[clackers]

Yes indeed. sometimes I attach my loupe and use it when using my lensbaby lens. But most of the time I prefer using focus confirmation with the magnified eye piece instead. Can I get the same effect using software? Maybe. But it is definitely more fun to do it for reals.

Yep.

Magnified Live View is better, IMO, so I do use it for manual focus. Even with a Hoodman imitation attached.

[disconnekt]

I also see it also as a demand vs. actual sales issue. A 3rd party company will supply a mount when a theres an initial high demand for it, but if the sale's of that mount in the end doesnt really match up with the demand, eventually the company will eventually say "the sales of XYZ-mount isnt enough for us to make a certain amount of profit to pay the bills & our employees to continue supporting it."

[Karen the Star]

Quite right, Eric, if someone says they need to have the electronic viewfinder next to their eye instead of a flat screen, a Hoodman loupe fixes all of that!

I think I will Never wanna a EVF, if I want, I use LV mode, why should I watch such a small viewfinder lose true vision

[Biro]

I think I will Never wanna a EVF, if I want, I use LV mode, why should I watch such a small viewfinder lose true vision

What small viewfinder? You need to take a look at some of the modern mirrorless cameras. They work just fine. The Panasonic G9's EVF has 3.6 million dots and is huge - bigger than the OVF in any of my Pentaxes. What you wrote may have been true five years ago - but not anymore.

[Karen the Star]

What small viewfinder? You need to take a look at some of the modern mirrorless cameras. They work just fine. The Panasonic G9's EVF has 3.6 million dots and is huge - bigger than the OVF in any of my Pentaxes. What you wrote may have been true five years ago - but not anymore.

Still it's electronic screen and my eyes hurt

[Serkevan]

What small viewfinder? You need to take a look at some of the modern mirrorless cameras. They work just fine. The Panasonic G9's EVF has 3.6 million dots and is huge - bigger than the OVF in any of my Pentaxes. What you wrote may have been true five years ago - but not anymore.

Any EVF I've personally tried (up to A7iii) has been terrible and a huge NNNNNOPE after half a minute, and I refuse to pay an extra thousand or two just to not suffer.

[BruceBanner]

Kind of... CR Kennedy in Australia just recently put an order in for K Mount Lensbabies that arrived in this month. I have also bought a K Mount Twist60 direct from lensbaby in K mount produced at no additional cost (this is the first Twist 60 for K Mount ever made ). I have it on good authority that if you just approach Lensbaby and request them to make one of their lenses in K Mount then they will do it for no additional cost. That's cool, basically they are still supporting on request only (because if they do batches not enough people buy). I can understand why, I love lensbaby, own 4 of their products and regularly post images that I think are fairly high quality to these forums, but really... there's like a handful of us using them. Quite simply Pentaxians are purists and think rubbing vaseline on the front element of normal lenses is as good LOL! Whatever...

[baro-nite]

Just ordered a Lensbaby Sol 45/3.5 from B&H. An impulse buy; I feel like trying it out on my IR-converted K-5. It's the first lens I've bought new in over 5 years.

[BruceBanner]

Just ordered a Lensbaby Sol 45/3.5 from B&H. An impulse buy; I feel like trying it out on my IR-converted K-5. It's the first lens I've bought new in over 5 years.

I like mine

Behance

[lotech]

Hey all, just a heads up that if you ever thought about getting a lensbaby now is the time, as they have stopped making their lenses in Pentax mounts. I was poking around the lensbaby website (after seeing their fisheye toy is on sale), and noticed that their search tool no longer lists a pentax mount, so I emailed their customer service and got an immediate response that yes, in fact, they are not making Pentax compatible lenses anymore



Perhaps not a big deal for those not interested in their products, but still a troubling sign of falling demand for Pentax in the market.

That won't hurt me a bit, I still don't get it after all these years why some people willing to invest on something that actually destroy their shots, and that special effect can be achieved easily with s/w !? I am more interested in my laser cut metal body cap pin hole 'lens' ha ! falling demand for Pentax of this blurry thing is a good sign that Pentax people are picture perfect !

[BruceBanner]

That won't hurt me a bit, I still don't get it after all these years why some people willing to invest on something that actually destroy their shots, and that special effect can be achieved easily with s/w !? I am more interested in my laser cut metal body cap pin hole 'lens' ha ! falling demand for Pentax of this blurry thing is a good sign that Pentax people are picture perfect !

Well, you are of course welcome to have your opinion on photography, it is after all an art form. I however have very much enjoyed the range of uses that I have put my lensbaby glass to use (as have my clients).

Behance

Behance

[lotech]

Well, you are of course welcome to have your opinion on photography, it is after all an art form. I however have very much enjoyed the range of uses that I have put my lensbaby glass to use (as have my clients).

Behance

Behance

No offense, there are some lenses produced for specific purposes and became hot items sought after, but in the digital age s/w can almost do magic can turn a perfect shot into any art form you want, so that I will make my best effort to take the best shot and would not invest on those things.

[BruceBanner]

No offense, there are some lenses produced for specific purposes and became hot items sought after, but in the digital age s/w can almost do magic can turn a perfect shot into any art form you want, so that I will make my best effort to take the best shot and would not invest on those things.

And I have heard this argument many times. However the end user of said argument typically has zero skills in PP to actually accurately replicate said effect (authentically), typically they are even against supporting certain software that is capable of mimicking said effect (Adobe/PS). Just because s/w can replicate the effect is not the same thing as saying you can replicate the same effect. And also at what cost? How long does it take in PP to try and replicate an effect that a certain artistic lens can do natively? Why then choose a FA Ltd that renders bokeh indifferently from a lens such as a Da Ltd? The same arguments apply here also.

When you shoot professionally and factor in your editing time as actual cost of job, the $199 Sol 45 becomes an absolute bargain for what it can do... it SAVES money in the long run because it saves time and does what the photographer wants at the time of shot. You might as well say using gels on flashes is pointless too, but then many see the investment in gels vs PP time as more than enough reason to use them. CPL is not an easy effect to fake too, should we not use them either? Or ND filters? Lenses are just tools, period. You might not like them and prefer non 'weird' lenses but photography is actually not always about what you like, sometimes it's about pleasing someone else. One bride in particular enjoyed these recent shots taken with the Velvet 56;







I am not offended. I am a photographer who utilises a wide variety of tools to derive a certain effect or look. From off camera flash to specific lenses, they are all just tools. In the same way some photographers have decided to leave Pentax due to a less than stella AF capability to some photographers whom come across to Pentax for superior ruggedness and better RAW files.

Lensbaby have officially said they will discontinue supporting Pentax mount (but have said if you reach out to them personally they should be able to make a lens in K mount at no additional cost) but we also have Sigma pulling out of supporting Pentax. This is less than ideal for Pentax period, doesn't matter what kind of lens support you like, less is less and that's not so cool.

[lotech]

And I have heard this argument many times. However the end user of said argument typically has zero skills in PP to actually accurately replicate said effect (authentically), typically they are even against supporting certain software that is capable of mimicking said effect (Adobe/PS). Just because s/w can replicate the effect is not the same thing as saying you can replicate the same effect. And also at what cost? How long does it take in PP to try and replicate an effect that a certain artistic lens can do natively? Why then choose a FA Ltd that renders bokeh indifferently from a lens such as a Da Ltd? The same arguments apply here also.

When you shoot professionally and factor in your editing time as actual cost of job, the $199 Sol 45 becomes an absolute bargain for what it can do... it SAVES money in the long run because it saves time and does what the photographer wants at the time of shot. You might as well say using gels on flashes is pointless too, but then many see the investment in gels vs PP time as more than enough reason to use them. CPL is not an easy effect to fake too, should we not use them either? Or ND filters? Lenses are just tools, period. You might not like them and prefer non 'weird' lenses but photography is actually not always about what you like, sometimes it's about pleasing someone else. One bride in particular enjoyed these recent shots taken with the Velvet 56;







I am not offended. I am a photographer who utilises a wide variety of tools to derive a certain effect or look. From off camera flash to specific lenses, they are all just tools. In the same way some photographers have decided to leave Pentax due to a less than stella AF capability to some photographers whom come across to Pentax for superior ruggedness and better RAW files.

Lensbaby have officially said they will discontinue supporting Pentax mount (but have said if you reach out to them personally they should be able to make a lens in K mount at no additional cost) but we also have Sigma pulling out of supporting Pentax. This is less than ideal for Pentax period, doesn't matter what kind of lens support you like, less is less and that's not so cool.

Very nice pics thanks, btw CPL (if you mean filter) and gels over flash are different can not be faked, and I doubt digital ND can do any good... since you are a working pro you need to have all kinds of tools available to satisfy different clients, and able to instant preview of the effect is a definitely plus, but for an average hobbyist shooter like myself I don't see why I need such a lens, and there are Youtube videos explaining how the Lensbaby effect can be achieved by other means. Hobbyist and enthusiast shooter like to experiment with different things to produce different effect, like how to create the cine lens effect with an ordinary lens is a hot topic, also due to lack of funding hobbyist shooter can't always get what they want in the market. Regarding Pentax lacking 3rd party support indeed a bad thing, but I don't think it will die down any time soon at least a new camera is in the making, no matter how painfully slow Pentax produces it still ticking, and the active discussion in the forum will surely cheer them up ha !

[Serkevan]

Lenses, cameras, filters and software are all tools. Having the right tool for the job is never a bad thing. Having to work around NOT having a tool is not ideal because it wastes time. Do I like the Velvet's effect? Eh, not really so often. Is it good that people who like it have it available? Yes.

Your clients and yourself are the only people you should be concerned about, Eddy. (And this one is gorgeous, no matter the lens that took it )