Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
04-08-2009, 10:38 AM   #16
Veteran Member
Gooshin's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Toronto, the one in Canada.
Posts: 5,611
QuoteOriginally posted by GaryM Quote
I have a decent Canon point-and-shoot, and while the sharpness is pretty good, it can't touch a DA Limited for color, contrast and rendering of subtle textures. You must use an *amazing* one!
contrast and colour are overrated in the digital world, i would not use them as highlights for any particular lens

distortion, flare resistance, ultimate sharpness, those are the things i would rate a lens on.

04-08-2009, 01:48 PM   #17
Voe
Veteran Member
Voe's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 708
You underrate lens constrast and colour.
04-08-2009, 01:58 PM   #18
Veteran Member




Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 437
QuoteOriginally posted by Gooshin Quote
you wont be able to find them on this site, since i took them off the host where i kept them, they are on my HD somewhere, i'll find them and post them again.
You don't have to do it on my account. I did find a thread here where you compared the DA 21 to the Sigma 18 f2.8 and trust your conclusions. I personally have no complaints with the 10-20 whatsoever--in fact it's the best zoom that I've ever owned (of course that's not saying much). Maybe there's better, but the FOV is just too handy.

Now, having said all that... don't let me stop you either. I like comparing shots when they're done as they have been in this thread and I wouldn't really mind something as small and wide as this.
04-08-2009, 02:00 PM   #19
Veteran Member
Gooshin's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Toronto, the one in Canada.
Posts: 5,611
QuoteOriginally posted by Voe Quote
You underrate lens constrast and colour.
explain? i got sliders for that

04-08-2009, 02:54 PM   #20
Voe
Veteran Member
Voe's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 708
QuoteOriginally posted by Gooshin Quote
explain? i got sliders for that

You say "sliders" is the Solution?
Using sliders cannot recover true color information that was missing in first place when you took the shot. Playing with sliders can improve the overall look but it is not as natural looking. The photo start to look digitally processed and plastiky.
Not to mention the fact that you have to waste time processing a shot to get something out of nothing.

On the other side there are also sliders for distortion and sharpness.
Flare, you can fight the old fashion way by using a lens hood unless you are into Sun photography.
04-08-2009, 04:22 PM   #21
Veteran Member
Eaglerapids's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Idaho,USA
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,588
Original Poster
Another thing to consider would be to compare a 18"X24" print of my 21Ltd/K10D pic (the first one in my post) against any P&S camera pic taken at the same time with the same field of view. I'm no expert on P&S cameras but I wouldn't shy away from the challenge, I wonder how the Canon G10 would do, but I'm not sure if it does a 21mm fov.
04-08-2009, 07:08 PM   #22
Veteran Member
arpaagent's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Raleigh, NC
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 777
the G10 starts at 28mm FOV equivalent (35mm) which would work against the 21mm 1.5x crop digital. Would be an interesting study for such a large print from a P&S.
04-08-2009, 08:11 PM   #23
Pentaxian
Wheatfield's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: The wheatfields of Canada
Posts: 10,043
QuoteOriginally posted by Voe Quote
You say "sliders" is the Solution?
Using sliders cannot recover true color information that was missing in first place when you took the shot.
Lets keep our arguments on the reality side of sensible.

04-09-2009, 12:26 AM   #24
Voe
Veteran Member
Voe's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 708
QuoteOriginally posted by Wheatfield Quote
Lets keep our arguments on the reality side of sensible.
Let's not waste forum space when we don't have anything meaninful to say.
04-09-2009, 06:11 AM   #25
Inactive Account




Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Honolulu 04-08 / Beijing 08- forever
Posts: 48
to me this kind of comparison doesnot make sense at all. in such a beautiful day even 18-55 can generate very nice pictures when shooting at f8-f11. what makes 31 the best lens is its performance in lowlight , especially shooting people
04-09-2009, 06:36 AM   #26
Veteran Member
Gooshin's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Toronto, the one in Canada.
Posts: 5,611
QuoteOriginally posted by Voe Quote
Playing with sliders can improve the overall look but it is not as natural looking. The photo start to look digitally processed and plastiky.
Not to mention the fact that you have to waste time processing a shot to get something out of nothing.
"natural looking", tell that to a colour blind man, ever wonder in your head how to tell someone that cant see green what green looks like?

as for looking plastiky, that just means the person who was editing is either a fool or wanted that particular look, if its not your cup of tea, ohh well, move along.

as for wasting time, for you it may be wasting time, i personaly enjoy sitting down at a computer running my photos through filters and what not.

QuoteOriginally posted by Voe Quote
On the other side there are also sliders for distortion and sharpness.
Flare, you can fight the old fashion way by using a lens hood unless you are into Sun photography.
here is where you are wrong, and seem to hint at the fact that you rarely sit down in photoshop to tweak things.

distortion correction eliminates data so to speak, or it extrapolates to fill in the empty space when you bring a bend back into a straight line, it is not as simple as replacing one value with another.

sharpness in post processing is not the same as a lenses initial ability to capture fine detail, if the lens didnt pick up the pores on a persons face, no amount of post processing sharpness is going to make them appear.

as for flare, flare is not just from direct sun light... light contamination can come from all sources, and few lenses have "ideal" lens hoods anyway.


QuoteOriginally posted by Voe Quote
QuoteOriginally posted by Wheatfield Quote
Lets keep our arguments on the reality side of sensible.
Let's not waste forum space when we don't have anything meaninful to say.
i think you misunderstand the perceived reality that we as humans comprehend. There are so many shades of yellow and blue in the world, that we will never reach consensus.

there is what you find pleasing, and which *most* people find pleasing.

back in the film days, colour representation was due to lens design and film choice, with a very few exception of dark-room masters who knew how to play with chemicals.

this gave way to notions of "good lenses" with "good colour representation and contrast"

which should be re-written as "colour representation appealing to most people"
04-09-2009, 06:56 AM   #27
Voe
Veteran Member
Voe's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 708
QuoteOriginally posted by Gooshin Quote
"natural looking", tell that to a colour blind man, ever wonder in your head how to tell someone that cant see green what green looks like?

as for looking plastiky, that just means the person who was editing is either a fool or wanted that particular look, if its not your cup of tea, ohh well, move along.

as for wasting time, for you it may be wasting time, i personaly enjoy sitting down at a computer running my photos through filters and what not.



here is where you are wrong, and seem to hint at the fact that you rarely sit down in photoshop to tweak things.

distortion correction eliminates data so to speak, or it extrapolates to fill in the empty space when you bring a bend back into a straight line, it is not as simple as replacing one value with another.

sharpness in post processing is not the same as a lenses initial ability to capture fine detail, if the lens didnt pick up the pores on a persons face, no amount of post processing sharpness is going to make them appear.

as for flare, flare is not just from direct sun light... light contamination can come from all sources, and few lenses have "ideal" lens hoods anyway.




i think you misunderstand the perceived reality that we as humans comprehend. There are so many shades of yellow and blue in the world, that we will never reach consensus.

there is what you find pleasing, and which *most* people find pleasing.

back in the film days, colour representation was due to lens design and film choice, with a very few exception of dark-room masters who knew how to play with chemicals.

this gave way to notions of "good lenses" with "good colour representation and contrast"

which should be re-written as "colour representation appealing to most people"
not worth wasting my time with you.
04-09-2009, 06:58 AM   #28
Veteran Member
Gooshin's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Toronto, the one in Canada.
Posts: 5,611
QuoteOriginally posted by Voe Quote
not worth wasting my time with you.
looks like we have an elitist in the house!

"my yellow is better than your yellow, ohh, dont touch that slider, thats cheating"

*roll eyes*
04-09-2009, 06:37 PM   #29
Veteran Member
Eaglerapids's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Idaho,USA
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,588
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by safari Quote
to me this kind of comparison doesnot make sense at all. in such a beautiful day even 18-55 can generate very nice pictures when shooting at f8-f11. what makes 31 the best lens is its performance in lowlight , especially shooting people
Again, I was merely showing whoever might be interested the difference in the field of view between the 31mm lens and the 21mm lens in a real world situation. I don't even carry the kit lens with me anymore. I totally agree with you about it's lowlight, bokeh etc performance but it does ok as a kit lens substitute at hyperfocal distances as well:-). I don't leave the 31 at home just because it's going to be a beautiful day with plenty of light and I may have to shoot at smaller apertures!
04-10-2009, 05:14 AM   #30
axl
Veteran Member




Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Nove Zamky, Slovakia
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 7,181
QuoteOriginally posted by safari Quote
to me this kind of comparison doesnot make sense at all. in such a beautiful day even 18-55 can generate very nice pictures when shooting at f8-f11. what makes 31 the best lens is its performance in lowlight , especially shooting people
have you ever shot FA31 at f5.6-8 and DA18-55 at f5.6-8 and compared? Whatever light or beautifull day it would be even at those appretures 31 beats the holy c..p out of kit, and as for overal feeling of the pic etc goes... I don't want to go down that way,

anyway, OP clearly stated this shots were simply to compare FOV of those two lenses, which I find very, very helpfull!

BR
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!
k-mount, pentax lens, slr lens
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Purple fringing with 31ltd DanielT74 Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 7 11-05-2010 06:11 AM
31Ltd on its way to Japan joele Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 9 02-23-2010 11:21 AM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 06:12 AM. | See also: NikonForums.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