Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digital SLR and Interchangeable Lens Cameras > Pentax / Samsung dSLR, K Mount Mirrorless

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Apr 5, 2011, 2:22 PM   #21
Senior Member
 
shoturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Frankfurt AM
Posts: 11,348
Default

But you might need a 135 f2L for indoors. And that is 1500.
__________________
Super Frequent Flyer, no joke. Ex Patriot and loving it.
Canon Eos 60D, T1i/500D, Eos1, Eos 630, Olympus EPL-1, and a part time Pentax K-X shooter.
shoturtle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 5, 2011, 2:31 PM   #22
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Western Ma. USA
Posts: 795
Default

you're probably right. and eventually i will get more lenses. But to start, i think the 24-70 and the 70-200 are a good fit. And, most of the indoor sports i'll shoot will be in the winter, which gives me 6-7 months of time to buy more stuff if needed.
__________________
ewheeler20 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 5, 2011, 2:32 PM   #23
Senior Member
 
mtngal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Frazier Park, CA
Posts: 16,052
Default

IS doesn't give you much when you are shooting sports, indoors or out - if you are shooting at shutter speeds slow enough to need IS, you'll be getting too much motion blur. If sports is your thing, switching brands might be a very good idea, assuming the ergonomics will work for you. It's worse to have a camera that is too heavy or light or big or small than it is to have a camera that might not have a feature you want. I know there's no point in me buying a Bigma even though I want more reach than 300 - there's no way I'm strong enough to hold one steady enough to get a clear picture, regardless of shutter speed. So it would be well worth it to rent the camera and lenses first, before you commit to selling off your Pentax equipment. But I can certainly understand if you are shooting indoor sports, why you might want to move on. Good luck with your choice!
mtngal is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 5, 2011, 2:41 PM   #24
Senior Member
 
shoturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Frankfurt AM
Posts: 11,348
Default

depending on where you are in the stand, you might be able to get away with the 450 dollar 100 F2 USM or 85 1.8 USM, but that is what it will take for what you want to shoot. And the 3200 and 6400 iso.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ewheeler20 View Post
you're probably right. and eventually i will get more lenses. But to start, i think the 24-70 and the 70-200 are a good fit. And, most of the indoor sports i'll shoot will be in the winter, which gives me 6-7 months of time to buy more stuff if needed.
__________________
Super Frequent Flyer, no joke. Ex Patriot and loving it.
Canon Eos 60D, T1i/500D, Eos1, Eos 630, Olympus EPL-1, and a part time Pentax K-X shooter.
shoturtle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 5, 2011, 5:08 PM   #25
Moderator
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 8,529
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by shoturtle View Post
depending on where you are in the stand, you might be able to get away with the 450 dollar 100 F2 USM or 85 1.8 USM, but that is what it will take for what you want to shoot. And the 3200 and 6400 iso.
So, basically - these shots with a 2.8 lens are impossible?








So, no, the OP doesn't necessarily need f2.0 primes. Depending on the light levels, an f2.8 solution provides a LOT more flexibility. Short primes are very restrictive - they were necessary when ISO 1600 was the limit. But with today's dslr's and the 3200-6400 performance there is more flexibility. And using a 70-200 2.8 with 1.4x TC, provides more flexibility.
I have an 85mm 1.8 and 70-200 2.8. For indoor sports there's not much reason for me to use the 85 any more - the flexibility of the zoom trumps the aperture of the 85.
JohnG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 5, 2011, 5:14 PM   #26
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Western Canada
Posts: 3,076
Default

You've only been involved in photography for a relatively short time. I think there is a 'readiness' factor that you may consider, before purchase.

Another poster suggested renting some equipment to see if it met your needs and if you liked the equipment.

I just add this point, as even though my equipment needs are fairly well settled after 40 + years of photography....I still like to try first, without commitment to purchase, to make sure this is what I want.

I think you said you've had a DSLR for about 6 months. You could well be a faster learner than I am (many are ) but how do you feel about your 'readiness' level in terms of skill sets, knowing what you want to do...photography wise ?

I just mention this as the equipment you are considering is expensive . Once you've bought it...it's yours. Yes you can resell it....but you will get what you paid for, once it has been used.

Last edited by lesmore49; Apr 5, 2011 at 5:17 PM.
lesmore49 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 5, 2011, 5:18 PM   #27
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 54
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ewheeler20 View Post
Also, my K-r has really bad FF issues that pentax doesn't seem to want to admit is a widespread issue...
There is a FF issue. However it is not "really bad." That said, if yours
** IS ** and of course I DO believe you, you should send it in for service.

The FF issue that is known and acknowledged is that under medium-low tungsten light, the camera will front focus. That front focus is really only visible at f/2.8 and below. Live view will completely work around the issue and use of the tungsten WB preset will mostly work around it. Finally, all of that said, there is a firmware fix in the offing. While it is going to take a little time, it will come out.

So... decision tree:

Is FF issue more severe than under midling tungsten light / f/2.8 / as described above?
A. YES. Not Normal. Send for service
B. No. Normal. Wait for firmware fix.

With the rest of it I cannot help. I owned a K-r and it was in some ways the best Pentax camera I have owned to date. K10D/K20D/K-x/K-r.

The FF issue was not an issue in anything I ever did with that camera.

Respectfully,

Seaain
seaain.gray is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 5, 2011, 6:44 PM   #28
Senior Member
 
shoturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Frankfurt AM
Posts: 11,348
Default

All depends on the light level if 2.8 will work. Think for good lighting 2.8 will work with the higher iso. But I have seen some school gym's that the lighting was not as good. So it gives options if 2.8 at 6800 is not enough.

Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnG View Post
So, basically - these shots with a 2.8 lens are impossible?








So, no, the OP doesn't necessarily need f2.0 primes. Depending on the light levels, an f2.8 solution provides a LOT more flexibility. Short primes are very restrictive - they were necessary when ISO 1600 was the limit. But with today's dslr's and the 3200-6400 performance there is more flexibility. And using a 70-200 2.8 with 1.4x TC, provides more flexibility.
I have an 85mm 1.8 and 70-200 2.8. For indoor sports there's not much reason for me to use the 85 any more - the flexibility of the zoom trumps the aperture of the 85.
__________________
Super Frequent Flyer, no joke. Ex Patriot and loving it.
Canon Eos 60D, T1i/500D, Eos1, Eos 630, Olympus EPL-1, and a part time Pentax K-X shooter.
shoturtle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 5, 2011, 6:51 PM   #29
Moderator
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 8,529
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by shoturtle View Post
All depends on the light level if 2.8 will work. Think for good lighting 2.8 will work with the higher iso. But I have seen some school gym's that the lighting was not as good. So it gives options if 2.8 at 6800 is not enough.
There's a big difference between saying the above and saying what you said earlier where you suggested the OP had no choice but to go with prime lenses. Of course, it also helps when you actually shoot the types of photography you're commenting on when telling people what gear they need to buy. It's great that you like to help people. But when you speak in absolotes about areas where you don't have the experience people end up buying the wrong tools. A person with only a few months experience may have no idea you don't shoot these sports and base your advice on second hand knowledge. That can be an expensive lesson for a person making buying decisions.


Quote:
depending on where you are in the stand, you might be able to get away with the 450 dollar 100 F2 USM or 85 1.8 USM, but that is what it will take for what you want to shoot. And the 3200 and 6400 iso.
JohnG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 5, 2011, 7:00 PM   #30
Senior Member
 
shoturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Frankfurt AM
Posts: 11,348
Default

read the my prior thread to that one, I said you might even have to consider the 135 f2L. It was options for not going with a possible F2 lens base on the location he is shooting form. Not that the OP needs it.
__________________
Super Frequent Flyer, no joke. Ex Patriot and loving it.
Canon Eos 60D, T1i/500D, Eos1, Eos 630, Olympus EPL-1, and a part time Pentax K-X shooter.
shoturtle is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 1:27 PM.