Any converted Pentax users here? Should I switch?

[Tim_Lookingbill]

<p>Dan, so I take it what I said at the end of this thread...</p>

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

<p>...you started wasn't the answer to the cause for your soft focused images?</p>

<p>If so, then what is causing it?</p>

[dan_tripp]

<p>Wow, again thanks for the great comments and suggestions. To clarify a few points, I already have the Pentax K-7. That is the camera I am having overexposure problems. The pics on my smugmug site are from 2 different cameras. (k-7 and k-200d). The over exposing problem is a severe problem, but I took it to the shop and they reset the settings and so far it seems to be better. Here is a thread of some examples: http://www.photo.net/pentax-camera-forum/00WLOC<br>

On the other hand, I agree 100% that my pics are under exposed. That is something I am trying to improve on.</p>

[jgredline]

<p>Hi Dan,<br>

Since Somanna rounded up the troops, here we go. My 2 cents. This past year I bought into a second system. I first bought a D700 and then a D300s. My needs where I was after the High ISO performance that I did get with the D700. My opinion is that if your shooting weddings for a living, this is a must. There is nothing like the confidence and results one gets at ISO 3200 and above, not to mention the low to virtually no light accurate fast auto focus speed...</p>

<p>Having said this, the lenses are not expensive, they are ''very'' expensive....So if your going to switch, then go full frame and pick your lenses wisely. I am anxiously waiting for <a href="http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/675829-USA/Nikon_2184_AF_S_Nikkor_24mm_f_1_4G.html">this to come in </a><br>

Now if your talking D300s, Then do not bother to switch. You will gain nothing over the K-7 except a 1/2 better ISO performance, but it would be on par with the K20D as far as ISO performance goes. It is too bad your not close to me so you can try out some of these cams. </p>

<p>So if you switch, go the way of full frame or don't bother...Funny thing. I still prefer my K20D's over everything I have. Go figure. My wife and eldest daughter who have been a Nikon users from the very beginning uses my Nikon gear more than their own. (She has a D40, and D200)<br>

Sorry, I am not of much help. </p>

[thebs]

<p>Why not <strong>rent</strong> another system? See how it performs. I think you're going to find that you're going to <strong>always be disappointed</strong> at 200%. But don't take my word for it, rent a Nikon or Canon APS-C, or even full frame, and compare. That's one way to find out.<br>

Pentax users love their RAW. No Pentax user is going to say Pentax AF is the fastest or the Pentax SDM system is the quickest. But I've never heard of Pentax portrait and scene shooters complaining in the least bit, especially not at RAW.</p>

[mark_loader]

<p>Just a thought out of left field...have you considered a short but intense workshop with a top-level wedding pro? I've seen people transformed after this. It would only cost maybe a few hundred dollars but maybe...just maybe...save you thousands if you switch.</p>

[lex_jenkins]

<p>I looked only at the dressing pix. Generally I'd agree with folks who've suggested working on your technique rather than worrying about upgrading right now.</p>

<p>I'm not seeing any problems with sharpness. The main problems are mis-focusing and some motion blur. There's some high ISO noise too but that's easy to fix in editing. You can eliminate the chroma noise (color splotches) with minimal NR applied to luminance noise to preserve detail.</p>

<p>Regarding the focus error, I see several photos were the sharpest focus is on the clothing rather than on the faces and eyes. But the fabric is well resolved, so it's not a "sharpness" problem. On photos that are properly focused I see good resolution of eyebrows, eye lashes, eyes, etc. (And maybe a little too sharp for skin blemishes, but that's easily fixed in editing as well.)</p>

<p>Regarding the motion blur, that's a problem anytime we're shooting below 1/125th. Sometimes that's unavoidable. I can't reliably handhold steadily below 1/125th and even if I could, subject motion blur would occasionally be a problem with candid photos of people.</p>

<p>There are a couple of advantages a high end Nikon or Canon might offer:</p>

<ol>

<li>Lower noise at higher ISO's.</li>

<li>Less risk of motion blur. Higher ISO's let you use faster shutter speeds.</li>

</ol>

<p>But unless your budget can handle a jump to a Nikon D700 or D3-series, I don't see anything a Nikon could offer that you're not already getting with your Pentax gear, other, perhaps, that a slight advantage in low light autofocusing.</p>

<p>Also, Canon has packed a lot of value into their 5D Mk II for high ISO, low noise performance where available light shooting is preferred or necessary. If you don't need the advantages Nikon offers with the D700 in AF capability, weather resistance, and overall build, the 5D is an excellent value.</p>

[mccosh]

<p>Hi Dan,<br>

I just checked some of the photos on your link and I noticed a lot of them are very high ISO some as high as 1600. Hence when you look at your photos at original size they have a lot of noise. This much noice will certainly not help in having a sharp crisp image when viewed at 1:1.<br>

I am also a wedding photographer and try and keep my ISO as low as possible to give me the best possible image. I will shoot as low as ISO100 whenever I can. See my images at <a href="http://www.mccoshphotography.com">www.mccoshphotography.com</a><br>

I have a Nikon D90 that I upgraded from a Nikon D70S and before that a Pentex ME super film camera. I went for Nikon and not a Pentax digital because I always wanted a Nikon and when better time is there to chance all your gear than when you move to digital from film.<br>

Happy shooting<br>

John</p>

 

[Landrum Kelly]

<p>I'm still thinking about that new pie-in-the-sky Pentax digital medium format system that is supposed to be selling now in Japan for under $10K, but that doesn't mean that I have to shoot Pentax at 35mm. The lenses are not interchangeable, after all. Pentax makes a solid DSLR or two, however, so what's the rush to switch?</p>

<p>Will I ever be able to afford medium format digital? If so, it will only be with Pentax. Mamiya is vying for Hasselblad-league prices. Even with Pentax, I have to think about preferred funding sources: Brinks truck, convenience store, or simple highway robbery. The options are not encouraging right now.</p>

<p>I'll definitely keep my existing 35mm system.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

[william-porter]

<p>Dan, Dan, Dan!! Sit down, take a deep breath. I may be able to help you. :-)</p>

<p>I'm a Pentax user myself. Every year I go through one or two periods of crisis where I wake up in the middle of the night thinking I should sell all my Pentax gear and switch to Nikon. I find myself spending hours looking for deals on Nikon bodies and lenses online. </p>

<p>Fortunately, each year (so far), I have managed to snap out of it. I snap out of it for two key reasons.</p>

<ol>

<li>I am quite sure that having a Nikon would not improve my photos.</li>

<li>I am quite sure that, if I switched to Nikon, I would soon be waking in the middle of the night a few times a year and thinking perhaps I should have switched to Canon (or Sony) instead.</li>

<li>Replacing my Pentax cameras and lenses with Nikon equivalents would cost me thousands and thousands of dollars. </li>

</ol>

<p>Note that, if I switched, I would not be replacing my K10D/K20D with a couple of Nikon D3's! </p>

<p>Why do I keep going through these crises? When I'm not in crisis, the answer is obvious. We live in a consumerist culture. We are constantly assailed by marketing that prompts us to think that a new product is going to change our lives. It's important to fight this culture. You've got to look at your camera equipment without sentimentality.</p>

<p>*</p>

 

<blockquote>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. </blockquote>

<p>Hardly a fair test. The real test should be looking at a good print. </p>

<p>But my real question for you is, what lenses are you using with your Pentax bodies? Mediocre lenses on a Nikon D3 will produce mediocre photos. Use good lenses on your Pentax bodies and you'll start to realize the grass is actually pretty green on your side of the fence, after all.</p>

<p>Here is a quick photo I took today of my dog Ruthie. </p>

<p><img src="http://photos.william-porter.net/img/v1/p943432704-4.jpg" alt="" /></p>

<p>It's not a prize winner, but hey, it's a quickie snapshot of my dog taken this evening on my front porch while we were waiting for the power in our house to come back on. You should assume that the photo is somewhat degraded by being posted online. For starters this is a low-res export. Even so, it's a pretty sharp photo. And I did NO capture sharpening in Lightroom at all, in other words, I did nothing in post to make the photo sharper than it was out of my camera. Indeed, I did virtually no post-processing on the image. I increased the blacks slider to 15 (to set the black point) and added just a touch of clarity.</p>

<p>Now, consider a couple of other things. This photo was taken with a Pentax K10D - in other words, an OLD Pentax DSLR (10 MP). Lens used was the Pentax 40 f/2.8 Limited. The photo was taken at ISO 400, f/2.8 and a shutter speed of 1/8th sec, handheld. In-body shake reduction, baby!</p>

<p>There's nothing magic about this. Certainly nothing magic about Pentax. I could easily have taken the same photo with Nikon, or Canon, or Sony, or Olympus gear, although for this particular shot, I do think shake reduction was a help. </p>

<p>If you aren't impressed with my little doggy picture, visit pentaxforums.com and poke around in the galleries there or just search the Internet. There's a wealth of proof available that Pentax cameras and lenses CAN take sharp, beautiful images, when well used.</p>

<p>*</p>

 

<blockquote>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?</blockquote>

<p>I think there's a huge misunderstanding here. You seem to think that more expensive cameras <em>take better pictures. </em>THEY DON'T. The main advantage of more expensive bodies is that they <em>take pictures better.</em> There's a big difference between one and the other. There are of course some image quality advantages to certain cameras, for certain kinds of shooting. Some cameras do better in low light, at higher ISO; some cameras auto-focus faster; other cameras have a faster burst rate; etc. But these things are mostly marginal matters. Let's assume good lighting, competent photographers and high-quality lenses: You won't be able to distinguish photos taken in those circumstances by almost any of the current line of DSLRs, whether it's a Pentax K-x, a Canon 50D, a Nikon D90 or D700.<br>

So why buy more expensive cameras? The Pentax K-7 doesn't take better photos than the lowly K-x; but the K-7 is weather sealed, and has markedly superior ergonomics, starting with two e-dials, hyperprogram and hypermanual modes, a vastly superior review screen, etc. The same compares to more expensive cameras from other makers. If you trade, say, a Pentax K-7 in order to switch to a Nikon D90, you're making a largely lateral trade and getting virtually nothing in the bargain. If you switch to a more expensive Nikon camera, you're mainly getting some advantages—possibly significant to you—in the camera as a tool to work with, but not so much in the image quality of the output.</p>

<p>I'm definitely NOT trying to dissuade you from spending your money to switch to Nikon. Indeed, if you do decide to sell your Pentax gear, please contact me privately. If you have anything interesting I might be willing to help you out with a purchase.</p>

<p>But if you switch, switch for a really good reason. Don't switch because you have not figured out how to take sharp photos with the equipment you're got now. Keep trying: It's possible. If you really try, and you just can't succeed, then something is wrong, but it's not the brand of camera. Perhaps you're got bad lenses, or you've got a lens with auto-focusing issues, or something else I can't think of.</p>

<p>Good luck.</p>

<p>Will</p>

[plasma181]

<p>For several years, I shot with a P30t. Either the mirror or the focus screen was a little off, causing a slight error in focusing. It would reach infinity focus by the screen just a hair before the lens would hit the built-in stop. At most apertures, this was not a problem. I got some excellent shots with that thing. I'm sorry I sold it. </p>

[Dave Luttmann]

<p>Dan, when you focus, are you using single, centre point, or all the sensors?</p>

[peterafle]

<blockquote>

<p>You seem to think that more expensive cameras <em>take better pictures. </em>THEY DON'T. The main advantage of more expensive bodies is that they <em>take pictures better.</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>Amen to that... very well put. <em><br /></em></p>

[john_a5]

<p><strong><em>"You seem to think that more expensive cameras take better pictures. THEY DON'T. The main advantage of more expensive bodies is that they take pictures better."</em></strong></p>

<p>But isn't that the point the OP was making, that he thinks another camera might take pictur<em>es</em> better! I think that is why most people SHOULD upgrade, is when the camera isn't doing what they need it to do. The problem is generally the confusion between being able to take better pictures and a camera that will take pictures better--so there is the resultant equipment chase with, amazingly, no improvement in the results!</p>

<p>There are certainly lenses and camera combos that won't reliably shoot in focus photographs--I have been there with that one. The camera I had that issue with wasn't a pro camera and I didn't really care, it was a utilitarian piece of equipment that filled a specific need very nicely. But it certainly wasn't a camera I was going to use on a job.</p>

<p>And that is the point of it all, does the current equipment meet the needs? Maybe, maybe not. Bottom line is to weigh everything in perspective, including the money to switch, and maybe rent what you think you want and test it out--does it get better results?</p>

<p>Bottom line, only the OP can really answer the question because aside from what the equipment can or can't do, the psychological impact of working with gear you trust versus that you don't is reason enough to switch--if it really gives you that trust. (and then just get a Canon....)</p>

[rafael_s]

<p>I always thought that the way an image displays on screen is due to screen resolution, pixels displayed on screen, and the graphics card your computer is using. Just because it does not look sharp at 200-300% does not mean it will not print sharp. Monitors display everything at 72 ppi, regardless of wether you are zooming in or out. Depending on your graphics card, the transition of zooming in and out becomes smoother or choppy. It's why gamers want the fastest card out there, because they understand that framerate is smoother and pixels get drawn quicker on screen, creating the illusion that it looks more real. I don't think it matters wether you are shooting Nikon, Pentax, or another. More megapixels will just mean you can zoom in further, but displayed at 100% 6-8mp looks just like anything higher than 12mp.</p>

[Landrum Kelly]

<blockquote>

<p>The problem is generally the confusion between being able to take better pictures and a camera that will take pictures better--so there is the resultant equipment chase with, amazingly, no improvement in the results! --John A</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Don't you think, John, that we also simply want too much new equipment because we have all these grand plans about what we are going to be shooting or doing with our photos? I think that we amateurs in particular tend to overbuy because we think that photography is going to play a larger and larger role in our lives--even that we might "go pro" someday. It almost never does work out that way, and, when it does, it can be with disastrous results--going pro is almost never the panacea that it was expected to be. </p>

<p>Another problem is simply the fixation with gear <em>qua </em>gear. It has been said that human beings are the only animal that make ends of its means. I think that this often happens in photography. The tool ceases to be merely a means to take a photo and comes to be revered in and of itself--a classic case of what sociologist Robert K. Merton called the "displacement of goals." Soon one is no longer a photographer, amateur or otherwise. One has become a <em>de facto </em>collector.</p>

<p>In any case, I doubt that many of us really think that we will get better in our photographic technique with new equipment. We typically know better than that. We simply overestimate what marginal improvement there might be with more resolution, better auto-focus, better low light and high ISO capabilities, etc. They do not in most cases have much effect at all because most of our shots do not require such fancy cameras or such enormous files.</p>

<p>Whatever its source, overbuying is or can become a sickness of sorts.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

[william-porter]

<p>John A writes: <strong><em>"But isn't that the point the OP was making, that he thinks another camera might take pictures better! I think that is why most people SHOULD upgrade, is when the camera isn't doing what they need it to do. </em>"</strong></p>

<p>The OP's complaint was that he can't take sharp pictures with his current Pentax cameras. My response <em>to that specific complaint</em> is, either (a) he's doing something wrong, or (b) there's a defect in the equipment he's using, or © both. The problem—at least with sharpness—is not Pentax. As I happens, I'm a Pentax photographer myself, and since we're a minority, I'm perhaps a bit zealous in my defense of the brand. But, while zealous, I'm not a zealot. I would have given just about the same answer if the OP was complaining about Nikon or Canon or Sony. </p>

<p>Will</p>

[john_a5]

<p>Bottom line Lannie, I think what you quoted from me and what you said are not far off. Yes, people kind of end up being collectors of equipment, but in most cases it starts out as a belief that I will be a better photographer if I get this or that. And then soon, it is I am better because I have better equipment--ala the Leica necklaces we see so many times worn but never used!</p>

<p>In this case, the OP is a pro at some level and equipment is important to a pro. But then so is learning to make great images and understanding what is needed to do a certain job or kind of job.</p>

<p>I had one MF system that was great until I needed it to perform with extremely large scans--optically, it just fell apart. As a pro, and an on-going need to make these large scans (client was actually happy with the scans), I changed camera systems and the results were amazingly better at those magnifications. I still have the other camera system, but have no reason to use it since I now have one that is better and maybe the best camera ergonomics I have ever experienced in that format--and psychologically, I have full confidence in the product it puts out whereas I will always have doubts about the other.</p>

<p>But as I pointed out earlier as have others, that is the bane of the digital camera. In general, we are seeing images much larger than ever before and quite honestly, larger than the lenses were ever designed to create. Most don't deliver images beyond the lens capabilities, but in the past, we judged that by the print that we made, now we do it by looking at a screen that sees things beyond practical reality for most.</p>

<p>(and just a comment to Rafael, there is a big difference looking at a 100% view from a 6mp camera and a 21mp camera, your "great" lenses can get much less "good" at that resolution!)</p>

<p>Note to William: I wasn't attacking anyone's cameras, only that it is sometimes the equipment, regardless of make. If it is, you switch, but you be sure it IS the equipment!</p>

[thebs]

<p>I will re-iterate the OP should actually rent some Canon or Nikon equipment and see for themselves. Heck, I'm sure there are enough Nikon and Canon owners who would let the OP borrow or at least let them take some test shots in their presence.<br>

Talk will do little.</p>

[william-porter]

<p>Bryan Smith: "<em><strong>I will re-iterate the OP should actually rent [or borrow] some Canon or Nikon equipment and see for themselves."</strong></em></p>

<p>Yes, excellent idea.</p>

<p>But I also think the OP, for his own sake and the sake of his pocketbook, should try to figure out what he can't get his current gear to do what others with the same gear are able to do, i.e. take sharp photos.</p>

<p>I have a close friend who had a bad experience with a Nikon camera. When it came time to buy a new camera, he simply didn't consider Nikon at all, he bought a Canon instead. Now, he's free to do that. He's an amateur and didn't have an investment in lenses and accessories. And I actually think he had an itch to try something new and different. I completely understand. But I'm quite sure that the problem he had with his older Nikon camera wasn't Nikon's fault. And I think pros (even part-time ones, or perhaps especially the part-time ones!) should be less sentimental about their gear.</p>

[john_a5]

<p><strong><em>"But I also think the OP, for his own sake and the sake of his pocketbook, should try to figure out what he can't get his current gear to do what others with the same gear are able to do, i.e. take sharp photos."</em></strong></p>

<p>But that is the problem and why comparisons are good. I rarely trust someone else's opinion of what is sharp, I have read too many reviews, seen the examples they post as good and am left scratching my head! When you go out and test other equipment, you have something you did to compare, then you see. You may not like the other equipment any better, but you get perspective--you may have the best equipment available or nearly so. You may also just discover that there really is something better to be had--that is why you compare.<strong><em><br /></em></strong></p>

[thebs]

<p>William -- I think the OP is much different than a novice striving for amateur status.<br>

Although in the case of the latter, this is one area where I love Pentax, entry-level. The standard features are extensive, not talking about expert controls, but actual, standard features (that many other entry-levels leave out). TIPA just gave the K-x the entry-level award for 2010. And Europe is hardly where Pentax is cheaper. Here in the US, the K-x + 18-55 + 55-300 is now merely $679 shipped from Amazon itself.<br>

In the case of the OP, I think he should get both a Pentaxian and a pair of Nikonian and Canonians around him, and show him how to shoot with all the equipment selection. From that, he can decide for himself. That would be most ideal.</p>

[william-porter]

<p>John, I don't think you and I are disagreeing. I think it's valuable to know what other cameras are doing. I pay attention to Canon and Nikon just out of professional curiosity. And I quite agree that, before one sells all one's brand X gear and switches to brand Y, one ought to give brand Y a hands-on try and confirm that the switch is a good idea. I'm with you 100% on that.</p>

<p>I'm just saying is that you don't help yourself if you compare your broken or defective or misused brand-X camera to a new brand-Y camera. I don't think the OP has responded to my question about what lenses he has been using, or to someone else's good question about focusing mode (center-point, multi-point). If he's shooting with a consumer-grade zoom lens, at high ISO, using bad camera-holding technique and not focusing well, it may be hard for him to make any fair comparison with another camera, whether it's from the same brand or another. </p>

<p>I think we all have to look first to what others do with our gear—the gear we have now. That sets the standard that we can hope to meet. And there's absolutely no shortage of evidence that brilliant, gorgeous tack-sharp photos are being taken daily using just about every brand and every model of DSLR on the market. If somebody says, "I have a Nikon D40 and it doesn't take sharp pictures!" I don't suggest that they rent a Pentax or Canon or Sony and try something different. I suggest that they figure out what is wrong with their D40 or their lens or the way they're taking pictures. If somebody says, "I have a Nikon D40 and I need to take photos in the rain," or "I have tried using M mode but I find it hard to adjust the aperture because I have to push 2 buttons at the same time," or "I would like to be able to autofocus using some of my old lenses," etc., THEN I think it's safe to say it's time for them to consider a different camera with the features they require—weather-sealing, or two e-dials, or support for older lenses. </p>

 

[john_a5]

<p>William, you certainly are making some good points but I think you are missing mine. The OP apparently isn't a novice. He is having issues with two cameras and may in fact have bad technique, but that may be presumptuous on our part to make that assumption.</p>

<p>My point really, to be more blunt, is that your decision that you get sharp images with certain equipment does not mean I will think the equipment can get sharp images or that your images are acceptably sharp to me--my review example as a case in point. But, assuming I know what I am doing, if "I" go and compare then it is me, working in my way whether flawed or not, that will use my standards of what a sharp image is to compare. (When comparing, you should shoot both cameras in the same setting or you don't have a comparison really.) I don't automatically get better technique because I try another brand or that might be reason enough to change!</p>

<p>I think there are a lot of good points throughout here, but at some point the only way to know is to compare!</p>

[lex_jenkins]

<blockquote>

<p>"...a pair of Nikonian and Canonians..."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>They don't come in pairs. They come in camps, usually opposing camps armed for combat. And they're called Nikonistas and Canonites. Pity the poor Pentaxicostal who tries to get unbiased info from either.</p>

[thebs]

<p>Lex -- I wasn't thinking the USA v. USSR type (plus a leading industrial, but non-power, in the middle), but one Pentaxian, one Nikonian and one Canonian with equivalent equipment to existing Pentax, and showing the OP how to use them effectively. Yes, I know, it's "I have a dream ..." type.</p>