[choubacca]

I got my Pentax K2000 today in the mail. I went to the local park today to try it out. I am already quite pleased with it.

This is my first digital SLR so there are some things I have to get used to.
- Im used to manual focus which I've learned from my K1000. A couple of times my pinky was instinctively putting itself in the front of the lens to get ready to focus only to be startled to feel he camera focus it by itself! Pretty cool! I'll be sure to get my finger out of the way.
- Using the digital filters on the camera are interesting. I want to make sure to learn how to take off filters or not use them that permanently changes the picture


But I love how small it is. I was in Best Buy the other day looking at the SLR's they had on display, and I was dumbfounded how HUGE they were. This one is nice and light. I feel this should be how Pentax cameras should be. Pentax should offer more smaller, agile products to compete with its competitors.

I've attached some pictures. These are some that I took today.

Im quite a fan of the Macro. The first picture is using that.

This weird bleaching thing happened with this last picture. Its a picture of moss, but it absorbed a lot of light. Not sure why.

My DA 55-300mm lens should be arriving tomorrow. I'm looking forward to trying that out. (Yes, I ended up getting that instead of the 55-200mm)

Attached Images

         

[séamuis]

were these taken in RAW or jpeg? if RAW, what app did you use to process them?

[choubacca]

were these taken in RAW or jpeg? if RAW, what app did you use to process them?

I took them in JPEG. I didn't alter them in Adobe. There is the digital filter option I used for the one thats in BW. Actually there is a filter that takes the color away but is not fully BW which is that one.

[aleonx3]

My DA 55-300mm lens should be arriving tomorrow. I'm looking forward to trying that out. (Yes, I ended up getting that instead of the 55-200mm)

Congratulation on your new purchase, I am sure you will enjoy your camera.

Also, the additional cost of 55-300mm over the 50-200mm is well worth it. The 50-200mm is still good though (I still have that one too). Here is a picture I just took that other day with my 55-300mm - very sharp and quick focus.

---

Last edited by aleonx3; 10-08-2010 at 11:01 AM.

[choubacca]

nice picture of the ducky!

Yeah I came pretty close to getting the camera with the 50-200 mm lens bundled on newegg for $600, but I got the camera itself pretty cheap from a seller on amazon and decided to put the extra few bucks in the lens. I wish I was able to try both before getting it. Many people have said the 50-200mm is very good.

[mike.hiran]

That moss picture is strange... were you shooting in manual mode? Any way you could post the exif info that shows shutter speed, f/ stop, and iso to help us figure out what happened?

[choubacca]

That moss picture is strange... were you shooting in manual mode? Any way you could post the exif info that shows shutter speed, f/ stop, and iso to help us figure out what happened?

I had it on auto focus
1/125
F8.0
I had it on 1600 Iso

Those are what it says under the picture when I look at it on the camera. The sun was shining on it pretty well. This actually happened a few times. Weird.

[lesmore49]

You will be very happy with the 55-300. Very sharp, crisp images on JPEG...I love m ine...had it since June, 2009.

[aleonx3]

I had it on auto focus
1/125
F8.0
I had it on 1600 Iso

Those are what it says under the picture when I look at it on the camera. The sun was shining on it pretty well. This actually happened a few times. Weird.

That last one looks to be over-exposed. Do you have it in M mode by mistake?

You will be very happy with the 55-300. Very sharp, crisp images on JPEG...I love m ine...had it since June, 2009.

Lesmore, the 55-300mm is a bit of pleasant surprise to me as I didn't expect it to that good because of the zoom range. The picture above is taken on the long-end wide open, this one taken on the wide-end but not quite wide-open (f5.6). Still, it is nice and sharp.

[creampuff]

That moss picture is strange... were you shooting in manual mode? Any way you could post the exif info that shows shutter speed, f/ stop, and iso to help us figure out what happened?

Simple overexposure...

[lesmore49]

That last one looks to be over-exposed. Do you have it in M mode by mistake?



Lesmore, the 55-300mm is a bit of pleasant surprise to me as I didn't expect it to that good because of the zoom range. The picture above is taken on the long-end wide open, this one taken on the wide-end but not quite wide-open (f5.6). Still, it is nice and sharp.

I'm retired now and my staff bought me a 55-300 for my retirement gift. It's been great. I live near a small urban Boreal Forest that is located by a small river...I go there for regular walks.

There are quite a few wildlife...deer, Canada Goose, Barred Owls, Pileated Woodpeckers...I've been able to get quite a few pictures of these animals and I've been very pleased with the sharpness of the 55-300. Another benefit is that it is a 460 equivalent on my K10D...that's a real reach.

[Marc Sabatella]

I had it on auto focus

The question wasn't about your focus mode, but your exposure mode - the dial on top of the camera. The settings you mention (1/125, f/8, ISO 1600) resulted in overexposure, so the question is, why were you using those exposure settings? If you were in Green mode or P mode, then you can blame the camera, but if you were in M mod, then you must have selected those settings yourself. Even in the automatic exposure modes, you might have accidentally caused the overexposure by dialing in exposure compensation unnecessarily, or by using spot metering inappropriately, or using AE-L after pointing at a darker object. I'm guessing you didn't do any of these things deliberately, but without a time machine or a video to see what you actually did, it's going to be hard to guess what happened.

[choubacca]

The question wasn't about your focus mode, but your exposure mode - the dial on top of the camera. The settings you mention (1/125, f/8, ISO 1600) resulted in overexposure, so the question is, why were you using those exposure settings? If you were in Green mode or P mode, then you can blame the camera, but if you were in M mod, then you must have selected those settings yourself. Even in the automatic exposure modes, you might have accidentally caused the overexposure by dialing in exposure compensation unnecessarily, or by using spot metering inappropriately, or using AE-L after pointing at a darker object. I'm guessing you didn't do any of these things deliberately, but without a time machine or a video to see what you actually did, it's going to be hard to guess what happened.

Well, one thing that was consistent, is that I was using Macro on the 18-55 kit lens it comes with.

Check out these other photos that it happened with as well. Same issue.

The red one is of the maple tree buds that flower.

[simico]

Well, one thing that was consistent, is that I was using Macro on the 18-55 kit lens it comes with.

Macro? Do you mean the mode dial was set to "Macro picture mode" (it has a flower icon on the mode dial)?

Don't use that for these kind of shots. I have no idea exactly what that picture mode does as it's not detailed in the operating manual, but it is not needed for macro shots (you can take those in Av or M mode). One thing I can think of is that the macro picture mode might set metering to spot metering, that would explain the overexposure. I'll try that at home.

Anyways, I'd suggest to use Av mode (or M if you're comfortable with it) for these kind of shots. And congratz for buying it, I think it's a great little camera for us amateur hobby photographers

[séamuis]

were all these shot at 1600 ISO? you said the moss photo was at 1600. there is no reason why you should be using 1600 outside during the day.