Come to the rescue Pentaxians!

[shaloot]

<p>For Dan might abandon us and go over!</p>

<p>http://www.photo.net/nikon-camera-forum/00WNmj</p>

<p>Lol... anyways some people are offering the usual "it might not be the camera, it could be you" advice whereas others are telling him to go with the jump and come over! Oh well you lose some and win some...</p>

[hagar]

<p>I think his questions and concerns were answered quite well in the Nikon forum :-)</p>

[personalphotos]

<p>Any response from me would just be rude. He'll have the same issues on any platform. The earlier threads made that abundantly clear.<br /> I can't remember the last time I cropped a wedding shot to 100% and then printed that for a client....</p>

<p>Seems the Nikon guys have figured this out as well and realize it's not the gear.</p>

<p>Such as this response [snip]<br /> <em>"When I zoom in 1:1 or 2:1 in Lightroom the faces always look blurry and the eyes are not sharp. </em><br /> this is most likely more of a technique issue than an equipment issue. any modern DSLR is capable of sharp images."</p>

[dan_tripp]

<p>LOL, I'm not making the jump. I'm sticking with Pentax and purchasing another body this week. The problem was my friend bought a Nikon and I have the "grass is green on the other side of the fence" syndrome.</p>

[mountainvisions]

<blockquote>

<p>bought a Nikon and I have the "grass is green on the other side of the fence" syndrome</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>I can promise you, having shot Nikon at various times since the late 1990s, it's not greener. Even in the digital age on a dollar for dollar basis. Marketing and safety in numbers always will be something playing with your mind.</p>

<p>I think Dan has been questioning his Pentax equipment for a while.</p>

<p>Unfortunately what he posted worries me. For instance, he is now pixel peeping unprocessed RAW images at 100-200% on a monitor, rather than evaluating his final prints. That alone is a bit disturbing in terms of understanding how to evaluate image quality. If he is only using his images as web JPEGs he should downsize them properly, if he is printing them than he should let the final print do the talking.</p>

<p>And yeah, on the linked thread there were the usual mix of people giving good sound advice, and then the hardcore "if it's not brand X it's not worth using" group.</p>

<p>My advice has always been if your equipment gives you that much agita then you are doing yourself no favors sticking with it. At the same time, don't be shocked if after spending hundreds or thousands to switch brands you have the same issues. However, sometimes just putting the doubts (or self doubt) to rest is worth that cost.</p>

<p>As someone who has shot a lot of different cameras, I am well past the point of ever blaming the equipment for my shortcomings but everyone needs to reach this point on their own.</p>

<p>No matter which way he goes, I hope Dan figures out how to get the IQ he expects from his equipment.</p>

<p> </p>

[mountainvisions]

<p>Dan,</p>

<p>Might I suggest for the ultimate in portrait IQ skipping Nikon and just going for the 645D? I'm willing to bet the 645D (using the same sensor as the Hasselblad) makes the "full frame" Nikon D3X look foolish for your genre. Or heck, just buy the Hasselblad.</p>

[dan_tripp]

<p>Justin the 645D would make me look like a Rock Star. :-)</p>

[jeremy_corbin]

<p>Dan, does that mean that we'd be friends of a rock star if you had one? :-)</p>

[shaloot]

<p>Ah, so Dan might become a dual-system slinger... A Pentakon? Niktax? Ok I'll stop...</p>

<p>The 645D's frames per second might not work for wedding photography? Or it could, why not?</p>

[lachaine]

<p>He may as well hop on the upgrading to "better camera" merry-go-round like anyone else does. After all, it's the ONLY way to really realize for yourself that it truly is not the camera.</p>

 

[mountainvisions]

<blockquote>

<p>The 645D's frames per second might not work for wedding photography? Or it could, why not?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Well considering the 645D has about the same frame rate as the 645N or 645, I'd have to assume that it will work just fine. Actually just checked the specs in my 645N book, and it's "about" 2.0fps vs. 1.1fps, I thought it was 1.5fps. Regardless, I'm doubtful anyone was firing the 645N off at the "about" 2.0fps, and the "about" should be an indicator of how irrelevant FPS is for a camera like this. If anyone is buying this camera to "spray and pray" God has blessed them with wealth coupled with stupidity.</p>

<p>Furthermore, considering most weddings I have been to involve strobing which then requires 1-2 fps to make use of recycle times (usually you can get a few pops off if you are only using 1/2 or 1/4 power) it becomes even more irrelevant.</p>

<p> </p>

[dan_tripp]

I never rapid fire. I already have enough problems with my focus and sharpness quality.

[thebs]

<p>Dan --<br /> I've actually been using my K20D and, most recently, new K-x for sports. Like you, I had a "buyer's remorse" moment when I reconsidered my K20D purchase, considering the D300 instead, especially with a VR 180 f/2.8 lens. But in the end, the DA* 200 f/2.8 kept me happy, and its 5" length lets me get into stadiums as a spectator without a media pass.<br /> The only thing I've found with the metering on the K20D is that I really need to be in Tav mode, picking my shutter and aperture with the dual dials, letting it select ISO (which I set to same as ev bracketing, 1/3rd steppings), instead of just Tv or something else. For some reason, every 1 in 10 or so shots, I botch the metering by a full step if I'm just in Tv. I don't know what it is, but Tav just seems to work better for me -- regardless of my metering mode.<br /> I don't claim the AF in Pentax is as fast as others. But it works well enough for myself for action. And I only shoot action about 40% of the time.</p>