[lmd91343]

Flugelbinder,

The two main points of discussion concern focus and exposure.

As for focus, you are expecting a lot. Shooting indoors at f2.4, f2.8, with a normal lens, with the baby as a subject with a handheld camera is a difficult task. Narrow depth of field on a human face presents difficulty. People as subjects move, even when trying to stay still. They breath, they sway slightly. Babies are even less cooperative! As for the camera platform (YOU), it also sways and moves. Most people as platforms can't function at the level of motionlessness required. With proper technique and practice, you as a platform can improve. Narrow DOF, moving subject, imperfect camera platform, all lead to what you have shown us. To use a narrow DOF on a close subject and achieve the kind of focus you want, I need to use a tripod on a still life!

As for exposure, there are multiple metering modes on every camera now. Each mode functions differently. It just takes learning and practice. That takes time.

You have nice looking pictures. It is a good start. Learn better handholding techniques(exhale, elbows in, left hand under the lens, right on the grip, feet apart, lean against a wall when possible). Use a smaller f stop (5.6, 8). Use the center focus point. Turn off focus on the shutter button.

You are trying to learn an art with a sophisticated tool, in a demanding situation, while capturing the fleeting moments of a baby's life. In a perfect world, you would have had the camera before the baby and have had a couple of hundred hours of practice and detailed analysis and critique. Life does not always hit us in the right order. You need to learn and practice. Otherwise you'll just have snapshots that make 95% of the world happy.

You are off to a good start! Be happy with what you have captured and learned. Relax. Go forward and enjoy.

[Flugelbinder]

Thank you for the reply.
I am not - by far - the most experienced, but I do have a fair understanding of the technique(s) involved in proper focus accuracy. Chloe's last two images clearly (IMHO) show what I'm referring when I mention the camera's af (lack of) accuracy. Despite what Oldbayrunner says, the distance did not change, only the focus point (right eye on both images) the camera "chose" to lock on has... That is my main concern. Exposure, I shoot manual, so I will deal with it, but this focus-wherever-it-wants kind of lottery is really turning me off...

[Flugelbinder]

After some more reading, this focus inaccuracy I mention, seems to be a not so rare 'issue', and it may be due to the (very) low light in which I'm performing these "tests", if I understand correctly.
Am I right?
I understand that you all must be 'fed-up' with me (and all this discussion), but I would really like to get this sorted out, after all I did chose to come to Pentax - for a number of reasons - and would like to 'tame' it and make it work for me...

[Oldbayrunner]

Despite what Oldbayrunner says, the distance did not change,. .

LMBO, who are you trying to kid?.. There is no way both at a 35mm focal length per your EXIF info, using the same Pentax APS-C camera and lens, those last two photos were taken at the same distance given the difference showing between your two photos. You would have had to move the camera distance back some in the 2nd photo to maintain a 35mm focal length, with or without it being a zoom lens, for the baby to look farther away in the manner it is.. Go ahead try to convince us those photos are identical distance and it was camera/lens error for them being different looking in perspective.. That is lens knowledge talking my good man for which I have many years of.

---

Last edited by Oldbayrunner; 12-18-2014 at 01:36 PM.

[narual]

There is no way both at a 35mm focal length per your EXIF info, using the same Pentax APS-C camera and lens, those last two photos were taken at the same distance given the difference showing between your two photos.

Could be the more distant one is the full sized shot and the others are crops, too.

[Oldbayrunner]

Could be the more distant one is the full sized shot and the others are crops, too.

Oh Really? For one did you perhaps miss the black stripe differences behind the babies head in size and position indicating they weren't taken at the same position or distance? There are other differences that tell they weren't also if you look at the total picture.

[Gimbal]

After some more reading, this focus inaccuracy I mention, seems to be a not so rare 'issue', and it may be due to the (very) low light in which I'm performing these "tests", if I understand correctly.

The original K5 does have issues with low light focusing with a lot of hit and miss. The K5II is supposed to be a lot better as far as I've heard. But maybe the problem isn't totally solved?
Do your tests again, but with more light.

[Flugelbinder]

I will do some more today. Maybe the 'problem' is the 35's (lack) of ability to focus properly on far away objects, maybe it's this copy, I don't know. It focuses good at short distances and it's pretty sharp, but from 10/15 feet forward, the 'problems' start... I might return it... I will give the K-5 II another chance though, with other glass in front, and see what will happen. I've seen some great images from these cameras, so there is an issue, somewhere, either the lens, or (hopefully not) the camera....

[IchabodCrane]

I will do some more today. Maybe the 'problem' is the 35's (lack) of ability to focus properly on far away objects, maybe it's this copy, I don't know. It focuses good at short distances and it's pretty sharp, but from 10/15 feet forward, the 'problems' start... I might return it... I will give the K-5 II another chance though, with other glass in front, and see what will happen. I've seen some great images from these cameras, so there is an issue, somewhere, either the lens, or (hopefully not) the camera....

One suggestion for when you do your further tests... if you get an unsatisfactory result, repeat the test using Live View focusing mode. That will always remove the potential for a back or front focus problem creeping into the equation.

[narual]

Oh Really? For one did you perhaps miss the black stripe differences behind the babies head in size and position indicating they weren't taken at the same position or distance? There are other differences that tell they weren't also if you look at the total picture.

What are you going on about? He didn't say they were taken at the same precise position, just the same approximate distance. It's not like he's saying he snapped 3 shots in a row without either him or the subject moving. They weren't even taken during the same *month* -- that's clear in the exif, July August and November. And I have no idea what black stripe you're talking about. The 3 photos with the baby don't seem to have one.

[Oldbayrunner]

What are you going on about? He didn't say they were taken at the same precise position, just the same approximate distance. It's not like he's saying he snapped 3 shots in a row without either him or the subject moving. They weren't even taken during the same *month* -- that's clear in the exif, July August and November. And I have no idea what black stripe you're talking about. The 3 photos with the baby don't seem to have one.

Your looking at the wrong photos.... The ones I commented on and he said the were the same distance are the two with the fire extinguisher which were taken approximately the same time. So your slightly off base with your comments.

[Flugelbinder]

As my other thread was closed by the moderators, I will continue here...

For what I'm understanding, when shooting anything further than, lets say 10/15 feet, where the subject might be 'too small' for the af point to get a good reading, the solution is to stop down, thus allowing for a larger DOF. Am I correct?

---------- Post added 12-19-14 at 03:24 PM ----------

Ok, first a sincere and deep apology for the a-hole I've been the last few days...
That said, I ran a few more tests, this time with the 35 stopped down to 2.8. To my disbelieve, everything has changed!!! Tack sharp, close, further, low light, pop flash...
I feel somewhat embarrassed, but someone could have just told me that the 35 isn't sharp wide open... Is this true to all Pentax glass?

[Oldbayrunner]

I feel somewhat embarrassed, but someone could have just told me that the 35 isn't sharp wide open... Is this true to all Pentax glass?

No... Every lens has a given Aperture that it is the sharpest focally, but one needs to know what their depth of field is for any given shot to get the best results for any given aperture.... Then sometimes you have to utilize focusing on the hyperfocal distance for obtaining sharp to infinity for distant subjects..

Sometimes stopping down can render better results than shooting wide open, especially with close up photography where the depth of field is very narrow and the slightest movement can change the focal point even with the focus locked on a certain spot. There is a lot more to know about lenses than just the MM and the Aperture to know what results can be obtained with them.

[Flugelbinder]

No... Every lens has a given Aperture that it is the sharpest focally, but one needs to know what their depth of field is for any given shot to get the best results for any given aperture.... Then sometimes you have to utilize focusing on the hyperfocal distance for obtaining sharp to infinity for distant subjects..

Sometimes stopping down can render better results than shooting wide open, especially with close up photography where the depth of field is very narrow and the slightest movement can change the focal point even with the focus locked on a certain spot. There is a lot more to know about lenses than just the MM and the Aperture to know what results can be obtained with them.

You are absolutely correct. I apologize if I was somewhat disrespectful earlier...

All the best!

[BCtoad]

He is not the only one -- I have been fed up with getting 'back focus' on my 2007 K10D both with the 18-55mm 'kit lens and my Pentax manual focus lenses. At my Camera Club there is only ONE more member who uses Pentax now -- none of the 'other makes' seem to suffer from this focus problem.

Since 2008 I have ran debug on my k10 which needed negative 12 to make the pictures come out right it is still running debug and my son in law is now using it and he is very satisfied with the pictures it produces