instagram), Dmitry Arhar, even the former Sony ambassador Manny Ortiz. I follow lots of portrait photographers shooting international models like Irina Shayk at wide aperture for international magazines. But if you think that portraits has to be shot professionaly only with flash, medium format cameras and at apertures starting from f4, then this discussion is pointless so I'm out.

---------- Post added 08-15-19 at 12:30 PM ----------

Somehow this thread has turned into an "all the problems with the K-1" thread. Clearly Pentax has room for development. From my standpoint, the biggest things I would improve on the K-1 have to do with buffer size. Auto focus actually is fine in AF-S and if you can't shoot portraits at f2 with it, then you just need to practice a bit.

I guess if we are going to talk about Pentax, I just really don't want Pentax to turn out Sony style cameras. Sony's read like gadgets, stuffed with things Sony thinks photographers want, while Pentax's feel like solid cameras with still photography in mind.

Sony will sell plenty of these, but they don't really carry with them the ethos that a camera like the K-1 does (even with its limitations). And yes, people who are satisfied with a K-1 probably wouldn't be with an A7r IV, even if it is the best camera since the Pentax LX.

It's not about K1 problems. It's about proper tools for different shootings. Biz-engineer seems to favor K1 for all the subjects that come up on threads: from concerts to sport and wildlife. I know K1 is a great camera, but I wish people would be more realistics when comes to features from other brands.

Models on street don't stand still. They are spinning or they come straight to camera and you have to shoot in a burst to catch the best moment when hands and legs are in the position you want. It's different than shooting a model sitting on a chair and at f1.4 or f2 it's not as easy as you think and af-s is out of question here. Again, you get the shots with any camera, but it's easier with eye af. Make a test on your own...

[Dan Rentea]

The photos are probably one of the things that is actually needed on a thread like this...

There is a guy on this forum shooting portraits and he is known as a good portrait photographer. I think LeRolls is his user name. He added a Fuji and a Sony A7 III to his workflow and he said he rarely uses K1 these days. People jumped straight away telling that his images are not better than the ones taken with Pentax, that he lost resolution and the lack of AA filter for better sharpness, etc. His answer was: I like resolution, but I don't need it. And he also said: I didn't get Fuji and Sony to take better images, I got them for consistency in Af at wide aperture. So, even with great photos, he was criticised because people expected better results by going to Fuji and Sony even when the point of switching for him was the consistency of Af at wide apertures and eye af helped him in this regard. It's not everything related to image quality or dynamic range...

[Winder]

There is a guy on this forum shooting portraits and he is known as a good portrait photographer. I think LeRolls is his user name. He added a Fuji and a Sony A7 III to his workflow and he said he rarely uses K1 these days. People jumped straight away telling that his images are not better than the ones taken with Pentax, that he lost resolution and the lack of AA filter for better sharpness, etc. His answer was: I like resolution, but I don't need it. And he also said: I didn't get Fuji and Sony to take better images, I got them for consistency in Af at wide aperture. So, even with great photos, he was criticised because people expected better results by going to Fuji and Sony even when the point of switching for him was the consistency of Af at wide apertures and eye af helped him in this regard. It's not everything related to image quality or dynamic range...

I tried to get LeRolls to start a comparison thread between his K-1, XT-3, & A7III and post it since he has the same lenses for all three systems but I don't think he has the time. His comments on the three imply that Fuji is the most enjoyable to shoot with since he like the controls and looks of the system. The Sony was faster and had better AF especially in low-light, and more of a workhorse camera, but didn't have as good of a user experience as Fuji or Pentax.


If I remember correctly LeRolls picked up the A7III with the 85mm F/1.8 after his FA* 85mm died on him and he couldn't find a shop that would fix it. I believe the swimsuit company that he works for/with paid for the Fuji XT-3. I'm pretty sure that if Ricoh had released a D-FA* 85mm lens and had a body with the AF speed/accuracy/features of the Sony A7III or even as good as the Fuji XT-3 he would still be shooting with Pentax.


LeRolls is a portrait photographer who works mostly on location and Ricoh is not your best option if that is what you do. Yes. it's possible to achieve great results with a K-1 as a portrait photographer, but its much easier with other systems. And like LeRolls, people don't realize how much easier it is until they switch over and try one of those systems. When you are getting paid that ease is important. When you are shooting head shots for a law firm or real estate brokerage and you have people lined up and waiting you need to move fast and know your shots are going to all be tack sharp. When you have a swimsuit model on the beach at golden hour, you have to move fast and get your shots while the light is perfect. It really sucks to get into LR and realize critical focus missed on a large percentage of shots. The K-1 is not a move fast kind of camera. Its great for people who can take their time.

[Rondec]

There is a guy on this forum shooting portraits and he is known as a good portrait photographer. I think LeRolls is his user name. He added a Fuji and a Sony A7 III to his workflow and he said he rarely uses K1 these days. People jumped straight away telling that his images are not better than the ones taken with Pentax, that he lost resolution and the lack of AA filter for better sharpness, etc. His answer was: I like resolution, but I don't need it. And he also said: I didn't get Fuji and Sony to take better images, I got them for consistency in Af at wide aperture. So, even with great photos, he was criticised because people expected better results by going to Fuji and Sony even when the point of switching for him was the consistency of Af at wide apertures and eye af helped him in this regard. It's not everything related to image quality or dynamic range...

He switched based on what his work used.

As far as the resolution comment, it flies in the face of everything that has been posted in this thread about the need for 61 megapixels. If Le Rolls doesn't need 36 megapixels, why would he need 61?