Best other camera brand to run parallel to Pentax?

dylansalt · 03-25-2010, 07:18 AM

ditto - any dslr & M4/3 p&s can produce outstanding output in the right hands for the non pro

On the other hand I have yet not to see in demand pro's, whatever genre of photography they specialize in, using nothing but D3s, D700, 5DMK11, 1DsMK111, D300s, 7D for their work.

Are they either stupid, ignorant or do they have good reason to be using those cams.

Line up with Surf togs - what cams/lenses are they using?
Ditto for other sport, wildlife, landscape
One of the best rockclimbing togs from Aussie uses a D3s

Wherever one looks in the professional world of photography it is either Nikon/Canon being used - I am sure they (pro's) definitely gave Pentax a look over but gave them a miss - one has to ask at the end of the day -Why??

Once again you cannot dismiss ALL of the pro's using Nikon/Canon gear as idiots or too much money for brains.

johnmflores · 03-25-2010, 08:21 AM

Originally posted by dylansalt

ditto - any dslr & M4/3 p&s can produce outstanding output in the right hands for the non pro

On the other hand I have yet not to see in demand pro's, whatever genre of photography they specialize in, using nothing but D3s, D700, 5DMK11, 1DsMK111, D300s, 7D for their work.

Are they either stupid, ignorant or do they have good reason to be using those cams.

Line up with Surf togs - what cams/lenses are they using?
Ditto for other sport, wildlife, landscape
One of the best rockclimbing togs from Aussie uses a D3s

Wherever one looks in the professional world of photography it is either Nikon/Canon being used - I am sure they (pro's) definitely gave Pentax a look over but gave them a miss - one has to ask at the end of the day -Why??

Once again you cannot dismiss ALL of the pro's using Nikon/Canon gear as idiots or too much money for brains.

And five years ago those very same pros were using D2s and Mark Is, "Pro" cameras that the K-x either matches or beats in most key performance measures.

I'm not calling them idiots at all. It makes perfect sense for a pro to get the best gear (camera and glass and etc...) that they can afford - it's a hyper competitive market with a lot of parity in talent. Any piece of equipment that either helps their workflow (less time in post can yield either more time shooting or more competitive pricing) or helps them get those images that make their portfolio pop (and land the next gig) is money wisely spent.

But I also know that the photography business is suffering like many other businesses. Advertising is down so commercial photography is down. Real estate is down so real estate photography is down. And so on. I bet you that just below the photo superstars are a whole lotta working pros that are delaying purchases, counting dimes, using older cameras and glass, shopping down market, and still taking great photos.

As for the rest of us? How many of us have bought new gear, starting shooting, and were quietly disappointed that we weren't better photographers? The images may be sharper, there may be less noise in low light, and the background may be nice and blurry, but is that all it takes to be a better photographer? Really?

Forget the new body. Forget the second system. Find a photographer whose work you really like and get private lessons. Take a class. Learn to see.

Rant off.

pingflood · 03-25-2010, 11:46 AM

Originally posted by dylansalt

ditto - any dslr & M4/3 p&s can produce outstanding output in the right hands for the non pro

On the other hand I have yet not to see in demand pro's, whatever genre of photography they specialize in, using nothing but D3s, D700, 5DMK11, 1DsMK111, D300s, 7D for their work.

Are they either stupid, ignorant or do they have good reason to be using those cams.

Well, while I'm not a working pro, I can comment on it to some extent. My "pro" camera is now ~5 years old (Canon 1Ds Mark II) and the reason I use and love it is that I STILL prefer it over the rest. It has wicked fast autofocus that tracks very very well (45 pt grid), the image quality is still spectacular, it's built like a tank, has enormous battery life, dual card slots, nice viewfinder, extremely short viewfinder blackout etc etc. I wouldn't trade it for a 7D, 50D, 5D II or anything along those lines; perhaps for a 1Ds III or 1D III (if I could live with the lower res). It's still one of the best cameras ever made, IMO.

ISO comparison to the 5DII:
Help choosing 1Ds II or 1D III - FM Forums (scroll halfway down)

There are quite a few serious shooters and pros who still prefer these cameras over anything else, and not because they are ignorant; it's because it's such a well built and extremely functional tool that gets the job done with no hassle. I think a camera should get out of the way and let you focus on the shot, and when the tool works as well as this one does that's just what you get.

I think the K-x looks like a fantastic little camera, but it's certainly no replacement for something like this. (BTW, looking at the specs I noticed it does have the same viewfinder blackout time as the 1Ds II which is very impressive!)

rfortson · 03-27-2010, 05:06 PM

Back to the original question, I added the Olympus E-P1 as my second system. I have the two kit lenses (14-42 zoom and 17mm/2.8), plus I have an adapter for my SMC 50mm 1.7. Beyond that, I'll use my K20D and variety of lenses. However, the E-P1 is a great little camera to have with me all the time, or for travel when I have to go light. For me, it's the perfect compliment to my Pentax system, and I don't have to give up much.

Urkeldaedalus · 03-29-2010, 08:11 AM

Thanks Rfortson, like I said, I have a sweet spot in my heart for Olympus. I may see how the systems from Olympus and Panasonic develop over the next few years and then give it a try.

As for "why working pros use Nikon and Canon" discussion, I think it is actually more complicated than most people think, in that a lot of professional photographers use what they do for reasons much different than independent purchasing decisions. Quite a few of them, if they work for agencies or newspapers, don't own their own equipment, and I would think they're probably glad that they don't for all the abuse that they put their equipment through

The reason this is important is that Nikon and Canon cater directly to these markets, even using reps to work directly with newspapers that are making the purchases. Even if Pentax had an equivalent offering in terms of camera and lenses for photojournalim, they wouldn't be used by the majority of working photojournalists. Why? Because Pentax does not have the sales or service infrastructure to compete with Canon and Nikon.

I'll give you a few real life examples. I know a photojournalist at one of the larger newspapers in the state. The paper, like most, has a relationship with Canon. He owns some Nikon lenses, and would prefer to use a D700 for his independent wedding work. However, ironically, as a working photojournalist he doesn't make enough to buy his own full frame gear. So he uses the Canon stuff for the weddings as well.

Another photojournalist I know, who left the industry for wedding photography when she moved back home, had to borrow camera equipment from her boyfriend when she was getting started. Her boyfriend worked at one of the biggest newspapers in the country, and, like most newspapers, this paper has a relationship with Canon. She also originally used Nikon, but after using the Canon equipment at several newspapers she worked for, she decided she liked it enough to buy her own.

See where this is going? It's not just that the Canon and Nikon systems have some advantages, which they do or I wouldn't have started this thread. It's that they have so greatly saturated the market that it's hard, even for giants like Sony, to break in.

Oh, and why don't these photographers do the honest thing and start off with smaller equipment first, maybe even with a comparably cheaper brand like Pentax or Olympus? Snobbery, hahaha. And because when they can use the more expensive stuff for free, they don't have to.

MidwestMax · 03-30-2010, 02:20 PM

I still have my K20d and for now, am finding it a good pair with my D300s—the K20d for travel/everyday shots and D300s for published/photojournalism work.

Urkeldaedalus, you make a good point about Canon and Nikon saturating the pro market. I was talking to a photographer from Chicago's biggest paper the other day and he said they recently have decided to use only Canon gear. Because of this, his pair of D3s sits at home. Many papers and companies are loyal to one brand only, but it is good to know that some wire agencies, for example, aren't so stringent on what camera you chose to shoot with.

03-25-2010, 11:46 AM	#33
pingflood Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Borås, Sweden Photos: Gallery Posts: 3,169	Originally posted by dylansalt ditto - any dslr & M4/3 p&s can produce outstanding output in the right hands for the non pro On the other hand I have yet not to see in demand pro's, whatever genre of photography they specialize in, using nothing but D3s, D700, 5DMK11, 1DsMK111, D300s, 7D for their work. Are they either stupid, ignorant or do they have good reason to be using those cams. Well, while I'm not a working pro, I can comment on it to some extent. My "pro" camera is now ~5 years old (Canon 1Ds Mark II) and the reason I use and love it is that I STILL prefer it over the rest. It has wicked fast autofocus that tracks very very well (45 pt grid), the image quality is still spectacular, it's built like a tank, has enormous battery life, dual card slots, nice viewfinder, extremely short viewfinder blackout etc etc. I wouldn't trade it for a 7D, 50D, 5D II or anything along those lines; perhaps for a 1Ds III or 1D III (if I could live with the lower res). It's still one of the best cameras ever made, IMO. ISO comparison to the 5DII: Help choosing 1Ds II or 1D III - FM Forums (scroll halfway down) There are quite a few serious shooters and pros who still prefer these cameras over anything else, and not because they are ignorant; it's because it's such a well built and extremely functional tool that gets the job done with no hassle. I think a camera should get out of the way and let you focus on the shot, and when the tool works as well as this one does that's just what you get. I think the K-x looks like a fantastic little camera, but it's certainly no replacement for something like this. (BTW, looking at the specs I noticed it does have the same viewfinder blackout time as the 1Ds II which is very impressive!) Last edited by pingflood; 03-25-2010 at 11:51 AM.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Parallel world	TrailSeeker	Post Your Photos!	1	12-03-2008 07:59 PM
For Sale - Sold: Brand New Pentax Brand m42 to k mount converter Free shipping!	GatorPentax	Sold Items	1	10-28-2008 08:11 PM
What Camera remote brand you use ?	rodneyy	Pentax Camera and Field Accessories	19	07-17-2008 10:08 AM
The video on which camera brand you should buy	and	General Talk	2	05-04-2008 06:39 PM

03-25-2010, 07:18 AM	#31
dylansalt Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: Durban, South Africa Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,052	ditto - any dslr & M4/3 p&s can produce outstanding output in the right hands for the non pro On the other hand I have yet not to see in demand pro's, whatever genre of photography they specialize in, using nothing but D3s, D700, 5DMK11, 1DsMK111, D300s, 7D for their work. Are they either stupid, ignorant or do they have good reason to be using those cams. Line up with Surf togs - what cams/lenses are they using? Ditto for other sport, wildlife, landscape One of the best rockclimbing togs from Aussie uses a D3s Wherever one looks in the professional world of photography it is either Nikon/Canon being used - I am sure they (pro's) definitely gave Pentax a look over but gave them a miss - one has to ask at the end of the day -Why?? Once again you cannot dismiss ALL of the pro's using Nikon/Canon gear as idiots or too much money for brains.

03-25-2010, 08:21 AM	#32
johnmflores Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2009 Location: Somerville, NJ Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 5,361	Originally posted by dylansalt ditto - any dslr & M4/3 p&s can produce outstanding output in the right hands for the non pro On the other hand I have yet not to see in demand pro's, whatever genre of photography they specialize in, using nothing but D3s, D700, 5DMK11, 1DsMK111, D300s, 7D for their work. Are they either stupid, ignorant or do they have good reason to be using those cams. Line up with Surf togs - what cams/lenses are they using? Ditto for other sport, wildlife, landscape One of the best rockclimbing togs from Aussie uses a D3s Wherever one looks in the professional world of photography it is either Nikon/Canon being used - I am sure they (pro's) definitely gave Pentax a look over but gave them a miss - one has to ask at the end of the day -Why?? Once again you cannot dismiss ALL of the pro's using Nikon/Canon gear as idiots or too much money for brains. And five years ago those very same pros were using D2s and Mark Is, "Pro" cameras that the K-x either matches or beats in most key performance measures. I'm not calling them idiots at all. It makes perfect sense for a pro to get the best gear (camera and glass and etc...) that they can afford - it's a hyper competitive market with a lot of parity in talent. Any piece of equipment that either helps their workflow (less time in post can yield either more time shooting or more competitive pricing) or helps them get those images that make their portfolio pop (and land the next gig) is money wisely spent. But I also know that the photography business is suffering like many other businesses. Advertising is down so commercial photography is down. Real estate is down so real estate photography is down. And so on. I bet you that just below the photo superstars are a whole lotta working pros that are delaying purchases, counting dimes, using older cameras and glass, shopping down market, and still taking great photos. As for the rest of us? How many of us have bought new gear, starting shooting, and were quietly disappointed that we weren't better photographers? The images may be sharper, there may be less noise in low light, and the background may be nice and blurry, but is that all it takes to be a better photographer? Really? Forget the new body. Forget the second system. Find a photographer whose work you really like and get private lessons. Take a class. Learn to see. Rant off.

03-27-2010, 05:06 PM	#34
rfortson Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Houston TX Photos: Gallery Posts: 2,129	Back to the original question, I added the Olympus E-P1 as my second system. I have the two kit lenses (14-42 zoom and 17mm/2.8), plus I have an adapter for my SMC 50mm 1.7. Beyond that, I'll use my K20D and variety of lenses. However, the E-P1 is a great little camera to have with me all the time, or for travel when I have to go light. For me, it's the perfect compliment to my Pentax system, and I don't have to give up much.

03-29-2010, 08:11 AM	#35
Urkeldaedalus Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2008 Location: Iowa Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 1,369 Original Poster	Thanks Rfortson, like I said, I have a sweet spot in my heart for Olympus. I may see how the systems from Olympus and Panasonic develop over the next few years and then give it a try. As for "why working pros use Nikon and Canon" discussion, I think it is actually more complicated than most people think, in that a lot of professional photographers use what they do for reasons much different than independent purchasing decisions. Quite a few of them, if they work for agencies or newspapers, don't own their own equipment, and I would think they're probably glad that they don't for all the abuse that they put their equipment through The reason this is important is that Nikon and Canon cater directly to these markets, even using reps to work directly with newspapers that are making the purchases. Even if Pentax had an equivalent offering in terms of camera and lenses for photojournalim, they wouldn't be used by the majority of working photojournalists. Why? Because Pentax does not have the sales or service infrastructure to compete with Canon and Nikon. I'll give you a few real life examples. I know a photojournalist at one of the larger newspapers in the state. The paper, like most, has a relationship with Canon. He owns some Nikon lenses, and would prefer to use a D700 for his independent wedding work. However, ironically, as a working photojournalist he doesn't make enough to buy his own full frame gear. So he uses the Canon stuff for the weddings as well. Another photojournalist I know, who left the industry for wedding photography when she moved back home, had to borrow camera equipment from her boyfriend when she was getting started. Her boyfriend worked at one of the biggest newspapers in the country, and, like most newspapers, this paper has a relationship with Canon. She also originally used Nikon, but after using the Canon equipment at several newspapers she worked for, she decided she liked it enough to buy her own. See where this is going? It's not just that the Canon and Nikon systems have some advantages, which they do or I wouldn't have started this thread. It's that they have so greatly saturated the market that it's hard, even for giants like Sony, to break in. Oh, and why don't these photographers do the honest thing and start off with smaller equipment first, maybe even with a comparably cheaper brand like Pentax or Olympus? Snobbery, hahaha. And because when they can use the more expensive stuff for free, they don't have to.

03-30-2010, 02:20 PM	#36
MidwestMax Senior Member Join Date: Oct 2008 Location: Chicago, IL Posts: 199	I still have my K20d and for now, am finding it a good pair with my D300s—the K20d for travel/everyday shots and D300s for published/photojournalism work. Urkeldaedalus, you make a good point about Canon and Nikon saturating the pro market. I was talking to a photographer from Chicago's biggest paper the other day and he said they recently have decided to use only Canon gear. Because of this, his pair of D3s sits at home. Many papers and companies are loyal to one brand only, but it is good to know that some wire agencies, for example, aren't so stringent on what camera you chose to shoot with.