Pentax Colour

We've been working alongside some other photographers just recently and had a chance to have a long look at the different results from Pentax and Nikon cameras.

One thing that did stand out was that the colour from the Pentax K20D cameras was so much better than from the Nikons. All cameras were used shooting in JPEG and all were set at Cloudy and the Pentax colurs were really very consistent and very impressive.

The other thing that came out of this was that for most purposes the results from Vivid settings (on all cameras) were very OTT and not attractive. Natural or bright seem to be preferable on the K20D and the same seemed true of the Nikons.

As for AF, then virtually all the Pentax shots were in focus, whereas the same was not true of the Nikon ones. It may be that speed of focus is achieved by compromising accuracy in some circumstances.

Nothing conclusive in these musings of course, but I thought the colour was exceptional and worth a mention.

Some very good points there John. I am interested in the comment about AF. What were you all shooting?

Regards

Can definately agree to that.

We got a copy of the shots that the 'pro' photographer took at our friends wedding (D200) and compared them with ours and our conclusions about colour were the same, quality was better too!

Every time I think about changing to a different system, I take a quick look at those wedding shots and say to myself 'why would I do that?'

Definately worth a mention, yes!

Totally agree with you, but why change system?

What a pity that all the Pro's out there don't agree with the points raised here, we would see a return of Pentax at weddings. Years ago, that's all I did see with the odd exception of a 500CM or Mamiya.

That said, a recent comment, on this forum I believe, said that looking at prints, you cannot tell what the camera was that took the image. So where do we draw the line?

There is a difference between Fuji and Kodak films so which is Pentax and which is brand X? People argued that brand A was better for skin tones and brand B was better for scenic so are we now saying that a Pentax CCD or CMOS sensor manages to iron out those differences to give us the perfect colour balnce?

Genuine questions, and not intended as bait for a heated discussion.

Best regards

Have very recently been playing about with my colour setting on my k20 (as recently as yesterday actually). I have always had it set on Vivid, but have just changed it to Natural after doing a few experimental shots. I have also increaded the Contrast, Saturation and Sharpness(and fine sharpness) a little.

What I find the biggest shame is all the popular mags only seem to concentrate on Canon, Sony, and Nikon, and to a lesser degree, Olympus. Maybe John should should submit an article for publication in one of these mags to show amateurs who are getting into DSLRs for the first time that there is more than just the aformentioned four names.

when i was looking to get a DSLR earlier this year, I spent nearly all my time looking at the 'big four' and then it dawned on me that back in the late 80s I had a Pentax compact zoom film camera (not so compact actually). So, looked up what Pentax had to offer, and pound-for-pound was more impressed by the solid Pentax. A friend of mine popped round last weekend. He does stock and uses a Nikon D90. He was more than impressed by my K20. His first comment was 'it feels good to hold doesnt it!' He was talking about the camera!

I'd be interested in peoples comments on their colour settings, so I'lll start a new topic so as not to annoy John.

Not taken as bait, just get annoyed at lack of focusing speed sometimes, especially with the DA* 60-250.

That lens is very slow and missed too many shots, when I know from experience others are a lot faster. Happy overall with cost / performance ratio 95% of the time, just want that little bit more occasionally.

My reason for asking John about what they were shooting was that I have my D700 set to release and focus. It fires the shutter regardless of focus BUT by frame 3 or 4 its locked on and stays.

Now I've tried manytimes to catch a head & shoulder shot of a batsman walking off the pitch after he's out. Single focus won't work on long glass as he's coming at you and continuous is a wee bit slow both on my K10d + 70-200 EX AND the Maxum 7D + 50-500 Bigma. The D700 gets it. I lose 3 or 4 frames but that is under 1 second. I still get the expression and sharp images.

I have yet to shoot a cricket match with the Nikon but did the theory test at Whitby with people crossing the swing bridge. Same day I took the Red Arrows. I just can't get certain images in focus fast enough. Hence I paid big bucks for the D700 and lenses.

I still believe in horses for courses. I am here in Qatar, my Nikon and Minolta kit are in the UK. My choice was to bring my K7, grip, 10-17mm, 16-50mm and Sigma 70-200 Mk1 with a 1.4EX TC. It all fits very easily into my Off Trail 2

link

The K7, gripped with the 70-200 (hood reversed) sits easily in the main pocket. A 77mm CP (fits the 16-50 + the Sigy)goes in the mesh pouch.

Very compact complete travelling unit with a good waist belt and shoulder strap.


Regards

How did you view the results John ? Printed or on a monitor ?

But don't you just love the output of the 60-250mm when it does get a focus lock ... simply superb imo.

A couple of questions there to answer.

The subject matter was quite varied - lots of landscape, some natural history, some transport, some night shots. Some very fast action shots of birds in flight.

I've always been a bit mystified by the complaints about focus speed because I find my Pentaxes lock on very fast without any problem, even in light where I'd find it difficult to manually focus. I use centre spot only and very rarely find a problem. If AF doesn't work, usually because of the subject matter, then a quick change to MF does the trick.

I viewed the results back home on my monitor, which delivers colour about the same as the printers do.

I wonder if you could gain the others permission to display some low res examples so you can show us the differences. That'd be the best illustration.

It might RR, but they might also be a bit offended, so I don't think I can be that specific.

Depends what you're shooting and what you're comparing against.

Example, Hollyoaks charity football match, got a few friends in the opposite team, want to get em some good action shots. Stood at the edge of the pitch, K-7 & 60-250 at the ready, pretty boy (who's on Strictly atm) comes running down the wing, mate comes flying in, excellent tackle, pretty boy goes flying in the air and I don't even get a shot because the focus doesn't lock.

Cousin stood next to me with 1D Mk3 & 70-200 nails it. Reason why? The focussing speed of the 60-250 just wasn't fast enough to keep up with the action, simple as that. Before anyone goes on about other techniques (thinking manual focus here), I just can't be bothered to learn them for the few times I might need them when I know that this lens can focus much, much faster (as tested on a pre-prodcution K-7).

If I had the money, I would just invest in a 2nd system for those occasions that I need / want it which is annoying when I know that my current kit could be better but being held back for some unknown reason.

Absolutely not in question, you should have seen my cousins response when he saw the parrot shots I did with the PP K-7, his jaw just dropped!

I haven't used the 60-250mm so can't comment on its speed, but I have used the 55-300mm and you need to be careful where you place the focus point to get a reliable lock with fast subjects. After a bit of practice, I can now do this OK with flying birds, but if there's a problem then MF is the answer.

With respect, this isn't the fault of the kit you use and some effort is needed to achieve consistent results with these difficult subjects. I don't think buying a second system is easier than practising for a while with what we already have.