Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
05-31-2011, 05:12 PM   #361
Ash
Community Manager
Loyal Site Supporter
Ash's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Toowoomba, Queensland
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 22,695
QuoteOriginally posted by paperbag846 Quote
I don't quite understand why they went in the totally opposite direction with the FA 50, but it's clear to be which of these two is sharper, and which one has the better bokeh
Not in my experience. FA 43 has outdone the 50/1.4 in all facets of portraiture IMO.
The FA 77 also outdoes any lens at that focal length I've put it up against. What rivals it are the DA 70 and perhaps FA* 85 in nearby focal lengths.

05-31-2011, 05:24 PM   #362
Veteran Member
paperbag846's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2010
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,396
QuoteOriginally posted by Ash Quote
Not in my experience. FA 43 has outdone the 50/1.4 in all facets of portraiture IMO.
I dunno... sometimes the OOF areas can get pretty ugly with the FA 43. Of course, the 50 is never as sharp. Depends on your priorities.
05-31-2011, 05:41 PM   #363
Veteran Member
jsherman999's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2007
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 8,228
.

In the lens 'user reviews' section on dpreview, the one 77ltd review there cites "Pixie Dust".

By the way, I stacked a bunch of Raynox's on my Dine, took a shot of the surface of my 77ltd, and look what I found!!!









!!!!!!!!



05-31-2011, 05:44 PM   #364
Veteran Member




Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Tennessee
Posts: 1,994
QuoteOriginally posted by jsherman999 Quote
.

In the lens 'user reviews' section on dpreview, the one 77ltd review there cites "Pixie Dust".

By the way, I stacked a bunch of Raynox's on my Dine, took a shot of the surface of my 77ltd, and look what I found!!!









!!!!!!!!



AHA! There it is in it's molecular form. I knew it was real!

05-31-2011, 06:47 PM   #365
Veteran Member




Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Midwest
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,407
QuoteOriginally posted by jsherman999 Quote
.

In the lens 'user reviews' section on dpreview, the one 77ltd review there cites "Pixie Dust".

By the way, I stacked a bunch of Raynox's on my Dine, took a shot of the surface of my 77ltd, and look what I found!!!



I didn't realize you could construct a SEM from Raynox + Dine! Someone alert NASA!

They sure don't polish the surface very well, eh? It looks like asphalt.

ROFL
05-31-2011, 06:59 PM   #366
Veteran Member




Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Midwest
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,407
QuoteOriginally posted by DogLover Quote
AHA! There it is in it's molecular form. I knew it was real!
I think it's an element. Pixium. 101.5 on the periodic table. No, wait, that's a classic rock channel in KC... Sorry.
05-31-2011, 07:13 PM   #367
Pentaxian
v5planet's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Seattle
Photos: Albums
Posts: 1,913
QuoteOriginally posted by jstevewhite Quote
I think it's an element. Pixium. 101.5 on the periodic table. No, wait, that's a classic rock channel in KC... Sorry.
If we want to put it on the periodic table of elements, I recommend some multiple of i, to keep the imaginary theme going
05-31-2011, 07:22 PM   #368
Veteran Member
dgaies's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Maryland / Washington DC
Posts: 3,917
QuoteOriginally posted by v5planet Quote
If we want to put it on the periodic table of elements, I recommend some multiple of i, to keep the imaginary theme going
Perhaps a complex number would be more appropriate as it has both a real and imaginary part

Maybe that will keep everyone "happy"


Last edited by dgaies; 05-31-2011 at 07:28 PM.
05-31-2011, 07:48 PM   #369
Veteran Member
jsherman999's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2007
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 8,228
QuoteOriginally posted by jstevewhite Quote
I didn't realize you could construct a SEM from Raynox + Dine! Someone alert NASA!

They sure don't polish the surface very well, eh? It looks like asphalt.

ROFL
At that level of magnification the surface would probably look like the Andes, so I'd say it was polished pretty well if it looked like that!

(Actually I was imagining something more pollen-sized.)

.
05-31-2011, 07:49 PM   #370
Veteran Member
RioRico's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Limbo, California
Posts: 11,264
On another thread here, I expounded the percentages of the components of a good photograph:

90% photographer, 9% subject, 0.9% light, 0.09% lens, 0.009% camera.

And the remainder is pixie dust.
_________________________________________________

BTW, this is now the 370th post. Shooting for 1000, are we?
05-31-2011, 08:00 PM - 1 Like   #371
Veteran Member
rparmar's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2008
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 8,783
QuoteOriginally posted by asdf Quote
If "pixie dust" is synonymous with less than stellar optical qualities, then at least we've got it pinned down somehow.
Yes, how horrible to take a picture so obviously rubbish.

QuoteOriginally posted by RioRico Quote
On another thread here, I expounded the percentages of the components of a good photograph:

90% photographer, 9% subject, 0.9% light, 0.09% lens, 0.009% camera.

And the remainder is pixie dust.
Even if this was not one of the biggest fallacies about photography, it would still be rather useless information. When taking a given picture you are unable to change the largest factor (unless you want someone else to take the picture) and so must work on controlling those factors you are able to change. Choosing the right lens is an important part of this.

QuoteOriginally posted by RioRico Quote
BTW, this is now the 370th post. Shooting for 1000, are we?
And your contribution helps!
05-31-2011, 08:15 PM   #372
Ash
Community Manager
Loyal Site Supporter
Ash's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Toowoomba, Queensland
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 22,695
Rio, as much as this is poetic, conjuring up a rule of 9s of sorts, I'm certain lighting has more than a measly 0.9% contribution to a good photograph, seeing as though photography is the 'recording of light'... have to agree with Robin.

Last edited by Ash; 05-31-2011 at 08:25 PM.
05-31-2011, 08:46 PM   #373
Veteran Member
jsherman999's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2007
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 8,228
QuoteOriginally posted by Ash Quote
Rio, as much as this is poetic, conjuring up a rule of 9s of sorts, I'm certain lighting has more than a measly 0.9% contribution to a good photograph, seeing as though photography is the 'recording of light'... have to agree with Robin.
Ash & Robin++

Here are my Nines (and a 6)

29% Photographer
19% Subject
19% Light
9% Camera
9% Lens
9% PP
6% Pixie Dust


.
05-31-2011, 09:13 PM - 1 Like   #374
Veteran Member
Todd Adamson's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Iowa
Posts: 722
I'll not bother to get specific with my own breakdown, but I've slowly come round to the opinion that in the recipe for a good photo, the photographer is maybe third down on the list of ingredients, behind light and lens. I'm certain no one would agree with this bit of sacrilege.

And it's complicated by the fact of the photographer's direct influence on both light and lens. But I have many photos the impact of which would have been reduced by 95% or so had the light been different. Certainly, even if we reduce the photographer's contribution down to something as low as 10%, it's a critical 10%. For example, let's say chocolate chips make up 10% of a great cookie. We cannot simply replace them with rabbit turds and expect to get a result that doesn't leave one with the aftertaste of rabbit turds.
05-31-2011, 09:14 PM - 2 Likes   #375
Veteran Member
RioRico's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Limbo, California
Posts: 11,264
1) Y'all took me too seriously. The percentages are rough, but that's the right order.
2) Does 'better' gear make one a better shooter? Do PD lenses take 'better' photos?

I just saw a superb exhibition on the intersection of photography and painting since 1890 at the Georgia O'Keeffe Museum here in Santa Fe NM (alas, I leave tomorrow). Included were major works by Steiglitz, Steichen, Hockney, Warhol, various others. They reinforce my view that some of the most significant photos ever made are blurry and blobby, yet manage to CONVEY, to have IMPACT. None required pixie-dusted lenses. All required vision.
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 03:07 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