Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
10-07-2015, 08:53 AM   #31
Senior Member




Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: United States
Posts: 155
QuoteOriginally posted by ChristianRock Quote
There are a lot of DA primes that cover the full frame circle but are sold as APS-C lenses... the DA 35 2.4, DA 40 Limited, the DA 50 1.8, the DA*55 and the DA 70. Hopefully I haven't forgotten any.



Just as a curiosity, what two primes do you usually go with?
I usually start with the 31mm and 77mm. The 31mm pretty much stays on camera the whole time. I pull out the 21mm (or15mm when it's working correctly) for wider angled shots as needed. I use the 100mm for some telephoto and macro work. The 200mm when space allows. For receptions, I exchange the 77mm for the 70mm because it focuses much faster. As I anticipated when I purchased the 31mm, the 43mm doesn't get used that much except when that focal length is needed. I would use it more at receptions, but it doesn't focus that quickly in those circumstances. I have considered getting the 40mm again. I like the contrasty, photo quality of the DA primes when using flash at receptions. If I ever get my hands on a Pentax FF, I'm sure the 43mm will come back into more significant play.

10-07-2015, 12:53 PM   #32
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
ChristianRock's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Woodstock, GA
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 5,647
QuoteOriginally posted by skyoftexas Quote
I usually start with the 31mm and 77mm. The 31mm pretty much stays on camera the whole time. I pull out the 21mm (or15mm when it's working correctly) for wider angled shots as needed. I use the 100mm for some telephoto and macro work. The 200mm when space allows. For receptions, I exchange the 77mm for the 70mm because it focuses much faster. As I anticipated when I purchased the 31mm, the 43mm doesn't get used that much except when that focal length is needed. I would use it more at receptions, but it doesn't focus that quickly in those circumstances. I have considered getting the 40mm again. I like the contrasty, photo quality of the DA primes when using flash at receptions. If I ever get my hands on a Pentax FF, I'm sure the 43mm will come back into more significant play.
Thanks for the insights and your use of the lenses. I'm not going to do weddings anytime soon but I do kids parties sometimes and end up just using my DA 35 2.4 most of the time. Great to hear that the 21 is as wide as you probably need, as I'm eyeing that lens sometime in the future. Either that or a Sigma 17-50... haven't decided yet. I might have to get the 70 as well...
10-07-2015, 05:25 PM   #33
Pentaxian
noelpolar's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: Goolwa, SA
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 3,232
QuoteOriginally posted by skyoftexas Quote
I usually start with the 31mm and 77mm. The 31mm pretty much stays on camera the whole time. I pull out the 21mm (or15mm when it's working correctly) for wider angled shots as needed. I use the 100mm for some telephoto and macro work. The 200mm when space allows. For receptions, I exchange the 77mm for the 70mm because it focuses much faster. As I anticipated when I purchased the 31mm, the 43mm doesn't get used that much except when that focal length is needed. I would use it more at receptions, but it doesn't focus that quickly in those circumstances. I have considered getting the 40mm again. I like the contrasty, photo quality of the DA primes when using flash at receptions. If I ever get my hands on a Pentax FF, I'm sure the 43mm will come back into more significant play.
Pretty much what I do as well. I have a Sigma 70-200/2.8 that gets some service.
10-08-2015, 06:44 AM   #34
Veteran Member
alexeyga's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Montreal, Canada
Posts: 838
QuoteOriginally posted by redcat Quote
it's very common for Pro wedding shooters ! they want to shoot as much as possible and Raw are just too slow. their job is harder that way though, they have to get the settings & WB absolutely right in field, more stress !!!
I'm perfectly aware of it, actually a good friend of mine makes her living out of weddings and her take on the whole RAW vs JPG issue is like: "Only these who can't photograph for sh@t shoot RAW!!!"

I don't quite agree with it, but I don't argue anymore - in any case she's a lot better at it than I am.

On the other hand, (at least in my experience), higher level camera bodies do tend to suck at JPG. So as far I'm concerned - using a D800 camera to pump out pretty mediocre quality JPGs from it - isn't too bright - no matter how good you are at guessing the exposure and WB.

But then again, as far as clients go - they aren't looking for the best image quality, but for good enough pictures.

And yes - RAW is very time-consuming.

10-08-2015, 07:45 AM   #35
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter
micromacro's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Florida
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 3,517
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by alexeyga Quote
But then again, as far as clients go - they aren't looking for the best image quality, but for good enough pictures.
I'm not sure it's totally true, especially when any guest can deliver good enough pictures these days.
What I learned by feedback that looking good is important for participants. Especially for women. The main question I got from them was "why do I look so ugly on pro's pictures, and look so good on yours?" Well, because of raw plus retouching. Yes, it's time consuming, but that what clients want, imo - to look good.
10-08-2015, 08:14 AM   #36
Veteran Member
redcat's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Paris
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,892
QuoteOriginally posted by skyoftexas Quote
I usually start with the 31mm and 77mm.
that is the dream team, I might add the DA 15 and it's all it takes for a good session
10-08-2015, 08:44 AM   #37
Veteran Member
alexeyga's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Montreal, Canada
Posts: 838
QuoteOriginally posted by micromacro Quote
I'm not sure it's totally true, especially when any guest can deliver good enough pictures these days.
What I learned by feedback that looking good is important for participants. Especially for women. The main question I got from them was "why do I look so ugly on pro's pictures, and look so good on yours?" Well, because of raw plus retouching. Yes, it's time consuming, but that what clients want, imo - to look good.

What I really meant to say - is that for the end user the content is lot more important than technical details. A "bad" SOOC JPG photo with meaning in it - is worth a lot more than a perfectly-developed RAW file that has no emotional value what so ever.
10-08-2015, 09:16 AM   #38
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter
micromacro's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Florida
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 3,517
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by alexeyga Quote
A "bad" SOOC JPG photo with meaning in it - is worth a lot more than a perfectly-developed RAW file that has no emotional value what so ever.
Why raw edited picture should be without emotions, but jpg is emotional? I don't understand.

10-08-2015, 09:59 AM   #39
Veteran Member
alexeyga's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Montreal, Canada
Posts: 838
QuoteOriginally posted by micromacro Quote
Why raw edited picture should be without emotions, but jpg is emotional? I don't understand.
Lol, perhaps because the one who was shooting SOOC JPGs has managed to catch the right moment or simply knew what he/she was doing. As oppose to the one who was shooting RAW on his/her fancy camera and who was worried more about things like bokeh rather than what this particular picture is all about.
10-09-2015, 09:45 AM - 1 Like   #40
Senior Member




Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: United States
Posts: 155
QuoteOriginally posted by alexeyga Quote
I'm perfectly aware of it, actually a good friend of mine makes her living out of weddings and her take on the whole RAW vs JPG issue is like: "Only these who can't photograph for sh@t shoot RAW!!!"
That is clearly either an ignorant statement, or a disingenuous one, and reveals something very telling about the photographer. She is not really that interested in providing the clients with her best work. The link below is from one of my online mentors blog regarding this subject. His work is amazing. Enough said.

http://neilvn.com/tangents/raw-vs-jpg-the-final-discussion/
10-10-2015, 03:04 AM   #41
Pentaxian
noelpolar's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: Goolwa, SA
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 3,232
QuoteOriginally posted by alexeyga Quote
Lol, perhaps because the one who was shooting SOOC JPGs has managed to catch the right moment or simply knew what he/she was doing. As oppose to the one who was shooting RAW on his/her fancy camera and who was worried more about things like bokeh rather than what this particular picture is all about.
Why would shooting Raw mean you are not capable of catching the right moment or mean one doesn't know what he/she is doing?

(Couldn't help myself.....)
10-10-2015, 09:10 AM   #42
Veteran Member
alexeyga's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Montreal, Canada
Posts: 838
Interesting...

Do we need to turn it into another pointless RAW vs JPG discussion?

Why does a rhetorical allusion to a situation where a SOOC JPG photo might have more value than a perfectly-developed RAW photo - generates so much heat?

Hey, I'm all for RAW my-self, but having done weddings and using my dslr gear mostly for sports right now - I can see both sides of the fence. Sorting and editing 2-3k shots is not exactly fun. Even if you only keep every 10th file - it's still 200-300 shot to pump through a RAW converter at the end of the day. I may be happy with the results, but I'm still wishing I could get the same SOOC and use the time saved doing so on something else.

I also occasionally do portraiture where the time is taken to set up pretty much every single shot and I'm more than happy to fine-tune these shots in a RAW converter.

Some people here need to realize that there's a abyss between you taking pics of you kitty and flowers and people who actually do make money with their gear on a daily basis. Out there "good enough" is good enough and if a photographer is good enough to get sell-able JPGs SOOC - why not?

There's no really right or wrong away - it's what (and when) you're comfortable with that matters.

He's clearly better than 99% of posters around here, but "amazing"??? In what sense exactly?

Last edited by alexeyga; 10-10-2015 at 03:11 PM.
10-10-2015, 09:17 AM   #43
Veteran Member
dugrant153's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Vancouver, BC
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,059
It is definitely possible to shoot more documentary style weddings and with a Pentax too. Regardless of equipment, it's a tough job. We wedding photogs make it look easy but it isn't. On top of being technically sound, we need to know how to work with various personalities, setting expectations and delivering on what is essentially a portrait, engagement, uber low-light, uber bright-light, fast-changing-light, ISO 6400 and ISO 80 (in the same room) light, actions happening all around.... AND making clients happy all in between.

When I'm not shooting film, I shoot RAW files and Mastin Labs or Replichrome filters in Lightroom.

Cool that you got to experience the not-easy-ness of a wedding.
Attached Images
View Picture EXIF
PENTAX K-7  Photo 
10-10-2015, 04:28 PM   #44
Site Supporter
Otis FanOtis FanOtis FanOtis FanOtis FanOtis Fan
Site Supporter
Rupert's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Texas
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 25,123
QuoteOriginally posted by micromacro Quote
Why raw edited picture should be without emotions, but jpg is emotional? I don't understand.
Read it again Micro! I'll take a bad Jpeg or Raw with meaning and emotion over a great Raw with little or no meaning or emotion anytime! Of course, that is not the goal, but ...it happens!

Regards!
10-11-2015, 03:11 PM   #45
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter
micromacro's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Florida
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 3,517
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by Rupert Quote
Read it again Micro! I'll take a bad Jpeg or Raw with meaning and emotion over a great Raw with little or no meaning or emotion anytime!
I still don't get it, WHY that comparison jpg vs raw needs to be related to emotions. If I caught blue jay from close distance flying (you know, they fast!) in raw, sharp and focused, why the heck I'm not able to catch slower emotions on weddings?
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, ceremony, day, fun, guest, job, jpeg, light, matter, photographer, photography, pictures, shot, shots, time, wedding
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
First Time Wedding!! What I learned. jaywes Photographic Industry and Professionals 15 03-25-2015 03:29 AM
Lesson learned... Steve.Ledger Pentax K-01 21 04-22-2014 11:33 AM
A Lesson Learned About the Intensity of Camera Enthusiasts interested_observer Photographic Industry and Professionals 26 08-17-2013 03:52 AM
24x36 Print Lesson 1 learned daacon Digital Processing, Software, and Printing 20 10-20-2009 11:32 AM
Battery dies. Lesson learned. pentax4ever Pentax Camera and Field Accessories 8 07-16-2008 05:35 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 07:05 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