shaloot Posted May 3, 2010 Share Posted May 3, 2010 <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> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hagar Posted May 3, 2010 Share Posted May 3, 2010 <p>I think his questions and concerns were answered quite well in the Nikon forum :-)</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
personalphotos Posted May 3, 2010 Share Posted May 3, 2010 <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> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dan_tripp Posted May 3, 2010 Share Posted May 3, 2010 <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> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mountainvisions Posted May 3, 2010 Share Posted May 3, 2010 <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> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mountainvisions Posted May 3, 2010 Share Posted May 3, 2010 <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> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dan_tripp Posted May 3, 2010 Share Posted May 3, 2010 <p>Justin the 645D would make me look like a Rock Star. :-)</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jeremy_corbin Posted May 3, 2010 Share Posted May 3, 2010 <p>Dan, does that mean that we'd be friends of a rock star if you had one? :-)</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shaloot Posted May 4, 2010 Author Share Posted May 4, 2010 <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> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lachaine Posted May 4, 2010 Share Posted May 4, 2010 <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> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mountainvisions Posted May 4, 2010 Share Posted May 4, 2010 <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> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dan_tripp Posted May 5, 2010 Share Posted May 5, 2010 I never rapid fire. I already have enough problems with my focus and sharpness quality. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thebs Posted May 5, 2010 Share Posted May 5, 2010 <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> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now