[GeneV]

Thanks everyone. I'm not sure what to make of a lot of you finding what I consider horribly cruddy pics not as horrible as I do.

I actually hate my optio & the photo quality I get out of it. If I keep the exposure on the optio to about -0.7, I can usually force it to take a good picture, and I can work with it. I have tried the w80 & the w90 after my w60, and I think they have worse photo quality & greater noise... The reviews on the wg1 aren't very good, if my w60 dies, I'll probably switch to a panasonic ts3. But the w60 has survived 3 years of me beating it up (it is epoxied back together) and getting wet several times a week, so I won't replace it till it dies. Waterproof cameras are all compromises, they put such tiny zoom lenses into them and sensors - so compared to a comparable priced point& shoots they tend to be disappointing. The gps tagging features I think just eat up batteries - I often go on week or longer kayak camping trips, so I need something that's got a reasonable battery life (I just take like 5 charged batteries with me)

I'll look to see if I can find my pentax software, I haven't used it since the k10d days and I remember it as horribly slow. I have adobe lightroom on the computer, and I've tried opening up the same pics in lightroom vs. picasa before and haven't seen much difference. Lightroom tends to crash on me, so I dont use it.

I'll do a few more tests on the lens vs. other ones - but the reality is, that if I have to play around with the camera settings aperature/shutter, etc. in order to force the camera to take a good pic with the lens, I'm not keeping it. I saw the noise/softness of focus in almost all the pics I took with it that day (which was over 600 pics & I only posted the best of them on here) and it's not something I see with other lenses even with my poor conversion, etc. I bought the lens specifically for using it kayaking, I'm more than happy with my primes & my 16-45 for walking about - so if I can't get a good picture out of a WR lens without playing with the controls while in an unstable kayak, then it's not a lens that's suitable for me taking it kayaking. If there was motion blur, that day was me paddling on absolutely flat water & mostly good lighting, which is not where I'm usually kayaking - typically, I'm on rougher water and I'm taking a pic, shoving the camera strap in my teeth, taking a few strokes to stabilize the kayak or get away from some obstacle, and then taking another few pics... Which is not a situation which really lends itself to me making a lot of adjustments to the camera, especially since I tend to paddle boats that are known for being maneuverable/tippy and not what you'd consider a photography platform. I've taken it out to a farm & a picnic and was also disappointed in the photo quality then, so it's not a lens I'm going to use walking about.

The cruise pics were the ones Rupert linked. Vacation 2011 - a set on Flickr

I'm currently playing with Raw Therapee, which was suggested by another poster. It seems like a very capable raw conversion, and it is free.

Please take these comments as the hopefully helpful suggestions they were intended to be. Below, is the smokestack photo with about 30 seconds of Photoshop levels, saturation, very minor sharpening and white balance. It now looks more snappy like your Optio (second photo)--maybe even a bit snappier. Some like this look, and some don't, but it is mainly the result of the raw conversion settings, not the lens. A good raw conversion probably could have preserved more of the highlights, too. You've probably got some shots from your trip that you will like a lot more with a different conversion.

Attached Images

   

---

Last edited by GeneV; 07-10-2011 at 10:25 AM.

[Marc Sabatella]

I'm admitting that I want this lens to do very specific things in what aren't always great conditions for photography and that I have other lens that I like the results with under similar conditions that just aren't waterproof.

It's also worth mentioning that if you haven't actually shot those other lenses on y our kayak, you haven't really compared under similar conditions. Consider, after all, the kayak introduces significant camera shake, there is a good chance you have water droplets on the lens itself, and the air around you is humid and thus much less clear than otherwise. Humidity has a huge effect on contrast, color, and detail.

So if anyone wants to suggest what settings to put the camera on in a kayak to make me like the lens more, those would be helpful.

It's not a question of special kayak settings. It's just a matter of undersanding the sort of conditions mentioned above and how they affect photography. When in settings where the air is making things less contrasty, turn up contrast (whether in camera or in PP), when shooting on an unstable platform, make sure your shutter speed is fast enough, etc.

[Immunogirl]

It's also worth mentioning that if you haven't actually shot those other lenses on y our kayak, you haven't really compared under similar conditions. Consider, after all, the kayak introduces significant camera shake, there is a good chance you have water droplets on the lens itself, and the air around you is humid and thus much less clear than otherwise. Humidity has a huge effect on contrast, color, and detail.



It's not a question of special kayak settings. It's just a matter of undersanding the sort of conditions mentioned above and how they affect photography. When in settings where the air is making things less contrasty, turn up contrast (whether in camera or in PP), when shooting on an unstable platform, make sure your shutter speed is fast enough, etc.

https://picasaweb.google.com/ImmunoGirl/ApostleIslandsDay4CircumnavigatingDe...32750389421618








https://picasaweb.google.com/lh/photo/2xHMMDM9KC1QERkX1ba2XA?full-exif=true

https://picasaweb.google.com/ImmunoGirl/ApostleIslandsDay6PaddlingFromRaspbe...34706774267218


Oddly enough, picasa seems to have the EXIF data on my old RAW photos that I uploaded, so I'm not sure if it's a new change that it no longer uploads exif data on RAW images. Or I guess I can check if I converted to JPG first before uploading.

Those were all taken in a kayak in sea caves, the first & third with my 21 mm limited, the 2nd with my 10-17 mm fisheye. All taken without flash. Sea caves are dark with very limited light, and in the first & 2nd pic you can see waves splashing on the walls - so it was not calm water and i'd say it looks deceptively calm in the pics. I have pretty stable hands in general and can usually hand hold slower exposures than a lot of people I know. Exif data seems to claim the iso was 256 and the exposures were 1/15 sec & 1/30 sec. But they were taken with my poor water killed k20d, so it's not the same as the k7 I'm using currently. I will say in general my k7's has seemed sharper with better noise than my k20d. That's why I haven't bought a k5 as someone suggested earlier in the thread, too expensive of a camera to be doing what I'm doing with. I can deal with the price of a k7 dying, not gonna be happy if i kill a k5.

Are they the best photos ever? No, but I think they're pretty damned good considering the conditions, the lighting, etc. and I don't think the 18-135 WR I have is capable of that given what it was doing in calm water in good lighting. The 21 mm fixed is faster than the 18-135, but I don't think the fisheye is - however that lens is so wide it does seem to find light anywhere. Unfortunately, I don't live very close to any sea caves to do a direct comparison of the 18-135 in those conditions. But I've got several years of photos with my other lenses taken in kayaks all around the country in various conditions and lighting to have a reasonable idea of what my lenses perform like, and to know that the 18-135 wasn't doing what I expected out of it - which may mean that it doesn't agree with what settings the camera was using on it.

Another negative against the 18-135 is that it's a heavy lens, the k7 with a 21 mm lens in my teeth doesn't weigh that much, the k7 & the 18-135 is pretty heavy to be holding by the teeth. While I normally appreciate heavy solid feeling lenses, it kinda sucks in that case.

[timh]

This is a slightly frustrating thread to read, it seems most responses were anticipated in the original post yet they came anyway.

Immunogirl, if you could put the raw file for one of those initial images somewhere we can download and play with it I think that would be useful.

I've got some lenses (DA40 and Sigma 10-20) that produce images, for me, that need almost no post-processing. They're clean, sharp and very contrasty.
Others (like the kit lens, and my Tamron 70-300) only give good results when I apply a preset in the raw converter. Perhaps the 18-135 is just one of those lenses that's technically adequate but for some reason needs some help achieving greatness.

Picasa's a great little program, but it really doesn't help much if you shoot raw. Fine for checking sharpness and cataloguing but a "digital darkroom" it ain't.

Also consider (and please don't take offence) that you may have just been having an "off day". Maybe the light wasn't great and/or your camerawork just wasn't quite as riddled with genius as normal - happens to everyone.

(The shots you posted from the 80-320 are really nice - but all low-DOF zoomed-in shots in good light. That's always going to look good and the DOF is distinctive compared to a small sensor P&S. With wider shots the difference is always less pronounced.)

[Immunogirl]

Thanks for the info guys. And my apologies to Immunogirl for the thread jack.

No worries - I'm pretty interested in waterproof cameras, so threadjack all you want.

My optio w60 can take a very nice photo. I don't zoom in with it, because the pics usually end up soft & there's more issues with motion blur. If you try to stalk great blue herons in a kayak with it, invariably the heron neck will be overexposed. The w60 & the w80 tend to overexposed the highlights, and I tend to keep them around -0.7 . I have a friend with the w80 that I kayak with a lot, and I'd say that when we're photographing the same thing at the same time, my pics come out better - but I take a lot more pics than he does in general, and might just have a better sense of my camera than he does. His tend to have more noise & more motion blur.

[Immunogirl]

The cruise pics were the ones Rupert linked. Vacation 2011 - a set on Flickr

I'm currently playing with Raw Therapee, which was suggested by another poster. It seems like a very capable raw conversion, and it is free.

Please take these comments as the hopefully helpful suggestions they were intended to be. Below, is the smokestack photo with about 30 seconds of Photoshop levels, saturation, very minor sharpening and white balance. It now looks more snappy like your Optio (second photo)--maybe even a bit snappier. Some like this look, and some don't, but it is mainly the result of the raw conversion settings, not the lens. A good raw conversion probably could have preserved more of the highlights, too. You've probably got some shots from your trip that you will like a lot more with a different conversion.

Thanks Gene. It does look better and I appreciate you taking the time to do it. Not meant negatively, I actually don't like the look - it ends up looking over processed to me, and I don't know if it's the noise reduction or the sharpening that does it and I'd probably like it if it was dialed down a bit. I've noticed that in a few photos from friends.

https://picasaweb.google.com/ImmunoGirl/PaddlingTheAnacostia?authkey=Gv1sRgC...89269930012738

When I get home, I'll upload the full version of that image, which doesn't have the branches in the foreground that someone speculated the previous smoke stack pic I posted had confused the focus of the camera. (I'd posted that one since it was a more direct equivalent to one of the w60 photos). To me, the smoke stacks and trees are still softer without as much detail as I'd expect out of a full sunlight pic on flat water.

[Immunogirl]

This is a slightly frustrating thread to read, it seems most responses were anticipated in the original post yet they came anyway.

Immunogirl, if you could put the raw file for one of those initial images somewhere we can download and play with it I think that would be useful.

I've got some lenses (DA40 and Sigma 10-20) that produce images, for me, that need almost no post-processing. They're clean, sharp and very contrasty.
Others (like the kit lens, and my Tamron 70-300) only give good results when I apply a preset in the raw converter. Perhaps the 18-135 is just one of those lenses that's technically adequate but for some reason needs some help achieving greatness.

Picasa's a great little program, but it really doesn't help much if you shoot raw. Fine for checking sharpness and cataloguing but a "digital darkroom" it ain't.

Also consider (and please don't take offence) that you may have just been having an "off day". Maybe the light wasn't great and/or your camerawork just wasn't quite as riddled with genius as normal - happens to everyone.

(The shots you posted from the 80-320 are really nice - but all low-DOF zoomed-in shots in good light. That's always going to look good and the DOF is distinctive compared to a small sensor P&S. With wider shots the difference is always less pronounced.)

I'm glad I wasn't the only one that found this thread mildly frustrating.

The 80-320 generally does a reasonably good job, even at lower light and not zoomed in. Mostly I want a wide angle lens for landscapes kayaking, so it's normally not too useful on the water. Occasionally I want to stalk birds, but I get tired/frustrated/bored with that pretty quickly - the second they hear the snap of the pelican case opening, they fly away. The 18-135 was meant to be reasonable compromise that I could get landscapes & reasonable zoomed in photos of wildlife.


I've had an off day every day I've used this lens, but I'll experiment more with it and do some more direct comparisons. But the reality is, it saves me money to send it back.

As for some lenses just needing more post-processing to shine... There in lies the problem, I am fundamentally lazy. That is part of the reason I use picasa. It can't do anything all that sophisticated to rescue a photo, so I don't spend a lot of time doing it. I still have my black & white dark room, but I don't think I have the patience to spend the hours repeatedly printing out test strips or photos with various contrast filters, or dodging and burning and all of that stuff that I used to do (and apparently, I've forgotten all the fundamentals of photography & exposure since then) I'd really just prefer to take a shot with my camera that doesn't need help, noise reduction, sharpness added, what not and I have lenses where I'm happy with the results and don't have to. I tend to like to confine myself to making those corrections that I could do way back when in the darkroom and deciding if it needs more than that, then I shoulda just taken a better pic in the first place and to try to do that next time. So if I have to do a lot of post-processing to be happy with the photos I get out of the lens, then I don't want the lens... 'cause I'm too lazy to do so. I appreciate that a lot can be done and that's one reason I do shoot in raw, so that if I get interested in that in the future, I can go back and play with my old photos to improve them. I've got to say that this is probably one of the first pentax lenses that I've run across that I wasn't immediately pretty happy with. Okay, so I did get rid of my 18-55 kit lens & get the 16-45 pretty quickly, but otherwise, I like all my lenses.

[timh]

Yeah, I do understand the desire to be taking photos rather than sitting in front of a computer! Having said that, if speed is the main concern, just applying a tone curve to a bunch of photos at once in lightroom or similar software is a lot different to painstakingly dodging and burning in a tiny room full of chemical fumes. I only really spend significant time doing PP on images I want to print.

I've spent a few weeks in a canoe with an SLR, though mine was the open type so somewhat more convenient than a kayak for photography. I didn't worry too much about having a WR lens because the most likely kind of accident involved the camera getting submerged for at least 10 seconds which will kill anything.

To get around your lens-change problem, you could return the 18-135 and just pick up a second body cheap from ebay? K200D, K10D?

[Marc Sabatella]

But they were taken with my poor water killed k20d, so it's not the same as the k7 I'm using currently. I will say in general my k7's has seemed sharper with better noise than my k20d.

No, you have that backwards. The K20D is definitely better with respect to noise than the K-7. So that right there might explain some of what you are noticing with respect to noise. But again, noise has *absolutely nothing to do with your lens*. You need to get that out of your head and stop even bringing it up, because all it does is distract from any meaningful comparisons.

Are they the best photos ever? No, but I think they're pretty damned good considering the conditions, the lighting, etc. and I don't think the 18-135 WR I have is capable of that given what it was doing in calm water in good lighting.

I don't see anything in the pictures you posted from the 18-135 that suggests it couldn't do just as well at the posted size. Somehow, you have gotten the notion that those pictures are terrible and I guess no one can dissuade you from feeling that, but that's too bad, because they are just fine for what they are. In any case, I think you need to withhold further judgement until you can do some actual comparisons using the same camera and same scene with the same same exposure. Right now, you're just spinning in circles, as you have yet to produce an apples-to-apples comparison.

Another negative against the 18-135 is that it's a heavy lens

Yes, and that's bound to be a factor in stability. Which is why if you really want to compare the lenses and not your photographic skills, you need to compare using a tripod.

[Rupert]

Well, maybe I was wrong....but if I was on vacation in the Bahamas and it rained every day, I think I would be damn glad to have the WR 18-135, and I still think my friend got some very nice shots with it. If he could do it, then how can it be the lens....unless someone claims a bad copy?

Sure, walking around with a 31 Ltd will get you better shots...but most likely not in the range you need and not in a sudden pouring rain. I have no position in this really, I may or may not get this lens...I don't shoot in the rain, but from what I saw here, Vacation 2011 - a set on Flickr I sure wouldn't hesitate. I've seen poor photos posted with every Ltd made......so what does that tell me....I think you already know.....

Best Regards

Just posted on Flickr.....Same guy, same lens...I rest my case.
http://www.flickr.com/groups/wssa-pentaxians/discuss/72157627040974327/

[Immunogirl]

No, you have that backwards. The K20D is definitely better with respect to noise than the K-7. So that right there might explain some of what you are noticing with respect to noise. But again, noise has *absolutely nothing to do with your lens*. You need to get that out of your head and stop even bringing it up, because all it does is distract from any meaningful comparisons.

Actually, I'm planning to continue to bring up noise in the hopes that you get bored of berating me and leave the thread in disgust instead of watching me spin in circles. Lenses do impact sharpness and how much detail there is, add in noise - and a less sharp image will appear noisier and there's several threads on here of people reporting that some lenses seem noiser than others to them. And if you'll notice, I was referencing a camera body when bringing up noise in your quote there. Lenses also have different speeds, which forces the camera body to use different isos at lower light, which does mean that some lenses at lower light will have greater noise than other lenses at the same light. And it's already been discussed on the thread that possibly the camera is underexposing with that lens, which leads to more noise.

As for the k7 vs. k20d noise, I think the reviews run the gamut of the noise being the same, the noise being worse on the k7 at isos over 1600, the k7 having less luminance noise vs. the same or more chroma noise, and the k20d having more banding issues. I would of course, totally do a controlled test for you comparing whether my particular k20d & my k7 have different noise levels but the k20d is dead.

I don't see anything in the pictures you posted from the 18-135 that suggests it couldn't do just as well at the posted size. Somehow, you have gotten the notion that those pictures are terrible and I guess no one can dissuade you from feeling that, but that's too bad, because they are just fine for what they are. In any case, I think you need to withhold further judgement until you can do some actual comparisons using the same camera and same scene with the same same exposure. Right now, you're just spinning in circles, as you have yet to produce an apples-to-apples comparison.

Yes, and that's bound to be a factor in stability. Which is why if you really want to compare the lenses and not your photographic skills, you need to compare using a tripod.

The problem with that being that my 18-135 will never be mounted on a tripod. My 18-135 was purchased for use in a kayak. So whether or not it takes satisfactory pics for me on a tripod compared to my other lenses is something that's irrelevant to me, because I have other lenses that I like at that length. I have absolutely no interest in using this lens when not kayaking, between my 10-17 fisheye, 16-45, 35 mm macro, 21mm limited, 70 mm limited, 85 mm f1.4, 50mm f1.2, and 80-320mm, I'm pretty happy with my lenses for walking about. So whether the 18-135 takes satisfactory pics for me when kayaking is what I'm interested in, and that's the test I'm interested in - which requires apples to oranges comparisons of the lenses in a kayak.

I'm sorry I did not abandon my weekend plans to produce an apples to apples comparison for you, and am spinning in circles instead. While spinning in circles, I was responding to your suggestion that I just didn't know what photography in a humid environment with my other lenses while in a kayak could do by showing that I do have a good idea of what my lenses do while out on the water.

[Immunogirl]

Well, maybe I was wrong....but if I was on vacation in the Bahamas and it rained every day, I think I would be damn glad to have the WR 18-135, and I still think my friend got some very nice shots with it. If he could do it, then how can it be the lens....unless someone claims a bad copy?

Sure, walking around with a 31 Ltd will get you better shots...but most likely not in the range you need and not in a sudden pouring rain. I have no position in this really, I may or may not get this lens...I don't shoot in the rain, but from what I saw here, Vacation 2011 - a set on Flickr I sure wouldn't hesitate. I've seen poor photos posted with every Ltd made......so what does that tell me....I think you already know.....

Best Regards

Just posted on Flickr.....Same guy, same lens...I rest my case.
Flickr: Discussing Butterfly Convention in Pentaxians

Your friend does get nice shots with his lens - so if you want one, you should absolutely get one. I already have a lot of lenses that I'm pretty happy with, so I'm being picky about this one. The one time I had an issue with a camera in the rain, it was fine with the lens on it up until I changed the battery - I think the battery was slightly damp. But my brother was next to me shooting with his k100d and non-WR 18-55 for several hours in the torrential rain and his camera was fine afterwards. I don't worry about rain so much as submersion generally.

[Rondec]

It may be that you just have a bad copy of the lens. It's just that most people have said that this lens has good contrast and colors, just that it has weak edges past 70mm, whereas your feeling is that it has poor contrast and colors.

[bimjo]

Are you shooting in program mode? Letting the camera pick settings? Before you decide to ditch the lens you might try shooting in Av or Tv and pick the ISO setting yourself.

Try this- Shoot the same scene in Av mode using f/5.6 or f/8 (generally good setting for most lenses). Start at ISO 100 & le tteh camera set the shutter speed. Repeat by bumping the ISO up one value setting for each shot. Probably stopping at ISO 800 (maybe 1600) will be enough.

Compare the noise levels at each ISO setting. If all the pics are all not sharp it would point to a lens issue and you should consider replacing the lens with another copy or another lens.

If all the pics are noisy, that would make one lean toward a camera issue, more than the lens.

If only this lens produces noisy pics, then perhaps the lens itself has issues (aperture not working correctly etc) and needs service/replacement.

Until you can isolate why the pics are not sharp/noisy by taking control of the camera I'm afraid you'll just continue to frustrate yourself.

[normhead]

I've been underwhelmed with this lens as well, after paying a lot of money for it. That being said, it was the only lens I took with me Saturday.. it's focal range is convenient and the images while not stellar are acceptable.

For a walking around, snapshot kind of lens, there's nothing wrong with it.





I guess the thing is, there are lenses I'd rather have for the money.. and I have produced a number images good enough to sell. It may not add much to an image, absolutely no pixie dust.. but if you have a spectacular scene, it doesn't ruin it either.



I don't own any lenses that take pictures that don't require extensive processing from time to time. If anyone does, let me know what they are. In my experience, if you don't want to PP, shoot in JPEG, not raw... give yourself a fighting chance.