"Why Pentax and not Nikon?"

Mike, weather sealing is good the sun won't get through the joints,

Jack,

Must've been to keep the dust out Mike.

Weather Sealing in Manchester seems quite appropriate much of the time. It's rather liberating to be able to carry on shooting in the rain.

Bad weather makes for some excellent images.

Did you ask why he bought Nikon?

I find these sort of conversations bizarre, really. I don't question why someone else prefers the make they have, I just know that Pentax suits the sort of things I like to do. The capabilities of the camera, in my case anyway, far outstrips the abilities of the photographer. I never think to ask why someone bought a Ford rather than a Renault, or a Blackberry rather than an iPhone. As long as the person using the equipment is happy, what on earth does it matter what I think?

Each to their own, vive la difference, and all that jazz...

K.

The Nikon does not stabilise old lenses, neither do any of my Pentaxes that were made before my K10D. My only stabilised Nikon lens is the 70-200 f/2.8 VR. My 14-24 and 24-70 don't have VR. Since I can use them at silly high ISO, noise free, why do I need VR on short glass?

My Minolta 7D does as it preceded the K10D by two years. Pentax must have thought it a good idea to copy the Minolta route rather than Canon or Nikon with regards to IS.

All this is irrelevant. IS is not one of my reasons for buying a camera.

I use different systems on their own merit and never ask a fellow photographer why they use their choice over what I use.

Truth be told, when people see me with more than one brand of camera, they more often than not ask about the Pentax and the Minolta with genuine interest.

Regards

My friend uses a D300 and never uses the VR on any of the Lenses as it makes his photos less sharp. To be fair these lenses don't have the latest version of Nikons VR but the antishake on my k20d performs admirably, even with my 500mm sigma

Shirley your need for IS/VR/SR depends on how often you hand-hold with medium/long exposures NOT how long your lens is or what the body is.

At 1/1000th second, you aren't going to wobble. At 1/10th second, you are.

The only area that the lens/body could affect is how well you can hold your hands steady - but the individuals strength will have a lot more to do with that...

Exactly the point I was making. Even when presented with my (entirely reasonable) criteria for selecting Pentax, I was still met with the "Why didn't you buy a Nikon?" line. I just found it odd that despite showing that I had researched my decision and made it based on individual merits, he couldn't see it.

The Nikon does not stabilise old lenses, neither do any of my Pentaxes that were made before my K10D. My only stabilised Nikon lens is the 70-200 f/2.8 VR. My 14-24 and 24-70 don't have VR. Since I can use them at silly high ISO, noise free, why do I need VR on short glass?

My Minolta 7D does as it preceded the K10D by two years. Pentax must have thought it a good idea to copy the Minolta route rather than Canon or Nikon with regards to IS.

All this is irrelevant. IS is not one of my reasons for buying a camera.

I use different systems on their own merit and never ask a fellow photographer why they use their choice over what I use.

Truth be told, when people see me with more than one brand of camera, they more often than not ask about the Pentax and the Minolta with genuine interest.

Regards[/quote]IS/SR may not be one of your criteria for buying a camera, that doesn't mean it is a bad reason for someone that values it.

Also, I've never asked why someone has chosen a particular system over another, though I'd like to think that if I did, and they presented good reasons for doing so, that I would accept that. That was kind of the point of this post. It wasn't a dig at Nikon, it mentions Nikon as that is what they guy shot with.

The Nikon does not stabilise old lenses, neither do any of my Pentaxes that were made before my K10D. My only stabilised Nikon lens is the 70-200 f/2.8 VR. My 14-24 and 24-70 don't have VR. Since I can use them at silly high ISO, noise free, why do I need VR on short glass?

My Minolta 7D does as it preceded the K10D by two years. Pentax must have thought it a good idea to copy the Minolta route rather than Canon or Nikon with regards to IS.

All this is irrelevant. IS is not one of my reasons for buying a camera.

I use different systems on their own merit and never ask a fellow photographer why they use their choice over what I use.

Truth be told, when people see me with more than one brand of camera, they more often than not ask about the Pentax and the Minolta with genuine interest.

Regards[/quote]IS/SR may not be one of your criteria for buying a camera, that doesn't mean it is a bad reason for someone that values it.

Also, I've never asked why someone has chosen a particular system over another, though I'd like to think that if I did, and they presented good reasons for doing so, that I would accept that. That was kind of the point of this post. It wasn't a dig at Nikon, it mentions Nikon as that is what they guy shot with.[/quote]Then we agree Rob.

I did not mean to infer that IS/SR was a bad reason to buy.
Also no issue with digs at Nikon or any make. The only recent brands I don't own in digital or film is Leica (no MF or larger).

Regards

Hand up from another Nikon user...(see sig)

The D3 does so many things well, some things us Pentaxians wish Pentax would emulate (high ISO performance and AF) - and despite the fact that the K20D has a good viewfinder in DSLR terms it's very small compared to when I pick up the Z-1p or the D3.

The Nikon lens legacy, althought the F-mount is 51 years old, is a bit of a fallacy. Much in the way that some Pentax lenses are incompatible on KAF2-crippled bodies, limiting their use. What isn't always apparent that the guys who have bought D40, D40x, D60,D3000 and D5000 aren't aware that pre-AF-S lenses won't work on their bodies.

When I use the K20D with a prime lens I am always reminded about how good Pentaxes are to use, the AF may be slow, but the picture I get are sublime. Even with the FA 135 I acquired from Mannesty I experienced joy.

And in my case, no amount of techno-wizardry will compensate for my gawd-ofal photographic technique

Interestingly, I've never had a corresponding conversation in my other hobbies.

I'd discussed why I prefer Leon Paul blades over Allstar ones for fencing, but no one ever makes a comment along the lines of the Nikon user mentioned above. We just observe that different blades suit different styles and go on trying to hit each other.

In pistol shooting I use an Aeron Brno B96 when recieved wisdom is that the Stehr is the "best" match air pistol made, yet even then I never get "why didn't you buy a Stehr?" , or if I do a simple explanation of the merits of the B96 ends the discussion.

I wonder why it does happen with photography.

ha, you wait till you see two musicians argue passionatly about their brands...Particularly guitarists...

With fencing and shooting, the results are instant. The person who says this is better or I use what is considered to be the best has to prove their ability there and then.

Not so with photography. Same happens with HiFi etc. Easy to talk the talk where you don't have to prove or show immediate results.

Regards

Not with tuba players, we don't have that much choice. More likely to be discussing beer...