Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
01-12-2011, 09:43 PM   #31
Senior Member
Metalwizards's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Santa Cruz
Photos: Albums
Posts: 124
I vote for K-r. The screen is AWESOME, and the k-x has a really terrible screen, I end up using the screen a lot for manual focusing. Also comes with a battery, has focus points in VF, imo K-r is worth the extra $80.

01-16-2011, 08:48 AM   #32
Veteran Member




Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Houston, Texas
Posts: 758
QuoteOriginally posted by Taobat Quote
VT is the US postal abbreviation for the state of Vermont, so I always read your tag as "Unknown Vermont" and then remember it's Vincent Tseng... Thanks again for the great shots and perspective.
Well, LOL. I thought I was the only one to read this as "Unknown Vermont"!

I certainly agree that the photos are great, and thanks for sharing. They really do look nice and make me wish I was there.

I'm a little confused about 200 mm vs. 300 mm, as a lot of people talk about enjoying the "extra reach" of the 55-300mm lens. I have the 55-300 and like it (never had the 50-200, so cannot compare; size of it is attractive, though). When I compare the image I see at 300mm, it just does not look that much larger than the image I see when zoomed to 200 mm. I "expect" the image at 300 mm to look 50% larger than it does at 200 mm, but it does not. Am I seeing this wrong? Does focal length not translate into magnification? I realize that I'm not really interested in anything about focal length - it is magnification that I'm interested in. If 300 mm does not really get you much more magnification than 200 mm, then the 50-200 mm lens is really a great value and performer, especially if the 50 wide end gets you a little more scene than the 55 wide end. Thanks. Glenn
01-16-2011, 11:56 AM   #33
Veteran Member




Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: USA
Posts: 1,812
QuoteOriginally posted by Taobat Quote
VT is the US postal abbreviation for the state of Vermont, so I always read your tag as "Unknown Vermont" and then remember it's Vincent Tseng... Thanks again for the great shots and perspective.
QuoteOriginally posted by GlennG Quote
Well, LOL. I thought I was the only one to read this as "Unknown Vermont"!
Ha-ha! That's the whole point,
and an inadvertent benefit of being "Unknown" -
you may have thought VT came from Vermont -
but do you know where the Unknown came from?

QuoteOriginally posted by GlennG Quote
I'm a little confused about 200 mm vs. 300 mm, as a lot of people talk about enjoying the "extra reach" of the 55-300mm lens. I have the 55-300 and like it (never had the 50-200, so cannot compare; size of it is attractive, though). When I compare the image I see at 300mm, it just does not look that much larger than the image I see when zoomed to 200 mm. I "expect" the image at 300 mm to look 50% larger than it does at 200 mm, but it does not. Am I seeing this wrong? Does focal length not translate into magnification? I realize that I'm not really interested in anything about focal length - it is magnification that I'm interested in. If 300 mm does not really get you much more magnification than 200 mm, then the 50-200 mm lens is really a great value and performer, especially if the 50 wide end gets you a little more scene than the 55 wide end. Thanks. Glenn
Thank you for the compliments.

Glenn, 300mm ought to show things 1.5x larger than 200mm -

Here's a comparison of 200 vs 300mm I found on the web
- nicely done showing a car (about 1/2 way down and an outline on the wider 200mm shot with an equivalent of the 300mm crop)

In the case of my Atlanta Jazz Fest photos of Stanley Clarke in Post #16 above I could have done better if I had the 300mm reach - no doubt. However as it was, I just tried to utilize the 200mm to the best advantage of showing 3/4 length "action" - whereas if I had 300mm I probably could have gotten 1/2 length shots - more closeup if you like......

However, as mentioned the benefits of having that seemingly insignificant 5mm shorter/wider allowed me to get the almost (not quite) the full stage from where I was - and that alone was well worth it....

Link to first photo of series (of 21)

The only argument I can make is with the 55-300mm I could not have got that stage shot, whereas I could have cropped any of my 200mm shots to get the 300mm view - albeit with fewer Mp and therefore at "lower quality" - but since I have 12Mp to play with and I only normally print to 10x8 this is more than adequate - and as for posting on the web - I could get away with 2Mp!

Last edited by UnknownVT; 01-16-2011 at 12:27 PM.
01-16-2011, 12:32 PM   #34
Veteran Member




Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Houston, Texas
Posts: 758
Thanks, Vincent. I should take some photos for my own comparison like they did in the link you provided. That is a lot more difference than I thought I was seeing. One of the posters in the link above the car shots also stated that the difference between 200 and 300 was "insignificant". At any rate, the photos showed a notable difference.

I have also fought the "stage" problem when I've tried to shoot church plays and dance recitals. A long lens can't get wide enough and a shorter lens can't zoom to get individuals. To top it off it is often dark, and you the photographer are trying not to be noticed. Tough circumstances all the way around. And you are quite correct in noting that with enough MP's you can always crop. You did marvelously well with the Atlanta Jazz photos, though. Very nice! Thank you again. Glenn

01-16-2011, 01:26 PM   #35
Veteran Member




Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: USA
Posts: 1,812
QuoteOriginally posted by GlennG Quote
One of the posters in the link above the car shots also stated that the difference between 200 and 300 was "insignificant". At any rate, the photos showed a notable difference.
It's also partly our own expectations - the extra reach of the 300mm is not as dramatic as we expect - so we swing the other way to think there isn't that much difference.

However having shot at 200mm wishing for more reach - I kind of know better.

If the poster had not put that red outline in the shots then the differences would not be quite as obvious - and yet it would be the same pictures.....

Take a look at this other post I also found on the web to see what I mean.
the difference just does not seem quite as significant........ and yet the car shots....?

Think of it this way - there is a 1.5x difference in magnification - this is only linearly - so by area it's 1.5x1.5 = 2.25x - so the red outlined area in the 200mm car shot would be less that 1/2 the area of the full frame - that's cropping a 12Mp full frame shot to 5.3Mp..........

QuoteOriginally posted by GlennG Quote
I have also fought the "stage" problem when I've tried to shoot church plays and dance recitals. A long lens can't get wide enough and a shorter lens can't zoom to get individuals. To top it off it is often dark, and you the photographer are trying not to be noticed. Tough circumstances all the way around. And you are quite correct in noting that with enough MP's you can always crop.
Thank you again for your kind words.

I've shot quiet environments like concerts in churches too - but changing lenses was not a major problem - of course there were always tiimes when I wished I had the other zoom on the K-x - but if one organizes one's shoot this can be mostly avoided - eg: plan to shoot the overall scene/stage then individuals/close-ups - then there would be fewer lens changes for the session. But indoors I have far less qualms about changing lenses - but being logical/organized about what to shoot helps minimize changes.



01-19-2011, 06:18 PM   #36
Junior Member




Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 44
Original Poster
Do you ever feel that the shutter noise is disturbingly loud with the K-x? I don't see this as a problem at club with a band--but how was it shooting in a church with the K-x?
01-19-2011, 06:36 PM   #37
Veteran Member




Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: USA
Posts: 1,812
QuoteOriginally posted by Taobat Quote
Do you ever feel that the shutter noise is disturbingly loud with the K-x? I don't see this as a problem at club with a band--but how was it shooting in a church with the K-x?
No, not really - because at most of my gigs - they know that I am there to take photos - so in that way it is not disturbing.

If however they were say recording (very rare) - or I was shooting during a recording session in a studio - then I know to only take photos while they are not recording - eg: during practice/rehearsal etc - or I can even ask the musician to play something while I take photos.

Also I often shoot with a Canon G10 compact with all sound/beeps turned off.

Mostly it's simple common-sense and -courtesy
03-30-2011, 01:06 PM   #38
Junior Member




Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 44
Original Poster
Thanks again for all the excellent advice, Vincent.

Simple common sense and courtesy are always a good approach!

I usually have my G9 in silent mode--when I lend it to people they often ask if it's working because the click is too quiet.

As it happens I can't justify the K-5, despite the good intentions of my wife, and the K-x is no longer to be had at B&H, so I ordered a K-r.

Thanks again.

03-30-2011, 02:37 PM   #39
Veteran Member




Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: USA
Posts: 1,812
QuoteOriginally posted by Taobat Quote
As it happens I can't justify the K-5, despite the good intentions of my wife, and the K-x is no longer to be had at B&H, so I ordered a K-r.
Thank you for your kind words.

Congrats on your order of the K-r - it's a fine camera - and by waiting hopefully the price had dropped from their initial heady heights.

The K-x is still available from reputable vendors -
but the 50-200 twin lens kit is no longer the bargain it was -
whereas the 55-300 twin lens kit is still reasonably well priced at about $650 shipped
(only $20 more than the low priced 50-200 kit),
and K-x with just the 18-55 is still ~$490
(I used Google Products search for the prices).

So if anyone has had their eyes on a K-x - probably now is the time to buy - before they become scarce, and the prices go up again.
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!
advice, camera, canon, dslr, k-r, k-x, lens, photography, sense, system
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Lens shade incompatibility! 18-55mm vs 18-55mm WR PALADIN85020 Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 2 11-07-2010 07:56 PM
Why No Twin Kit lens optin for Pentax K-X White (18-55mm & DL 55-300mm) ajaya Ask B&H Photo! 8 06-01-2010 10:12 PM
Large format twin reflex lens, can you split? telfish Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 6 03-04-2010 02:34 PM
DA 18-55mm AL II vs DAL 18-55mm (kit lens) vs DA 18-55mm WR rustynail925 Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 10 01-08-2010 02:06 PM
18-55mm WR compared to the original 18-55mm kit lens HogRider Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 19 11-26-2009 12:01 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 07:09 AM. | 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