Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
11-05-2011, 09:16 AM   #31
Veteran Member




Join Date: May 2011
Location: Southern California
Photos: Albums
Posts: 4,082
It's the whole package. Skill, lighting, lenses, body and post processing work. I think the cheapest, high quality, lens you can get for what you want is the Tamron 90/2.8 macro. You can get one for 300-350 used, and it is very sharp. You have the studio, so you should have the lighting. The K20D produces excellent images at lower ISO, so you have the body. The other things will just take some practice.

11-05-2011, 09:29 AM   #32
Forum Member




Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Western PA
Posts: 67
Original Poster
One of the other things that really got me wondering about this was a recent trip I took with our
Boy Scout troop. We have a large elk herd not too far away, so we took the boys on a little trip to observe them.
One of the other parents had a Nikon D3100 with the kit lens. We both stood in the same spot, with
the same lighting, taking photos of the same scene, yet her images just totally blew mine away in quality,
color, sharpness, etc. She had her camera set on full auto and AF, just like me.

Now, I've been into photography for over 40 years, and back when I used my Minolta, I won many
contests, awards, etc, so I cant believe its totally me.

Maybe I do need a K5 (or a Nikon - lol).
11-05-2011, 09:35 AM   #33
Site Supporter
stevebrot's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Vancouver (USA)
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 26,210
Even though I seldom shoot portraits, I will add my 2-cents...
  • Most quality fast-50s will work great for APS-C
  • So will lenses up to about 85mm
  • The limit on the wide side is about 35mm
  • Maximum aperture f/2.8 or wider is useful to limit DOF
  • Manual focus may be a plus depending DOF. There are times when you can't allow the camera to choose the point of focus.
  • Bokeh is VERY important. Pixy dust helps too. Absolute sharpness is not quite so important.
I have gotten great results on the K10D with my FA 35/2, FA 77/1.8, Jupiter-8 85/2, and any of my fast 50s.


Steve
11-05-2011, 09:36 AM   #34
Pentaxian
builttospill's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Utah, Idaho
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,642
While there have been a lot of great suggestions here I'm surprised the 43 hasn't been suggested more, especially for use in a studio where a 90, 100 and other macros might be a little long. If you want the best you may want to consider picking up two lenses, something like the 31 and 70, or the 43 and 77, or the 55 and 85/90.

If you haven't yet taken a look at the FA Limited lens club, or the DA Limited club, you should browse those threads for a bit to see if there are examples of what you're looking for.

11-05-2011, 09:39 AM   #35
Veteran Member




Join Date: May 2011
Location: Southern California
Photos: Albums
Posts: 4,082
QuoteOriginally posted by jeryst Quote

Maybe I do need a K5 (or a Nikon - lol).
The newer camera might do better JPEG processing than your K20D, but that's something you can easily match with lightroom, etc. If you don't want to be a RAW shooter then you're going to want something with excellent built in JPEG processing. If you want to do serious studio work though, you're going to have to become comfortable with post processing RAW images. The Nikon D5100, D7000, Pentax K-5 and Sony Nex-5N all have great JPEG output though.
11-05-2011, 09:52 AM   #36
Pentaxian
builttospill's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Utah, Idaho
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,642
QuoteOriginally posted by jeryst Quote
She had her camera set on full auto..., just like me.
There's your problem right there. Don't let your camera choose all the settings or you might as well be using a p&s camera. One of the biggest advantages to using a dslr is you get to decide the settings, creating the style or output you desire. I also have a friend with a Nikon 3000 or 3100. She was showing me some of her pictures and asked for help. I took the camera and changed to manual exposure, dialed in what I wanted and quickly snapped a few shots. She was blown away by the difference in my shots and hers with the same camera and lens.

I am more than happy with my K10D and haven't had any desire to move to the K-5. My camera is older than yours. It's not your camera. Try some different settings and lenses and see if that helps.
11-05-2011, 10:19 AM   #37
Pentaxian
RonHendriks1966's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2009
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 8,556
Maybe your lenses aren't that good adjust to your camera, there is a way to adjust those two together. Read the manual for this.

Your 18-55 should be possible to give nice sharp images set at base iso, f9, using flash and 40mm. Otherwise there is something wrong with eiter lens or camera.
11-05-2011, 11:50 AM   #38
Forum Member




Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Western PA
Posts: 67
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by builttospill Quote
There's your problem right there. Don't let your camera choose all the settings or you might as well be using a p&s camera. One of the biggest advantages to using a dslr is you get to decide the settings, creating the style or output you desire. I also have a friend with a Nikon 3000 or 3100. She was showing me some of her pictures and asked for help. I took the camera and changed to manual exposure, dialed in what I wanted and quickly snapped a few shots. She was blown away by the difference in my shots and hers with the same camera and lens.

I am more than happy with my K10D and haven't had any desire to move to the K-5. My camera is older than yours. It's not your camera. Try some different settings and lenses and see if that helps.
I was just using this as a point of comparison. The shots werent important shots, so I just threw it into auto mode.
Yet with both cameras on auto, hers were far superior, especially in sharpness and color.

Ron, I downloaded your head shot of the blond woman so that I could look at it more closely. Even after I enlarged it to the point that her lips filled the screen, I could easily see her pores, with no pixels, noise, whatever. Coming from the screen, it is not a high resolution photo, yet the detail is amazing. My full resolution photos, however, dont look anywhere as near as good, even though they are higher resolution and I didnt enlarge them as much. My images are not as sharp, and I can see pixels in my shot where I cant see them in yours. Did you do any type of post processing? Was the original a raw image or a Jpeg?

11-05-2011, 11:59 AM   #39
Pentaxian
RonHendriks1966's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2009
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 8,556
QuoteOriginally posted by jeryst Quote
I was just using this as a point of comparison. The shots werent important shots, so I just threw it into auto mode.
Yet with both cameras on auto, hers were far superior, especially in sharpness and color.

Ron, I downloaded your head shot of the blond woman so that I could look at it more closely. Even after I enlarged it to the point that her lips filled the screen, I could easily see her pores, with no pixels, noise, whatever. Coming from the screen, it is not a high resolution photo, yet the detail is amazing. My full resolution photos, however, dont look anywhere as near as good, even though they are higher resolution and I didnt enlarge them as much. My images are not as sharp, and I can see pixels in my shot where I cant see them in yours. Did you do any type of post processing? Was the original a raw image or a Jpeg?
PM me your emailadress and I will send you a pictures wich will make you buy a K-5 this night
11-05-2011, 12:32 PM   #40
Pentaxian
RonHendriks1966's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2009
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 8,556
QuoteOriginally posted by jeryst Quote
Ron, I downloaded your head shot of the blond woman so that I could look at it more closely. Even after I enlarged it to the point that her lips filled the screen, I could easily see her pores, with no pixels, noise, whatever. Coming from the screen, it is not a high resolution photo, yet the detail is amazing. My full resolution photos, however, dont look anywhere as near as good, even though they are higher resolution and I didnt enlarge them as much. My images are not as sharp, and I can see pixels in my shot where I cant see them in yours. Did you do any type of post processing? Was the original a raw image or a Jpeg?
I sended you a Private Message.
11-05-2011, 01:53 PM   #41
Veteran Member
joe.penn's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Maryland (Right Outside Washington DC)
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 2,902
Ok Ron & jeryst, instead of pm'img the classified information back and fourth, get a room would ya!




--
11-05-2011, 02:57 PM   #42
Veteran Member
Ken T's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: California, USA
Posts: 537
QuoteOriginally posted by jeryst Quote
One of the other things that really got me wondering about this was a recent trip I took with our
Boy Scout troop. We have a large elk herd not too far away, so we took the boys on a little trip to observe them.
One of the other parents had a Nikon D3100 with the kit lens. We both stood in the same spot, with
the same lighting, taking photos of the same scene, yet her images just totally blew mine away in quality,
color, sharpness, etc. She had her camera set on full auto and AF, just like me.

Now, I've been into photography for over 40 years, and back when I used my Minolta, I won many
contests, awards, etc, so I cant believe its totally me.

Maybe I do need a K5 (or a Nikon - lol).
My case is different . I have K-20D, one of my friends has Nikon D3100 . After seeing the pictures from my K-20 from time to time, she wants to buy Pentax and keeps asking me to sell her my K-20D .

(I 've never used Auto Mode, only TAv or M)
11-05-2011, 03:27 PM   #43
Pentaxian
Wheatfield's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: The wheatfields of Canada
Posts: 10,043
QuoteOriginally posted by builttospill Quote
While there have been a lot of great suggestions here I'm surprised the 43 hasn't been suggested more, especially for use in a studio where a 90, 100 and other macros might be a little long. If you want the best you may want to consider picking up two lenses, something like the 31 and 70, or the 43 and 77, or the 55 and 85/90.

If you haven't yet taken a look at the FA Limited lens club, or the DA Limited club, you should browse those threads for a bit to see if there are examples of what you're looking for.
I'm surprised I didn't mention it. I suppose it's because I haven't had the opportunity yet to take the 43 into the studio and use it. At the same time, it wouldn't be my first choice because it is a little short for what I consider an ideal portrait length.
OTOH, the 70 is quite lovely.
This is pretty much straight out of the K7.
The crop below is 100% with a very little sharpening.
As an aside, for all the flack the K7 takes for poor high ISO performance, it's low ISO imaging quality is superb. This was done with one light.
Attached Images
   
11-05-2011, 07:33 PM   #44
Veteran Member
stormtech's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: In the boonies (NW Penna)
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 5,670
QuoteOriginally posted by jeryst Quote
I was just using this as a point of comparison. The shots weren't important shots, so I just threw it into auto mode.
Yet with both cameras on auto, hers were far superior, especially in sharpness and color.
I am starting to get pretty comfortable with my K20D, and when reading this thread, the first thing that comes to my mind is your ISO setting - what range do you have your ISO set?

The K20D is fantastic from ISO 100-400 - at ISO 800 you will start to see some grain, and above that it gets pretty bad. I do shoot raw however, and even my ISO 800 shots clean up nicely enough to pixel peep.

I'd like to know what your ISO is set at if you are getting bad results.
11-05-2011, 07:58 PM   #45
Veteran Member
RioRico's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Limbo, California
Posts: 11,264
QuoteOriginally posted by stormtech Quote
The K20D is fantastic from ISO 100-400 - at ISO 800 you will start to see some grain, and above that it gets pretty bad. I do shoot raw however, and even my ISO 800 shots clean up nicely enough to pixel peep.
The K20D shows noise IN DARK AREAS above ISO 1000. If the scene is well-lit, with no black regions, then noise isn't really noticeable until ISO 2000 or even higher.

Then comes a decision: Is a noisy shot better or worse than no shot at all?
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, dslr, lens, photography, portrait, portrait lens
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
K20d Portrait Lens Murphy2004 Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 37 12-29-2010 11:31 AM
Whats your favorite camera/lens combo? yeatzee Photographic Technique 31 09-29-2010 12:36 PM
Whats a good upgrade lens for k-x? hockmasm Troubleshooting and Beginner Help 35 09-27-2010 05:35 PM
Whats the best lens test ? Uncle_dad Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 5 02-01-2010 06:29 AM
whats with all these odd-named lens? privateryan Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 13 12-07-2009 09:13 AM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 04:08 PM. | See also: NikonForums.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