Do pros use Pentax?

[mc2imaging]

<blockquote>

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

</blockquote>

<p>Yeah, funny how nobody remembers that Pentax was the best selling 35mm SLR for a LONG time - in fact, they were the first to reach the one million mark in 1966, and the 10 million mark in 1981. I won't even start on all of the Pentax (Asahi) firsts that we all think of as commonplace on an SLR today.</p>

<p>If you consider the mid to late 90's "The Film Era" you <i>might</i> be closer to true...</p>

[dogbert]

<p>I shoot both Canon digital/film and some Pentax film so I feel semi qualified to speak on both.<br>

Pentax was a great company made mediocre by ongoing poor management decisions. In 35 mm it mainly focussed on amatuers thinking medium format was for pros. Over time as demand for pro photography shifted from weddings and event photography to photojournalism the 35 mm format became dominant at least among photojournalist professionals, and as film quality improved it become the dominant system for everything except for pros who required very high quality and very big enlargements - often advertising and art.<br>

Nikon and Canon offering full 35 mm systems became the dominant choice in 35 mm for pros. And as it was easy to offer amateur bodies along side this, most aspiring amateur also shifted to Nikon and Canon in the knowledge that they could grow into a full pro rig with a wide range of lens choices if they ever needed to. Why invest in an amateur system that lacks the full range of a pro system, when you can just as easily invest in another amatuer system that does have the capacity to grow?<br>

Canon became dominant once they got their EOS system full sorted. Its AF system combined with USM lenses was more than a decade ahead of Pentax and well ahead of Nikon until recently. In fact Pentax is only just answering this with its SDM lenses.<br>

Canon and Nikon now also offer affordable FF digital, and while you can do good work with APS-C digital, you can do better work with FF. Noise levels, resolution, DoF control and viewfinder size are all better with FF digital.<br>

Finally you can roughly compare Canon and Nikon pro lenses against Pentax lenses at Photozone. If you do your homework there it seems fairly obvious that Canon has in most cases best in class with normal and telephoto zooms and telephoto primes, closely followed by Nikon with Pentax running third. Nikon seems to have the edge with wide angles, closely followed by Canon with Pentax running third again.<br>

Common problems with Pentax 'pro' lenses seem to be poor edge sharpness at wide apertures, CA and fringing. Some also seem to suffer from indifferent quality control.<br>

While this may seem a harsh assessment it is not that surprising. The laws of economics apply to all manufacturers and Pentax suffers from lower volumes compared to Canon and Nikon making it hard to produce low price, low volume, high quality lenses. Something has to give.</p>

<p> </p>

[jpo3136b]

<p>Barry, why don't you use your old lenses? If they fit, give them a spin. </p>

<p>"It seems that all my peers are shooting with Cannon and Nikon", "From the pros that have used Pentax vs Cannon, is ther a similar quality difference?" I'm more garage sale than gallery sale, but I'd weigh in with this: Pentax. I owned a Canon briefly; it was the kind of camera system that really made me feel like it was always stopping just short of my expectations. For some reason, I never got this feeling from a Pentax. I like their systems, and always find myself coming back to them. </p>

<p>When it seems like everyone else is shooting everything else; well, I wouldn't worry about that. They probably don't worry about Why did that guy show up with a Pentax? Although, I did have one press photographer staring at my 645 one time; my inherent sexiness was probably part of that; I just can't help it that I make already great cameras look that much better to the pros. </p>

<p>What kind of accessories were you looking for that were not available for the Pentax systems? They have pretty much got every focal length someone could want. What would be needed? As it is, I end up picking and choosing. There was this video I saw in another thread that showed this photographer toting around a lot of equipment. He had an assistant to help him carry all that stuff. I guess maybe I get into bringing a lot of stuff when I start to add in the light kit; but, basically, there's already a good collection of stuff available; if you are carrying more than four lenses at a time, and one of the cameras is not a TLR, you might want to check that packing list. Maybe for an international trip or something, where you know you would be separated from everything. But, really, what's missing? Pentax has been cranking out cameras and accessories for many years; there's all kinds of backwards compatibility from microscope to telescope. What more could someone need? </p>

<p>There are a bunch of times when one can do well with two lenses and some common accessories. I'm not trying to be too critical or anything. But, if these other companies have a more extensive catalog; okay, why? Have a look at some 645 lenses and accessories. They only make a few lenses for that system; I have some of these; pretty much covered. Maybe sometimes autofocus would have been nice when the camera is on a ringlight because it can be tough to use the two-touch with the strobe body right there. Might have preferred a more traditional manual crank advance for the 645. But really, what do these other companies have that is so great? </p>

<p>Maybe someone could use a Leica as a chick magnet or something. Sooner or later, though, she'd guess that if she spent time with me, we wouldn't be heading back to my Central Park West condo or anything. The Pentax system can work okay. I'd encourage you to proceed with confidence. Otherwise, it's kind of like arguing over shoe color. Which one is best? I think Pentax is best. The other dude got sucked into someone else's marketing scheme. </p>

<p>For the lens quality, I have never seen a real problem with my Pentax lenses. Ever. I'm sure there's someone who could cough up an engineering test analysis or something that would show some other design is superior in some respect; but, really, I don't see it. I can hit the photo gallery and pick out some postprocessed photos; but, I don't scroll through there and say, Hey! There's that Leica "glow"! Obviously, this one should get a 6/7 because it was clearly taken with Canon's new auto-everything telephoto. Never happened. Maybe once I wondered if one fella used a Nikonos underwater. </p>

<p>Well, you can see; I'm diehard Pentax. I'd suggest, though, that there's a good chance that your old lenses are good enough. If you feel they served you well before, there's no reason why they can't now. I wouldn't worry about the latest products to come out. I think yesterday one photographer posted a thread about a lighting question, and I realized he had a camera with no hot shoe and no PC socket. I have no idea how that photographer is going to trigger an off camera flash. Somewhere in The Latest Innovations department of some camera companies, someone took at nap at the desk at the wrong time. Proceed with confidence. Fire up those old lenses!</p>

[jtk]

<p>www.strobist.com<br>

www.lightstalkers.com<br>

http://www.sportsshooter.com/<br>

http://nppa.org/news_and_events/news/2009/01/poynter.html</p>

<p>Check em' out. You'll find 90% pros using Nikon and Canon DSLR, with a tiny minority (lightstalkers) using film, therefore Leica.</p>

 

[jtk]

<p>... check these professional classifieds:<br>

More Koni Omegas (1) than Pentax. http://www.sportsshooter.com/classifieds.html<br>

More Mamiya 6 than Pentax: http://www.lightstalkers.org/keywords/posts/for_sale/1</p>

<p> I went from Nikon F to Canon F1 in the late 70s because Canon had slightly more accurate viewfinder and F1's advance was precise, framelines vs sprocket holes... important for audio-visual oriented photographers who used Wess mounts...plus, it reduced automatic slide mounter damage. Pentax advanced sloppily and its viewfinder was too inaccurate for professional work, assuming one shot slides.</p>

<p>Viewfinder inaccuracy was one of the main reasons the commercial photographers I knew in San Francisco never used Pentax. They did start to use a few Konicas, for some reason. Naturally, virtually everybody had a Leica M or two, if just for fun.</p>

<p>Once Pentax became known for its viewfinder (and promoted itself as "small," which was unimportant to pros), it was doomed among professionals. Lovely cameras, nonetheless, if not as rugged as Nikon F series. A friend did good work with his Asahi in Vietnam.</p>

<p>I use K20D because it's rugged and I like the primes. I'd have gone with Canon or Nikon if I only wanted zoom lenses. If I wanted to get back into professional photography I'd switch to D700, making the relatively small necessary investment. Cheaper by far than the kit auto mechanics need, or the knives and frying pans professional chefs accumulate.</p>

[mc2imaging]

<p>This thread could go on forever...</p>

<p>I know a guy that was a pro rodeo circuit photographer from the 70's through the late 90's. He's shot with just about everything under the sun over the years including Nikon, Canon, Minolta, Olympus, and others. While different cameras might have different things that he likes, at the end of the day the only camera he has ever sworn by was the Pentax K1000. Rugged and reliable, it kept snapping while the others were in the shop.</p>

<p>There are plenty of Pentax shooting pros that frequent this forum, and there are more Pentax shooting pros that don't.</p>

<p>My bottom line: Shooting with Pentax cameras means I can afford to charge my clients less (important in the current Air Capitol economy) and my cameras are PAID FOR.</p>

[jtk]

<p>Matthew, certainly some pros use Pentax DSLR, and many have used K1000 et al. However, if they're actually professionals in 2009, they're using the tools they need to do their jobs. For many that rules Pentax out if they're at the front end of seriously investing to do photojournalism (from strobist.com to Magnum), sports photography, weddings (ask about Pentax on P.N Wedding forum), product photography etc. The key word is "serious." DSLRS of all brands are so CHEAP compared to tools of other professions that price distinctions don't count for much if one is "serious".YMMV.<br>

Charging clients less is a sure-fire way to kill a business. There's always somebody cheaper, and there's always somebody more expensive. High price suggests high quality, right? When times are tight, many survivors raise prices.</p>

[jtk]

<p>...that said, Pentax K20D, like the film cameras that went before, is a FABULOUS tool for "serious" amateurs. Mine feeds into Lightroom and an Epson 3800. I'm in love :-)</p>

[george_hazelton]

<p>As others have said, who cares about "pro level" if the camera does the job? I have a K10d, bought in large measure because of its viewfinder, markedly superior to comparable Canikons. You see, I'd been spoiled by my Pentax MX and LX. <br>

Of course being able to use my current lenses was an inducement; I'd hate to have to retire them, especially the 50mm f1.2.<br>

I think anyone would agree that the LX was pro level. Gasketed, solid metal construction, interchangeable backs, viewfinders - including high point action finder, screens, a winder, a motor, bulk film backs - all graced by one of the finest finder views in capitivity.<br>

TTL exposure metering has let me take pictures on EI 400 with an f4 18mm at night with exposures of 5 or 6 minutes, and since light is measured off the film a passing cloud makes no difference. <br>

Two weaknesses: no AE exposure lock and a x synch speed of 1/75th. Had Pentax developed the camera properly it would have competed well with Nikons beyond the F3 which was current when the LX was introduced.<br>

Whether or not the K20d is pro level is moot. If people make money with a camera it's a pro camera. I'm not going to worry about the other guy shooting Canikon, if it does the job for him - or her - well and good. The LX and the K10d are good enough so that I can't blame my photo failures on equipment, so I am forced to grow. Isn't that the sort of thing we all want?<br>

Good shooting to all, and be careful out there....</p>

[ted_white2]

<p>In 1963 I got an Asahi Pentax H1a, later an H3v, then my first Spotmatic SP when they were introduced. I've never needed a Nikon or a Canon. When I began using DSLR's I naturally bought the *istDS, then got a K20D.</p>

<p>I guess I'm a pro, though I'm not sure how that term is defined. Do I make 100% of my living from photography? 75%? 50%? The answer is sometimes, but certainly not always. I've always had another job (college professor - best kind of job as it interferes hardly at all with photography, plus you can teach it in an academic setting if you're so inclined).</p>

<p>I believe that if you make a photograph that evokes some type of emotional response in the viewer, then it's a successful photograph, and it hardly matters to the viewer what camera or what lens was used. Others will define a successful photograph in terms of whether or not it sold and produced revenue for the photographer. In either case, only people on forums like this will care about whether it was a Canon, Nikon, Pentax, or Leica (yes, I have an M6).</p>

[phd_gent]

<p>

<p >For many years, mainly in the analogue area, I worked, as a pro, with the Leica M5 and the Pentax LX side by side.</p>

<p >The Leica was/is superior for handheld-low-light-full-open-aperture-reportage work, while the LX was/is a sublime real pro system camera allowing the more 'refined' work on 35 mm film. Along with these, I worked, and still do, with Hasselblad (MF) and Linhof (6x9 cm, 4"x5" and 13x18 cm sheet). </p>

<p >90% of my pictures ar published, by offset printing, in books, folders and magazines (food and lifestyle).</p>

<p >Right now, as a pro, I shoot mainly on MF and 6x9 (slide-) film for the real super quality demanding jobs. And with a K10d for the jobs I used to shoot on 35 mm colour film, what is hardly 25% of all. BTW, B&W is still done on film, I find digital B&W is not good enough, for the time being.</p>

<p >The real advantage of the K10d is that I can still use my 'analogue' arsenal of lenses (I have 11 of them) and accessories (macro bellows, IR triggering, and other 'things'), just the camera body changed.</p>

<p >Pity enough, the Leica rests on the shelf...</p>

<p >Nobody, not the publisher, the editor, the designer, the author, the printer, the scanner operator nor the prepress and even the pro-lab guy, could not tell the difference between Pentax and Leica, unless the negative/slide was extremely enlarged, directly compared and 'nitpicked' .</p>

<p >The two systems, M5 and LX, were designed (and build) for different applications and use, that is why I had them side by side. </p>

<p >But right now, with the K10d, I do both kind of work, on pro jobs, and nobody is complaining. </p>

<p >In the publishing houses, I have colleagues shooting N**N and C**N, and when the press-design guys are comparing pictures, for the 'content' of them, they cannot tell any differences, by brand, about sharpness, colour and contrast, and actually they do not care! </p>

<p >The big advantage I have is, that my 'little' Pentax is costing 1/4 of the big ones and is, at the end of the run, performing more than good enough. AND, there is still some budget left for buying film...</p>

<p >It is not the camera brand, but what you do with it, that matters.</p>

<p > </p>

<p >And yes, nit-pickers can be found everywhere, but who cares?</p>

<p > </p>

<p >Have a good time with your Pentaxes,</p>

<p > </p>

<p >Philippe </p>

</p>

[phd_gent]

<p> </p>