Any converted Pentax users here? Should I switch?

<p>I am a portrait and wedding photographer and have several Pentax cameras and lenses. I now have a 24inch iMac and now that I see larger images, I have noticed that my pics are not as great as I thought they were. When I zoom in 1:1 or 2:1 in Lightroom the faces always look blurry and the eyes are not sharp. I have a few question for the Nikon people here.<br>

1. When you zoom in on a picture in Lightroom or Photoshop to 100 or 200% how sharp and focused are your pictures? Can you provide examples?<br>

2. Any Pentax users convert to Nikon, if so, why and what are your results?<br>

3. I'm thinking about buying a Nikon but don't know which to purchase. I'm looking at the D90, D300, or the D700. The D700 is a big price jump, is there as big as jump in image quality?<br>

4. If I make the leap to Nikon, I will also want a backup body. Will a D5000 work as a backup and will the lenses work on all bodies?</p>

<p>Thanks.</p>

 

<p>I'm not a Pentax digital user now (I used their film DSLR's a ways back), but their recent DSLR releases are well regarded.</p>

<p>To answer 3 and 4 however: there are lots of D90/D300s (APS-C/cropped frame) comparison threads here that you can check out. With the D300, you're pretty much paying for more autofocus points, autofocus speed, etc. The sensors perform very similarly. The D700 is full-frame so you're getting much more low-light, high-ISO performance, but all your stuff will cost more since you're buying full frame (FX) lenses.</p>

<p>The D3000 is a great camera since it's portable and compact. It does *not* have an autofocus motor built in. So the only lenses that will autofocus on them are AF-S (Nikon), HSM (Sigma) designated lenses, and Tamron lenses with built in autofocus motors.</p>

<p>If you get a D3000 as a backup camera, it may be good to choose between the D90 and the D300s. This way, all your cameras will be on cropped sensors, and your lenses will behave similarly. You should probably buy most of your lenses with HSM or AF-S designations so they autofocus on both... unless you're sure it's a lens that you will only use on the D90/D300 (or you're willing to manual focus).</p>

<p>A bunch of questions. You need to think about this in terms of what you DO with your photos. Do you just view on screen? There's no difference to speak of between cameras in that case. Do you print really really huge all the time? Different issues. Do you crop in like crazy? Same.</p>

<p>I shot Pentax when I shot film. My old MX was my favorite camera ever. When I went digital I dumped it all for Nikon. Is it worthwhile? Yes. Will you see a big difference in photos? It depends. Perhaps your images are blurry because you don't have your camera set up right or don't have sharpening right for your photos or perhaps there is a technique error. If you are printing up to 8 x 10, and you can't get a good image out of a Pentax DSLR, the problem may well not be the camera. Their lenses are excellent, and their cameras are capable.</p>

<p>Can you post an example of a photo that isn't all you want it to be? Might help us.</p>

<p>Also, if you zoom into 200%, you are doubling the sizes of pixels and viewing at a size that you will likely never print. I think your issues may well have nothing to do with camera quality necessarily, but more how you shoot.</p>

<p>That said, I LOVE the way Nikons feel and work, and would never go back.</p>

<p>Will the D700 have a sharper image or just better at high ISO?</p>

<p>Dan, it's a bigger sensor, so there is better high ISO and probably a lot of other things that are better about the image. Also... the need for more expensive lenses potentially... certainly different ones.</p>

<p>BUT... I am CONVINCED based on your OP that your challenges may not be directly a "replace the camera" problem.</p>

<p>Can you post a sample or link to one?</p>

Here is one of my latest weddings.

http://missionphotography.smugmug.com/Weddings/Kristin/11963398_T9KwM#847554552_D9xVg

I think more examples are definitely in order. You should post at least 2 very specific examples, with 100% crops on the eyes, and give the shutter speed, aperture, and focal length. It may be a focus problem, a slow shutter problem, a shaky hands problem, or a depth of field problem. It might even be a JPG problem. I find that my in-camera JPG's are not as sharp as my raw files processed in the PC to high quality 8-bit JPGs. It is NOT likely to be a camera sensor problem or lens hardware problem (meaning that switching brands is probably not your solution).

<p>Dan -<br>

Are you sure your sharpness issues aren't from front/back-focus problems with individual lenses? Can you post examples of unsatisfactory sharpness? I am perfectly happy with the sharpness I get from my Nikon when shooting weddings, but I tested my main walk-around lens in a camera store before buying it there. I'd read too many posts from people who focused on the eyes and got the ears sharp instead, or whatever. </p>

 

<p><em>When I zoom in 1:1 or 2:1 in Lightroom the faces always look blurry and the eyes are not sharp. </em></p>

<p>this is most likely more of a technique issue than an equipment issue. any modern DSLR is capable of sharp images.</p>

<p>nikon makes great cameras, but pentax is pretty highly regarded, especially their k-x and k7. there are different strengths and weaknesses of both, so to some extent its an apples and oranges comparison.</p>

<p><em>Will the D700 have a sharper image or just better at high ISO?</em></p>

<p>this is kind of a loaded question. the d700 has more pixel density than an APS-C camera. so you might see a difference in IQ at larger print sizes. but image sharpness really comes down to lenses. a k7 with a 55/1.4 would probably produce sharper images than a d700 with a 24-120 VR.</p>

<p>also, pentax currently has no FX bodies, so there's no equivalent K-mount camera to compare to the d700. in general, though, the K7 is a favorite with landscape and tripod shooters who shoot at base ISO or close to it and need a weather-sealed body.</p>

<p>dan, you say you're a portrait and wedding photographer. for that application, the d700 is a better camera than anything pentax currently makes for available-light shots above ISO 800. but again,it comes down to lenses and overall budget. if you have 6 or 7 grand for a d700 body and some ace nikon lenses (85/1.4, 70-200 VR II, 24-70, 24/1.4) then switching might make sense. but this gets really expensive really quickly.</p>

<p>OTOH, if you have a good collection of legacy pentax lenses, it might make more sense to buy a k7 and maybe augment that with some newer k-mount glass-- some fast primes, perhaps. pentax has some lenses that nikon doesnt make, but they may not be as widely available, so the product lines arent equivalent. you really have to weigh the benefits and drawbacks on a case by case basis.</p>

<p>as far as a d5000 as a backup to a d700, not really a great idea. besides being different sensor formats, the d500 wont AF with lenses without a built in focus motor--which negates much of the advantage of, say, using a d700 with an 85/1.4. a d5000 makes a much better backup to a d300s, and a d300s or d90 makes a much better backup to a d700. besides AF compatibility with certain lenses, the issue here is the 1.5x DX crop which gives you more reach with longer lenses, but will also tack on an extra 50% to wide lenses. so not only would a 24-70 be a 36-105 on DX, but it wont balance very well on a d5000. the d700 and d300s have very similar button layouts and ergonomics, so from a working standpoint, this would be the best FX/DX combo one could get.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>By the way, if I can judge it by comparing to an image displayed on my 22" PC, 200% on a 24" Mac would be like looking at a print that's over ten feet wide. Isn't a 16" x 20" print good enough to go by?</p>

<p>I took the liberty of looking at some of your other posts, Dan. And the few images I looked at on your link were quite nice (a little dark), but I don't have time to dig around all those images looking for problems. You mentioned "unedited" RAW images from camera. All DSLR images benefit from some sharpening and balancing in post (indeed, I think some of your images are on the dark side, and you will add noise in digital if you favor your darks). Also, some of your images seemed shot wide-open when they probably would have benefitted by stopping down to f4 or so.</p>

<p>There are some really good reasons to switch, but "sharpness" is not one of them.. Their lens line-up is great (although Pentax has some I lust after, actually...) Nikon's CLS is fantastic for wedding photography and Nikon's high-ISO performance, even in the humble D5000 and D90, is just great. At normal viewing distance and even kinda close-up, from 200 up to ISO 1600 looks the same in a tested 11 x 14 print. 3200 only looks a tad worse, and 6400 is even useable for some things if you're not viewing close-up.</p>

<p>But Nikon isn't going to be a magic bullet for everything. Fortunately, you seem eager and open to learn. That's the key! Hang onto it.</p>

<p>Can you post just one single image with a 100% crop, or maybe two, that really shows some of what you're disappointed in?</p>

Seriously, 1000 photos? Please post 1 or 2 specific examples. From what I can tell from your online gallery, there is no sharpness problem that can be attributed to your equipment.

<blockquote>

<p>Seriously, 1000 photos?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>LOL, sorry Craig, I'm not at home, all I have is my iPhone. I'll post some when I get home.</p>

<p>So, how bad is the focus? Sometimes just a little sharpening is needed to pull a file together. What MP is your camera. I think this is something most don't think about. Even a 12 mp camera at 100% on screen is nearly an 850x magnification on a monitor that resolves at 100 pixels/inch(about a 30x45 inch print). An 8x12 print is about 66x.</p>

<p>You may need a better camera or lens, but if you have been in good shape until now and pleasing your customers, then consider that. Comparing files, assuming your talking raw files, is difficult unless everyone is setting their controls identically--just a little sharpening of a raw can go a long way.</p>

<p>By the way, DxO does an incredible job processing raws in both the sharpening and noise categories. If I shot weddings, I think it would be a must program.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>When I zoom in <em><strong>1:1 or 2:1</strong></em> in Lightroom the faces always look blurry and the eyes are not sharp [emphasis added].</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Before you invest in any new equipment, you need to think about what size blowup a one-to-one or 2X image really is on the screen of your computer. We're talking about a print that is literally feet wide. There are physical limits to resolution and contrast after all and any image is going to go "blurry" and unsharp at some scale.</p>

<p>So, before spending $1000s on new equipment, first look at some pictures from a comparable Nikon camera and lens set up and see if they look any sharper really than you are getting from your Pentax. Maybe you just need a newer, more mega-pixels Pentax at most.</p>

<p>Secondly, tie your camera down really tight, lock up the mirror, use remote trigger and see how much of your problem is from hand-holding--see what your own images look like when some of the variables are more controlled.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Dan, your sharpness issues are technique related, not equipment related. Pentax gear will give you all the sharpness you could ever want.<br>

You have asked this same set of sharpness questions, in various forms, for nearly two years. You've received excellent, detailed answers in the Pentax forum showing you how to isolate your image quality issues. I suggest you need to spend time getting to know your present equipment in all its technical glory before you go Nikon shopping, hoping that it will cure your "focus issues" --- it won't.<br>

http://www.photo.net/pentax-camera-forum/00WKnk<br>

http://www.photo.net/pentax-camera-forum/00Rf9R<br>

http://www.photo.net/pentax-camera-forum/00QElI<br>

http://www.photo.net/pentax-camera-forum/00Q8Y9</p>

<p>Zane, thanks for the reality check. You and everyone else on this forum is correct..even the guy at the camera store that I had to stop on my way home. My issue is mostly user error, but in my defense I am having some over-exposing issues with my Pentax K-7. I thought it was a lens, but it does it for several lenses. This started my quest with do I have the best equipment. I also had my question answered about zooming in Lightroom, that helps clear up a lot and I should not worry about the blurry zoom.</p>

<p>I really appreciate everyone's honesty in equipment choice. At first I thought everyone was going to post that Nikon is the best, stay away from Pentax, but I really am surprised. You are a classy group.<br>

I have made my decision to keep my Pentax and purchase a K-x backup to match my lenses and always continue to improve my technique. I'm glad I have a new forum to read as well. You have a wealth of knowledge here.</p>

<p>Again thanks everyone.</p>

<p>Don't use these rediculious enlargements and your problem is solved.<br>

I'm left Pentax 30 years ago for Nikon and still happy with that decission. The decission was base on no improvements on Pentax cameras in these years.<br>

IMHO Pentax went wrong at the moment they fired Mr. Asahi.</p>

<p>Over-exposing issues? find the compensation you need and then just leave it that way. (btw, I thought you had UNDER-exposing issues, by as much as a stop or so, when I looked at a few of your images on those threads, so check your monitor calibration, too.) On my D50, I had to leave it at -.3 or -.7 most of the time. With my D90, I pretty much leave it at 0, so each camera is different.</p>

<p>Good luck!</p>

<p>dan, if i'm correct, the pentax k-x doesnt have visible focus points. that could make a difference between blurry shorts and focused shots in some cases. too bad, because otherwise the k-x seems like a nice little package. i believe the K7 doesnt have this same issue. in any event, getting to know your camera a little better might resolve some of the user error issues. if you still find AF performance not to your liking, you may want to look at a K7 before switching systems altogether, especially if you are invested in pentax glass.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>also, i looked at some of the images you posted in your smugmug gallery, and didnt see any pattern of misfocus.i think there are definitely cameras out their with better AF systems than the K-X, but that body is certainly capable of taking good photos. it's got the same sensor as the d300 and d90 for one thing. for another, you would really only see a major resolution bump at pixel level with a 5dmkII, sony A900 or nikon D3x or similar 20+ MP sensor.</p>

<p>IMO, you have plenty of good shots, and only a few are overexposed. a few are underexposed as well. but for most of them the exposure is perfect. so, yeah, you might want to recalibrate your monitor and not be so obsessive when it comes to pixel-peeping.</p>

<p>1000+ images is a lot, especially because you are bracketing exposures quite a bit, and have multiple versions of basically the same shot. after all, you cant expect every shot to be a keeper. if you limited that gallery to, say, your 400 or 500 most brilliant shots, your personal sense of satisfaction (and your clients) might be elevated considerably. but just to sum up, while the k-x might not be the most ideal camera for weddings, the gear isnt the problem. in fact, i dont really see where there is a problem, other than possibly your expectations.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Hey Dan - SOmanna gave us a heads up! :D</p>

<p>At the 100 & 200 % level, I'm going to tell you what Matt tells me every time I am looking at 100% in Aperture and start griping about my sharpness issues - QUIT PIXEL PEEPING!!!!<br>

He & all above are right, it's just too close & too large to not be a little soft. Even when shooting w/ the DA*, I think it's too soft. But when I get the prints back, I'm very happy with the results, so I guess I need to shut up & listen to Matt, too.</p>

<p>Maria - I think pixel peeping is fine for checking focus and lack of shake blur. <a href="../photo/9845831&size=lg">Here's a 100% crop</a> that I uploaded to my gallery to show what clarity can be obtained at pixel level.<br>

Dan needs to work on focusing and I think Eric is right that the lack of focus confirmation in the K-x doesn't make this job easier.</p>

<p>Dan, I only took a quick look at your portfolio. You are certainly a fine wedding photographer, but I don't think you are at such a high level that your Pentax equipment is limiting your progress. While Nikon has some advantages over Pentax, such as FX-format cameras that have start-of-the-art high-ISO results, switching brands will be very costly.</p>

<p>As others point out, I think you are better off staying with Pentax for now and futher improve your technique. If you indeed would like to switch brands some day, be prepared to budget for it. It can be a slower transition so that you use both brands during the interum.</p>