Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
05-16-2011, 09:58 AM   #16
New Member




Join Date: Nov 2009
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 7
some shots are OOF , or rather the DOF is just too thin , try stop down a little when its needed
If thats the case , i dun tin jumping ship would solve the problem , just my 2cent

05-16-2011, 09:58 AM   #17
Veteran Member
Andi Lo's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Halifax, Nova Scotia
Posts: 2,925
In some of those the AF is definitely off, or speed is too low like some mentioned

IMGP2621 | Flickr - Photo Sharing!
This one you can see that the bud on the right if focused, while the main flower is not

http://www.flickr.com/photos/42220695@N02/5726523925/in/photostream
This one the speed is too low. You shot this at 0.5 seconds. Pentax SR is good but not THAT good If you definitely need to shoot at this speed you need a tripod or something stable to shoot on

IMGP8822 | Flickr - Photo Sharing!
This one seems properly focused and shot at a decent speed. Are you expecting anything sharper than this? If yes try to get a better lens such as one of the DA 35 primes. They have much better resolution than the Sigma. If that's not sharp enough for you, you probably do need to step up to a bigger sensor, but first you should get off auto mode first!

my 2c

Last edited by Andi Lo; 05-16-2011 at 10:25 AM.
05-16-2011, 10:03 AM   #18
Pentaxian
JohnBee's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: front of computer
Posts: 4,620
QuoteOriginally posted by dr_romix Quote
here is the link I posted some pics. will add more later. thanks for the feedback.Flickr: dr_romix's Photostream
First thing is, have you noticed the shutter speed on the blurry pictures vs the sharper ones?

Having said that the sigma 17-70mm has a very good reputation for being sharp. And so it sounds to me like you'd benefit from sitting down and figuring-out what makes a sharp image(attributes) and working on that.

As for the MKII question, I'd say there's no doubt the K-7 will be outpaced against a FF equivalent. To which I'd add, there is always better out there.
But if you're goal is to come as close to FF as possible without the price tag, then I'd say look into a K-5. - But I wouldn't recommend that until you've gained a better understanding of the camera and it's functions first.

Hope this helps.
05-16-2011, 10:11 AM   #19
Banned




Join Date: May 2011
Location: Pittsburgh,PA
Posts: 321
Original Poster
Thanks for all the feedback..Greatly appreciated.

05-16-2011, 10:13 AM   #20
Banned




Join Date: May 2011
Location: Pittsburgh,PA
Posts: 321
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by Andi Lo Quote
but first you should get off auto mode first!

my 2c
thanks Andi. You mean switch off AF and do manually?
05-16-2011, 10:24 AM   #21
Veteran Member
Andi Lo's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Halifax, Nova Scotia
Posts: 2,925
QuoteOriginally posted by dr_romix Quote
thanks Andi. You mean switch off AF and do manually?
The exif recorded that you used auto exposure mode instead of M / Av / Tv. If you're still using Full Auto mode, I recommend getting used to shooting while knowing the settings on which you shoot (ie Av / Tv / M). If it's incorrectly reported I apologize though
05-16-2011, 10:28 AM   #22
Banned




Join Date: May 2011
Location: Pittsburgh,PA
Posts: 321
Original Poster
I usually shoot Aperture priority mode and in some instances, manual when i need to control the shutter speed. I'll post more photos for feedback.. thnx
05-16-2011, 11:40 AM   #23
Banned




Join Date: May 2011
Location: Pittsburgh,PA
Posts: 321
Original Poster
some new pics posted.Flickr: dr_romix's Photostream

05-16-2011, 11:46 AM   #24
Veteran Member
rfortson's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Houston TX
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,129
Can you post some crops here? The Flickr shots are too small to really assess sharpness.
05-16-2011, 11:53 AM   #25
Veteran Member




Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Midwest
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,407
QuoteOriginally posted by dr_romix Quote
some new pics posted.Flickr: dr_romix's Photostream
As rfortson says, we can't tell from these images if your originals are critically sharp, but these are certainly sharper than the other images I looked at before.
05-16-2011, 12:07 PM   #26
Banned




Join Date: May 2011
Location: Pittsburgh,PA
Posts: 321
Original Poster
anyone knows how I can post a pic on the forum?

Last edited by dr_romix; 05-16-2011 at 04:18 PM.
05-17-2011, 01:06 AM   #27
Veteran Member




Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Fife, Scotland
Posts: 834
I have a K7 with the kit WR lens and a 55-300mm DA. No problems with focus sharpness, but I take care that I'm either using a fast enough shutter speed, or a tripod. I don't do a lot of the sort of photography that will find back/front focus issues e.g. not much closeup work. However the ones I did of the gliding club trophies are fine - I did manual focus for those.

Pentax K7 - a set on Flickr


From your photostream:
IMGP8498_exposure
Looks sharp where it's in focus, has a very shallow depth of field. See below for more on depth of field.

IMG
Has a 1-second exposure, will not be sharp unless you used a tripod but looks fine on the bright posts.

IMGP8654
Lenses are generally not at their sharpest at f22 - f8-f11 usually wins hands down. 1/25 is fairly slow and the faster shutter speed from a bigger aperture would help if you were hand-holding. The building looks soft, the camera looks to have focussed on the bushes in front of it.

IMGP8807
IMGP8787
Again 1/25 might be too slow for handholding, again the nearer bits of the image look sharper.

IMGP2677
Do you take everything at 1/25? Nothing is sharp here, camera blur might be the problem.

IMGP2673
1/30th! And it looks sharp to me, but with a very shallow depth of focus. I put the values into the following URL, had to guess how close you are but reckon you are right on top of it so put in 1 foot (~30cm) and you have almost no depth of field. Somewhere round f8 would have given you about an inch, but of course you would have needed a tripod.

Online Depth of Field Calculator

Didn't think there is much to gain from looking at more and I can't bear the idea of looking at the food shots large.

So I think maybe it's a user problem - where you are focussing - *maybe* the lens you used for the long shots is focussing a bit too close, and with the close-ups you quite possibly have camera shake and/or too shallow a depth of field. Remember to use shutter delay if you use a tripod, and that automatically turns off the shake reduction.

(edit)
PS I suspect this should be in a different forum - 'General Technical Troubleshooting' maybe - it isn't a K5 question really, it's a question about image quality from a K7.

Last edited by cats_five; 05-17-2011 at 01:56 AM. Reason: wrong forum
05-17-2011, 02:35 AM   #28
Veteran Member
timh's Avatar

Join Date: May 2010
Location: Wales
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 445
QuoteOriginally posted by cats_five Quote
IMGP8498_exposure
Looks sharp where it's in focus, has a very shallow depth of field. See below for more on depth of field.
It's got some motion blur - due to 1/10 sec speed with a 29mm focal length. ISO 400 or 800 (maybe not a good idea on the K7) would help, or opening up the aperture.

In A mode you have to keep a careful eye on the shutter speed - if the camera can't increase the ISO it'll reduce the shutter speed below 'safe' levels and you'll get motion blur a lot.

I suggest letting auto-ISO roam to at least 640 in normal circumstances (you might need to enable 1/3 stop exposure changes to get the smaller increments). Also, make sure you haven't told it to increase ISO 'slowly' (strange option, seems like a recipe for disaster.)

You could also try TAv mode where you select aperture and shutter speed yourself, and the camera auto-selects ISO (within the range you specified). At least then it'll flash the ISO number at you as a warning if you're pushing things too far.

In answer to your original question, a K-5 will help because you can go to much higher ISO values (I let mine roam up to 2000, normally) without introducing a lot of noise to your image. That said, the K-x and K-r are nearly as good as the K-5 in that respect. Switching to a DA* zoom will still give you a F2.8 max aperture so it won't help with this problem. Your most expensive option is switching to a full-frame Nikon or Canon body and buying suitable lenses, which would indeed help - but I suspect if you had that much cash to throw around you'd already have the K5.

If you don't have a fast ( F1.4, F1.7) prime you can pick an old manual-focus one up very cheaply. They're very small too, so pretty easy to carry around as a companion to your main lens for when things get dark and difficult.
05-26-2011, 05:42 PM   #29
Banned




Join Date: May 2011
Location: Pittsburgh,PA
Posts: 321
Original Poster
ok.. this is very frustrating. I put mine on Neutral setting, increased the contrast and sharpness. ISO 100.. still I'm not getting sharp and crisp images as I see people take with this lens on pixel peeper.. is it my lens or my camera...? what am I doing wrong? I'm started to hate my K7... pls help... ( look at the first 3 photos )

Flickr: dr_romix's Photostream
05-26-2011, 06:22 PM   #30
Loyal Site Supporter




Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Gladys, Virginia
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 15,770
Honestly, your issue in those photos is your shutter speed. Shutter speeds of under 1/10 second seldom produce sharp photos, even when you have good shake reduction because it is just hard to be steady that long (and hard for your subject to be statue like as well). Probably would have been better shooting at iso 400 and having a little shorter shutter speed.

It is possible to take sharp photos with the K7 (I'll inflict a photo of my son on you here):

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!
camera, da*, dslr, k-5, k-5 ii, k-5 iis, k5, lens, pentax, pentax k-5, switch
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Is in-body SR worth the switch from Nikon to Pentax for low light? nsfx Pentax K-5 72 12-16-2010 07:31 AM
Struggling with the switch from canon ps to pentax kx junerainbow Troubleshooting and Beginner Help 7 10-08-2010 11:07 AM
Possible switch from Canon...recommendations str8talk83 Pentax DSLR Discussion 39 09-22-2010 03:15 PM
Pentax vs Nikon vs Canon - A Lens System Comparison cputeq Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 46 05-20-2010 06:09 PM
Thinking to change from Nikon to Pentax kwetiaw Pentax DSLR Discussion 22 10-20-2009 07:49 AM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 08:00 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