Well, I run a business, but I sure wouldn't try to tell a camera manufacturer how to go about its business.
Actually even such well regarded bodies like the 7D, 5dmkII, 1Ds IV & the 1D IV series all have pretty glaring weaknesses requiring the pros which use them for a living to pretty much own at least one copy of all three.
Your last sentence here is no doubt correct, but I must disagree with your first and second statements. It is easy to disprove by simply comparing cameras made by the same manufacture. I was shooting a wedding with a Canon 50D and was experiencing some slow focusing issues (imagine that). The other photographer I was shooting with had a 5D. He let me use it to see the difference. There was a big difference! While Canon intentionally withholds some of its technology on its non-pro models, it is clearly in evidence with its pro models. Unfortunately, Pentax has yet to achieve the same technological prowess of Canon or Nikon. It doesn't mean one can't take fantastic pictures with Pentax, but if you are in a "got to have" situation that is the case in some pro photography genres, you will be upping your risk using current Pentax cameras.
I have held this belief pretty much since getting my K20D. It was a true shock to get used to the AF function coming from my Canon gear. I really struggled with getting consistent focus and felt the suggestions to use MF and to understand the AF points were very large were both missing the concept.
Thanks though either I did not express myself clearly (nothing new there
) or you are reading something into my comment. I was not in any way suggesting Pentax bodies were not very capable, in fact I now earn a tidy living using only Pentax taking on only a 2-3 jobs a year. But I was pointing out that nobody makes a one-size fits all body. Even "pros" need to have multiple bodies to cover all bases. And any camera a "pro" uses is indeed a "pro" body...to label cameras as pro or not-pro does a disservice to the very capable modern bodies any of which are fantastic, even the Sigma bodies can deliver when used properly.
I think our communication problem is that you are thinking more all inclusively, where I am thinking specifically. I agree, that one doesn't need a "pro" body to shoot professionally, particularly in some situations. And I understand that even pros use various bodies, not all of which are designated "pro." But I also believe there are some situations (fast moving action, low lighting, etc.) in which some cameras clearly are more advantageous to use than others. These cameras tend to be the top of the line, pro cameras put out by Canon and Nikon. In my limited professional experience in wedding photography in which I have used Pentax K20D, Pentax K5, Canon 40D & 50D, and Canon Mark 5D, I can testify, that it is clearly easier to use the 5D, and even the 50D to some extent, than the Pentax cameras that I own and am most familiar with. So I am defining pro cameras as those which are the most capable.Thanks though either I did not express myself clearly (nothing new there
You have to read it all in the context for the comment to which I was responding I think. But then again I might have written it poorly...sorry if I did.
There was the K-200D, a weathersealed consumer-grade body. But when it was available, there were no consumer-grade weathersealed lenses. It didn't sell well at the time, but today used copies sell for a lot for their age because people want the smallest, lightest weathersealed body they can find, and now there are small, light, inexpensive weathersealed lenses to put on it.
Many people who want that eventually go with a used K-200D.
The K-1000 was not a compact camera. You might be thinking of the ME, MX, etc.
I guess it depends on whether you consider a camera a tool to use, or a work of industrial art to look at.
Rescue Pentax from what? Even Thom Hogan hasn't predicted Pentax's demise in over a year. And he LOVES to predict Pentax's demise.
I mapped the center AF point (circle really) and in playing around with that circle found the top portion was the easiest to use when I trying to get focus on tightly grouped subjects. Tilting the focus plane down seems to leave just the top in the focus circle to be in focus with some faster, or longer lenses, and makes the circle more into a point or smaller AF area than using the flat AF circle when the plane is parallel to the subject.
Apple's turnaround actually started with the iMac three years before the iPod.
Yeah it is a success in showing that Sony are truly capable in making FF camera, it will be more successful if their FF camera can perform as good as D700 in term of low light noise and maybe add video capabilities like 5d mark ii but sadly, they are a little stingy on features, maybe on their next FF camera they gonna fix this.
Because they don't have an Auto focus legacy lens to begin with and to start FF for them is to start designing FF lens all over again. Pentax, Nikon, Canon and Sony has already have FF autofocus lens.
100%, see if pentax can make FF in k5 body with weathersealing , SR and can perform like D700 in term of low noixe, have video capabilites and sell under $2000, it will sells like crazy and also make a FF dslr based on ME super body, manual focus to compete with leica M9 and sell it under $2000, I believe it will be a huge success.
No its not, pentax is a chicken that can lay egg, now they have to lay egg instead of doing nothing.
Try a K-7
Compared to Canon gear, the K-5 is small/light...unless you compare w/ the plasticky Rebels ;-)
