[Gooshin]

welcome back!

[Ash]

But what's wrong with comparing experiences with different systems? I don't see the problem here. Am I bitching? I don't think so. You sure are. I just joined a conversation to talk about flash experiences between brands.

But your own statement speaks volumes. "P-TTL can do the job if you want to work with it." And you say you don't.

And what do you mean "Doesn't count"? I can't speak unless I'm a full-time professional? Wow. I'm not a professional. I've been shooting for twenty years, though, learned on a fully manual camera.

I don't know why you're so defensive. Anyway, I'm not here to fight, and I don't feel I'm disparaging Pentax. I like Pentax. I'd like them even better if they had a more consistent ttl flash system. One user's (non professional, though it may be) experience.

Just because one doesn't use P-TTL doesn't mean P-TTL doesn't work (wow, 3 doesn'ts in one sentence...)

Peter doesn't need to defend his stance - he speaks from experience, doing the business full time. One can claim he/she knows it all after using gear for 20 years but it still won't compare to someone in the industry speaking about it.

It's OK to want a 'better' system too - no doubt Pentax wants that for its customers as well. But I reiterate that pointing and shooting is no test for a camera or flash.

[Ash]

That said, let me re-phrase what i've said, and that is my-own personal experience and opinion:

• -most of the time with a flash, a lens of a "standard" FL needs to be stopped down to f/5.6-f/11 TRUE OR NOT? True for me at least...

You might have a different experience... But to me, when I started doing more serious studio and flash stuff, it was somewhat disappointing to shoot all that fast glass stopped down to f/8... what's the point?

Weddings are not shot at studios where it matters little between f/5.6 and f/22.
They demand more creative DoF control. That alone is enough to need a fast lens.

This argument (although you qualified it later) is just not answering the right question.
If someone shoots weddings at f/8-f/11 most of the time, I'd hazard to say they don't know what they're doing (or are just happy in their ignorance).

[WMBP]

Read through most of this thread earlier today and started to reply, but was interrupted. Now I've come back - and I'm not sure what the issues are. A couple of quick points.

Re flash: P-TTL is not a great system. I've not shot with Nikon's i-TTL system but from what I've read and from the Nikon pros I've talked to, i-TTL is "better". As for the hardware, the Pentax 540FGZ is, as I've put it before, simply not worthy to sit atop a K10D/K20D or K-7. However the Metz 58 is a good unit and used in Auto mode produces pretty reliable results.

Re cameras: I certainly would not claim that Pentax cameras are ideal for wedding photography. I'm not sure what "ideal" would mean. I'd really like to have a camera that writes to 2 cards simultaneously. Awesome low-noise performance at ISO 3200 would also be sweet. If I were a millionaire, I guess I'd buy the latest full-frame camera from Canon or more likely Nikon. I would also arrange things so that all of my brides and grooms were models (and rich, too) and I would only shoot weddings in gorgeous locations. Alas I live in the real world, most of the time. In the real world, a Pentax system can produce very good results, in the hands of someone who knows what he's doing. I'm not always that somebody. But when I screw up, I'm pretty sure it's my fault and not the camera's.

The phrase "it's the photographer, not the camera" is true as a heuristic insight, like a Zen koan, a statement that makes you think. Another example: Ken Rockwell's great piece titled, "Your camera does not matter." I think these comments are worth meditating on. I certainly believe that, if you can't take great pictures with a Pentax K20D, a Nikon D3X ain't going to help you. The problem is, some people think these statements are intended literally. They're not. I don't think Ken Rockwell literally believes that your camera does not matter or he wouldn't spend so much time talking about the pros and cons of different cameras. I would certainly rather shoot with a K20D than with the *ist DS I bring to weddings as a third camera. I would rather have a great lens on the camera than a mediocre one.

I agree with those who say that the advantage of superior lenses is hard to see sometimes. It may be true that, for certain candids at the reception, and shooting with flash, the advantages of using a so-so lens like the kit 18-55 would outweigh the image quality advantage of, say, a top-quality prime. Sometimes, maybe. I would still prefer to have good lenses.

While I'd love to have somebody give me a D3X or even a Canon 7D - along with $5000-$10000 worth of lenses, of course - I would not trade my Pentax K10D/K20D bodies for, say, a Canon 5D. The old 5D was the wedding photographer's workhorse and had its strong advantages, but the K20D has some advantages, too. The ergonomics of the K20D are terrific and that matters a lot to me.

The bottom line is that we all need to try to ignore, as much as we can, the siren song of the Wall Street marketing machine. If you pay too much attention to the latest release from the competition, you'll go crazy.

Will

[Ash]

Re cameras: I certainly would not claim that Pentax cameras are ideal for wedding photography. I'm not sure what "ideal" would mean.

The phrase "it's the photographer, not the camera" is true as a heuristic insight, like a Zen koan, a statement that makes you think. Another example: Ken Rockwell's great piece titled, "Your camera does not matter."

Will

Nice piece Will.
Agreed.
Everyone's ideal will be different. But those cams up for the job are numerous...
The phrases you quote above may be interpreted differently, less pertinent amongst the well-seasoned, but more relevant here.

[KungPOW]

To put things in perspective: When I bought my K10D a couple years ago I paid $700 for it. At that time the Nikon D200 was around $1,800. I would expect a camera that is 257% the price of the K10D to be a lot better at certain things.

You are correct. I am compairing two different classes of camera.

It's not really fair to compair Pentax's top DSLR to Nikon's number two DSLR...

I joke.

And at the time I bought my K10D, I did not look at Nikon because the K10D was a much better value.

It really is a credit to Pentax that they were able to make a camera as good as the K10D, and sell it at such a great price. Maybe I should be compairing the K10D to the D80, but in my mind the K10D is closer in spec to the D200 then to the D80.

[Ash]

That's why it's hard to compare systems given Pentax's cams compare more closely (spec-wise) to the Canikons double the price.

Comparing cams according to price one would find Pentax cams topping the bunch IMO.

[unkabin]

Just because one doesn't use P-TTL doesn't mean P-TTL doesn't work (wow, 3 doesn'ts in one sentence...)

Peter doesn't need to defend his stance - he speaks from experience, doing the business full time. One can claim he/she knows it all after using gear for 20 years but it still won't compare to someone in the industry speaking about it.

It's OK to want a 'better' system too - no doubt Pentax wants that for its customers as well. But I reiterate that pointing and shooting is no test for a camera or flash.

Peter, defend himself? From me? This implies that I was attacking him, and I wasn't. I was posting about my experience with pttl. The OP detailed his experience, and invited comment. I commented with my own experience. My comments had nothing to with Peter, except later to express, as I'm doing again, that I have a right on an open forum to make these comments. Even if I'm not as experienced as Peter.

Let's pretend, for a moment, that Peter doesn't exist. Answer this question for yourself. How credible is my evaluation of pttl? Now stop. It's done. I've given you my claim--pttl is not as consistent as some other brands' ttl systems. I've been open about my level of experience. I've shown you my pics. Draw your conclusion, whatever that may be, and move on. Peter doesn't matter. The man in the moon doesn't matter.

To say I'm not qualified to make an assessment because I'm not as experienced as someone else is silly. This is not black or white. So, if Peter stands next a more experienced photographer, do Peter's claims suddenly become bunk? No. They are as sound or unsound as they ever were. Maybe think of it this way. I'm a writer. I make my living writing and teaching writing. If I were to believe that someone who is not a published writer couldn't make an enlightening or accurate claim about writing, I would be a fool. Right?

So with that, let's bring back Peter . His saying that he would "argue" with me once I had his level of experience is clearly silly. Even more so, since I'm not arguing with him about pttl, but rather defending myself against his claim that I can't know what I'm saying. I fully believe what I said. Others in this post and elsewhere who have worked with other ttl flash systems have had the same experience. I suspect Peter himself has had the same experience. I think he didn't dispute it, not because he didn't feel he should have to defend himself, but because he doesn't disagree. He seems angry about something else altogether, and this thread apparently touched that off. And while there may be validity to his claim of the problem of amateur wedding photographers, that doesn't excuse his behavior. I feel that he launched a rather bullying, emotional tirade, that wasn't appropriate to the discussion at hand. Then he justified himself in the name of being "passionate," and he left the room. Well, my definition of being passionate is surely different from his.

And now I'm being called a know it all. Ash, I recognize that you diplomatically use "one" rather than "you" in your post, but your post is to me. Man, I didn't come on as a know it all. I was talking about one single thing. And I didn't make any pretense of being an expert. I shared my experience. That's what this thread invited. I'm thinking you didn't mean it the way it sounded to my ears. I hope not anyway. If you read my posts here, I don't think that picture will hold.

I've been fairly anonymous on this forum, and I hope to return to that. I want to talk about cameras, and it would be nice if I could do that without being put in my place. This forum bills itself as friendly, and for the most part I've found that to be true (if a bit fanatical at times). Maybe I'll be slammed for this post, but hopefully some of this will make sense to some folks.

[Peter Zack]

I don't think any of us has to defend or apologize for how we feel about the gear. I have to be honest, yesterday was not one of my finer moments. So, I apologize in advance for causing a bit of a tempest in a teapot. I didn't mean to have one member after another just cause I felt like ranting.

Everyone is entitled to their opinion based on their knowledge and experiences with the gear. Will a D3 perform better? It bloody well should, otherwise it's a bigger waste of money than a K-7. Same for any of the top line models.

I want more from this brand and hope they are reading. When it comes to flash, there are better systems, but I will always prefer what I can do manually over what the camera thinks I want. Same in the studio. You have 2,3,6 + lights set up and you're not using a camera meter to shoot the scene. You put on your Flashwaves or Pocket Wizards and use your histogram and some judgment or a flash meter. Doesn't matter what the brand is. Well I treat flash shooting the same. My AF400T's are off the camera and half the time I have them 3 feet away from me via a 4p cord to get a nicer light. In camera metering is nt going to get that right most of the time.

AF well I don't have much issue with it most of the time and have learned how to get more out of it. Look for high contrast things to lock focus on and so on. Is it as good as the best cameras? Nope, but my tests with the K-7 show a decent improvement.

We need and want more and better cameras. Period. We will continue to loose the top shooters to other brands and rarely attract the better ones to us. That's not a good thing either way. I'm waiting for a FF model and figure I'll stay 2 more years for it. If it does not come by then, I'll have to consider a second body or maybe a switch. Why FF? High ISO mostly. The K-7 didn't cut it IMO. Nice camera but all reports and my own tests showed that it was no better at high ISO's than the K20D. So to me it showed no significant value. I do hear though that the flash metering is better than the earlier models.

Also having a 28mm lens be 28mm is a real plus. But there are a number of upgrades to that sensor size and we should have one.

What else do we need? How about some affordable primes? Does everything have to be a Limited or DA*? How about some fast primes that are longer than 77mm? Not wanna be fast f2 or 2.8's but 85mm f1.4, 100mm f1.4 135mm f1.8 etc. When I saw the 645D coming back, I was disappointed to say the least. Limited resources going to a camera that 1/10th of 1% have a need or a want to own. Here we are, dragging our heels 2 years behind everyone else (FF).

[unkabin]

Thanks for that post, Peter.

[Gooshin]

i also would like to appologize for any (if any) feelings that i may have instigated anything.

i think pentax is great, i'm still proud of my system.

and i'll agree with Peter and Ash that knowledge of the gear can go a long way at generating excellent results.

i am also by no means anywhere close to a pro wedding photographer, all of my gigs so far have been pure assistance work and it will remain that way (even though i have been asked to do main work. I just do not want that responsibility, i also dont have multiple lighting just yet so at the moment all i have to rely on is a single body and a single flash.

and just to re-cap my only beef is the fact that Pentax for whatever reason requires MORE thinking than the other systems.

and i guess the bigger question is "WHY?", which ultimately leads to frustration.

and i was frustrated when i wrote the original post, having just come back from a wedding where i botched up a few shots due to an incorrect exposure on behalf of my flash + camera combo, thank god i'm only assisting .

[cwood]

Lots of stuff going on in this thread - but in response to the original post... I use a Canon 1DmkIII as my primary body at a wedding for 2 reasons. The Most important reason is that it can write to 2 cards simultaneously. I keep a 16GB SD card in the camera at all times and record a 6mp JPG to that card. I think I can get about 6000 pictures on that card using that file size but to be honest I've never checked because it just doesn't matter.

The second reason I like the Canon as a primary body is the flash. Not because P-ttl is not up to the task but because the Canon 580exII is an amazing flash. The recycle time is ridiculously good and the construction is bomber. It just gives me a warm cozy feeling shooting gear like that under pressure.

The K-7 has closed the gap on some of the other attributes that used to draw me towards the Canon. The focus speed and accuracy on the K-7 is a big improvement and has increased my keepers for some tough shots.

Price, Lens/image quality and image stabilization are all reasons that I continue to shoot Pentax gear almost as much as I shoot Canon gear at weddings

Here's a look at an unplanned shot from last weekend. I was taking a picture of the little flower girl and then I just turned and snapped this as they walked past.... taken with K-7 and DA*200mm F2.8 - WIDE open @ F2.8. I'm not confident this shot would have worked with my K20D... unless someone more skilled than me was driving the camera.



100% crop



A fraction of a second later I took this shot



100% crop

[Ash]

Thanks for that post, Peter.

I will also apologise if you sensed a personal attack from me. Hardly my intent. I look at all here as equal (but some more equal than others, I suppose...)

I have no authority myself to make the claims I do also - I'm no different from you or any other member. So with that, I take your point of view, and have honestly expressed my own. No malice intended, hopefully no harm done, but please don't put words in my mouth.

[unkabin]

I will also apologise if you believe you sensed a personal attack from me. Hardly my intent. I look at all here as equal (but some more equal than others, I suppose...)

I have no authority myself to make the claims I do also - I'm no different from you or any other member. So with that, I take your point of view, and have honestly expressed my own. No malice intended, hopefully no harm done.

I really didn't think that was your intent. I had just been hoping the issue was done, and your post brought it back. And I let out all those "I should have said this, and that, and this" comments that had been filling my head, and that in real (non-forum) life we are usually left, thankfully, to grumble only to our husbands or wives after we get home from the party. No harm here, and my wife probably thanks you for letting me vent on the keyboard instead of to her.

[Gooshin]

okay guys seriously enoug with the touchy feely hyperbole