[psychdoc]

Few weeks ago, I was debating getting a K5ii to replace my K5, vs getting a 2nd secondhand K5 and a wide angle. [Save money on camera to get a nice wide angle was my thinking]

I wound up getting a second K5, rented a Sigma 10-20 and left the Pentax 18-135 on my original as a 'two camera travel kit' without need to replace lenses. Bottom line. I am happy with my decision! I think for a hobby photographer like me, the K5 is plenty camera for my needs!

Had opportunity to travel from SanFrancisco on Highway 1 to Big Sur. I enjoyed the beautiful area and put the cameras to good use. I am glad I had two cameras as the place was very windy, with plenty of dust and moisture. I am definitely buying the sigma if pentax does not come up with a WR wide angle soon as I wound up with some fun pictures for my personal enjoyment, which would have looked better if I had used a polarizer on the ocean and knew better PP but here are a few:
P.S: Larger photos are at this site:http://docsabin.smugmug.com/Other/Big-Sur-and-SanFran-II/29787234_GjZrfR#!i=...2686&k=xhk3MMF

Attached Images

         

---

Last edited by psychdoc; 06-07-2013 at 05:18 PM.

[oxidized]

very nice captures

[Yos]

Nice indeed! I really liked #1 and #3

[interested_observer]

.....which would have looked better if I had used a polarizer on the ocean and knew better PP but here are a few:

Evening Psych, Wonderful images you captured. I do have a couple of suggestions - not about the images, but about the comment on pairing a polarizer with a wide angle lens. The pair does not mix well - sort of like oil and water. Here is why. Polarizers work well out to about the mid 20's in focal length. Wider than that they are unable to apply their corrections (just plain optics) in a uniform manner across the face of the lens, hence your results will show a very uneven polarization in particular to the sky (which is very noticeable). The polarizing filter applies its greatest correction 90 degrees to the sun, and progressively less as the angle lessens. The sky will show a very deep blue in one area then fading out to the standard sky across the rest of the image. Some folks prefer this, others do not. It really depends on your taste.

• Polarizers
• Using Wide Angle Lenses
• Circular Polarizers & Wide-angle Lenses ? Have Camera Will Travel

You can see that one of the application techniques is to flip the orientation from landscape to portrait, however you still have a significant difference in the sky.

Polarizing filters can be expensive - especially for the larger objective lens. Most wide angle lenses have large objective lenses, along the lines of 70mm+. The filters of this size come at a premium price. Quality filters commend an even higher price. Then with wide angle lenses you have to consider vignetting. To either eliminate or lessen the vignetting potential one usually considers thin or low profile filters, which commands an even higher premium. When you add all of these premiums together, you come up with a pretty nice price point.

So what are we talking about here. I picked up a Nikon (when Nikon was making filters - they left the business several years ago) 77mm low profile, wonderful quality filter and I think it ran $150 for use on my 12-24. I have used it a number of times, but I am careful to not include a lot of sky. I have found that it works on water, a bit differently than on the sky, as the un even application is not as apparent.

The other thing I was going to say, is that the wide angle lenses tend to have more contrast than the normal or telephoto lenses. The render richer, and so they tend to not really need the assistance of a polarizer.

I think you can actually do better through adjusting the images in photoshop, than with filters in the case of wide angle lenses.

---

Last edited by interested_observer; 06-07-2013 at 07:29 PM.

[jcdoss]

Fantastic images, but I've got a question too. Could you comment on how you carry and manage two cameras while travelling?

[psychdoc]

Thanks everyone for comments and suggestions

Fantastic images, but I've got a question too. Could you comment on how you carry and manage two cameras while travelling?

Carrying two cameras is tricky mostly because you dont want to look too much like a dork or be a thief magnet. My 'technique is different when I am travelling to places where I am not around a lot of people vs a city location.

1. B-grip camera holster holds one camera, I also changed the regular pentax camera neck strap to a wrist strap so that the strap does not dangle on my legs when I have it on the holster
Amazon.com: B-GRIP EVO Camera Belt: Camera & Photo

2. For my second camera, I have a Swiss Gear shoulder sling bag. This is not a camera bag. I have a small bubble wrap inside the bag to provide some protection when I have to lay it down. I chose this bag because it does not look like a camera bag, is very comfortable to wear. SwissGear Mono Sling - Black : Target

3. I have manfrotto quick release system on the tripod screws and carry a light tripod that I also use as a walking stick by extending only one leg. Its made by Benro

When walking around in a city, if its weather that is cool enough to wear a jacket I still use these two methods to carry two cameras. Because I wear a jacket thats long enough to hide the holster. If its too warm, Its hard to walk around in a city with a holster without looking dorky or be a target for thieves. I then switch to a shoulder sling bag thats larger and I dont recall who makes that now.