[CWRailman]

Noted . . . with pleasure.

Yep, there is such a thing as results that're perfectly serviceable and satisfactory without being "perfect".

I've a friend who's very frustrated trying to shoot 'perfect' macro images of jewelry for an auction web site that's ultimately gonna squash those images to the lowest form possible.

I did an employee photo shoot for a local insurance business several years ago. All images were JPG. I provided the company with the full size files as well as downsized versions. The downsized images, head shots of each employee, were to be used when printing their business cards or doing brochures etc. There were also group shots and some all employee shots with the employees positioned up the office stairway. Wellllll!!! Forbes magazine did an article on this firm and the firm supplied about a half dozen shots to the magazine for the article. However, the girl that sent the images supplied them the 1024 x 620 something images instead of the full size images. Those were the images that appeared in I believe the May 2014 issue of Forbes and nobody complained about them being reduced size JPG.

By the way, tell your friend to forget the macro and use a 50-70mm (35mm equivalent lens) to take those shots. He/she will get a better perspective and sharper images. Many of the shots I show in various projects on my CWRailman WEB site and very close up renderings and shooting product shots has paid for numerous cameras that I currently own. Until recently I did not have a lens capable of shooting macro images. Oddly enough the images from my K-110 have been selected by the graphic artists for brochures more frequently than those taken with my K-5 or K-5IIs.

[Tony Belding]

Oddly enough the images from my K-110 have been selected by the graphic artists for brochures more frequently than those taken with my K-5 or K-5IIs.

The other day I was skimming through my LR library and came across some "beauty shots" of a car I'd been loaned a while back, which I'd photographed in the park, but I didn't remember what I used for that. The pictures were great! They were lustrous, the almost sparkled with clarity. Trying to remember, I dug into the EXIF. . . uh. . . K100D? Really?? And a Samyang 35mm lens, yep.

[CWRailman]

The other day I was skimming through my LR library and came across some "beauty shots" of a car I'd been loaned a while back, which I'd photographed in the park, but I didn't remember what I used for that. The pictures were great! They were lustrous, the almost sparkled with clarity. Trying to remember, I dug into the EXIF. . . uh. . . K100D? Really?? And a Samyang 35mm lens, yep.

And do you know why that is?? The Pentax istD series as well as the K100D series all had CCD sensors. A CCD sensor is better at capturing light than a CMOS sensor but a CMOS sensor costs a fraction of a CCD to produce. In addition as burst shot rates increased a CCD sensor was not able to keep up due to the way the information is read off of it, processed and written to card. There are numerous WEB sites that talked about this when DSLR's moved from CCD to CMOS sensors. Keep that K100D. My K110D keeps ticking and I recently procured a K100D Super to give as a gift to a friend of mine. He is very pleased with it.

[pacerr]

...tell your friend to forget the macro...

Oh, yeah - long since corrected that.

And have you ever suggested that someone use less than highest quality JPG mode for simple web images? Heresy, absolute heresy. LOL

The older 6 MPS bodies at lower JPG settings work just fine for most web purposes too.

[timmijo]

I purchased a K200D from a forum member a few years ago for the reason that is has a CCD sensor. I haven't done a lot of experimenting with it yet, but it is my backup DSLR should my K-30 bite the dust.