Pixie Dust

Todd Adamson · 05-30-2011, 09:56 PM

DAMMIT, Dan, you beat me to 300.

**Ash** · 05-30-2011, 09:59 PM

Originally posted by RioRico

So let's forget about p.d. and just concentrate on making good pictures, eh?

Sounds like a good idea.
The lens obviously matters but pixie dust is on the photographer's fingertips. That's where the magic lies.

dgaies · 05-30-2011, 10:00 PM

Originally posted by Todd Adamson

DAMMIT, Dan, you beat me to 300.

Sorry

Todd Adamson · 05-30-2011, 10:00 PM

Originally posted by Ash

Sounds like a good idea.
The lens obviously matters but pixie dust is on the photographer's fingertips. That's where the magic lies.

That was so smooth I almost didn't even notice it wasn't true.

jsherman999 · 05-30-2011, 10:01 PM

Originally posted by dgaies

And I'll willing to bet another 300 posts won't help resolve the "issue" either.

Oh, it's resolved - it does exist.

Here, this may help clean up the thread:

Sometimes there's a small happiness in the image that you just have to let yourself enjoy without thinking too much about it...

Frogfish · 05-30-2011, 10:04 PM

There is a similar thread to this on MF Lenses and this is the shot I posted there. I have just bought this lense (Voigtlander Colour Ultron 50/1.8) and I am amazed at the quality from it - there is something very different and alluring, as in many Zeiss / Leica / 31 / 43 / 77 shots.

This one however, was take at f8 (one of a series of the same subject, from f2 thru f8) so it's not just about short DoF. To me there is something special - others may not see it, that's fine if you don't.

dgaies · 05-30-2011, 10:04 PM

Originally posted by jsherman999

Oh, it's resolved - it does exist.

OK, let me rephrase:

I'll willing to bet another 300 posts won't help ~~resolve~~ bring consensus to the "issue" either

asdf · 05-30-2011, 10:06 PM

Originally posted by dgaies

OK, let me rephrase:

I'll willing to bet another 300 posts won't help ~~resolve~~ bring consensus to the "issue" either

Dust?

What we need is a vacuum cleaner.

Todd Adamson · 05-30-2011, 10:07 PM

Originally posted by Frogfish

This one however, was take at f8 (one of a series of the same subject, from f2 thru f8) so it's not just about short DoF. To me there is something special - others may not see it, that's fine if you don't.

Yup, that one's special, for sure. Really pops for me.

jstevewhite · 05-30-2011, 10:23 PM - **1 Like**

Originally posted by Ash

1, 2, 4 and 6 have it Simon.
They all look like the 43 ltd.

I picked the same ones, Ash.

jstevewhite · 05-30-2011, 10:29 PM

Originally posted by Todd Adamson

Vince, I think you've taken umbrage where perhaps you shouldn't have.

I think everyone has agreed with this at some point in this thread, in so many words, and I don't think anyone is trying to dictate anything. Just offering opinions, and it's cool to disagree, right? Steve and I, for example, are finding a whole lot on which to disagree, but it's all cordial.

Indeed. I think you've been exceptionally cordial, considering how contrary I've been.

As a skeptic, I'll argue either side until I have sufficient information to ... 'settle' on my view. I'm reserving that situation for when I've spent some time shooting with an FA LTD. Of course, wouldn't you know that the one I pick - the 43 - is the one most often accused of being dustless amongst FA LTDs! LOL! But a 31mm is too much for such an experiment, and a 77 is too long.

v5planet · 05-30-2011, 10:35 PM

Originally posted by jstevewhite

Indeed. I think you've been exceptionally cordial, considering how contrary I've been.

As a skeptic, I'll argue either side until I have sufficient information to ... 'settle' on my view. I'm reserving that situation for when I've spent some time shooting with an FA LTD. Of course, wouldn't you know that the one I pick - the 43 - is the one most often accused of being dustless amongst FA LTDs! LOL! But a 31mm is too much for such an experiment, and a 77 is too long.

Ah, bah -- if you read reviews for the FA Ltds here in the user reviews section there's at least one person claiming each lens is the best of the three. I'm pretty sure they all have that special something.

jstevewhite · 05-30-2011, 10:36 PM

Originally posted by RioRico

The next post will be #300 on this thread.
300 posts, and no agreement as to whether p.d. even exists, let alone its origin and character.
This sounds to me to be like theology. What deities exist, and why, and how can we tell?

My dad had a pixie-dust combo: an Argoflex-E TLR with 75/4.5 lens shooting Verichrome Pan.
Blazingly sharp, great bokeh and dimensionality, good DOF at the right distance, etc.
Dad knew light and composition, used the same combo for decades, and made good photos.
And he later moved up to an even better Minolta Autocord TLR with 75/3.5 lens, same film.
P.D. was not a term used for lenses then. Especially not slow fixed TLR lenses. They were just sharp.

So let's forget about p.d. and just concentrate on making good photos, eh?

LOL! I do. Every chance I get. You don't think I spend time here in this forum when I could be out taking pictures, do you? I hope you don't, either!

I mean, it's fun, but really... Tonight I was grilling some chicken wings for the family, and noticed the Catalpas are blooming, so I grabbed the K-5 and the Helios 44M and snapped a few in between making a salad, mixing up dressing, setting the table, etc. I still haven't gotten what I consider to be my ... "definitive" catalpa blossom image, but this is what I got tonight:

I dunno if a Helios can even have pixie dust - I'm pretty sure Soviet Russia threw all the pixies out of the country - but I like this lens.

jstevewhite · 05-30-2011, 10:38 PM

Originally posted by Ash

Sounds like a good idea.
The lens obviously matters but pixie dust is on the photographer's fingertips. That's where the magic lies.

Sneaky, sneaky, sneaky. I like it

**Ash** · 05-30-2011, 10:41 PM

Originally posted by jstevewhite

the 43 - is the one most often accused of being dustless amongst FA LTDs

Might be subconsciously because it's the cheapest of the three. Then again the FA ltds might be subconsciously thought of as special because they're 'Limited' and more expensive than some other primes. I might be biased, but I do regard the FA ltds remarkably, since I've seen what they each can do, and even still I too am a pixie dust sceptic.

Seems to be a lot of talk about the FA ltds, and not enough about the DA ltds, the Takumars and 50/1.2s. There are also lenses that are considerably dearer than the FA ltds that haven't been mentioned yet - FA/A* 85, DA* 200 and 300, and how about the FA* 200 macro...

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

05-30-2011, 09:56 PM	#301
Todd Adamson Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2010 Location: Iowa Posts: 722	DAMMIT, Dan, you beat me to 300.

05-30-2011, 09:59 PM	#302
Ash Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Toowoomba, Queensland Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 23,920	Originally posted by RioRico So let's forget about p.d. and just concentrate on making good pictures, eh? Sounds like a good idea. The lens obviously matters but pixie dust is on the photographer's fingertips. That's where the magic lies.

05-30-2011, 10:00 PM	#303
dgaies Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2009 Location: Maryland / Washington DC Posts: 3,917	Originally posted by Todd Adamson DAMMIT, Dan, you beat me to 300. Sorry

05-30-2011, 10:00 PM	#304
Todd Adamson Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2010 Location: Iowa Posts: 722	Originally posted by Ash Sounds like a good idea. The lens obviously matters but pixie dust is on the photographer's fingertips. That's where the magic lies. That was so smooth I almost didn't even notice it wasn't true.

05-30-2011, 10:01 PM	#305
jsherman999 Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2007 Photos: Gallery Posts: 8,237	Originally posted by dgaies And I'll willing to bet another 300 posts won't help resolve the "issue" either. Oh, it's resolved - it does exist. Here, this may help clean up the thread: Sometimes there's a small happiness in the image that you just have to let yourself enjoy without thinking too much about it...

05-30-2011, 10:04 PM	#306
Frogfish Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2009 Location: Shanghai Posts: 4,490	There is a similar thread to this on MF Lenses and this is the shot I posted there. I have just bought this lense (Voigtlander Colour Ultron 50/1.8) and I am amazed at the quality from it - there is something very different and alluring, as in many Zeiss / Leica / 31 / 43 / 77 shots. This one however, was take at f8 (one of a series of the same subject, from f2 thru f8) so it's not just about short DoF. To me there is something special - others may not see it, that's fine if you don't.

05-30-2011, 10:04 PM	#307
dgaies Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2009 Location: Maryland / Washington DC Posts: 3,917	Originally posted by jsherman999 Oh, it's resolved - it does exist. OK, let me rephrase: I'll willing to bet another 300 posts won't help ~~resolve~~ bring consensus to the "issue" either

05-30-2011, 10:06 PM	#308
asdf Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2009 Location: Canada Posts: 1,252	Originally posted by dgaies OK, let me rephrase: I'll willing to bet another 300 posts won't help ~~resolve~~ bring consensus to the "issue" either Dust? What we need is a vacuum cleaner.

05-30-2011, 10:07 PM	#309
Todd Adamson Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2010 Location: Iowa Posts: 722	Originally posted by Frogfish This one however, was take at f8 (one of a series of the same subject, from f2 thru f8) so it's not just about short DoF. To me there is something special - others may not see it, that's fine if you don't. Yup, that one's special, for sure. Really pops for me.

05-30-2011, 10:23 PM - 1 Like	#310
jstevewhite Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Midwest Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,407	Originally posted by Ash 1, 2, 4 and 6 have it Simon. They all look like the 43 ltd. I picked the same ones, Ash.

05-30-2011, 10:29 PM	#311
jstevewhite Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Midwest Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,407	Originally posted by Todd Adamson Vince, I think you've taken umbrage where perhaps you shouldn't have. I think everyone has agreed with this at some point in this thread, in so many words, and I don't think anyone is trying to dictate anything. Just offering opinions, and it's cool to disagree, right? Steve and I, for example, are finding a whole lot on which to disagree, but it's all cordial. Indeed. I think you've been exceptionally cordial, considering how contrary I've been. As a skeptic, I'll argue either side until I have sufficient information to ... 'settle' on my view. I'm reserving that situation for when I've spent some time shooting with an FA LTD. Of course, wouldn't you know that the one I pick - the 43 - is the one most often accused of being dustless amongst FA LTDs! LOL! But a 31mm is too much for such an experiment, and a 77 is too long.

05-30-2011, 10:35 PM	#312
v5planet Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2010 Location: Seattle Photos: Albums Posts: 1,915	Originally posted by jstevewhite Indeed. I think you've been exceptionally cordial, considering how contrary I've been. As a skeptic, I'll argue either side until I have sufficient information to ... 'settle' on my view. I'm reserving that situation for when I've spent some time shooting with an FA LTD. Of course, wouldn't you know that the one I pick - the 43 - is the one most often accused of being dustless amongst FA LTDs! LOL! But a 31mm is too much for such an experiment, and a 77 is too long. Ah, bah -- if you read reviews for the FA Ltds here in the user reviews section there's at least one person claiming each lens is the best of the three. I'm pretty sure they all have that special something.

05-30-2011, 10:36 PM	#313
jstevewhite Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Midwest Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,407	Originally posted by RioRico The next post will be #300 on this thread. 300 posts, and no agreement as to whether p.d. even exists, let alone its origin and character. This sounds to me to be like theology. What deities exist, and why, and how can we tell? My dad had a pixie-dust combo: an Argoflex-E TLR with 75/4.5 lens shooting Verichrome Pan. Blazingly sharp, great bokeh and dimensionality, good DOF at the right distance, etc. Dad knew light and composition, used the same combo for decades, and made good photos. And he later moved up to an even better Minolta Autocord TLR with 75/3.5 lens, same film. P.D. was not a term used for lenses then. Especially not slow fixed TLR lenses. They were just sharp. So let's forget about p.d. and just concentrate on making good photos, eh? LOL! I do. Every chance I get. You don't think I spend time here in this forum when I could be out taking pictures, do you? I hope you don't, either! I mean, it's fun, but really... Tonight I was grilling some chicken wings for the family, and noticed the Catalpas are blooming, so I grabbed the K-5 and the Helios 44M and snapped a few in between making a salad, mixing up dressing, setting the table, etc. I still haven't gotten what I consider to be my ... "definitive" catalpa blossom image, but this is what I got tonight: I dunno if a Helios can even have pixie dust - I'm pretty sure Soviet Russia threw all the pixies out of the country - but I like this lens.

05-30-2011, 10:38 PM	#314
jstevewhite Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Midwest Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,407	Originally posted by Ash Sounds like a good idea. The lens obviously matters but pixie dust is on the photographer's fingertips. That's where the magic lies. Sneaky, sneaky, sneaky. I like it

05-30-2011, 10:41 PM	#315
Ash Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Toowoomba, Queensland Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 23,920	Originally posted by jstevewhite the 43 - is the one most often accused of being dustless amongst FA LTDs Might be subconsciously because it's the cheapest of the three. Then again the FA ltds might be subconsciously thought of as special because they're 'Limited' and more expensive than some other primes. I might be biased, but I do regard the FA ltds remarkably, since I've seen what they each can do, and even still I too am a pixie dust sceptic. Seems to be a lot of talk about the FA ltds, and not enough about the DA ltds, the Takumars and 50/1.2s. There are also lenses that are considerably dearer than the FA ltds that haven't been mentioned yet - FA/A* 85, DA* 200 and 300, and how about the FA* 200 macro...