ksmattfish
Now 100% DC - not as cool as I once was, but still
- Joined
- Aug 25, 2003
- Messages
- 7,019
- Reaction score
- 36
- Location
- Lawrence, KS
- Website
- www.henrypeach.com
- Can others edit my Photos
- Photos NOT OK to edit
Pentax AF 35mm SLRs and DSLRs take K mount lenses, and there's even an adapter so they'll take the older M42 screwmount lenses. Canon and Nikon do dominate the market, and that's probably part of my negative attitude. I tend to support the underdogs.
There may not be as many fancy, new fangled accessories, or super fast zooms available with a Pentax brand name, but what they do offer is every bit as good, sometime better, and almost always cheaper than similar gear by Canon and Nikon. There are more Canon lenses with plastic lens mounts than any other brand; they did that to save a nickel. Canon is also notorious for poor quality control; I've seen more Canon lenses that are lemons, and mysteriously malfunctioning Canon point-n-shoots than any other brand. The new Pentax DSLRs use the same sensor as the Nikon D50, and between the Nikon FM-10 and the Pentax ZX-M (simple, manual focus 35mm SLRs) there is no doubt in my mind that the ZX-M is the superior camera body (and it's cheaper). Canon and Nikon have never offered a medium format line, while Pentax medium format gear is still popular even with the digital revolution taking over.
When I say brand names don't matter it's because I truely believe that now. Looking back I wish I hadn't wasted so much time, energy, and money worrying about gear. It would have done significantly more to improve my photography to spend that money, energy, and time taking photographs with dirt cheap gear, than worrying about whether my gear was any good or not.
One of the older guys (older than me) that hangs out here said something interesting a few weeks back; it was something along the lines of "Photogs used to talk about light. Now all they talk about is gear." I think that's mainly because of Canon and Nikon's marketing campaigns. They tell newbie photogs that gear is what is most important, and I think that's an obstacle to good photography.
Most of the well known "masters of photography" were using cameras that were barely more than wood and leather boxes, with 2 and 3 element lenses; there were no aspheric lenses, no super-multi-coatings, no matrix metering, etc... They still took great photos. Ansel Adams writes in his book "The Camera"
Gear is fun; I own over 200 film cameras, and a half dozen digital cameras now, so I can't tell anyone not to buy stuff. I think it's important to remember that there is a difference between cameras and photography. The fact is that in some cases I can get a better image quality photo out of my $15 Ansco Titan 6x6 folder with an uncoated, no brand name, anastigmat lens than I can out of my $1000+ DSLR. In the end perfect image quality is often not even a consideration in the photo viewers' minds compared to the importance of content.
When I see/read people obsessing over gear it makes me wish someone would have told me to not worry that I wasn't using the latest, hippest cameras, and to just go out and shoot. I know, it's hard not to covet cooler gear. I really want a 5D, but I'm trying to put my money were my mouth is, and I'm going to just keep using my 20Ds (until the 5D goes "obsolete", and I can pick one up cheap!). The 5D won't make me a better photographer; spending that $3000 on a photographic vacation might though.
So use what you can afford, and don't let anyone tell you that your camera ain't cool. Long live Ricoh!
There may not be as many fancy, new fangled accessories, or super fast zooms available with a Pentax brand name, but what they do offer is every bit as good, sometime better, and almost always cheaper than similar gear by Canon and Nikon. There are more Canon lenses with plastic lens mounts than any other brand; they did that to save a nickel. Canon is also notorious for poor quality control; I've seen more Canon lenses that are lemons, and mysteriously malfunctioning Canon point-n-shoots than any other brand. The new Pentax DSLRs use the same sensor as the Nikon D50, and between the Nikon FM-10 and the Pentax ZX-M (simple, manual focus 35mm SLRs) there is no doubt in my mind that the ZX-M is the superior camera body (and it's cheaper). Canon and Nikon have never offered a medium format line, while Pentax medium format gear is still popular even with the digital revolution taking over.
When I say brand names don't matter it's because I truely believe that now. Looking back I wish I hadn't wasted so much time, energy, and money worrying about gear. It would have done significantly more to improve my photography to spend that money, energy, and time taking photographs with dirt cheap gear, than worrying about whether my gear was any good or not.
One of the older guys (older than me) that hangs out here said something interesting a few weeks back; it was something along the lines of "Photogs used to talk about light. Now all they talk about is gear." I think that's mainly because of Canon and Nikon's marketing campaigns. They tell newbie photogs that gear is what is most important, and I think that's an obstacle to good photography.
Most of the well known "masters of photography" were using cameras that were barely more than wood and leather boxes, with 2 and 3 element lenses; there were no aspheric lenses, no super-multi-coatings, no matrix metering, etc... They still took great photos. Ansel Adams writes in his book "The Camera"
I don't know when he wrote that, but he died in 1984.In earlier years some lenses were definately superior to others... More recently, the computer has moved into the industry, and practically all lenses made within the last decade or two are excellent - often more precise than even the most exacting practical photographer requires.
Gear is fun; I own over 200 film cameras, and a half dozen digital cameras now, so I can't tell anyone not to buy stuff. I think it's important to remember that there is a difference between cameras and photography. The fact is that in some cases I can get a better image quality photo out of my $15 Ansco Titan 6x6 folder with an uncoated, no brand name, anastigmat lens than I can out of my $1000+ DSLR. In the end perfect image quality is often not even a consideration in the photo viewers' minds compared to the importance of content.
When I see/read people obsessing over gear it makes me wish someone would have told me to not worry that I wasn't using the latest, hippest cameras, and to just go out and shoot. I know, it's hard not to covet cooler gear. I really want a 5D, but I'm trying to put my money were my mouth is, and I'm going to just keep using my 20Ds (until the 5D goes "obsolete", and I can pick one up cheap!). The 5D won't make me a better photographer; spending that $3000 on a photographic vacation might though.
So use what you can afford, and don't let anyone tell you that your camera ain't cool. Long live Ricoh!