Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
01-02-2007, 09:49 AM   #16
Veteran Member




Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 643
"quick question on pentax d50-200. does this has a macro capability???"

i dont think so but the sigma does... he he he



come on guys i know brand loyalty is one thing but how much selling doe this "classic" lens take.. he he he

trog

01-02-2007, 10:07 AM   #17
Veteran Member
Tom Lusk's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2006
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 972
Nope!

No macro capability on the 50-200, unfortunately.
01-02-2007, 05:59 PM   #18
Site Supporter
Sailor's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Coastal Texas
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 18,811
Clarence, I've simply not got the patience for good bird pictures, but I include here a couple of shots I took yesterday of stationary leaves with my DA 50-200/K10D in bright sunlight. Both were shot at 200 mm, RAW and converted to JPEG with Bibble (with which I'm experimenting). These pictures illustrate the value of contrast that others mentioned when using a lens like this.

f/6.7 @ 1/350 s:



f/11 @ 1/180 s:



In my younger (film) days I shot primarily telephoto, but in my older - really older - digital days, I don't use focal lengths above 100 mm very much and thus have little interest in spending a bunch of bucks or lugging a big honking lens around. Consequently, I like the light-weight DA 50-200; it's performance is good enough for my bleary eyes - particularly with its low price tag.

Jer
01-02-2007, 06:52 PM   #19
Veteran Member




Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 643
that one has had a little too much post processing saturation and sharpening thow.. i strongly suspect a jpeg straight from the camera would look better.. the leaves are verging on the phosphorescent

nice but overdone.

trog

01-03-2007, 09:26 AM   #20
Veteran Member
clarenceclose's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Pocatello, Idaho
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,518
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by WMBP Quote
[*]Used manual focus. Branches seem to drive auto-focus crazy.[*]Increased depth of field at least slightly (f/9 in the shot of the woodpecker vs f/7 and f/5.8 in the other two shots)[*]Better lighting AND a decent lighting angle, as sun was behind me[*]Fast shutter[/LIST]I want to say that manual focus was the key, but really, it's a package deal. Took some other shots where depth of field was very shallow and got the bird's head in focus but not his tail. TOO much depth of field and I have branches in front of the bird coming into focus and harming the shot.

Fast shutter (with SR on) seems important. I can't shoot birds well with a tripod. They move around too much. Even the monopod is a pain. The fast shutter helps not just with camera shake but also with something that's a problem even when you use a tripod: the movement of the bird. Even at 1/500s, I have some shots of the woodpecker where his head is a blur as he's pecking.

In short, this is hard! :-)

Will
Will,

Thanks for the inputs. Sometimes I get to down thinking 'I can do this magic' and I overrun my logical thinking about the light, the speed and the aperature. The above helps get me back on track and encouraged.

I will not be buying any lenses for a time as I am on payment plan for the K10 and the 50-200 so I will make the best of them for now.

More time outside in the bright sunlight is not only good for photography of these subjects but essential to my personal needs for time with nature. Honing a birding skill will get me out quite a bit. Sometimes I wish the camera was attached to my head and driven by my thoughts as I can see good photos fast but they can disappear just as fast. Perhaps I need that USB2 or Firewire implant.

I am guilty of shooting to fast, thinking I have much a much better shot than the conditions warrents. Am learning about shooting moving things and birds are probably the most difficult as they never seem to hold still.

Appreciate your advice and thoughts.

Clarence
01-03-2007, 09:31 AM   #21
Veteran Member
clarenceclose's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Pocatello, Idaho
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,518
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by Sailor Quote
Both were shot at 200 mm, RAW and converted to JPEG with Bibble (with which I'm experimenting). These pictures illustrate the value of contrast that others mentioned when using a lens like this.

f/6.7 @ 1/350 s:

f/11 @ 1/180 s:

In my younger (film) days I shot primarily telephoto, but in my older - really older - digital days, I don't use focal lengths above 100 mm very much and thus have little interest in spending a bunch of bucks or lugging a big honking lens around. Consequently, I like the light-weight DA 50-200; it's performance is good enough for my bleary eyes - particularly with its low price tag.

Jer
Jer,
Your photos show the evidence of better light and higher contrast allowing a much clearer capture. I will have to concentrate on the upper speed ranges as my eyes too are tired and my hand prone to more shaking than I would like.
Thanks for the shots and advice. Slipchuck has also counceled me to try RAW for a sharper image. Will experiment and, hopefully with all of your respected inputs, will see some improvement in my skills.
Clarence
01-03-2007, 11:14 AM   #22
Veteran Member




Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 643
i think u are a raw convert clarence but one alternative i would consider is.. trust your camera.. take burst jpeg shots never just the one.. say burts of five.. inspect the result and learn from them..

raw is not the be all and end all to good photographs.. in fact i think in your case its getting in the way of good photographs and slowing down your picture taking learning curve..

best of luck

trog

Last edited by trog100; 01-03-2007 at 11:49 AM.
01-03-2007, 11:52 AM   #23
Veteran Member
WMBP's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Dallas, Texas
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,496
QuoteOriginally posted by clarenceclose Quote
I will have to concentrate on the upper speed ranges as my eyes too are tired and my hand prone to more shaking than I would like.
Thanks for the shots and advice. Slipchuck has also counceled me to try RAW for a sharper image.
Clarence,

As I said earlier, you and I are struggling with very similar issues - the difficulties of shooting birds, plus the difficulty of learning the new and exciting camera. I do have a comment, though, about RAW. I'm flirting with it myself, now, and I expect I'll be moving to RAW sometime soon (not sure whether very soon, or later in the year). But the problems you and I both have with the birds are ones that RAW is not going to cure. We need to get closer to the birds and/or get longer lenses; we need to figure out how to improve focus, possibly by increasing depth of field; we need at the same time to bump the shutter speed up as high as possible to get crisp shots of birds that have a tendency to flit about very rapidly; and finally we need to eliminate camera shake. If you had a nice sharp picture - could see the individual "hairs" on the bird's feathers - but the color or exposure was a bit off, RAW would help you. But RAW isn't going to correct focus or movement problems.

In a thread I started here on the subject of RAW, I posted a summary earlier today about what I've learned recently. I referred to an excellent pro-RAW article which you can find here. On page 3 of that article, the author does talk about the ways in which RAW files can make the picture look better. This is good stuff to know. But read it carefully. The additional precision that RAW can provide appears only when you're looking VERY closely at the images. The author mentions differences that become noticeable when you print at 11x16.

RAW looks like a good thing in many ways, and I remain very interested in learning more about it. But I am sure that the problems or imperfections in my own bird photos are due to operator error, not a fault in the file format I'm using to save the images; and I suspect that's true for you, as well.

Will

01-03-2007, 02:52 PM   #24
Veteran Member
clarenceclose's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Pocatello, Idaho
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,518
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by WMBP Quote
But I am sure that the problems or imperfections in my own bird photos are due to operator error, not a fault in the file format I'm using to save the images; and I suspect that's true for you, as well.

Will
No arguement on my part. Always looking to improve the original then enhance in editing software. GIGO, right?
CC
01-03-2007, 02:55 PM   #25
Veteran Member
clarenceclose's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Pocatello, Idaho
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,518
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by trog100 Quote
i think u are a raw convert clarence but one alternative i would consider is.. trust your camera.. take burst jpeg shots never just the one.. say burts of five.. inspect the result and learn from them..

raw is not the be all and end all to good photographs.. in fact i think in your case its getting in the way of good photographs and slowing down your picture taking learning curve..

best of luck

trog
Will try the burst mode at greater DOF once I get some better light as I can see that would hopefully help getting that one capture movement shot that 'makes the day'. Thanks.
CC
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, focus, photography, quality
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 07:58 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