K5IIS V CANON 6D


K10D

Link Posted 24/06/2013 - 14:12
Dodge69 wrote:
Flip-side to the coin, folks leave Canikon for Pentax all the time. Lots of folks are ditching all 3 brands for the new compact APS-C's.

In the three years I've been shooting in Oz I have yet to meet or hear of any of the full time pro's move to Pentax. Are you referring to the lower end users of Canikon? Is the third brand you refer to Sony?

Best regards

Pentaxophile

Link Posted 24/06/2013 - 14:27
I've seen several people come over to Pentax on the US forum. Not sure if they were pros, but serious shooters - possibly pros who now were getting on a bit and wanted to shoot for enjoyment, and wanted a lighter camera.
[link=https://500px.com/will_brealey/[/link]

Pentaxophile

Link Posted 24/06/2013 - 14:32
simonkit wrote:
This 2nd question is one which does have me slightly concerned with any new Pentax FF which might appear..there's little to no "user data" out there so early adopters might find that some of the old full frame lenses aren't quite up to the job.

There are a lot of shots taken on Canon with Pentax M42, K and FAltd lenses. And they all look excellent, as you'd expect of good quality lenses originally designed for 35mm. People might find their old consumer zooms from the 1980s might not stand the test of time though!
[link=https://500px.com/will_brealey/[/link]

Dodge69

Link Posted 24/06/2013 - 15:40
davidstorm wrote:
[quote:3496ace15f="Dodge69"]what about your legs?

Yeah I was thinking of shoe-horning that in but it seems a little obvious, plus you then snowball into other body parts, brain, eyes, index finger etc etc..

K10D wrote:
[quote:3496ace15f="Dodge69"Are you referring to the lower end users of Canikon? Is the third brand you refer to Sony?

Absolutely, if your idea of a 'pro' is the same as mine I can't imagine why any pro would give up the quality, and most importantly the backup network of Canikon.
In that sentence I was referring to 3 as in Canikons & Pentax, couldn't include Sony as they are also pushing out these new compacts.
Obviously sweeping generalizations, however it is plain to see these new compacts are being approved by serious photographers, and for a lot of people who are fed up with the bulk, DSLR's are now finished.

Pentaxophile wrote:

There are a lot of shots taken on Canon with Pentax M42, K and FAltd lenses. And they all look excellent, as you'd expect of good quality lenses originally designed for 35mm. People might find their old consumer zooms from the 1980s might not stand the test of time though!

...and all those Nikon pros who swear by old 1960's glass? Just can't see it being an issue. Can't believe Pentax would purposefully alienate their fantastic FF lens resource.
Pentax pour des images riches en détails!

Mannesty

Link Posted 24/06/2013 - 15:56
The best, most highly spec'd camera in the world is still going to produce mediocre results if not equipped with decent (read expensive) glass and/or it's in the hands of somebody less able to take advantage of it's functions 'n features.

Even some of the most expensive lenses available for any given marque can have issues with softness at the edges wide open, colour fringing, or other aberrations.

For me, Pentax glass is unsurpassed when considering both image quality and value for money in the 'which brand and sensor format to go for' decision process.

My one disappointment is that some excellent third party lenses are no longer available in Pentax K mount.

It's good to remember that the camera/lens combination is merely a tool to record an instant in time as an image, the photographer makes that image and/or chooses the right moment to record it. There is no point in owning the best there is if you can't get the best from it.
Peter E Smith

My flickr Photostream
Last Edited by Mannesty on 24/06/2013 - 16:02

Pentaxophile

Link Posted 24/06/2013 - 16:13
Mannesty wrote:
The best, most highly spec'd camera in the world is still going to produce mediocre results if not equipped with decent (read expensive) glass

Not 100% true, becuase a lot of people on the other forum are jumping up and down about the results they are getting on their D800s with fairly low priced 35, 50 and 85mm primes. And justifiably so!

Mannesty wrote:
and/or it's in the hands of somebody less able to take advantage of it's functions 'n features.

That I agree with, and it's why some people bounce back to APSC, all disillusioned, and others stay with full frame. They have the skill to exploit the format to the fullest. If your APSC pictures are a bit lacking, full frame will definitely NOT help.
[link=https://500px.com/will_brealey/[/link]

Mannesty

Link Posted 24/06/2013 - 16:35
Pentaxophile wrote:
Mannesty wrote:
The best, most highly spec'd camera in the world is still going to produce mediocre results if not equipped with decent (read expensive) glass

Not 100% true, because a lot of people on the other forum are jumping up and down about the results they are getting on their D800s with fairly low priced 35, 50 and 85mm primes. And justifiably so!

Would I be right in thinking that these are older primes that might have been very expensive in their day but can still produce quality results, rather than more modern spec. glass with modern coatings, stabilisation, etc.?

I'd have thought that anybody wanting to stump up for a Canon 6D is going to want, but not necessarily need, modern 'L' glass to go with it.
Peter E Smith

My flickr Photostream
Last Edited by Mannesty on 24/06/2013 - 16:38

Pentaxophile

Link Posted 24/06/2013 - 16:53
Peter, there's a mix of modern but (relatively) cheap lenses like the Nikon 85/1.8G, as well as pre digital lenses. The FF crew on PentaxForums do buy some expensive glass, but they still get a kick out of getting excellent results from cheaper, or legacy, lenses.

Must be the residual Pentaxian in them!
[link=https://500px.com/will_brealey/[/link]

Mannesty

Link Posted 24/06/2013 - 19:50
Understood Will. I have no knowledge of anything Nikon.

Perhaps then I should not have made the pairing of "decent" and "expensive" but my point is still valid, if a user doesn't put decent (not necessarily expensive) glass on a high end body, and/or the user has limited photographic skills, their images may well turn out to be disappointing.
Peter E Smith

My flickr Photostream

johnriley

Link Posted 24/06/2013 - 20:01
The other thing that can cause some problems is the huge file size for every image. Some older computers might struggle, but the storage for some people will be a difficulty. We don't all have the latest computer kit.
Best regards, John

Smeggypants

Link Posted 24/06/2013 - 20:13
johnriley wrote:
Quote:

In regards to "politically correct" I'm referring to what's politically correct to those justifying their purchase. Sorry if that wasn't previously clear

No problem, but perhaps not the best choice of words. I still think it's the case though that if you are arguing against the purchase then it's as much justifying not buying as it could be justifying buying. So it works both ways. You are defending your lack of purchase. Someone else is defending their purchase.

No I'm not defending my 'lack of purchase'. I wouldn't have bought a new DSLR at this point in time even if it had an ISO performance of 12,000,000

davidstorm wrote:
Common sense appears to be spoken at last, very well put John:

John is right, there has probably been more time and effort expended on these threads by people trying to justify their 'non-purchase' than there has by those who have purchased.

... so no John isn't right. At least not in my case for my views about the image quality of the K-5II versus the K-5IIs


johnriley wrote:

My suggestion is that we should listen to them and take on board their experiences, the real experiences that Mr S has suggested many times are better than those who are published by organisations such as EPZ and DPR.

That's just it. I do listen and take on board other people's real life experiences. I compare it to the evidence available and note any correlation ( or not ).

Anyway it's keeping the blah blah blah automaton entertained.
[i]Bodies: 1x K-5IIs, 2x K-5, Sony TX-5, Nokia 808
Lenses: Pentax DA 10-17mm ED(IF) Fish Eye, Pentax DA 14mm f/2.8, Sigma 17-70mm f/2.8, Pentax-A 28mm f/2.8, Sigma 30mm F1.4 EX DC, Pentax-A 50mm f/1.2, Pentax-A 50mm f/1.4, Pentax-FA 50mm f/1.4, Pentax-A 50mm f/1.7, Pentax DA* 50-135mm f/2.8, Sigma 135-400mm APO DG, and more ..
Flash: AF-540FGZ, Vivitar 283

bettyswolloks

Link Posted 24/06/2013 - 20:16
johnriley wrote:
The other thing that can cause some problems is the huge file size for every image. Some older computers might struggle, but the storage for some people will be a difficulty. We don't all have the latest computer kit.

I've some files for printing at 340mb, and working on them can take up a full 4gig scratch disk!!

johnriley

Link Posted 24/06/2013 - 20:17
Please everyone remember to attack the argument, not the person. Personal jibes are against PU terms of use.
Best regards, John
Last Edited by johnriley on 24/06/2013 - 20:17

davidstorm

Link Posted 24/06/2013 - 20:33
Thanks for pointing this out John, as some members will know (via PM's, not aired in public) I had chosen not to make any more contributions to the 'K-5IIs' topics because I was becoming quite fed up with the responses from some members where it was on the point of becoming quite personal. I think the way I reacted is mirrored by a lot of people who avoid making contributions to Forum Topics for similar reasons.

This is a shame as we sometimes don't get to hear a balanced view from enough of the Forum Members. I know this is a bit off-topic, but please don't remove it because I think it's relevant. Congratulations once more to McGregNi who has taken an interesting and more scientific approach, without once ever veering into unpleasantness or anything remotely personal.

Regards
David
Flickr

Nicola's Apartments, Kassiopi, Corfu

Some cameras, some lenses, some bits 'n' bobs

Smeggypants

Link Posted 24/06/2013 - 20:40
davidstorm wrote:
Thanks for pointing this out John, as some members will know (via PM's, not aired in public) I had chosen not to make any more contributions to the 'K-5IIs' topics because I was becoming quite fed up with the responses from some members where it was on the point of becoming quite personal. I think the way I reacted is mirrored by a lot of people who avoid making contributions to Forum Topics for similar reasons.

Indeed. I've had several responses attacking my 'person' for my views on the K-5IIs over the relevant threads in the last few months I haven't always been successful at not responding in kind.

Quote:

This is a shame as we sometimes don't get to hear a balanced view from enough of the Forum Members. I know this is a bit off-topic, but please don't remove it because I think it's relevant. Congratulations once more to McGregNi who has taken an interesting and more scientific approach, without once ever veering into unpleasantness or anything remotely personal.

Regards
David

Yes. A few of us should learn from Nigel shouldn't we. Myself included.
[i]Bodies: 1x K-5IIs, 2x K-5, Sony TX-5, Nokia 808
Lenses: Pentax DA 10-17mm ED(IF) Fish Eye, Pentax DA 14mm f/2.8, Sigma 17-70mm f/2.8, Pentax-A 28mm f/2.8, Sigma 30mm F1.4 EX DC, Pentax-A 50mm f/1.2, Pentax-A 50mm f/1.4, Pentax-FA 50mm f/1.4, Pentax-A 50mm f/1.7, Pentax DA* 50-135mm f/2.8, Sigma 135-400mm APO DG, and more ..
Flash: AF-540FGZ, Vivitar 283
Add a Comment
You must be registered or logged-in to comment.