[normhead]

I'm not seeing anything there on your site a K-30 and 18-135 couldn't handle, but $1000 US is way to much for a K-30 and 18-135. You should be able to get both for $800 US.

Some images I took yesterday with the 18-135...

For small flowers, (pseudo macro) the 18-135 does good... many of these images are practically as good as similar images taken with my Sigma 70 macro, a dedicated macro lens.

Click on the images to see more images taken with that lens.

18-135 small flowers


SIgma 70 macro small flower


The 18-135 isn't going to be as crisp as the 70 macro. but comparing a super zoom to a prime macro lens that costs more than it does is hardly fair, Tamron 90 macro, FA 100 macro, or any other dedicated macro... but it's no slouch either. Great starter lens.

Looking at the 35 2.4 or 50 1,8, they are great lenses, but if you want even pseudo macro capability, they aren't what you want.

(I saw exampel photos on this site in review section. Some of them were ok, some looked like from mobile phone...)

You judge a lens by the best you can get out of it, and assume that you can get that too, other people may not be competent with the lens, technique can ruin an image, but the best you can do with a lens, nothing bad anyone does can take that away from it.

---

Last edited by normhead; 07-19-2014 at 05:32 AM.

[tgchan]

god damn it... now I am looking at x100 again... the quality of pictures... I love it!!!

But again I can get almost same thing if not better with prime lenses on k-30... and if I like I can put on some zoom lesnes etc... + it is much easier too frame something I want with zoom lenses and 100% viefinder than with x100

So confused...

[Vihmameister]

I mainly go for a walk and shoot everything that I like (or may sell on stock sites ;p) I love macro and my x20

That means, while you learn you are zoom guy. Take look at your shots statistics, to predict areas you tend to shoot.
18-135 can do impressive things in right hands. it is not macro thou... for macro you need or real macro or smth else, but it makes good sharp closeups, resembling macro. It is best overall Pentax kit-lens by far and is WR, big bonus. To get sharper, you get limited by limiteds LBA

i have taken around a lot pictures with 18-55, even this one can take pictures, and must say better ones than your fujifilm.
if long range is not so important to you, you can take K-30 (i like personally less K-50 while inside it is 99,9% same as K-30) and 18-55 +some true macro for example. witch macro, it depends. if you are just in budget, K-30 with kit+some samyang 85mm,(or 35, 24) for sharp and fast shots, or some DA 21 for example.
Still, you must know your habits.

I am in pursue for crisp sharp photos and I hate fuzzy,painty quality

Sharp is good, but only on it's own place.
Most of true art is not sharp at all, or is sharp on some critical point

This is part, i would say ( and i am noob hobbyist) it's you, not your optics.
I looked your examples from x20.
You shoot often against strong light without filters. That means- ground is dark, or you blow up sky. You tend to choose sky.
You misplace often horizon by height. and x20 did quite not help you on DOF.
No camera nor lens does not help you truly out here. You have to learn limitations of your gear and take best out of ones you have.

in this means APS-c (any of them) may be sufficient and you may find it limiting -because they all have limits in plain pixel density on sensor.
You may get more growing room with K-3, but not too much, want to go higher, go FF.

- DA 18 - 55 mm AL WR and DA 50-200 f/4-5.6 ED WR in one package - DAL 18 - 55 mm, DAL 55 - 300 mm f/4,0 - 5,8

This is really starter combo, most daily range covered. About kit i told, you could make nice pictures, with some trial and error, but you probably will want more details later. 55-300 is very good to handle, has very good telemacro at his price, but has also strong CA at long end. Because last it is usable in 55-225(250mm) range max.

do you think these DA 18 - 135 mm ED AL IF DC WR would be enough for me?

Are you good enough for this lens?
With less joking, 18-135 and some limited or macro limited later will be good for some years.


All that said
K-30 (or50) is excellent piece, very good viewfinder. if it fits your hands and taste... i wouldn't consider anything else from pentax unless i can get FF (and FF means already different thinking habits and gear). K-3 maybe, but here price plays most role.
Last but not least -calculate decision is good, endless recalculation is no good at all. Even bad decision you stick with is better, than constant mind change.

[tgchan]

My 1st photos were the first ones taken from digital camera before I only took some with old mobile phone I guess you can tell that from comparing first photos and the last from the album.

That was the plan to learn the gear and use it to its limits before changing... but I couldn't stop thinking I can get better quality out of my desired pictures with bigger sensor. But now it looks like improper lenses may do the same thing as small sensor did in my x20.


I <3 your photos normhead but I am really unhappy with the quality on most of them (Some images I took yesterday with the 18-135)


I am really heading more and more towards the x100 with its very sharp fixed lense, compact body and no worries about different lenses lol...

but again no zoom, and not being able to change it effectively stops me from an easy choice...

I keep looking at picutres taken from 18-135 and can't believe how different they are... some are superb sharp and some looking worse than from my x20...

The more I read the less I know what to choose lol...

[normhead]

My 1st photos were the first ones taken from digital camera before I only took some with old mobile phone I guess you can tell that from comparing first photos and the last from the album.

That was the plan to learn the gear and use it to its limits before changing... but I couldn't stop thinking I can get better quality out of my desired pictures with bigger sensor. But now it looks like improper lenses may do the same thing as small sensor did in my x20.


I <3 your photos normhead but I am really unhappy with the quality on most of them (Some images I took yesterday with the 18-135)


I am really heading more and more towards the x100 with its very sharp fixed lense, compact body and no worries about different lenses lol...

but again no zoom, and not being able to change it effectively stops me from an easy choice...

I keep looking at picutres taken from 18-135 and can't believe how different they are... some are superb sharp and some looking worse than from my x20...

The more I read the less I know what to choose lol...

I am really heading more and more towards the x100 with its very sharp fixed lense, compact body and no worries about different lenses lol...

Well nice of you to stop in for a bit, see you again some time.

Oh and looking at my 18-135 images and your x20 images, maybe you could post one of your x20 images that you think is better than one of those 18-135 images.... be sure to tell me which one... and I'll give it a look. But just from a cursory glance, from my perspective, I didn't see even one of your x20 images that was anywhere close to one of my posted 18-135 images, but maybe I just didn't look at the right images... as a former photography teacher, I've evaluated a lot of images, and I get quickly bored when I'm not seeing much... so, me taking any more time to go through your images trying to understand what you're seeing is not in the cards, but if you post one you think is good I'll give it a look, for free, no charge , gratis.

[tgchan]

Well nice of you to stop in for a bit, see you again some time.

Oh and looking at my 18-135 images and your x20 images, maybe you could post one of your x20 images that you think is better than one of those 18-135 images.... be sure to tell me which one... and I'll give it a look. But just from a cursory glance, from my perspective, I didn't see even one of your x20 images that was anywhere close to one of my posted 18-135 images, but maybe I just didn't look at the right images... as a former photography teacher, I've evaluated a lot of images, and I get quickly bored when I'm not seeing much... so, me taking any more time to go through your images trying to understand what you're seeing is not in the cards, but if you post one you think is good I'll give it a look, for free, no charge , gratis.

I don't know if you look at the photos the same way as you read but I didn't say I made my mind up yet

By saying x20 could take much better quality pictures I had in mind these ones... (maybe I should have said that... I didn't mean to offend anyone...)

https://www.pentaxforums.com/gallery/images/5290/large/1_SPB_8091.jpg
https://farm3.staticflickr.com/2925/14344594673_7db76dac13_b.jpg
https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/members/65841-bobkits/albums/8456-smc-pen...cture75656.jpg
https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/members/65841-bobkits/albums/8456-smc-pen...cture75703.jpg
https://www.flickr.com/photos/the_troy_collection/9061187290/in/pool-1644023@N24/
https://www.flickr.com/photos/ohiobuckeye/10732419524/in/pool-1644023@N24/

but I am still in opinion x20 would do much better work than 18-135 did for you with Some images I took yesterday with the 18-135... especially in case where there were no green parts (trees, grass, etc.)

Many photos from this album look soft, out of details or like an old scan of a picture... http://i1132.photobucket.com/albums/m579/Norm_Head/Summers/2014-summer/Hunts...50af574.jpg?73

I think the main reason would be the website compression or something... but if you don't see it, looking at the same picutres I do, something is wrong >

I am barely an amateur and maybe my photo quality expectations are unreal but I saw lots of pictures ( even with same 18-135 and I was amazed with the quality ) and I know what I like / want.


I would love to give you some of my photos to evalute but how can I do that if I am alone not happy with the quality of them After all, this is the main reason I have sold x20 and want to pay 2x more and get 2x more quality out of it.

Once again mr former photography teacher I am not criticizing your photo taking ability (after all who am I to judge such things!) I merely point that I really don't liek the technical quality of the picture becasue of 18-135lense.

It is much easier to take photos with great gear as everything looks amazing even photos of a crap.

[tibbitts]

The 18-135 seems to be a very polarizing lens: some love it, some hate it, some feel it's just so-so. I have no experience with it, but can guess that the variation in experiences may be partly, or even mostly, due to poor quality control. So as with every other lens, even those built into a body, you have to test it thoroughly and may have to exchange a few before you get a good copy. That's not just a Pentax issue; it applies equally to other brands as well.

But I think the far bigger issue is how you're judging quality and what your expectations are. You can find some amazing photos on this forum that were made with older 6mp bodies and kit lenses, or with other lenses that have a reputation for being soft. But the net result of the lens and body and skill of the photographer, both during and after the exposure, yielded a sharp, contrasty image. PP is incredibly important and has to be tuned to the specific image and the way you're going to view the output. Just throwing an APS-C sensor at the problem isn't going to eliminate the need for doing that work when it comes to getting the best results in terms of resolving tiny blades of grass or distant foliage.

As for your cat issue, while a longer lens can help photograph something from a distance, it comes with its own demanding requirements. What you may gain in being able to magnify the subject, you may lose to the smaller aperture, and/or greater sensitivity to focus and camera movement.

Regarding Norm's images I'm not understanding the criticism; it wouldn't have occurred to me to think they were lacking in sharpness. But I've seen images from smaller sensors too that I felt the same way about.

---

Last edited by tibbitts; 07-19-2014 at 08:17 AM.

[tgchan]

Amazing photos which I love, taken from the same 18-135 lenses (but again... I couldn't find any I like with grass/trees/leaves etc.):

http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8294/7707194836_e751fafdf1_b.jpg
https://farm4.staticflickr.com/3617/13023481173_386f9b845d_z.jpg
https://farm3.staticflickr.com/2909/14027311790_9a50abd4b3_c.jpg
https://farm4.staticflickr.com/3763/13782903644_977f22e085_z.jpg
https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/members/71687-tartanlens/albums/8485-begi...cture75939.png
http://i161.photobucket.com/albums/t222/PALADIN85020/boats_at_sunset-wallpaper.jpg
https://www.flickr.com/photos/126085859@N02/14455686330/

It looks like most cameras/lenses struggle with green parts... grass, leaves, trees, etc. too much details? becasue of constaly moving parts?

Yea after little research I can see that even top cameras/lenses got problem with taking still image of green stuff and make it look like the human eye sees it :/

---------- Post added 07-19-14 at 03:52 PM ----------

(sry I can't edit yet)



I even started to doubt myself heh...

but really http://i1132.photobucket.com/albums/...50af574.jpg?73 doesn't that photo look washed, pale etc like a poor scan of a great photo?

Another thought about x100 vs any dslr in general that comes to my mind is that after body dies you still got left lenses which is great. So anoither time you can buy only body.

[normhead]

but really http://i1132.photobucket.com/albums/...50af574.jpg?73 doesn't that photo look washed, pale etc like a poor scan of a great photo?

You're talking about atmospheric conditions.... in that case,....

But you've got some good stuff here.... first let me start off by saying this picture and many of your pictures are excellent.... I just didn't find them... this image takes full advantage of the DoF advantage of the smaller sensor, you'd have to stop down quite a bit to get this kind of DoF with an APS-c camera, in a way, if that's your kind of image at that size, then your x-20 is a great camera for it...



I'm going to show you a few more images to show you want you'll see in APS-c though....

x20


18-135


To do a comparison, you have to reduce the images to the same size.... the first thing I want you to look at...is the detail in the flower petals and interior. There is nothing you can do on a sensor half the size to match the resolution of the K-5 and 18-135. Not only does it look more detailed smaller, it will blow up to look nice at twice the size. Now that may or may not be important to you... you can get I'm guessing decent 8x10s from the top image, I'm guessing you can get an equivalent 11x14 from my image.

But more important is the background. Without wanting to be insulting which I'm not, just pointing out the facts, the top image looks messy, compared to the bottom APS-c image, which makes the bottom image stand out a lot more. This is a function of sensor size and lens. Usually the more expensive the lens the better looking the background blur, if this was shot with a 31 ltd, that background would be so creamy you could put it in your coffee. The difference between a fixed lens camera and a DSLR is when I want that effect, I can take the 18-135 off and put the 31 ltd on (except I don't own one, but my Sigma 70 macro would do). This is very important for commercial photography because they are often looking for images they can put text on and flat out of focus backgrounds are perfect for that.

And if you go into the Full Frame threads, you'll see APS-c shooters like myself face the same issues when we consider moving up to Full Frame cameras, with and FF camera or MF camera I can make that background even creamier. Twice as good in your coffee.

So when you consider sensor size those are the kinds of issues you need to look at. How big are you going to print, you will need match the resolution of a larger sensor on a smaller one. APS-c now tops out at 24Mp, the camera You're looking at is 16. FF cameras go to 36 Mp, MF cameras go to 51 MP the x100 is 12. Personally, having shot 12 Mp APS-c my opinion is that 12 Mp is not enough for my use, which includes selling prints at craft sales. You can sell those prints, but you have little room to crop. To me the 16 Mp of the K-30 is optimum for what you are doing at this stage of the game.

But these are the kinds of considerations people go through each time they buy a new camera. That first image i posted is to die for, you've got some talent. But each time you move up to a larger format it gets harder and harder to get an image with that kind of depth of field, but when you nail it, you have an image you can't reproduce using a lower resolution, less MP camera with a smaller sensor. The price you're pay to get that though is messy backgrounds... so I'm not going to tell you going to a larger format will make your life easier, it will make it harder. You'll have to struggle a bit more to get the images you want. And it will change the quality of the images. You'll have more control over exactly how the picture looks, and you'll be able to make larger prints.

The smaller format favours picture like the top one at the size it's shown.... if you were to work specifically in that type of picture at that size, then an X10 will be perfect... if you want more detail for larger prints, and a creamier DoF, you're going to have to go APS-c. and if you want ultimate creamy and size for Digital, you're going to have to go Full Frame or Medium Format.

It's a lot to think about.. but in the end, if you're happy with your x20 you'll probably be thrilled with a x-100. If you go to the K-30 and 18-135, it'll be better than the x100 in many ways... but the real thrill will be when you get some decent lenses. I consider an 18-135 a walk around lens. For the flower images you posted, I wouldn't use it unless I didn't have one of my better lenses handy. The advantage to the DSLR is, you can specialize,(which is a lot more work, you have to learn to work with each lens)... and buy lenses that are designed for what you do. With an x100, it's a one size fits all solution.

[tibbitts]

But you've got some good stuff here.... first let me start off by saying this picture and many of your pictures are excellent.... I just didn't find them...

I'm guessing most of us still can't find them.

[tgchan]

I'm guessing most of us still can't find them.

and once again normhead you didn't understand me (I am begining to think my written english sucks or I am just not making myself clear enough xD)

These photos are taken from SMC Pentax-DA 18-135mm F3.5-5.6 ED AL [IF] DC WR Reviews - DA Zoom Lenses - Pentax Lens Reviews & Lens Database I was just saying that same zoom lense we are talking about 18-135 are able to produce amazing sharp pictures I am in love with.
ou


Anyways I totally agree with dslr and different lenses for different job. The main reason I have decided on 18-135 in first place is that I don't want to carry few lenses with me.

For me photography is like hunting; I go for a walk and I never know what I will like and having 18-135 would cover most if not all scenarios. If I would choose x100 I would be even more limited than I was with x20 (even x20 had 4x zoom which I was using quite often)

90% I will go with k-30 and 18-135 it is the only reasonable thing to do.

[normhead]

and once again normhead you didn't understand me (I am begining to think my written english sucks or I am just not making myself clear enough xD)

One of the joys of the internet.....

Good luck with your decision whichever way....

These photos are taken from SMC Pentax-DA 18-135mm F3.5-5.6 ED AL [IF] DC WR Reviews - DA Zoom Lenses - Pentax Lens Reviews & Lens Database I was just saying that same zoom lense we are talking about 18-135 are able to produce amazing sharp pictures I am in love with.

That's just way too funny..... good examples in any case.....

Just remember the part about, anything you can do with an 18-135, you can do better with another lens, and as soon as you can get some primes in the focal lengths you use most. Looking at what numbers you'll use from the 18-135, will let you know what primes you should look at when you're ready.

[tibbitts]

I think if you were to find a Fuji forum, assuming there is such a thing, you'd find some equally amazing photos there, including some made with an x20. I haven't owned a Fuji since I bought a new ST801 body to use alongside my Spotmatic F (so I could have two ISOs at a time!) so I'm not a Fuji expert, but I just don't think you've reached the point where the camera is the limitation.

My inclination is that a high percentage of any differences you're seeing in the images in this thread have to do with either motion blur, PP sharpening/noise reduction, or ISO selection; not differences in sensor sizes. Norm feels that 16mp APS-C exactly fits his requirements for his work, but you'll find other experts who feel their requirements are met adequately with smaller sensors, or can only be met by FF or MF, etc. etc. Absolutely at some point, especially when you make prints, you run out of capability with whatever size sensor you're using. I went to a seminar by a pro nature photographer once, who hiked with an 8x10inch view camera, and the resolution of details in his huge prints was stunning - probably exactly what you're looking for. But most of us aren't going to make the commitment, physical and financial, to carry that kind of equipment.

[normhead]

I think if you were to find a Fuji forum, assuming there is such a thing, you'd find some equally amazing photos there, including some made with an x20. I haven't owned a Fuji since I bought a new ST801 body to use alongside my Spotmatic F (so I could have two ISOs at a time!) so I'm not a Fuji expert, but I just don't think you've reached the point where the camera is the limitation.

My inclination is that a high percentage of any differences you're seeing in the images in this thread have to do with either motion blur, PP sharpening/noise reduction, or ISO selection; not differences in sensor sizes. Norm feels that 16mp APS-C exactly fits his requirements for his work, but you'll find other experts who feel their requirements are met adequately with smaller sensors, or can only be met by FF or MF, etc. etc. Absolutely at some point, especially when you make prints, you run out of capability with whatever size sensor you're using. I went to a seminar by a pro nature photographer once, who hiked with an 8x10inch view camera, and the resolution of details in his huge prints was stunning - probably exactly what you're looking for. But most of us aren't going to make the commitment, physical and financial, to carry that kind of equipment.

I'd agree with that 100%, especially since I've talked to wedding pros who use 4/3 cameras in a professional capacity for everything but the actual ceremony. I've never used 4/3 but these guys know their stuff, and they say for what they do, the 4/3 fills a role for them. He's also right, I'd love to have 8x10 film images, but i'm not carrying one of those things, and besides, I think 4x5 film is about as big as you can get these days, and I'm not carrying that either.

[tgchan]

Yea guys it is slowly getting to me... I am chasing something that is barely posible with top gear...

Thank you for all this input. I really appreciate it!

Hopefully I will post my own shots with k-30 soon