[GeneV]

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.

I don't really like the processed look, either but it is basically the look of the Optio. The photo appears reasonably sharp to me, especially given the platform from which it was taken. It is sharper than the Optio. Sitting in a small craft on the river is not a very stable location even if the water is calm, and it requires a fast shutter speed. A flash, like you used in the cave, will often act as a fast shutter speed and freeze motion blur.

[Clinton]

@Immunogirl, I've been glancing at this thread for a couple of days, and thinking about your dilemma.

Obviously the 18-135 isn't going to compare to a prime, and it's not going going to come even close to the DA* 16-50 and 50-135; however for the kind of shooting you're doing, I think you've chosen the lens that is best suited to your needs.

Here's my thoughts. Set your camera to AV, set (and forget) your fstop at F11 or maybe even F13, and fire away. I believe that green mode is going to allow the camera to open up the aperture, and with this particular lens, that's just something you do not want.

You might also consider allowing the K-7 to auto iso up to 800, maybe even 1600 and follow Adam's instructions here: https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/pentax-dslr-discussion/106600-k-7-high-iso-success.html

I think if you change your technique a little, you'll see vastly improved performance. It still won't compare to your primes, but not much really will.

[GeneV]

If I can see a difference in sharpness in an uncropped photo reduced to 800-900 pixel widths for posting on the web, it is probably not the lens--unless the lens is just Holga horrible. Differences visible at these sizes are usually focus or movement.

[Immunogirl]

I found this that Marc posted on another forum:
Re: K7 consistently underexposing: Pentax SLR Talk Forum: Digital Photography Review

Highlight correction was on, and I was looking at them in picasa, so that would tend to make the pics look underexposed - which a couple of people already mentioned here.

[Skog]

Here's pics the same morning with my k-7 & my pentax fa 80-320 f4.5-5.6 zoom, which as far as I know is not a great lens or anything to write home about. The 18-135 is certainly a faster lens aperture wise, yet the 80-320 is doing a lot better with freezing movement zoomed all the way in. I'm not sure whether splashing water is faster than a egret or heron in flight, but I would expect that they're similar - the 18-135 couldn't get a good shot of a bird in flight, but my 80-320 can catch water droplets when someone flips a kayak over or takes a paddle stroke. I'm more than willing to accept compromise for a WR lens as compared to my primes, but I was thinking compromise more on the level of my 80-320 zoom, which I more often than not get a good pic with.

Firstly, I see nothing wrong with the images you posted from the 18-135. They look more bland then the PS ones, because they aren't done yet. RAW images is the digital equivalent of a film negative. They need processing. Since you don't do any processing, shooting in RAW is pointless. Try to experiment with the in camera settings and shoot JPG is my advice.

Secondly (and I honestly don't mean to be rude) you should probably read up some on the basics of how aperture, iso and shutter speed affects your images. Your 80-320 lens is in no way more able to freeze action then the 18-135. If your settings doesn't produce fast enough shutter speed to freeze action, then you have to change the settings not the lens (unless aperture is the bottleneck, which it is not in this case since the 18-135 is slightly faster). What settings your camera decides automatically in P mode is dependent on your metering mode and available light etc. In other words it will vary from exposure to exposure.

I don't have the k-7, but on the k-5 you can decide for yourself which parameters you want the camera to prioritize in P mode. "Program line" I believe it's called. This is a useful setting to investigate, and will help you with quick and effortless high shutter speed photos (and a lot more depending on what you want). Also, it is very easy to switch from P to AV or TV using the front or back e-dails. This feature is called hyper-program I think, and allows to switch settings very quickly without having to turn the mode dial. Once you are done, the green button resets your camera to normal P mode.

I use P mode a lot myself. And I find it very useful with the combination of program lines and hyper-program.

Good luck, from a fellow kayak shooter

[Immunogirl]

Thanks Clinton & Bimjo, I'll try those tests when I get a chance.

@Immunogirl, I've been glancing at this thread for a couple of days, and thinking about your dilemma.

Obviously the 18-135 isn't going to compare to a prime, and it's not going going to come even close to the DA* 16-50 and 50-135; however for the kind of shooting you're doing, I think you've chosen the lens that is best suited to your needs.

Here's my thoughts. Set your camera to AV, set (and forget) your fstop at F11 or maybe even F13, and fire away. I believe that green mode is going to allow the camera to open up the aperture, and with this particular lens, that's just something you do not want.

You might also consider allowing the K-7 to auto iso up to 800, maybe even 1600 and follow Adam's instructions here: https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/p...o-success.html

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.

[Immunogirl]

I don't really like the processed look, either but it is basically the look of the Optio. The photo appears reasonably sharp to me, especially given the platform from which it was taken. It is sharper than the Optio. Sitting in a small craft on the river is not a very stable location even if the water is calm, and it requires a fast shutter speed. A flash, like you used in the cave, will often act as a fast shutter speed and freeze motion blur.

The pics in the caves were without flash.

[GeneV]

The pics in the caves were without flash.

Interesting, what was the light source? An intense flashlight? I should have noticed that the water in the first shot was not frozen as is usual for flash shots.

[Marc Sabatella]

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

That's pretty mean. I'm not berating you - I am giving you sound advice - advice you specifically asked for by posting. You could be a bit more gracious that people are taking time out of their lives to help you.

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.

Perhaps, but these people are all similarly confused. Obviously, noise affects perception of sharpness, but once again, *lenses do nt affect noise*. there are certain basic photographic principles it is important to understand in order to improve one's photography, and the fundamentals of exposure are at the top of that list.

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.

Obviously, but then, that's a differene in exposure settings causing the noise not the lens itself. And it would only be an issue in conditions whee the available light was such that you were forced to shoot wide open and at at high ISO. That is not the case in the examples you posted. So once again, if you see noise, it is NOT an attribute of the lens.

And it's already been discussed on the thread that possibly the camera is underexposing with that lens, which leads to more noise

Cameras don't underexpose; people do. The bright sky in many of the pictures you posted is what would have led to underexposure if you didn't dial in compensation. This would be true regardless of lens used. Again, this is why understanding of basic photographic principles is so important.

Edit: OK, now I see where you were using a DR enhancing function. Indeed, that will cause noise to appear one stop worse. Agaib, though, that's independent of what lens you use. It's also not something that goes away if you use something other than Picasa - it's inherent in how those DR functions work. They shoot underexposed then brighten in processing, yield the same noise as if you shot one stop darker.

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 don't know what reviews you are referring to, bu t every single review and controlled test I've seen is very consistent in saying the K-7 is noisier. This is not a point on which there is really any debate. The best numbers for this would be found on the DxO site.

The problem with that being that my 18-135 will never be mounted on a tripod.

Doesn't matter - that's still the best way to separate out the actual lens issues from the photographic technique issues. Of course, it is then completely fair to say, "the 18-135 turned out to be perfectly sharp, but because it is so much harder to hold, I personally am having difficulty getting sharp pictures from it". That would indeed be a valid conclusion. But wouldn't you want to know which it is? If not, fine, but then don't blame the lens.

I do have a good idea of what my lenses do while out on the water.

All conditions involving water are not identical. The effects of humidity on contrast and sharpness compound over distance, for one thing. Also, the cave scene was of an entirely different nature in terms of contrast and detail as well as focus ambiguity. You might not think these things matter, but they really do - much more than differences between lenses in most cases.

Anyhiw, I'm not in a hurry for you to perform any particular test. I'm simply suggesting that you not rush to judgement until you do. Right now, you just don't have any real data to go on in making such a determination. The data you have is not sufficient to allow conclusions to be drawn.

[Immunogirl]

That's pretty mean. I'm not berating you - I am giving you sound advice - advice you specifically asked for by posting. You could be a bit more gracious that people are taking time out of their lives to help you.

Go back and read your posts to me vs. posts other people have made. In addition to your suggestions, there have been several comments like "If you would get this into your head" and a few other things that support the idea that you're berating me. I'm fully willing to accept constructive criticism and fully admitting that setting the camera on P and using picasa isn't the path to great photography, but I don't need the commentary on whether or not I'm thickheaded. And I'm reading everything you're saying and researching it. I'm sure there must be 80 million people that post the same typical problems and questions over and over again, and it must get tiresome for you and people blaming their lens or camera must be a pet peeve. But when you're feeling aggrieved by them, maybe take a break and let someone else do the helping for a while instead of letting it come through in the tone of your reponses.

Anyhiw, I'm not in a hurry for you to perform any particular test. I'm simply suggesting that you not rush to judgement until you do. Right now, you just don't have any real data to go on in making such a determination. The data you have is not sufficient to allow conclusions to be drawn.

If I was absolutely convinced that this was the lens and absolutely blaming the lens, it'd have been sent back to amazon on Thursday, the day after I took the pics and I wouldn't have posted this thread. Which is why I'm not entirely sure why I keep being accused of refusing to consider that it's not the lens that is bad or assuming that it is. Because really, while it's cheaper for me to return the lens, the WR features of the lens would make it a lot easier and I'd be far less worried about taking my camera out on the water... Now I have judgement calls about is this shot actually worth having to buy a new camera body if I flip or drop the camera? Now, quite possibly if I flip the kayak with a WR lens, it'd still ruin the camera, but I'm gonna pretend it's less of a risk. I have it tethered to my pfd when it's out, so it's just gotta be okay the 10 seconds or however long it takes me to roll back up.

All conditions involving water are not identical. The effects of humidity on contrast and sharpness compound over distance, for one thing. Also, the cave scene was of an entirely different nature in terms of contrast and detail as well as focus ambiguity. You might not think these things matter, but they really do - much more than differences between lenses in most cases.

When you go out on a photo shoot, how do you select which lenses you take? Do you grab such and such lens, because in the past, it's done better with low light? Or some other lens, because it does a nice job at bright lights? I'm assuming alot of your decisions on which lens you're using is what has worked well in the past and not necessarily a direct comparison of all the lenses. Use lenses for a while and you get an idea of when they shine, when they struggle, when whatever. So instead of assuming that I have absolutely no idea about any of my lenses & their performance in various conditions, how about assuming that I have used my camera before?

I can of course continue to show you 80 million pics that I've taken in a kayak and hope that eventually one of them will convince you that I actually have taken photos from a kayak before fairly regularly with various lenses in all different sets of conditions and that I might have some sense of what my lenses can do. Or if you're really bored, you can root through my picasaweb - I'd probably advise you not to bother, 'cause most of the time it bores me looking through it.

I posted cave pics, because you asked if I've ever used the other lenses in a kayak, as an example of low light, movement in the boat, and being able to get pics that had enough detail, freezing motion, etc... If with the rest of my lenses, I can shoot in far worse conditions than what I was out in the other day and get acceptable results, a lens that I can't get a good pic on a bright sunny day to me is suspect. And yes, there are probably some settings that I could change on the camera to force it to take a better picture... And when I walk around with my camera, I look at the image playback, check the highlights/shadows, histograms, etc., and I adjust my exposure for that to improve it and I put it on manual focus, and blah blah blah. And when I'm in a kayak, I don't, because I usually don't have that luxury. I shoot on P. I'm fully willing to accept that, okay, for this lens, it's happier on -2 on Tav mode instead of P at 0. But it's just gonna sit at that setting instead of me constantly changing it. So I'll look into the setting changes on P mode that Skog suggested.

You guys also have to realize that I took 600+ photos with that lens that day. Most of them were far worse than what I posted on here. What I posted on here, I took out of the reasonably good pics. So when you tell me that they aren't that bad, I'm still considering all the other far worse ones that I took. So when I
say that I consider the pics horrible, I'm taking in account that there's another 400-500 pics that are horrible.

I didn't have time to post all the exif data yet, but looking back at the pics the 18-135 wr took that day, it was usually ISO 200, sometimes Iso 400. When looking at all the pics of moving birds, aperature varied between f5.6, 10, & 18. Exposure times were between 1/200 secs & 1/1500 of a sec for moving birds, most around 1/500.

Looking at the 80-320 bright sunny day pics of people in kayaks, I posted here, iso was 200-400, usually aperature around 5.6, and exposure times were between 1/200 and 1/2000 of a second. I went back to some pics I took with that lens out on the water on an overcast misty morning and exposure times were about 1/320 with motion stopped and an in focus image. The 80-320 is far longer than the 18-135 and probably similar in weight (i can weigh them later), so I don't think weight of the lens is that much of an issue - but maybe I had too much caffeine that morning and had shaky hands.

Right now, I think the easiest/laziest way for me to test the camera out on the water is to go through the diff modes that Skog/Clinton/and everyone else suggested, and tell the camera to auto bracket and see whether I like some of those shots, and then get more meticulous to dial it in. I can switch back and forth between a couple lenses on the water, but want to limit that to a certain extent. if after all that, I'm still not convinced of the lens - I can try the tripod thing. Or I can just exchange it and see if I'm happier with another copy of it.

[Immunogirl]

Interesting, what was the light source? An intense flashlight? I should have noticed that the water in the first shot was not frozen as is usual for flash shots.

Nope, just natural lighting coming in from openings... I let the iso roam up to 1600, and used my 21 mm limited or my 10-17 fisheye - the 21 mm limited was the fastest I had at a wide angle, and the 10-17 while not so fast aperature wise, is so wide angle that it collects a lot of light. I had to be far away enough from the opening that hte light from the opening wouldn't throw off the metering, but not so deep in the caves that there wasn't enough light left. So generally within the first few chambers... Given that these were sandstone caves, they were pretty intricate with a lot of openings carved out.

So I experimented as much as possible and after that I guess just took a gazillion pics hoping that some would turn out well. I turned on bracketing a few times. You end up trying to get the timing of the waves/water motion down as well.

[Immunogirl]

Firstly, I see nothing wrong with the images you posted from the 18-135. They look more bland then the PS ones, because they aren't done yet. RAW images is the digital equivalent of a film negative. They need processing. Since you don't do any processing, shooting in RAW is pointless. Try to experiment with the in camera settings and shoot JPG is my advice.

Secondly (and I honestly don't mean to be rude) you should probably read up some on the basics of how aperture, iso and shutter speed affects your images. Your 80-320 lens is in no way more able to freeze action then the 18-135. If your settings doesn't produce fast enough shutter speed to freeze action, then you have to change the settings not the lens (unless aperture is the bottleneck, which it is not in this case since the 18-135 is slightly faster). What settings your camera decides automatically in P mode is dependent on your metering mode and available light etc. In other words it will vary from exposure to exposure.

I don't have the k-7, but on the k-5 you can decide for yourself which parameters you want the camera to prioritize in P mode. "Program line" I believe it's called. This is a useful setting to investigate, and will help you with quick and effortless high shutter speed photos (and a lot more depending on what you want). Also, it is very easy to switch from P to AV or TV using the front or back e-dails. This feature is called hyper-program I think, and allows to switch settings very quickly without having to turn the mode dial. Once you are done, the green button resets your camera to normal P mode.

I use P mode a lot myself. And I find it very useful with the combination of program lines and hyper-program.

Good luck, from a fellow kayak shooter

I'll look into hyper program and see if it's on the k7. Shutter speeds were actually fairly high when I was trying to take photos of birds with the 18-135. And looking through them, there's not a correlation of them doing a better job at higher shutter speeds. And it was having the same problems in bright daylight vs. the overcast light. So in short, I'm not quite sure what the heck the lens and/or camera was doing. What I was doing was pointing the camera at things and pushing the button.

[Clinton]

usually aperature around 5.6

Sadly, from the reviews at photozone.de, this lens lacks any semblance of sharpness at f5.6 at the long end. That's why I think you should stick to F11-F13 and keep it there for general purpose shooting in the daylight.

Again, for what your describing, other than the cave shots, I really think you've picked the right lens for your task. I can't imagine swapping lenses in the middle of the water like this.

I hope turning off the highlight compensation helps.

Now for your cave shots, which are really cool by the way, I'd say you should look at either a K-5, or one of the DA* lenses, or both. I expect for those caves, the DA* 16-50 F2.8 would do nicely, as you'll be able to improve your shutter speed at the long end. That said, photozone.de says that the 18-135 lens has good sharpness at the wide end at around f5.6.

You might also think about the DA* 55mm F1.4 which would let in a lot of light at f1.4, but your depth of field will be much more shallow, and you'll have to zoom with your paddles.


What it boils down to is that the 18-135 lens produces OK if not amazing results, but you have to know it's limitations and play to them rather than relying on the camera to do it for you. In fairness, that's true of even the highest end glass. My K-5 thinks it's perfectly acceptable to auto set my shutter speed to 1/250 @ 600mm. On a tripod, if I'm following action, that's a pretty slow shutter speed for that focal length. Even relatively still, at that focal length, I prefer to be up around 1/500 to obtain sharper shots.

[Clinton]

the 10-17 while not so fast aperature wise, is so wide angle that it collects a lot of light.

I hope this will help. It's not really that it's letting in more light. As you go wider and wider, you increase depth of field and you reduce the relative motion to the sensor, therefore you can shoot slower and slower shutter speeds safely. The rule of thumb I follow on my Pentax gear is that I can safely hand hold at or near the focal length as a shutter speed, so 18mm is a relatively safe bet for 1/18th of a second.

Now if you go wide enough, you'll let the sun into your shot which really will let in a lot more light, but then your shadow detail will be kaput.

I expect that on the water you get a lot more relative motion from waves. I'm not sure, but at a guess, I'd say you need to double, or maybe triple the focal length as a shutter speed, so at 40mm, you probably want at least 1/80th of a second, and at 135mm 1/270. At less than that, I would expect you'll get slight motion blur that will make the image look soft.

You might try TAv mode, where you pick the shutter speed with the rear wheel and the aperture with the front, letting the camera manage ISO. (You'll really need to bump up the auto iso range though.) I know it's more technical, but it may help out with the motion of the water.

You're going to get some unique photos shooting this on the water, but you are faced with technical challenges most of us don't have to worry about.

[Clinton]

Shutter speeds were actually fairly high when I was trying to take photos of birds with the 18-135. .

The mode you were shooting, the camera knows you need a faster shutter speed at the longer focal length and amped it up, which in your conditions would have invariably helped. It may not have done enough though.

It also probably opened up the aperture to 5.6 which with this lens appears to be a catastrophe.