All Forum Comments
They will be off to play on EBay at the weekend, so a gentle Tuesday Bump...
Comment by jules posted on Visible Dust 724 Brite and Manfrotto 494 RC2 Ballhead at 05/11/2013 - 08:48
Blythman wrote:
Great for flowers. If your pre focused waiting for somebody scoring from the D of the 18 yard box at 1/250 at f8, you might be disappointed when they are actually in the 6 yard box and 1/1000 at f4 was required.
All this harking back to the good old days is nonsense. Sports photography is generally more dynamic and a better standard than in the olden days. Likewise new gear has opened up wildlife photography to the masses
Bang on Alan, as always!Great for flowers. If your pre focused waiting for somebody scoring from the D of the 18 yard box at 1/250 at f8, you might be disappointed when they are actually in the 6 yard box and 1/1000 at f4 was required.
All this harking back to the good old days is nonsense. Sports photography is generally more dynamic and a better standard than in the olden days. Likewise new gear has opened up wildlife photography to the masses
Comment by jules posted on Are Pentax really that bad for sport ? at 05/11/2013 - 08:34
Pentaxophile wrote:
I doubt there's much difference between the D600 and 610, same sensor, same processor (but sans embarrassing sensor stain issues!) Plus the D600's a closer price comparison....
Get the DF!I doubt there's much difference between the D600 and 610, same sensor, same processor (but sans embarrassing sensor stain issues!) Plus the D600's a closer price comparison....
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YsGcT3efbJQ&feature=c4-overview&list=UUSgMNX3Nkj...
very pretty and properly weathersealed!
Twice the price though!
Rather have a K3!!!
Basically they've raided the D4 and D600 parts bin and dressed it up in a tweed jacket, it'll sell like hotcakes!
Comment by jules posted on The new standard of performance - K3 shoot. at 05/11/2013 - 08:29
Blythman wrote:
Hasten to add, that overall they say "Based on what we've seen, we are tempted to say that the K-3 is the best APS-C DSLR currently on the market"
The guys at Pentax forums are an unforgiving lot, the AF's probably no good because it isn't FF! If it was they'd say it was brilliant, positive and blazingly fast!jules wrote:
Seems to be a lot of anecdotal evidence over on dpreviews pentax forum that may show the K3 in dare I say it a much better light?
I really hope so. I was really surprised by the AF part of the review on pentaxforums.Seems to be a lot of anecdotal evidence over on dpreviews pentax forum that may show the K3 in dare I say it a much better light?
Hasten to add, that overall they say "Based on what we've seen, we are tempted to say that the K-3 is the best APS-C DSLR currently on the market"
If you put a 2008 SDM lens on a 2013 body, it will aquire the target faster, and track better maybe thsn a 2008 body but the actual focus speed will be unchanged. It's the tracking rather thsn out and out focus speed that matters, if something travels from infinity to you in under two seconds, it'll likely kill you...
Comment by jules posted on Are Pentax really that bad for sport ? at 05/11/2013 - 07:27
Smeggypants wrote:
Well this is the point. Pentax need to release a £4,000 body that can cut it for the Pro Situations.
Gary is right that pro-level situations as he describes above require gear that can keep up and it ain't cheap.
£4,000 for a body and another £6,000 on lenses isn't much for a pro set up. A self employed plumber or electrician can spend well over £20,000 on a van and tools alone.
Pentax needs to release gear like this. OK, most of us amateur hobbiests might not be able to afford or justify affording that many thousands on our leisure pursuits, but that's the not the point. Pentax edging into this pro market is going to have spinoffs in the amateur market. Even if it's not profitable it's called a "loss leader"
True enough but they'll have to rebuild the brand over here so to speak first, which means gradually increasing but purposeful steps, probably a FF body in the spring, next stop after, a sports body, maybe? They are doing quite well on the brand awareness, I'm not used to seeing Pentaxes on the front of magazines/in newspapers and displayed at the front of Camera stores, instead of in the corner next to the door to the skip! Well this is the point. Pentax need to release a £4,000 body that can cut it for the Pro Situations.
Gary is right that pro-level situations as he describes above require gear that can keep up and it ain't cheap.
£4,000 for a body and another £6,000 on lenses isn't much for a pro set up. A self employed plumber or electrician can spend well over £20,000 on a van and tools alone.
Pentax needs to release gear like this. OK, most of us amateur hobbiests might not be able to afford or justify affording that many thousands on our leisure pursuits, but that's the not the point. Pentax edging into this pro market is going to have spinoffs in the amateur market. Even if it's not profitable it's called a "loss leader"
The Pro centres are a good idea but I'll agree with you on that word "Pro", there is a difference, Pentax is not a "Pro" system...yet.
Oh yeah and before anyone gets the idea of just chiming in with "It's not the camera that's Pro, it's the user!" Or "Any camera is a pro camera if a pro is using it!" SHUT UP!
Comment by jules posted on Are Pentax really that bad for sport ? at 05/11/2013 - 07:11
I don't understand the problem smeggy! K5 is great for snail action!
To be fair as I keep saying Pentax AF is. not that bad but not to the level of a four thousand quid body but why would anyone expect it to be? For the money, the pentaxes are great! Canon 7D doesn't match a 5D MkIII but it's plenty good enough, I hope people cut the K3 some slack but know they won't...
Bet the first full review uses the 60/250 or the 50/135 and moans about the slow autofocus but what can you do?
To be fair as I keep saying Pentax AF is. not that bad but not to the level of a four thousand quid body but why would anyone expect it to be? For the money, the pentaxes are great! Canon 7D doesn't match a 5D MkIII but it's plenty good enough, I hope people cut the K3 some slack but know they won't...
Bet the first full review uses the 60/250 or the 50/135 and moans about the slow autofocus but what can you do?
Comment by jules posted on Are Pentax really that bad for sport ? at 05/11/2013 - 06:27
Blythman wrote:
At the price point, Pentax has nothing which competes with a Canon 7D for wildlife and action in good light. And the 7D is four years old
On a unpredictable moving target, a Canon 7D with a 300mm f4 will get many more shots in focus than a K5 variant and a DA*300 f4.
The downside of the 7D is poor high ISO performance.
The K3 hopefully addresses that. However, the initial review on the other forum suggests AF is not much better than the k5II.
Seems to be a lot of anecdotal evidence over on dpreviews pentax forum that may show the K3 in dare I say it a much better light?
Guess I'll wait a while before I decide whether to take the plunge.
At the price point, Pentax has nothing which competes with a Canon 7D for wildlife and action in good light. And the 7D is four years old
On a unpredictable moving target, a Canon 7D with a 300mm f4 will get many more shots in focus than a K5 variant and a DA*300 f4.
The downside of the 7D is poor high ISO performance.
The K3 hopefully addresses that. However, the initial review on the other forum suggests AF is not much better than the k5II.
Seems to be a lot of anecdotal evidence over on dpreviews pentax forum that may show the K3 in dare I say it a much better light?
Guess I'll wait a while before I decide whether to take the plunge.
Comment by jules posted on Are Pentax really that bad for sport ? at 04/11/2013 - 21:53
awaldram wrote:
The d7000 was the best for random moving targets football
And the 60d was a great door stop
60D jules wrote:
I was trying to point out thst speed is not the only factor, I'd happily sacrifice some of the blazing for a little finesse, I like the system that has been employed in the K3 in principal over Canikon, it seems far more eloquent solution. John I never implied that Pentax was not up to the job, quite the reverse really, merely pointing out the few shortfalls (supposedly) in the Pentax system. I actually stopped short as I was typing on my phone and got fed up of it! I mostly prefer the Pentax approach but more focus points are good and that colour meter could give the system a good heads up in all situations, like it.
I think I'd go one step further and be happy to state that the Pentax K5 when shipped was probably the best sports camera against is direct competitors for linear moving targets. (track field motorsport etcI was trying to point out thst speed is not the only factor, I'd happily sacrifice some of the blazing for a little finesse, I like the system that has been employed in the K3 in principal over Canikon, it seems far more eloquent solution. John I never implied that Pentax was not up to the job, quite the reverse really, merely pointing out the few shortfalls (supposedly) in the Pentax system. I actually stopped short as I was typing on my phone and got fed up of it! I mostly prefer the Pentax approach but more focus points are good and that colour meter could give the system a good heads up in all situations, like it.
The d7000 was the best for random moving targets football
And the 60d was a great door stop
I have to agree, overall of the three you mentioned K5 everytime! It's by far the most predictable, The multi thousand pound pro bodies are different however but they are very complex beasts and take some mastering!
Comment by jules posted on Are Pentax really that bad for sport ? at 04/11/2013 - 21:23
I was trying to point out thst speed is not the only factor, I'd happily sacrifice some of the blazing for a little finesse, I like the system that has been employed in the K3 in principal over Canikon, it seems far more eloquent solution. John I never implied that Pentax was not up to the job, quite the reverse really, merely pointing out the few shortfalls (supposedly) in the Pentax system. I actually stopped short as I was typing on my phone and got fed up of it! I mostly prefer the Pentax approach but more focus points are good and that colour meter could give the system a good heads up in all situations, like it.
Comment by jules posted on Are Pentax really that bad for sport ? at 04/11/2013 - 20:59
JAK wrote:
John K
I've owned Nikon D3/700/300/300s and Canon 1D MkII/50D/5D MkII/7D.johnriley wrote:
Well, there will no doubt be a vociferous response, but I don't think it is so bad. I see lots of superb Pentax shots of all sorts of sports.
People shot sports before autofocus and autoexposure or even motor drives and they did very well at it. It was a matter of practice and skill. Modern cameras take a lot of the difficulty away in some ways, but there's still no substitute for the skill.
Completely agree. There can never be any certainty that an autofocus system will choose the intended subject and that applies to all brands of camera. Some seem to expect too much from their camera and expect it to think for them.Well, there will no doubt be a vociferous response, but I don't think it is so bad. I see lots of superb Pentax shots of all sorts of sports.
People shot sports before autofocus and autoexposure or even motor drives and they did very well at it. It was a matter of practice and skill. Modern cameras take a lot of the difficulty away in some ways, but there's still no substitute for the skill.
John K
Now then, all of these appear to focus fazter and track better than Pentax K5/IIs, I say appear becsuse I've never been totally convinced by any of em!
They are all capable of getting it very very wrong. The Pro bodies have loads of AF options, invariably you are in the wrong one when you really need it!
On balance the Canon 7D gets it about right, enough points to catch a subject but not too many to confuse the poor operator in a pinch. I had accuracy issues with that one too however! The BIggie is speed of acquisition belped along by shorter throw lenses, Pentax has none of these and so the K3 will no doubt be pulled up for something which is not the bodies fault! I firmly believe however that longer throw lenses are far more accurate than short throw, and therefore are actually more sensitive to movement. The second biggie is having enough focus points to track the subject across the frame, they need to be in a fairly tight group to be able to lay off focus to one a other, something avain pentax has been lacking... Until Now
Comment by jules posted on Are Pentax really that bad for sport ? at 04/11/2013 - 19:38
