|
Forum: Sold Items
07-31-2022, 02:33 PM
|
| |
| |
|
Forum: Post Your Photos!
07-29-2018, 07:01 PM
|
| |
An old thread, but worthy of resurrecting. Really nicely done!
|
|
Forum: Pentax SLR Lens Discussion
07-27-2018, 03:46 AM
|
| |
Hi Adam. Your point is well-taken. I may consider getting one of these types of long lens supports, though since it's a good bit larger and heavier than a collar, I think I'll still want to have a collar for situations where I want to travel a bit lighter.
If an F* 300mm (which has the built-in tripod collar) comes around at a reasonable price, I might try to get one of those, but they generally seem to be in short supply.
|
|
Forum: Lens Clubs
07-26-2018, 11:45 PM
|
| |
| |
|
Forum: Pentax SLR Lens Discussion
07-26-2018, 11:36 PM
|
| |
I recently purchased an FA* 300mm f/4.5, and I'm looking for some advice regarding tripod collars for it. (I'm new to using tripod collars, since my lenses have generally been lighter ones, like the 55-300mm.)
First, how important is it to use a tripod collar with this lens if using it with a tripod or monopod? I'm wondering both about whether using it without a collar would put an undesirable amount of strain on the lens mounts and mounting screws, and also about the observed stability benefits of using a collar.
I do plan to purchase a collar for this lens, so I'd also like recommendations on which one to buy and to hear the experience of those who've used these various collars. The options range from Canon's own collars for their 70-200mm f/4 lenses to a number of clones of those collars.
My top concern is safety. I really wouldn't be happy to have the lens and an attached K-1 take a bad fall.
The seller of the lens I bought indicated that some scratches on the barrel were due to the prior owner's use of tripod collar that didn't have enough padding inside, so that's another concern. (Perhaps such scratching would be more likely to occur when rotating the lens in the collar to change the orientation.)
Other concerns would be whether stability varies from one model of collar to another, and whether there are usability issues with some.
Also, some of the collars are available in black or white. Any thoughts on the benefits of one versus the other? (I was thinking of white, since it might stay cooler if one were out in the sun for an extended period of time.)
Here are some different collars I'm currently aware of:
- Canon's Tripod Mount Ring A II
Metal. Has a safety mechanism for the screw so that loosening the screw won't cause the collar to open unexpectedly. Expensive, though a used one would be less so.
- There's also the earlier Canon Tripod Mount Ring A. Here's an article showing the differences between the two models (which seem to be the shape of the knob and the foot).
Probably a little less expensive used than the newer model.
- Fotodiox Pro Premium-Grade Tripod Mount Lens Collar
Metal. Has a safety mechanism for the screw (though may not be as good as Canon's). Some reviews described the liner as thin felt/velvet, but others said it was synthetic rubber, so perhaps the design may have changed over time. Some issues with tripod socket threads.
- Vello Tripod Collar A
Some reviews raised concerns about the quality of the screw and whether the collar would clamp tightly enough. One review mentioned that the material inside isn't very thick.
- JJC (and some other brands)
Plastic. Some reviews raised questions about stability, creaking noises.
- "For Canon" (with reproduction of Canon logo in red)
Metal. Reviews don't seem that good.
So, at the moment, I'm leaning toward buying one of the Canon collars (used, since I'd prefer not shell out ~$145 for a new one). My thinking is that this might provide better safety and stability. Downsides are cost and perhaps weight.
Does anyone have experience using the genuine Canon collars with the FA* 300? Any issues? How well does the fabric lining hold up over time? (If I buy a used one, I'm wondering if the fabric will be overly worn. Should I look for the Mark II model under the theory that if it's newer, it might be less likely to be worn?)
I'm also interested in hearing others' experiences with any of the other collars.
Thanks!
Marc
|
|
Forum: Pentax Price Watch
07-26-2018, 07:16 PM
|
| |
Thanks for the tip! I picked up some lenses I'd been thinking about, including a Sigma 8-16mm in EX+ (which was $398 after the coupon).
|
|
Forum: Pentax Price Watch
06-28-2018, 01:37 PM
|
| |
| |
|
Forum: Pentax DSLR Discussion
03-13-2018, 07:42 PM
|
| |
Yeah, these ones look nicely sharp. Clearly the optics are capable of sharp results in the way you used the lens here, so if your other results are consistently not satisfying to you, then you'd want to try to identify what factor(s) are responsible.
By the way, since you were using Live View, was the electronic shutter option enabled? (If it's enabled, the letters "ES" show up at the top of the Live View screen just right of center, with the standard information display.)
|
|
Forum: Pentax DSLR Discussion
03-12-2018, 07:09 PM
|
| |
That's a good suggestion about using flash for testing.
An update to my comments above -- I had been looking at the image using an unfamiliar viewer, which may not have applied any sharpening to the RAW image. I imported it into Lightroom and with its default sharpening, it looks a bit better, but still not crisp. Areas that seem noticeably soft to me include the garage roof and the tree trunk along the house on the right. Maybe the AF was okay and shutter shock or other camera movement blurred things. If you're shooting hand-held, also try turning on Shake Reduction.
|
|
Forum: Pentax DSLR Discussion
03-12-2018, 06:01 PM
|
| |
I've never used the 15-30mm, but I would not be satisfied with those results. I don't know if the problem is with the lens itself, but pixel peeping at 100%, nothing really looks crisp to me. I checked some shots I've taken with ultrawides on a K-5 II and they seem significantly sharper. (The pixel pitch of the sensor is about the same as the K-1, so I think they should exhibit similar sharpness at the pixel level.)
Here are some thoughts on possible explanations:
1) Autofocus failed to get a lock and left the lens at the minimum focus distance.
I used exiftool to look at the DNG file, and the data shown included:
AF Predictor : -1021
AF Defocus : 7
I didn't find any documentation for the AF Predictor value, but the value seems kind of large to me (even though I don't know anything about it :)), so I'm wondering if this was an autofocus issue. If autofocus isn't working correctly, it could indicate a problem with the lens, but I think you'd need to do some more testing to get a better sense of what the problem is. You could use a tripod and compare the results from phase-detect AF through the viewfinder and contrast-detect AF using Live View.
2) Shutter shock and/or mirror slap vibrations
I had noticed that the shutter speed was 1/125th, which is in the range where shutter shock has been reported to occur with the K-1 (and probably other cameras as well). You could try shooting with different shutter speeds to see if it makes a notable difference in your results. Try speeds of 1/250th and up to see if that helps. Results could be different with hand-holding vs. on a tripod. You can also try mirror lock-up and compare that with the electronic first-curtain shutter option for Live View (or shoot a Pixel Shift image, which uses the fully electronic shutter).
The shutter shock issue is lens-dependent. I don't know if people have reported issues when using the 15-30mm, but I suppose any lens could be significantly affected if there was something loose inside.
--
Later update: As I looked through more of my K-5 II photos with ultrawides, I found more that weren't as crisp as the first ones I looked at. I do think you should be able to achieve somewhat better results with the 15-30mm lens, though.
|
|
Forum: General Photography
02-26-2018, 07:41 PM
|
| |
Following up on an earlier post...
I just happened across this listing of an S1a that belonged to George Harrison, that Bonhams auctioned off in 2012. The listing references this photo of George holding the same or similar camera while on a plane with Ringo.
 |
|
Forum: Digital Processing, Software, and Printing
02-24-2018, 01:29 PM
|
| |
Thanks, I'm glad you like my attempt. Don't sell yourself short, though. I don't think my PP abilities are all that great, but I try to be persistent and try out different stuff, and eventually, I get somewhere.
One of the things I like about using a non-destructive editor like LR is that it's easy to try out different stuff and go back if it doesn't work out. I tend to make lots of virtual copies of an image. If I make some changes that I find promising, I'll often make a virtual copy and then use the copy to make more adjustments, so I can easily go back to the earlier version of the image. My skills with PS are pretty weak. I found this article helpful: Removing Objects with Content-Aware Fill and Patch in Photoshop CC.
In case you or anyone else is interested, here are the LR settings I used before editing with PS:
Exposure +1.79
Contrast +17
Highlights -45
Clarity +20
Vibrance -5
Red Saturation -5 [To make the aurora's red streak a little less saturated.]
Sharpening Amount 100 [I overdid this, I think.]
Noise Reduction Luminance 10
Noise Reduction Color 9
Dehaze Amount +21
And after the round-trip through PS:
Contrast +2
The Dehaze setting in LR is a relatively recent addition. I find that it can produce some appealing results (similar to Clarity, but different), even in photos where there isn't any obvious haze. (Here's an article about it: 5 Unconventional Uses for the Lightroom “Dehaze” Tool.)
In PS, I rotated the image 1.1 degrees clockwise to get the horizon more level (using the Crop tool with the content-aware option). Then I tried the content-aware Fill command to fill in the lower right corner. I wasn't satisfied with the results, so I went on to use the content-aware Patch tool to manually "clone" small sections to make it look more realistic. (My process in doing it was kind of haphazard.) Both of these are described in that first article I listed. (I had to look up how to use them. :))
After doing that stuff, I then noticed that the sharpening I'd done in LR seemed to have made the noise in the image more visible that I had noticed in LR. (This might be due to different scaling algorithms in the two programs, or perhaps I had zoomed in a bit more in PS. I hadn't zoomed in to look closely at the effects of the sharpening in LR.) To try to compensate for it, I used the Reduce Noise command in PS (settings were probably Strength 10, Preserve Details 35, Reduce Color Noise 45, Sharpen Details 2).
I don't have a convenient place to post the full-size image at the moment, but I'd be happy to email it to you if you want to PM me your email address.
I hope I'll get to see and photograph the northern lights one of these days. (My girlfriend also really wants to see them.) I'm glad you were able to capture the image that you did.
Marc
|
|
Forum: Digital Processing, Software, and Printing
02-23-2018, 02:58 AM
|
| |
Here's another take on it. I'm not completely satisfied with it, but I'm out of time, so I thought I'd post it anyway. (I think I did too much sharpening on it in Lightroom, without realizing it, before exporting it to Photoshop and doing a bunch of edits. And my cloning/content-aware patching could be improved a bit. Etc., etc.... :).)
|
|
Forum: Pentax News and Rumors
02-16-2018, 02:22 AM
|
| |
Looking at the alleged leaked specs, they say (with emphasis added): Pixel Shift Resolution: Available, Motion Correction ON/OFF, Image Stabilization On
That seems to indicate that pixel shift would be able to be used with SR enabled (rather than PS forcing SR to be disabled as happens currently (at least with the older firmware that I'm using)). Hopefully it will make PS more practical for handheld use under certain conditions. It might be just firmware changes, so perhaps the K-1 might get this feature as well eventually.
|
|
Forum: Pentax News and Rumors
02-16-2018, 12:25 AM
|
| |
I happen to like shooting in the dark (without a tripod, typically).
Of course another trade-off one can make with cleaner mid/high-range ISO performance is using slower lenses, for a smaller, lighter kit. As BigMackCam said, we all have different requirements/priorities.
|
|
Forum: Pentax News and Rumors
02-15-2018, 11:05 PM
|
| |
That's a nice idea. (I prefer the sound of the name Q-2, though.)
|
|
Forum: Pentax News and Rumors
02-14-2018, 03:19 PM
|
| |
| |
|
Forum: Pentax Price Watch
02-09-2018, 06:45 PM
|
| |
Thanks for the heads-up, Adam. I took advantage of the discounts on the two smaller bags. I notice that they're listed at some other sites (B&H, Best Buy) as no longer available, so perhaps they're being discontinued.
|
|
Forum: Pentax SLR Lens Discussion
02-09-2018, 05:27 PM
|
| |
Ricoh did get back to me (promptly -- I've just been slow in reacting). They asked me to send the lens to Precision Camera for evaluation under the warranty (and they said they'd expedite that).
I'm just about out of time to return the lens to Amazon, so my options seem to be:
1) Return the lens to Amazon for replacement again and hope that the new replacement is good. This would preserve discount that I got. (The total cost was $85 (or 17%) less than it would cost me now from B&H.)
2) Return the lens to Amazon for a refund, lose the discount, and buy the lens elsewhere (e.g. B&H) or wait (perhaps quite a while) for another sale.
3) Send the lens to Precision Camera, preserving the discount that I got (minus the cost of shipping to Precision Camera), and hope that they clean it off well and determine that it's fine. A possible drawback to doing this is that since I haven't cleaned off the lens and mounted it on a camera to test it, I don't know if the lens could have other issues (e.g. decentering or autofocus calibration not being a good match for my K-1, or the K-1 shutter shake issue that some have reported as affecting this lens more than others).
Any thoughts on these (or other) options?
I don't have any experience with Precision Camera. I do have some concern about doing too many returns to Amazon, since I've read that they sometimes permanently close people's accounts without warning for what they deem to be excessive returns. (It was my girlfriend's Amazon account, since she was eligible for the discount, and she'd be very unhappy if they closed her account. Also, I'm wondering if the fact that she was the purchaser will complicate the warranty service if I were to send the lens to Precision Camera.)
|
|
Forum: Pentax SLR Lens Discussion
01-24-2018, 01:54 PM
|
| |
Thanks, all, for the feedback.
I dug out a bunch of boxes from other Pentax lenses that I had bought new in the past and the silica gel packets that were still in them looked quite different from the leaky packet that I described above. The older packets did not appear porous at all to the unaided eye (and they were also name-brand packets). See the crops below from a single photo showing the leaky packet first followed by examples of the two brands of packets I found from my older lens purchases.
I sent a detailed message off to Ricoh and they said they were forwarding the info to their management team and they'd get back to me soon.
|
|
Forum: Pentax K-1 & K-1 II
01-23-2018, 11:29 PM
|
| |
I know this is an old thread, but I came across a bit of information that clarified/confirmed some of the above discussion about which types of lenses are supported for 5-axis SR (and I didn't see it elsewhere on PF), so I thought I'd add it here.
I happened to look at Ricoh's K-1 FAQ, and noticed that it says [with emphasis added]: Q. Are there any lenses that the Shake Reduction (SR) function cannot be used with?
A. No, there are not. The SR function on the K-1 can be used with all supported lenses. Input a focal length in the range from 8 mm to 2000 mm when using a lens which cannot obtain the focal length information to the camera.
*The lens which can obtain the focal length information such as F/FAJ/FA series lenses are corresponded to five-axis mechanism (horizontal shift, vertical shift, roll, pitch and yaw), and the other older lenses are corresponded to three –axis mechanism (roll, pitch and yaw).
So, since the two additional SR axes supported by the 5-axis system are most useful for handheld macro work, it seems that using a Pentax AF lens for such work would have some SR advantage over an older, non-AF lens.
|
|
Forum: Pentax SLR Lens Discussion
01-22-2018, 01:30 PM
|
| |
Yeah, my first impression of the first lens (based on the pattern of the dust) was that the dust had come from some liquid that had dried on the rear cap.
That's a good suggestion if I decide to try cleaning off the lens.
I suspect the scuff marks may just be marks in the layer of dust and not actually scuffs of the rear cap plastic (but I'm not sure).
The lens was wrapped in a bubble wrap bag. The bag was not taped, but I'm not sure if they normally tape them. There was nothing about how the lens was packed that made think it was an open-box item (although the box for the first lens did have a fair number of nicks on the outside).
Th original lens was ordered as a "Ships from and sold by Amazon" item, however I've read that Amazon may commingle their own inventory with "Fulfilled By Amazon" inventory that's supplied by marketplace sellers. If so, then there may be no way for me to know where the inventory actually came from (and maybe Amazon wouldn't know either).
I don't see any evidence of dust inside the box (even if I turn it upside down and tap on it), so I suspect this was not the cause.
My current thinking is that the silica gel packets are defective. Perhaps some of the beads got pulverized during manufacturing and that dust was sealed inside the packets, but the fabric of the packet is too porous to keep the very fine dust from migrating out of the packet (perhaps due to vibrations while in transit). As I noted, I am able to make dust slowly come out of the packet (by holding the sides and sort of gently squashing and unsquashing it).
(Another possibility that occurred to my suspicious mind is that maybe the lenses came from a marketplace seller and they had replaced the original gel packets (with ones that happened to be lower-quality) because the lenses had been exposed to excessive humidity (e.g. from an area with flooding :eek:). This doesn't seem that likely, though.)
I think I'll get in touch with Ricoh and ask if they've had any other reports of this problem.
|
|
Forum: Pentax SLR Lens Discussion
01-22-2018, 02:14 AM
|
| |
Here's a crop from another photo of the second lens.
|
|
Forum: Pentax SLR Lens Discussion
01-22-2018, 01:43 AM
|
| |
Here are some photos of the second lens.
---------- Post added 01-22-18 at 03:03 AM ----------
I had wondered whether something had happened with the silica gel packet, though it seemed intact. Anyway, I just thought to take a closer look at the packet from the second lens. I held it over a spare rear cap and shook and tapped it a bit, and fine white dust started falling down into the cap. So that seems to be the likely source of the dust (unless the packet exterior picked up the dust and it's not from inside the packet, though that seems less likely).
What do folks think I should do about it? Return the lens? Just clean it off? Contact Pentax to ask them about this? (Maybe there was a bad batch of silica gel packets?)
And have other people experienced this?
|
|
Forum: Pentax SLR Lens Discussion
01-22-2018, 01:38 AM
|
| |
There was a recent extra 15% reward points on certain lenses from Amazon for Amazon Prime Rewards credit card holders (in addition to the usual 5% reward points for Amazon purchases). As part of my latest LBA episode, I used that deal to buy a D-FA 28-105mm. When it arrived and I examined it, I was very surprised to find that the rear cap was coated with a very fine white dust, some of which also appeared around the red rubber WR gasket and the back portion of the lens barrel.
I did take off the front cap and the front element looked new, but I didn't want to mess with the rear cap and this mysterious dust (which I thought could have also migrated into the lens), so I returned the it for a replacement. When the replacement arrived, I was dismayed to find that it had the same problem (though to a lesser degree). I haven't removed the caps yet to check on the glass. I'm trying to decide whether to just return it for a refund.
Has anyone else received a new lens in similar condition? I was trying to figure out how this dust might have gotten on these lenses. Was it a manufacturing issue, or did something happen after they left the factory? Note that the serial numbers of the two lenses differed by about 6,000, so if it was a manufacturing issue, that suggests that it went on for a while (assuming that serial numbers are allocated pretty much sequentially).
I'm attaching some photos of the dust on the first lens.
Any ideas about this?
|
