Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
02-05-2009, 08:37 AM   #16
Pentaxian
Marc Sabatella's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Denver, CO
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 10,686
Right, so don't get 2 or 3 to cover the whole range - get one for now. You'll get *far* better pictures in low light with that one focal length - despite the fact that you can't zoom in or out - than you will shooting a zoom with too slow a shutter speed. If you want AF, it will cost $200 to get the 50 or 40, so if that sounds steep, go for the cheap 50.

QuoteQuote:
Earlier models don't provide the size & resolution that I'd like for certain projects like Blurb books--they print in 300dpi so 10MP is the minimum I can use for full bleed 8x10 book
While *technically* true - a 6MP camera might work out to "only" 250 dpi or thereabouts - it's not like a 6Mp camera wouldn't work. you just wouldn't get the full resolution - it would be upsampled as necessary in the print software. And I can pretty much guarantee you would *not* be able to tell the difference at normal viewing distances between an 8x10 print made from a 10MP camera verus 6MP. People print 8x10 all the time from 6MP cameras.


Last edited by Marc Sabatella; 02-05-2009 at 05:56 PM.
02-05-2009, 12:23 PM   #17
Veteran Member
indytax's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Indianapolis, Indiana, USA
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 312
Original Poster
Advantage of the DA 40 Ltd. over the FA 50

QuoteOriginally posted by Marc Sabatella Quote
If you want AF, it will cost $200 to get the 50 or 40, so if that sounds steep, go for the cheap 50.
Any opinion of the Ltd. 40 over the 50? In general, not just for low light. I've looked at the 40 but I wonder if the 60mm equiv. isn't an awkward focal length.

I've found this very helpful.
02-05-2009, 12:55 PM   #18
Senior Member




Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: San Jose, CA
Posts: 281
Need the Speed

QuoteOriginally posted by indytax Quote
Any opinion of the Ltd. 40 over the 50? In general, not just for low light. I've looked at the 40 but I wonder if the 60mm equiv. isn't an awkward focal length.

I've found this very helpful.
I don't have the DA40 but the FA50 was my second lens purchase (go the kit lens with the camera) and I have never regretted it. It is too long for family group shots indoors but perfect for single subject portrait shots. The DA40 is a great lens, by all accounts, but if you need f2 to get the shot that you want, it falls a bit short. My FA50 is very sharp in the center at f2 and I don't hesitate to shoot portraits with it at that aperture.
The only lens that I use more than the FA50 indoors is the FA31 Limited, but then we are talking about a budget buster!
02-05-2009, 06:00 PM   #19
Pentaxian
Marc Sabatella's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Denver, CO
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 10,686
QuoteOriginally posted by indytax Quote
Any opinion of the Ltd. 40 over the 50? In general, not just for low light. I've looked at the 40 but I wonder if the 60mm equiv. isn't an awkward focal length.
I got the 40 after already owning a 50 for a couple of years, specifically because I found the 50 to be an awkward focal length - too long for many candids, not long enough for most portraits (and I'm more interested in candid than portraits usually anyhow). I happen to think 40mm is the single most useful length for me on APS-C, and my use of the 18-55 bears this out - way more use around that length than anywhere else on the dial. But everyone sees things differently. If you've got a zoom and some software that can organize your pictures by focal length (I use ACDSee), you can get a pretty good idea of what focal lengths you actually use the most (and which focal lengths you use most in which situations).

BTW, while it is true that *sometimes* f/2.8 isn't fast enough to get a properly exposed shot, that doesn't happen nearly as often as the number of times a 50 was just too long. And you can always shoot underexposed at f/2.8 and then push the result in PP (or simply shoot at higher ISO if you weren't already maxed out). Sure, you get a bit more noise, but that cleans up if it bothers you. Whereas DOF can be shallow enough at f/2 that's it's really tough to get a picture you like, anyhow. Unless of course you were specifically after a shallow DOF effect. And I do keep my (manual focus) 50 around - mostly for extreme low light (like, three or four times a year) or when I have a notion to do something that requires extremely shallow DOF.

02-07-2009, 09:12 AM   #20
Forum Member




Join Date: Jan 2009
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 67
Marc - did you have any level of noise reduction on those shots?
02-07-2009, 09:55 AM   #21
Veteran Member
kristoffon's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Brazil
Posts: 532
Use flash.

The builtin flash is MUCH more powerful already than a compact camera's. If you want to get fancy get a flash unit with swivel head to bounce light off the ceiling and get a more natural light.
02-07-2009, 11:18 AM   #22
Pentaxian
Marc Sabatella's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Denver, CO
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 10,686
QuoteOriginally posted by Edward B. Quote
Marc - did you have any level of noise reduction on those shots?
No in-camera NR, since I was shooting RAW. They were converted in ACDSee Pro, which does no NR by default. For the simulated ISO 3200 shot, I added a very small amount comparable to what typical in-camera JPEG processing might have done; the others had no NR added.

I could have cranked up the NR in the simulated ISO 3200 shot to pretty much eliminate the grain, but NR always comes at a price in detail. And one of the things I like about the K200D over the 6MP cameras is that they capture more detail. Depending on your software and your patience/skill for operating it, you can find pretty much whatever balance you like between detail and noise. It's possible, I think, to end up with both slightly *more* detail and slightly *less* less noise than the 6MP cameras, but mostly, I'm happier trading a little noise for more detail. I'd say my simulated ISO 3200 shot as processed has about the same level of noise but noticeably more detail than what the K100D would have produced.

Last edited by Marc Sabatella; 02-07-2009 at 11:31 AM.
02-07-2009, 07:49 PM   #23
Inactive Account




Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Dallas Texas
Posts: 319
K200d @ ISO 1600 using my Sigma 70-300mm fully extended and hand held, Pentax and it's shake reduction are a winner in my book.

Barry



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, iso, k200d, performance, photography
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
K-5 low light/High ISO samples johnmflores Pentax K-5 21 04-19-2011 05:03 PM
K-r vs. K-x in high ISO performance bwDraco Pentax DSLR Discussion 15 12-11-2010 11:10 AM
Post your k7 low light high ISO shots Tony3d Pentax DSLR Discussion 2 10-21-2010 01:28 PM
Post your k7 low light high ISO shots raw Tony3d Pentax DSLR Discussion 14 10-19-2010 04:16 AM
Help with KX, Low Light, and High ISO dmfw Troubleshooting and Beginner Help 7 04-01-2010 11:38 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 10:05 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