Do pros use Pentax?

<p>I've been shooting with Pentax for 30 years, mostly advanced am. quality but have had a couple of professional gigs. I am currently shooting with a K10d. I bought it because of the lens compatibility with my older systems. I find I really never use my old lenses, so that as a decision to buy Pentax was not as useful as I thought it would be. Here's my question: Are there many pros out there that shoot with Pentax? It seems that all my peers are shooting with Cannon and Nikon, which have a much larger accessory and equipment base.<br>

Barry Barbas</p>

<p>If Pentax works for you, even if you're not making use of the old lenses, why do you care what the pros shoot? I'm an amateur in a similar situation. If I found myself shooting in between Natchwey and Salgado, I don't think emulating <em>their equipment</em> would make me any better as a photographer. Their technique, certainly. If the genius of their vision somehow rubbed off on those near them, surely. But I don't think their choice of systems would help me. The founder of this site, Philip Greenspun, had it right: the most important attribute of Nikon and Canon for a serious photographer is that you can rent their equipment almost anywhere. If the ability to rent is not important, just decide whether Pentax makes the equipment you need.</p>

<p>A friend who has shot stock for 40 years uses Pentax and is quite happy with it, but none of his work ever gets turned into large prints either. But there's nothing wrong with Pentax or the K10d in general they just have fewer "professional" quality lenses than Canon or Nikon, especially in zoom form. Most of Pentax's lenses are of decent optical quality but nowhere as good as Leica, Contax or Canon L. But from what I've seen their ED lenses <em>are</em> excellent they just don't make a lot of them. That's my guess as to the main reason, but also possibly support and perhaps durability of Canikon's professional bodies as well as their excellent high ISO image quality like the D3. </p>

<p>My question is more about professional quality of the equipment. For instance, I bought a Sigma 18-200 from B&H. I had never handled or tested one. It turns out that I'm not as happy with the quality of it compared to Pentax DA or DA* glass. From the pros that have used Pentax vs Cannon, is ther a similar quality difference?</p>

<p>I am a pro, and I DO use a K10D, and I will NOT change platforms (ok, I'm also too cheap to spend thousands on Canikon IS lenses).</p>

<p>We currently have one DA* lens, and yes, compared to our Tamron 28 - 300, it's quality is much higher. There's the weather sealing, and the fact that it's much much faster than the Tamron.<br>

I would assume the Sigma lenses made for Canikon and Pentax to be of the same quality between them, and certainly not the same compared to the DA*.</p>

<p>Barry, I'm by no stretch of the imagination a pro, although I have recently started to do some paying gigs too.</p>

<p>But my understanding of the pros that I know who do shoot with Pentax is that they love certain qualities of the Pentax glass. So, yes! There can be a vast difference in lens quality. If you are not happy with your Sigma lens, try and send it back. I personally have come to swear by zooms with a small zoom range, and primes. I know some of the hobbyists on this forum love the mega zooms that they use, but I'm sure the capacity for quality improves with the less zoom needed to be engineered into a lens' glass.</p>

<p>Maybe someone will weigh in on the Sigma version of that superzoom. I have never used it.</p>

<p>From its beginning Pentax has never catered to the pro market, their focus has always been to provide the best quality for the money, and they still do. In fact when beginners ask for recommendations I almost always recommend the Pentax K200D as a best buy. But professionals do not care about getting "the biggest bang for the buck," for them it's always about image quality, speed, flexibility and durability which Pentax always runs a second (or third) to compared to Canikon. If you want the best and can afford to drop $10,000-$20,000 on the ultimate outfit then you should switch to Canon or Nikon, but if you just want better image quality in your lenses then stay away from the cheap super zooms that are nothing but a series of optical compromises (all super zooms are essentially junk regardless of who makes them, they can't help but be because of the laws of both optics and economics). My friend who shoots stock uses nothing but Pentax primes and they are all very good lenses. Buy one, say the 50 f1.4, and see if that doesn't do the trick for you.</p>

<p>1. I'm a pro.</p>

<p>2. A super zoom (yer 18-200) is handy, but generally slower and softer than a tighter range zoom, and WAY softer than a prime. Pentax DA*, FA* &, A* glass is killer - hands down. Typically, Pentax's "Pro" glass designated by the *, and is par with Canon L glass, etc. Superb. Pentax also excels in their 'mid-range' zoom offerings like the 16-45 f/4 DA. Notably better than the kit, but more affordable than the f/2.8 DA*</p>

<p>3. Compare apples to apples with your lenses. Comparing zooms of VERY different ranges, zooms to primes, or kit to pro lenses isn't fair. I've made some beautiful images with the 18-55 DA kit lens, but side by side with the 16-50 DA* it's no contest. </p>

<p>4. I make 30x40 prints that are tack sharp from my K10D & DA*, and I have about 45,000 shutter actuations between my 2 K10D bodies. - ABSOLUTELY PRO QUALITY PENTAX!</p>

<p>I appreciate your comments and this forum. It is very helpful. I have noticed color bleeding from my sigma 18-250, which may be the softness that Matthew is speaking of, especially on brightly colored and highly contrasted racing bikes at Daytona. The mega zoom is nice for an all around single lens, but I have struggled to get the tack sharp images from it. I plan to pick up a DA* 200 and another K10 or K20 body. I should probably ebay the sigma. My old manuel 50mm 1.4 beats trhe image quality hands down.</p>

<p>I think we go over this thread 3-4 times per year.</p>

<p>Short answer yes, many people make all or part of their income off of Pentax cameras and lenses.</p>

<p>Quite a few independent or freelancing pros shoot Pentax.</p>

<p>Large prints, I feel like Mike is misinformed or his friend has poor technique. There is no limiting factor in Pentax cameras or lenses that limits print size. Actually, quite the opposite, Pentax lenses are quite good, and the sensors are also better implemented than Nikon and Canon.</p>

<p>Case in point the K10D had better IQ than the Nikon and Sony cameras that used the Sony 10MP sensor. So again, misinformation is being spread.</p>

<p>What's funny is Mike Jonston wrote an article about the quality of Pentax glass not that long ago. Which he compared it NOT to Canon L but to Leica and Zeiss. So someone is lying about Pentax lens quality. Not to mention PopPhoto called the 31mm Limited one of the 3 best AF primes ever. I'll gladly admit the standard FA lenses were pretty averagely built, but the FA*/A* series and Limiteds exceed are top notch. And even the lowly FAs do a pretty good job optically. Compare the 35mm f/2 or the 50mm f/1.4 to their Canikon counter parts, surprised?</p>

<p>Also, how many Nikon and Canon pros never print bigger than 8x10? I bet quite a few.</p>

<p>Not I don't have a problem with what Mike is saying, it's just not well informed.</p>

<p>Mike, was the Pentax 67 and 645 system "professional". Or do you discount that system? You do realize how many professionals who filled the pages of National Geographic used the 645 and 67 system, right?<br /> <br /> <br /> It wouldn't be unfair to discount it, after all, Nikon and Canon catered to pros but never made a medium format system. I always bring that up because I think Canikonites forget that fact.</p>

<p>At the end of the film era, I bought a Pentax ist 35mm film SLR, I believe it was the worlds smallest SLR, but on the literature, it said "blah, blah, blah, and also our PROFESSIONAL medium format camera system." My inference, possibly wrongly, was that Pentax didn't consider 35mm professional during the film era. The good news is a lot of professionals shooting medium format didn't either!</p>

<p>I always point out the PZ-1P vs. the Nikon N90. The N90 was I believe the largest selling autofocus camera of the era with several million bodies sold, but when you compared the two cameras, the PZ1P was on spec with it in everything but the AF system, and in many ways actually a better camera. And when the AF issue was really looked at closely, the PZ-1P actually was on par with Nikon in all but focus points (having used both I feel comfortable in saying that).</p>

<p>Gotta say, not bad for a camera from a company that wasn't even trying to produce a pro camera, or court a pro 35mm base. The N90 was used by quite a few "pros" before the F100 was introduced.</p>

<p>BTW, do any pros shoot Hassy, Fuji, Leica, Olympus, Sony, or the others? Absolutely.</p>

<p>Finally this theory that pros just drop exorbitant amounts of money on gear is absurd. I shoot next to guys who as of late last year were still shooting D2Xs, or Canon 1DIIs when the D3 and 1DIIIs were out for months or a year. Some of those cameras have tape holding doors closed, or covering ripped off gaskets. Working pros are cheap, they look at gear as a means to an end. They use gear with no love or appreciation, and tax write offs are over rated to anyone with real world expenses. It's a fantasy that pros run out and buy a new camera every time one is released and have unlimited funds to spend on equipment. Actually, that sounds more like the hobbyist/prosumer market</p>

<p>I've said this before, there is nothing wrong with being loyal to the brand you love. I am loyal to Pentax, but spreading misinformation on another brand that you don't have intimate knowledge with is just not good judgment.</p>

<p> </p>

<blockquote>

<p>My inference, possibly wrongly, was that Pentax didn't consider 35mm professional during the film era. The good news is a lot of professionals shooting medium format didn't either!</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Exactly right. When I was in collage (mid 90's) I was DROOLING over a medium format system. The guy at the camera shop told me not to waste my money: Drop the bucks on FA* glass and good film, and I'll be happier. Looking back, I know he was right. I stopped looking at the 645 I couldn't afford and started drooling over the 80-200 f/2.8 FA* I couldn't afford...</p>

<p>I have a 645 system at my disposal that I can borrow any time I want, and I've got a couple projects in mind that will warrant 6' posters (I've got a friend with a car museum). Short of that, 10MP and a DA* will take you a long way.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Not only that, I believe that back in the 60s Spotmatics were *very* popular with professionals. And both the MX and the LX were marketed as pro bodies in 35mm K-mount.</p>

<p><em>Mike Jonston wrote an article about the quality of Pentax glass...</em></p>

<p>Those would be <a href="http://www.luminous-landscape.com/columns/sm-02-05-02.shtml">the best autofocus lenses in the world</a> , not to mention his single <a href="http://www.luminous-landscape.com/columns/sm-02-11-24.shtml">Favorite Lens</a> . Pros use Pentax, rest assured.</p>

<p>I'm a pro and have used Pentax for the last few years......</p>

<p >Looking back at some old photo when I first switch over to digital, my first camera was a used Cannon EOS 1DS II purchased from a photographer( great camera with 50mm prime $8000 Canadian) cannon is the way to go everything else is junk everyone was saying. This camera scared me so bad that I could not leave the backyard without worrying that I my damage it. I decided to get a second camera for going out in the bush and taking photos. Went by Mcbain in red deer to see what they had and I seen they carry pentax. I took a look at the Pentax ist DS (ugly name) with a kit lens, not bad and the price is right $899, and with some of my old primes I had a great little system. The more I used the pentax the more I liked it. I took the pentax inside and took some portraits in controlled light shots to compare the ds to the EOS. The cannon is a better camera but In my mind its not 10X better that the Pentax as the price would suggest. With the leap in camera technology I could not wait 4 years to payoff the cannon.</p>

<p > <a href="../photo/8554214&size=lg">http://www.photo.net/photo/8554214&size=lg</a><br>

This is the first test photo taken with the pentax ds and kit lens under controlled lights and was the deciding factor in selling my Cannon. I reworked the photo in PSE6 and still very please with the photo even in the age of 10 & 15mp cameras. My point is that for the life of me I can not understand why so much time is wasted debating should I use Pentax should I switch to Nikon is pentax a pro camera? I think more logical questions one might ask is a $7000- $9000 system worth the investment to only have that standard meant 3-4 years later by a $1200 system???? and especially in these times </p>

<p>Like Justin said, we go over this 3-4 times a year. I am glad it came up again...I was really starting to miss it...</p>

<p>Actually, I wouldn't know if this came up 3-4 times a year since I have not been a P-net member for that long, but I do know it has come up three times since August when I joined.</p>

<p>People who say Pentax is not fit for Pro work have wasted a ton of money on another system.</p>

<p>I too have the film version of the *ist.... tiny camera... I bought the battery grip just to have something to hang on to.... I still like that camera.</p>

<p>You can see the evolution from Canon to Nikon at sporting events. Just a short time ago the "white lenses" were all you would see on the sidelines of a football game. But now a lot more are shooting Nikon. It has a lot to do with how you look at cameras and brands.</p>

<p>But as someone said it is all about your vision and not about what you use.</p>

<p>Pentax has been a pioneer in the SLR market. They will always be a big part of what has happened. And since the medium format discussion came up. They made some great cameras, at a lot less than the "accepted" brands. And there was a time when Pentax glass was regarded at some of the best made. And I still believe they make glass that will hang with the other brands.</p>

<p>I wish Pentax would make a digital version of the 645 that didn't cost as much as a new luxury car. I have two 645s that I use, but will probably sell one. But would like to keep it for the landscapes and such that I shoot out west.</p>

<p>Few pro photographers used pentax in the film era, but I know a couple who were loyal Pentax owners. On the high end, Pentax lenses and pro film camera bodies seemed to be more costly than comparable Canon/Nikon products. The Pentax K10d and K20d match up just fine to Nikon and Canon and they are competitively priced. A good friend of mine recently retired from shooting weddings with his Pentax Spotmatic camera, 50mm f1.4 lens and a Vivitar 283 flash (used occasionaly). He shot only tri-x, developed and printed his own album photos and delivered only contact sheets as proofs. I guess he was a pro because that is where he made almost all of his income. He retired not because of the digital innovations, but he would rather spend weekends at home with his grandchildren. He was booked about 40 weekends a year and often for Saturday & Sunday.</p>

<p>Having a Pentax DSLR and having tried various Canons and Nikons in shops and those owned by friends, I've felt that the Pentax autofocus system is generations behind. The Canons and Nikons just simply blow away the Pentax.<br>

That alone would be reason enough for me to switch if I needed to.</p>

<p>I think it depends, to some degree, on where in the world we are discussing and the demands made on the cameras.</p>

<p>I was fortunate to spend a bit of time with a couple National Geographic photographers in the late 1970's and early 1980's. At that time these guys broke down the three main companies in North America to reflect the use of the cameras in question. Canon was for the sports and nature/wildlife guys, Nikon for the media, extreme (as it was later to be called) sports and "on the sidelines" war types and Pentax for the "hard core" (in the thick of it) war, severe back country sports (think, Mt. Everest climbing) and all around BA (as in Bad Ass) types. You could deflect bullets as you ran across the battlefield, pound pitons on the way up the Mountain and dispatch a grizzley bear, all with the same camera and still make the photos with it as proof of your "B.A.ness".</p>

<p>Keep in mind that these fellows used a fleet of Pentax Spotmatics each and considered themselves the original B.A.!! types. Might be some hint of a Masters of Psychology disseration to be found studing this group. In any case I would consider them "Pros" of the first order.</p>

<p>Things may not be the same today but if you look to photographers from Asia, Europe and various other non-North American geographical locations you will find "pros" using Pentax equipment in their day to day work. Not all list their equipment but I have noticed more than a few note their preference.</p>

<p>I have a few friends that make their living from photography, a couple use Pentax and are loath to consider switching. Not that they are Pentax loyalists but the equipment was chosen for many of the same reasons those of us on this forum chose. Another professional friend has just been "forced" to switch from Pentax to enable him to utilize the hugh communal collection of lenses and accessories available to him through a new business partnership. It has not been a particularly heart felt switch and was nearly derailed.</p>

<p>However, as others have said, the equipment used has little to do with the professionalism of the user. So if we all want more Pentax's used by more professionals, <strong><em>get out there</em></strong> and use those K100D's, K10D's, K20D's and start flogging those shots gang. There is plenty of talent flowing around here to take the world by storm. Remember, "<em>Those that sit around thinking about something are very often passed by those doing that very thing."</em></p>

<p>I'll work to do my little part. I've just signed up another "Pentax documented" wedding for mid March.</p>

<p>Scot,<br /> <br /> I am probably the only one that appreciated that pound pitons line.</p>

<p>Yeah, a lot of people consider a camera crap build if you CAN'T get double use out of it as a big wall hammer. For me, I'm not that rough on my gear, although I do appreciate gear that can handle some abuse. I've seen enough reports of K10Ds taking some abuse and keep ticking. Even the recent post of the guy that dropped his 3 feet onto concrete and has an issue with the SR buzzing, the camera still worked!</p>

<p>Anyway, as people have alluded to, a camera is a tool, if the tool is effective for your needs than it's what you need. For me, I've rarely regretted Pentax as my choice because it's largely been exactly the tool I needed.</p>

<p>I am pro ... do use pentax D / DS / 2 x K10d / K20D.also SFXn / 2 x Z1p / MZs / 67<br>

I love the quality of their prime lens.<br>

And noone believe I shoot FIA-GT with a DS ;)</p>

<p>"Few pro photographers used pentax in the film era..."<br>

I must be an exception to this, having used the P6x7 for 20 years now. Most of their lenses are great. But it's more about the photographer's eye than the equipment.</p>