I use the same two lenses for weddings. They're perfectly matched to that task. I would take the friend's comments and divide them by half. Yes, I'm sure the D300 offers better autofocus, but defending one's purchase tends to multiply benefits exponentially. And don't forget that the two lenses you're using are gems. That counts for a lot. Paul On Sep 23, 2008, at 6:58 PM, Bruce Dayton wrote:
> That is most likely what I'll do. The cost of lens switching makes > it a much bigger deal. And, I am happy with my lenses. For weddings > I'm using the 16-50/2.8 and 50-135/2.8 - both of which are just right > for that venue. > > But it would be nice to have Pentax cause some excitement again. > Seeing one low end body after another released does get rather > tedious. A friend of mine just switched away from Pentax to the > Nikon D300 instead of going with a K20D. She indicates that the AF > capability is no comparison between them. The Nikon is way better in > her opinion. The areas she was particularly comparing were low light > and action. > > -- > Best regards, > Bruce > > > Tuesday, September 23, 2008, 2:39:29 PM, you wrote: > > PS> I was pleased with the low light autofocus performance I got at > last > PS> weeks wedding reception with the K20D and DA* 16-50/2.8. In dim > PS> tungsten lighting, I didn't have a problem with shots that didn't > PS> involve a lot of action. For some of the late night dancing, I > went > PS> to a hyperfocal setting of f8 with the lens at about 24mm. The > flash > PS> was able to handle that since I had to get in quite close. > However, > PS> I'd love to have even better performance, and I think we'll > PS> eventually get it. I wouldn't hesitate to move into a K20D if > you use > PS> two cameras. My program is buy the new one and sell the oldest > one. > PS> It's worked fine for me so far. > PS> Paul > PS> On Sep 23, 2008, at 3:41 PM, Bruce Dayton wrote: > >>> That is about the same for me. Low light performance, low light AF >>> are the big issues - hence my recent question about K20D low light >>> performance. >>> >>> -- >>> Best regards, >>> Bruce >>> >>> >>> Tuesday, September 23, 2008, 8:31:46 AM, you wrote: >>> >>> PS> Nice shot. That's the kind of autofocus performance I need for >>> PS> wedding receptions. I'd be happy to move up to a Nikon 700D, >>> but it >>> PS> must doesn't make economic sense for me at the moment. It >>> would be >>> PS> perfect for everything I do. But I'd need two bodies and half a >>> dozen >>> PS> lenses. Yikes! >>> PS> Paul >>> PS> On Sep 23, 2008, at 11:04 AM, David Savage wrote: >>> >>>>> 2008/9/23 Paul Stenquist <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: >>>>>> Your last comment >>>>>> On Sep 23, 2008, at 10:17 AM, William Robb wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> It's probably time to let the SAFOX VIII AF retire. It was >>>>>>> introduced in the >>>>>>> ist film body, and while it has had some tweaks over the >>>>>>> years, it >>>>>>> needs to >>>>>>> be improved. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Improved autofocus is number one on my list for a new Pentax >>>>>> DSLR. >>>>>> When I was thirty years old, I could manual focus on a 200 mph >>>>>> dragster. Now, I'm lucky if I can catch Grace at full trot. I've >>>>>> learned to work with Pentax autofocus when I must, and I have to >>>>>> say >>>>>> that the continuous mode is quite good -- providing the light is >>>>>> adequate. But low light autofocus performance is less than >>>>>> acceptable >>>>>> in both continuous and spot modes. I don't want or need full >>>>>> frame. I >>>>>> can make great 16 x 20 prints from K20D pics, and all of my >>>>>> clients >>>>>> are well satisfied with the resolution and detail of my images. >>>>>> But I >>>>>> would LOVE better autofocus. Write speed and buffer improvements >>>>>> are >>>>>> always welcome as well. >>>>>> Paul >>>>> >>>>> I was shooting a "medieval" feast on the weekend (with the new >>>>> toy) in >>>>> a room that was lit by nothing but candles. I initially had the AF >>>>> assist lamp on, but I was blinding the guests & causing a few odd >>>>> expressions so I turned it off. >>>>> >>>>> Wasn't expecting much, but was very pleased with how well it >>>>> focused. >>>>> >>>>> Rough edit pano from the night here (~620kb): >>>>> >>>>> <http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3281/2873443880_d16e513f24_o.jpg> >>>>> >>>>> Cheers, >>>>> >>>>> Dave >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> 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. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> 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. > > > > > > -- > 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. -- 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.
