pentax zx-7

I am currently using a Pentax ZX-7 for all my wedding photographs.

I would like to move up but I am not for sure what to move up to.

Any suggestions?

Pentax is nice, but if you want to move up, you can't move up very far with that system at this time. Canon has been the leader in digital technology for some time now, and although the D2X is a fine camera, taking their systems as a whole, Canon is widening the gap.

You might also check over in the Pentax forum - though they will tell you to stick with Pentax of course. Obviously, one of the great things about Pentax is that your lenses will fit any camera body you upgrade to. Canon may lead the pro 35mm camera line, but it would be a huge investment for you to switch systems. I think sticking with Pentax is the way to go.

 

full disclosure:

1) I am a loyal Pentax user (3 different camera bodies - all film)

2) I'm not a wedding photographer

You have to ask, what doesn't your Pentax do? And go from there.

If you want/need more than six megapixels you're out of luck with Pentax.

If I am not mistaken your camera is a 35mm film slr from around 1999.

 

'Moving up' to me means increasing film size, format. Keeping the same film size means small format, not the best for weddings.

The bigger the jump in format size the better the quality you get.

So if you want the best quality at a cheap price, then buy an old large format camera, like a speed graphic. The results from that would better anything digital has to offer.

 

A good compromise is medium format, very popular for weddings in the past and still a viable alternative to the best digital can offer.

Perhaps you can pick up an old Rolleicord 5 TLR in mint condition with extras for around $180. I have one and it works fine.

 

A good wedding set-up should have a good low light capacity, fast lenses or fast film. Plenty of film, and a back up camera just in case. Medium format cameras such as Mamiya rb67 and rz67 were wedding favourites and still available used at cheap prices. Hasselblad offer an amazing number of systems and lenses, the best.

 

I have two Fuji 69's, large negative size and easy to focus in low light. I would use them and a tripod for wedding photography if I weren't a beginner!

 

Cheers.

If I may say so very kindly, Ben, if you weren't a beginner you probably would not be advocating wedding photography with the Fuji 6x9 rangefinder camera. It is certainly excellent for many purposes, but for weddings it is simply overkill, as are the Mamiya 6x7s.

 

Weddings are fast-moving events and a camera which is cumbersome to operate quickly and has to be reloaded after eight shots (16 with 220 film) is an unnecessary handicap.

Being a beginner I can ask you this: How many shots does it take?

You can use a Canon 1ds mk2 and get say 1,500 shots but then you are certainly into 'overkill' territory. Is a wedding about qaulity or qauntity? Laura's question was about moving up, why is 69 format overill ? beats 35mm and digital hands down for quality. And lets face it, the Fuji 69 is easier to hyperfolcal and see the subject at speed than a 60 point AF camera in dim light.

 

Since I am a beginner, how many people have used Mamiya rz and rb's at weddings? I thought (actually I know) it is was one of the most popular proffesional tools for the job.

 

What would you advise Laura use, considering her current investment in an intermediate 35mm film slr system, and the otherwise totally unrelated answers above?

Ben, I shot my first wedding in 1971 with a Yashica 124 (2-1/4x2-1/4) and M3 flashbulbs. Over the years I have photographed weddings with Rolleis, Bronicas, Hasselblads, Pentax 6x7s, Mamiya 6s, and Mamiya RB67s. I last used an RB at a wedding in 1998, and last used a Hasselblad in 1999. These cameras, and also your Fuji 6x9s are excellent for formals and for static shots such as posed candids (certainly an oxymoron, but still quite common).

 

There is definitely a market for that kind of coverage, however it's usually among the lower-budget brides. In any case, that isn't the kind of photography I care to do. I am interested in documenting the real life and flow of a wedding, and that requires a fast and flexible set of tools.

 

I love shooting digitally, because it enables me to work with cameras as light and versatile as my much-loved but now retired Canon EOS A2s and at the same time my 20Ds produce picture quality that easily rivals medium format.

 

Yes, I shoot a lot, because I'm always trying to grab a quickly-vanishing slice of life. Sometimes I succeed, and sometimes I fail. But I like my successes, and most of them would not have been obtainable with a cumbersome camera. As for the near-misses, they go into the delete file without having cost me a cent.

 

I've written about this at some length in an article called "The Case for the 35mm Wedding." which was published in Rangefinder magazine in 2000. If you're interested, e-mail me at djphoto@vol.com and I'll send you a copy of the text.

"What would you advise Laura use, considering her current investment in an intermediate 35mm film slr system, and the otherwise totally unrelated answers above?"

 

Reviewing your last post, Ben, I see I failed to address this question directly. What should Laura do?

 

If she wants to stay with Pentax and 35mm film, there's really no place to go. There might be a slight upgrade to her camera body, but that's about it.

 

The least expensive upgrade of any significance she can make is to buy a Pentax digital body. That would allow her to continue using her present lenses, and she could then have her film body for a backup. The Pentax digital cameras are only six megapixels, but that's plenty for wedding work. Many wedding photographers are producing excellent work with the 4-megapixel Canon 1D and the Nikon D2H. Files from my 6mp Canon 10D were printed more than eight feet wide for a trade show display.

 

A final alternative would be to move to a medium format system. This would be very expensive, since it would require buying different bodies, lenses, and accessories. Film cost would also be much higher. However, to be fair, if one knows how to shop the used market there are many bargains available because used medium format equipment is selling for peanuts these days. If she does buy new, she will lose money big time when she eventually makes the switch to digital.

 

Personally, I believe any move other than to digital is beating a dead horse.

Dave, I understand your take now, I agree actually. Perhaps I am too inflexible with my medium format and 35mm gear. I would really like to buy a fast compact digital and also use it as a light meter.

 

I'll leave it to you good folk now and continue with some environmental portraits.

 

Cheers.

Laura-- I started out as a kid shooting Pentax gear. They had cameras with some amazingly good features (the Spotmatic, LX, and PZ-1p had capabilities that blew their competition away, combined with some other aspects that kept the cameras back, but Pentax never publicized them very much). Anyhow, Pentax seemed to abandon their professionals back in the late 1980's, and it's been downhill from there.

 

I have shot for a living since before I could legally drive a car. Back in 1991, I started working in some Nikon gear to do things that Pentax couldn't, but found Nikon lacking in some things as well. At the beginning of this year, I was ready to jump to Canon, but Nikon gave me a D2x to try. I bought one and have never looked back. Sharp as a Canon 1DSMKII but much faster and tougher. Not quite as good in the high ISO's though, and the magnification factor is still there. I just dumped all my old Pentax gear on Ebay.

 

Having the D2x, it has never crossed my mind to go back to shooting MF for weddings.

 

Both Nikon and Canon have excellent systems. Canon might have a slight advantage in the mid-range price category (D70s vx. 20D, six MP vs. 8 or 10), but at the high end they are competitive nowadays (D2x vs. 1DS MkII), and I am starting to see far more Nikon gear showing up when I do news shoots.

 

My next-door neighbor shoots high-end weddings with a D100 and D70 with no complaints. I just shot a high-end wedding for the daughter of an experienced pro wedding shooter, and she was blown away by the pics from the D2x.

 

I'd go high-end digital, and get as good as you can afford. Canon or Nikon, both will do you well. I'm sure I would have been OK with either brand, but I already had a lot invested in Nikon glass and etc.

 

It's too bad about Pentax. Their camera designers were fabulous and many of their lenses were second to none, but they were hampered by top execs who regarded the camera division as dead end. It's finally become a self-fulfilling prophecy.

 

Happy shooting. -BC-

I don't think I am really ready for the whole medium format thing yet. They scare me. I have been shooting with this camera for the last four years. It was the first camera I bought and I really do like it. However, there are other people that are guests for the wedding that have better cameras than I do. I am a self taught photographer. I have read a little on adding extra lights and that whole thing. I would like to talk to someone that has shot with the same camera and see what other stuff they use as well. All I shoot with is my camera a promaster 28-200 lense and a Promaster FTD 7000M flash.....Any suggestions???

Laura, thanks for telling us a bit more about your present situation. I think we all assumed you were interested in a much larger upgrade than you really intended.

 

The first thing you need is another body, another lens, and another flash, all interchangeable. Let me say very kindly that it's unprofessional to undertake a professional assignment without backups. So, since you're comfortable with the Pentax system, I would suggest that you get another Pentax film body, unless you wish to begin the move to digital, in which case a Pentax digital body is fairly inexpensive. (Relative to other digital bodies!)

 

For a second lens, I would suggest the 24-90, which will extend your range a bit on the wide side. It's also a higher quality lens than your 28-200. For a second flash, you might consider the Pentax AF500FTZ dedicated model, which then would become your primary flash with the Promaster as a backup.

 

If you've been shooting mostly direct flash, probably the one thing you can do to make an immediate difference in the appearance of your photos is to put a bounce card or a Stofen Omni-Bounce on your flash.

 

Don't be concerned about wedding guests who have better cameras than yours. The only thing that counts is that you make better photographs than they do.

I am not a wedding photographer but I use Pentax as well. I think what to buy depends on your upgrade path in the near future, or within next few years at least. If you have intended to keep the cost to minimum, stick with Pentax makes sense. For film, you may purchase an used Z-1p/PZ-1p with Tamron SP 28-75/2.8 AF lens. Z-1p has pretty good TTL flash capability and I recommend an used TTL flash with tilt/swirl head. Used Pentax AF500FTZ is not expensive and powerful, or you can get an used Metz 40MZ-1i/2/3i with SCA3701 shoe. The bounce feature will be a great feature if used properly. If you want to go digital, the new DS2 with DA16-45/4 is an okay choice if you don't have a very fast shooting style. However, if you are planning to spend some real cash, the Nikon DX17-55/2.8 will make a perfect wedding lens with D70s or D2x body. But then you will be spending a lot on other accessories as well.

Get a good light meter if you do not already have one. Get a used Pentax 645N or NII, or a used Mamiya 645 AFD. Pick up some used auto focus lenses while they are cheap, some 120/220 inserts, and a pro flash. Than take as many pictures are you can! Stick with pro film and a real pro lab (Pounds, Millers, or Candid 2000) until your business has matured. It is the easiest way to ensure consistent high quality results. By then your skills will have improved dramatically and you decide to go digital, you will probably have enough money to buy the Pentax 645D or Mamiya ZD or ZD back for the AFD.

I shoot Pentax too, but left the generation of your camera out in my collection. From owning the *istD I supose the *ist to be good.

 

Get about 3 bodys, a range of primes 20mm, limited series, and maybe the best 80-200 f2.8 available, some other flash either the mentioned Pentax flagship or a good Metz and go ahead.

 

Cameras don't count much as long as you get the focusing done.

 

As a Pentax user I have a hard time to talk you into changing to Nikon F6 / F100 or EOS 50E and better which looked nice to me once. As far as I know they offer extra exposure compensation for their flashes. Surely all of these are good cameras and you should get whatever you like.

 

You're still in the lucky position of being able to keep what you have as a backup, which seems the most important thing in wedding photography. I used to bring about 5 cameras to shoot at least 3 of them.

 

A final argument against sticking to Pentax is that their DSLRs don't offer working TTL flash and that there is no strong ETTL flash available. I love available light photography so my next DSLR seems to be a Konica Minolta 7D. But 20D and IS zooms might be your taste too. Visit some big camera stores in a strange city and let folks talk you into something.

 

I don't want to take part in the film vs digital discussion seriously, but I assume digital might improve during the next decade, so it seems wise to buy moderate priced film bodys from manufacturers who seem able to provide really good DSLRs quite soon, if one wants to continue shooting film at the moment. Both Pentax and Minolta seem to be about 2 years behind the leaders of the pack and their future isn't really sure.

I have a backup camera as well. It is a Pentax ZX-L. I don't like it as well as I do the ZX-7. It focuses funny. That is why I use it as a back up. My main question was that was Nikon better than a Pentax or any other 35mm camera on the market. I thought maybe in the last few years someone has come out with a better camera.

I was also wondering if any of you shoot photojouralism style. I am very interested in that style but can't quite figure out how to get those awesome off the cuff shots. If you visit www.clcphoto.com. this guy has got some awesome work. I always have it in my head about what a picture would look like and it never comes out that way....any suggestions

<<<<My main question was that was Nikon better than a Pentax or any other 35mm camera on the market. I thought maybe in the last few years someone has come out with a better camera.>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

 

Laura-- In my experience, the PZ-1p blew the N90s away in all areas except low-light autofocus and toughness (I owned both). Pentax has a way of building cameras that are extremely functional and easy to use. However, Nikon does have a more extensive lens and accessory line, and Pentax hasn't updated their flash system for quite a while. The new Nikon remote TTL system with the SB800 really rocks.

 

If you decide to go digital for weddings, the main problem with the Pentax *istD (aside from the no TTL flash consideration already mentioned) will be the size of the buffer. You absolutely must have the ability to shoot, shoot, shoot, and not be waiting until the buffer finishes downloading before you take another shot. This can take minutes in some situations. The D70 and especially the D2x have very large fast buffers which go far to mitigate this problem.

 

<<<<<<<<I was also wondering if any of you shoot photojouralism style. I am very interested in that style but can't quite figure out how to get those awesome off the cuff shots. If you visit www.clcphoto.com. this guy has got some awesome work. I always have it in my head about what a picture would look like and it never comes out that way....any suggestions>>>>>>>>>>>>>

 

Get fast lenses and shoot wide open, and shoot LOTS of shots (though there are shooters who shoot very sparingly and get excellent results, they probably didn't start out that way). To keep the bride from feeling like a paparazzi stalking victim, use longer lenses, like an 80-200 f2.8, but a 50mm f 1.4 or even a 1.7 will give you interesting results from closer-in. Your focus will be critical, as you will have no depth of field to work with. Look for action and laughter.

 

Another fun technique is to use longer exposures (like 1/2 sec) with fill-flash and pan the camera with the subject. It often requires many exposures to get all the elements right.

 

Too bad you didn't post your message a few weeks ago. I just sold a PZ-1p, 500FTZ, and a bunch of excellent Pentax lenses, if you're interested in staying with the brand.

 

But the main thing is to stay with what you are comfortable with. Yeah, if you stay with film it might cost you more and your visual feedback might be long-delayed compared with digital shooters, but if you get a special effect that no one else gets, and you're happy with the result, don't change a winning thing until it turns into a rut.

 

A different camera can give you different pictures, too. It was strange, but I would use the PZ-1p for fine-art and street photography and the N90s for photojournalism, the cameras just felt different and the results looked different, because I reacted differently to them.

 

Happy shooting. -BC-

If you buy a Pentax MZ-S body, you'll get a very rugged camera with as many bells and whistles as you'd find on a Nikon F100, and save about $200 ($799 vs. $999).

 

Pentax prime lenses are as good as Nikon or Canon glass.

 

Tamron aftermarket zoom lenses, especially the 28-70 f2.8, are also good and sharp.

 

The major advantage that Canon or Nikon has as a wedding camera is the autofocus speed. If you are getting the results you want with the ZX-L or ZX-7, you may not need more speed.

 

The Pentax AF360FTZ flash unit is a good accessory. Put one of these on a bracket, have your assistant carry a Vivitar 285HV on a pole (with high voltage pack and radio slave), and you're all set.

 

By the way: each to his own, but the ZX-L has a spot metering mode. I'm not sure if the ZX-7 does.

 

Finally: when I shoot 35 mm for money and I don't need autofocus, I use a bunch of screwmount bodies (two of which have the Nikon vertical metal shutter) and Pentax SMC prime lenses. Good quality is good quality, no matter what the age.

 

Good shooting.

 

/s/ David Beal ** Memories Preserved Photography, LLC

I've shot several weddings with pentax gear (pz-1p, 500ftz and a 28-70mm tokina). The PZ-1P is definately a capable camera - with autofocus it's major shortcoming. But if you haven't already invested a lot of money into Pentax gear, I would suggest moving into Canon or Nikon. The PZ-1P is old technology and Pentax really hasn't replaced it with anything comparable. They have no desire to compete with Nikon or Canon (film or digital) on the pro digital arena either.

Should you decide to go the digital route, the *istD most certainly does have TTL flash. P-TTL with the AF360 flash gun.

 

For 35mm, the MZ-s is hard to beat. It's considerably smaller and lighter than the PZ-1p. If you don't already have a collection of non-A manual focus lenses, there is no reason not to go with the *ist film body. They're very small, light, and have lots of useful features. They also incorporate the newer SAFOX VIII autofocus system, TTL auto flash, and P-TTL with the AF360.

 

Honestly, if your film bodies are doing what you need them to do, your money may be better spent on higher quality glass. The 24-90 is a good choice. The 28-70/2.8 is excellent if your business justifies that kind of expense.

Dont worry about that TTL flash juck. TTL, P-TTL, E-TTL and all of the other types of TTL flash pretty much all suck. Canon, Nikon, Minolta, Pentax, whoever, they are all crap, although some are worse than others. Auto flash is much more consistent. And as we all know, consistency is the name of the game with weddings and events. No matter what brand you end up going with, buy a Metz 54 or a Qflash or even an old vivitar 283-285 and use it on auto. I promise that you will get much more consistent results than with ANY type of TTL flash. Good Luck;-)