As a practical matter, I'm not shooting Pentax anymore. I do have a K2 and a Cosina C1s along with 2 K mount and 2 M42 primes, 3 of which are Pentax lenses. All get used occasionally.
Frankly, I like Pentax's glass better than Nikons, but dislike the lack of availability of the sort of lenses I prefer to work with (fast, smallish primes). Right now my primary systems are Nikon film, LTM/M mount film and 4/3/m43 digital. I've also got a bit of OM gear and some Minolta AF kit. I'm likely going to thin the herd this year but I haven't decided whether or not the last 35mm SLR system will be Nikon MF kit or Minolta AF kit. Sadly, Pentax just doesn't make the grade, there's just not enough options in Pentax bodies with the features I want: Good handling, available 3+ fps, good viewfinder, at least 1/4000 max shutter, AA or S76/LR44 batteries as an option at least). In fact there are exactly no options from Pentax with the features I want while there are several Nikon and Minolta options, the PZ-1p comes closest but fails on batteries, the MZ-S fails on fps, both are very expensive for their level of performance (particularly the MZ-S which was never a high-performance body). For digital I'm either going to stay with the Oly and Panasonic kit or move to a Sony FF/Panasonic m43 setup. I've been seriously impressed by the A900 and A850 and the latter is a steal compared to the competition. -Adam On Fri, Jan 15, 2010 at 12:36 PM, Igor Roshchin <s...@komkon.org> wrote: > > In view of various comments from people about K-7 and K-x, I've been > thinking, - why am I shooting with Pentax? > This is a summary of my thoughts - I'd like to hear what others think > about this. > > In the past few weeks I realized that compared to other brand DSLR's > Pentax DSLRs (even the "flagman" K-7) has serious problems. > In crude terms: > 1. The AF sucks. > 2. The low-light performance sucks. > > 3. The P-TTL performance is inconsistent (I don't know how > I-TTL/E-TTL etc. are in that regard - any comments?) > > So, I was re-thinking my use of Pentax. > I started with ZX-5n back in 1997. The reason I chose it over Nikon > was that I didn't like ergonomics of N70/F70, and couldn't afford N90. > ZX-5n had incredible ergonomics, especially after coming from an > all-manual SLR (Kiev-19) where I could set everything blind-folded; > ZX-5n had all-analog knobs and buttons. > Despite lack of continuous AF that is found in Nikon models, > I enjoyed my ZX-5n greatly. > > When the time came to buy a DSLR, I thought if I should switch to > a Nikon, but decided to get *ist DS. And I've been rather happy with it > for over 4.5 years by now. > Yes, the low-light performance has been bothering me a lot, and > while until recently I didn't suffer much from the shortcomings of the > AF, - I just learned to work around it. > > In the last 2-3 years, I started taking photos at dance events, > and that's where quick and accurate AF matters, and low light > performance and an accurate flash are important. > So, why am I still using Pentax, and buying new bodies and lenses? > > While thinking about it, I recalled a very old joke about two worms. > A son and his father are seating in a pile of bull sh.. manure, and > talking: > -- Daddy, is it nice to live in that grove across the field? > -- Yes, son. > -- Daddy, is there plenty of food over there? > -- Yes, son. > -- Then why, daddy, we live in this pile of bull sh..? > -- Because that's our Motherland. > ... > > > I still like Pentax. > I don't like at all the consumer line of Canons (Rebels etc.). > I seem to like mid-line of Nikon's circa 2005-2008 but have almost > no idea about their more recent (and higher) models. > I've been looking at Panasonics that are highly regarded by some > PDMLers, but I am not sure if they have that good AF and low-light > performance. > > As for Pentax, I am currently evaluating if I should exchange the K-7 > for a K-x for a better low-light performance. > > I just got a K-x that I will try "in action" during the weekend. > My first impression of a K-x is that functionality- and layout-wise, > it is very reminiscent of the DS. But I was rather disappointed by the > lack of the small top status display. > I don't mind the versitality of the AA's (I use them for the flash > anyway). > K-x is lighter, but compared to K-7 the feel a bit plasticy; > more so than that for DS. > I like that the choice of the AF mode, ISO and exponometry mode > in the K-7 is done by physical switches, not via the menu. > > > I would be glad to hear what others have to say about these thoughts. > > Igor > > PS. The obvious short response "BS" is not accepted. ;-) > > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > PDML@pdml.net > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow > the directions. > -- M. Adam Maas http://www.mawz.ca Explorations of the City Around Us. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
