Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
05-26-2011, 08:04 AM   #151
axl
Veteran Member




Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Nove Zamky, Slovakia
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 7,181
QuoteOriginally posted by jstevewhite Quote
So your assertion is that I can get magical images just by *labelling* them "77ltd"? I don't have to actually BUY one?
in eyes of many, pretty much so...

05-26-2011, 08:36 AM   #152
Veteran Member




Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Midwest
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,407
QuoteOriginally posted by axl Quote
in eyes of many, pretty much so...
It is worth noting that being dubious about "pixie dust" in no way mitigates or ameliorates LBA :\

LOL!
05-26-2011, 11:10 AM   #153
Veteran Member
jsherman999's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2007
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 8,228
QuoteOriginally posted by GibbyTheMole Quote
jsherman999

Beautiful image there!

As far as "pixie dust" lenses, the closest things I have are my Pentax-M 1.4 50mm & my old Tamron SP 60-300 still surprises me with the quality of images it produces. The Tamron has become my "go-to" lens for a lot of stuff. I'm also getting surprisingly excellent results with (don't laugh) a 3M-5CA Russian mirror lens I just bought from another forum member. That thing is sharper than any mirror lens has a right to be.
It was either the M 50 1.4 or the M 28 f/2.8 that was my first MF lens, and I still love the M 50 1.4 bokeh as much as anything.
05-26-2011, 11:20 AM   #154
Veteran Member
jsherman999's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2007
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 8,228
QuoteOriginally posted by Edgar_in_Indy Quote
jsherman999,



Would you mind sharing the sharpening process you use when down-sizing images for the web?

Thanks
I let the Google engineers do a lot of the work.

I just sharpen normally depending on subject and ISO, anywhere from amount 25 to 100, radius .5 to 1.5 (talking LR 3.4). Usually I'm around 70, radius .7.

When I shot jpegs on the K20D, it's 'bright' setting, fine sharpness +2.

I pay $25/year for a Flickr 'pro' account, then upload the full sized files up there, and then link their 'large' sized versions (1024 x 681) in here. effectively google/flickr is doing the downsizing for me, there. Every image you see from me is done like that. They have a very good algorithm.

I do that mainly because it kills two birds with one stone - a place to host images for linking and printing/download, and offsite storage in case a tornado takes all my stuff up to see the wizard, the wonderful wizard of Oz.


.

05-26-2011, 11:46 AM   #155
Pentaxian
Marc Sabatella's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Denver, CO
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 10,686
QuoteOriginally posted by Blue Quote
Marc, some you anti-Pixie Dust folk seem hung up on it in a literal sense. :Hysterical: However, if Pixie Dust doesn't exist, an argument could be made that art doesn't exist and the only real thing left for photography is the technicality of recording things and events.
I was kind of careful not to weigh in on whether it actually existed. I simply said that that particular test didn't demonstrate it for me. I'll admit to being somewhat skeptical on the topic, but of course, lots of qualities of a lens are perfectly measureable, or at least easily discernible in images. So I'm not skeptical about whether the bokeh in one shot might look different than than in another, for example, or whether that can play a role in our appreciation of an image. To me, though, the very term "pixie dust" suggests people are talking about something else above and beyond that; something I *can't* quantify by talking about the shape or internal contrast in the circles of confusion, etc. Actually, I don't even doubt that there are certain qualities in a given shot that might be hard to put into words, and that the lens used can contribute to that, but I do wonder about the extent to which this is really "consistent" with a given lens and to what extent that's just sort of wishful thinking. Not something I spend a lot of time worrying about, though.
05-26-2011, 01:24 PM   #156
Moderator
Site Supporter
Blue's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Florida Hill Country
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 17,212
QuoteOriginally posted by Marc Sabatella Quote
I was kind of careful not to weigh in on whether it actually existed. I simply said that that particular test didn't demonstrate it for me. I'll admit to being somewhat skeptical on the topic, but of course, lots of qualities of a lens are perfectly measureable, or at least easily discernible in images. So I'm not skeptical about whether the bokeh in one shot might look different than than in another, for example, or whether that can play a role in our appreciation of an image. To me, though, the very term "pixie dust" suggests people are talking about something else above and beyond that; something I *can't* quantify by talking about the shape or internal contrast in the circles of confusion, etc. Actually, I don't even doubt that there are certain qualities in a given shot that might be hard to put into words, and that the lens used can contribute to that, but I do wonder about the extent to which this is really "consistent" with a given lens and to what extent that's just sort of wishful thinking. Not something I spend a lot of time worrying about, though.
I think it as become a sort of tongue-in-cheek adjective to describe something qualitative not too unlike bokeh was 15 years ago.
05-26-2011, 01:32 PM   #157
Moderator
Site Supporter
Blue's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Florida Hill Country
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 17,212
QuoteOriginally posted by jstevewhite Quote
So your assertion is that I can get magical images just by *labelling* them "77ltd"? I don't have to actually BUY one?
There is a legend that in such cases, Brownies will slip in at night and tie you too your bed and beat you silly with swizzle sticks. (remember those tiny little lunatic guys in the 80s Val Kilmer movie, "Willow?)
05-26-2011, 03:12 PM   #158
Veteran Member
Todd Adamson's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Iowa
Posts: 722
Well, if nothing else, this thread has encouraged me to get to know the FA77 a little better. I took some time this morning and shot several more images with it. Not necessarily exciting stuff, but I put more effort into picking out stuff that might yield interesting pics. Sorry, no more comparisons, I only had one camera with me today. I added about 20 more shots to the Flickr gallery I linked earlier in this thread, and I'll post a few favorites below.

The result is that I believe more than ever that the FA77 has a uniqueness about it which is somewhat identifiable, very repeatable, and I feel like if I used a different lens, the images would not be as nice. Call it what you will.

It also occurs to me to argue just a little with the point about a symbiosis of photographer and lens that arises from a shooter's familiarity and experience with using the lens. In my case, that is certainly not true: I am pretty new to Pentax, and while I like the K-5's small size and I am generally happy with the image quality, I can't say I know the system well, and certainly can't say I'm in love with it. Compared to my D3, the ergonomics are damn clunky. The feel in my hands is not as solid. The FA77 is clearly a well-constructed lens, but the pleasure of focusing it pales in comparison to my Zeiss Makro-Planar, and yes, even in comparison to my $100 Nikkor 105/2.5. If I am looking for a comfort zone that guarantees me I will get the quality and the files I want, and not miss any shots fumbling with settings, I grab the Nikon, every time. I'm not saying anything negative about Pentax, and it's largely an effect of me just being very familiar and comfortable with the Nikon setup; I know I'll get more comfortable with the K-5 over time, and the FA77 will encourage me to shoot Pentax more often. But not because the lens "feels" right to me or anything. Because I've got things that feel a lot more right. So in my case I can rule out my "love for using the lens" as a factor in getting better images with it than I might get with some others.















05-26-2011, 03:16 PM   #159
Veteran Member
Todd Adamson's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Iowa
Posts: 722
Oh and HERE's a link to that gallery again, so if anyone cares to look at the other shots from today you don't have to dig back through this thread.
05-26-2011, 03:43 PM   #160
Veteran Member




Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Tennessee
Posts: 1,994
Nice images, Todd.
05-26-2011, 03:45 PM   #161
Pentaxian
v5planet's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Seattle
Photos: Albums
Posts: 1,913
QuoteOriginally posted by Todd Adamson Quote
Well, if nothing else, this thread has encouraged me to get to know the FA77 a little better.
Todd, you're encouraging me to do the same with mine.
05-26-2011, 04:29 PM   #162
Veteran Member
jsherman999's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2007
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 8,228
QuoteOriginally posted by Todd Adamson Quote
Well, if nothing else, this thread has encouraged me to get to know the FA77 a little better. I took some time this morning and shot several more images with it. Not necessarily exciting stuff, but I put more effort into picking out stuff that might yield interesting pics. Sorry, no more comparisons, I only had one camera with me today. I added about 20 more shots to the Flickr gallery I linked earlier in this thread, and I'll post a few favorites below.

The result is that I believe more than ever that the FA77 has a uniqueness about it which is somewhat identifiable, very repeatable, and I feel like if I used a different lens, the images would not be as nice. Call it what you will.

It also occurs to me to argue just a little with the point about a symbiosis of photographer and lens that arises from a shooter's familiarity and experience with using the lens. In my case, that is certainly not true: I am pretty new to Pentax, and while I like the K-5's small size and I am generally happy with the image quality, I can't say I know the system well, and certainly can't say I'm in love with it. Compared to my D3, the ergonomics are damn clunky. The feel in my hands is not as solid. The FA77 is clearly a well-constructed lens, but the pleasure of focusing it pales in comparison to my Zeiss Makro-Planar, and yes, even in comparison to my $100 Nikkor 105/2.5. If I am looking for a comfort zone that guarantees me I will get the quality and the files I want, and not miss any shots fumbling with settings, I grab the Nikon, every time. I'm not saying anything negative about Pentax, and it's largely an effect of me just being very familiar and comfortable with the Nikon setup; I know I'll get more comfortable with the K-5 over time, and the FA77 will encourage me to shoot Pentax more often. But not because the lens "feels" right to me or anything. Because I've got things that feel a lot more right. So in my case I can rule out my "love for using the lens" as a factor in getting better images with it than I might get with some others.


.

Todd, you have cranked it up a notch, holy crap. Just beautiful images from the lens, but nicely composed by you... That second daisy shot is something I'd want on my wall. (Now I also have to get out with the 77 or M 85.)


.
05-26-2011, 04:36 PM   #163
Veteran Member
selar's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Sydney, Australia
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 2,035
Please post your pixie dust lens images in The Pixie Dust Lens club https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/lens-clubs/145324-pixie-dust-lens-club.html
05-26-2011, 04:39 PM   #164
Pentaxian
wizofoz's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Melbourne, Outer east.
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 1,655
QuoteOriginally posted by jsherman999 Quote
the wonderful wizard of Oz.
You called??
05-26-2011, 04:54 PM   #165
Site Supporter
Nick Siebers's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Madison, WI
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 2,152
I took my camera out in the backyard with an FA43, an F 50/1.4 and a DA 40 (Darn you LBA!). I shot similar scenes with each one and... no darn pixie dust at all. I used to be a believer, but now I am not so sure.

I will say that my DA40 used to make magic on my K100ds, but seems not quite as nice on my K20. So some of the pixie dust that people are experiencing might be lenses and bodies that focus well together. Indeed, maybe the Limited lenses, being of somewhat higher quality, are more likely to be in tune with a body... who knows!
Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
dust, k-mount, pentax lens, picture, slr lens
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
The Official Pentax Forums "Pixie Dust" Lens List Winnie Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 40 10-24-2016 03:52 AM
Pentax K-7 Dust Alert and Dust Removal Functions brosen Pentax DSLR Discussion 9 02-09-2016 04:43 AM
HowTo: Replace the first lens group in the 31 with that of the 77! Double pixie dust! feilb Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 1 04-01-2011 10:31 AM
Rendering and Pixie Dust GlennG Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 65 02-06-2011 02:21 PM
dust on sensor or dust on lens 41ants Troubleshooting and Beginner Help 10 10-08-2009 10:28 AM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 04:43 PM. | See also: NikonForums.com, CanonForums.com part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top