|
Forum: Pentax K-1 & K-1 II
09-28-2018, 08:53 AM
|
| |
The 28-105 should be fine for most stuff.
I used K-70 with pretty much only the 16-85 on Milford Sound cruise, except for the parts where you get close to the seals on some of the rocks. There I used the 55-300 PLM. But the boats do get very close to the seals, so with 105mm and perhaps some cropping you should be fine. If they are there during this time of year in the first place. By the way, the boats tend to sail through or close to some waterfalls, so the WR part of the 28-105 might just come in handy. And generally you will get rain from time to time anyway.
The 14mm is probably also great for some wide angle shots. With all the gorgeous landscapes in NZ the 14mm is probably the best choice for a second lens to bring. It is the 14mm f/2.8 right? In New Zealand you should try some astrophotography with the K-1 too, which is where the 14mm is also great. Dark skies and great backgrounds are easy to find in New Zealand. Those night skies are almost better then the feast you already get during the day :)
Dont think I would bring much else.
|
|
Forum: Pentax SLR Lens Discussion
06-07-2018, 09:22 AM
|
| |
Well I can't directly show any pictures since I don't own the 300mm myself, but my dad does. I do know it's quite good on quality together with his K-70, but it's not exactly fast focussing. But if you are experienced in general and especially with the K-70, then you should be able to get good photos with it.
But if I have to brutally honest, if birding is your primary interest now, you are much better off changing systems to a Nikon D500 or a Panasonic G9 or something. Sure that means spending a lot of money and stuff, so it's not ideal and maybe not possible for you, but I would save the 1000-1200 usd/euro you would normally spend for this lens. Save it to invest in a better system for birding.
I sort of get by with the K-70 and the 55-300 PLM which is a great lens in its own right. But for example I always dislike the max of 6fps on the K-70, let alone the focus capabilities. Such a shame that Pentax takes way too long on the K-3 Mark 3. But it is what it is.
|
|
Forum: Pentax K-70 & KF
02-23-2018, 09:19 AM
|
| |
I bought the K-70 roughly 1.5 years ago, but I am not so sure if I would buy a K-70/Pentax-camera in 2018 if you are new.
It all depends on what you wanna do with the camera.
K-70 is still great and back in 2016 it was easily a better choice for me when comparing it to a similar body of Nikon for example. I had to spend hundreds of dollars/euros more to get a Nikon-body of the same quality. And since I liked astrophotography and was more into landscapes than sports/wildlife, it was easily the best choice if you didn't wanna spend a fortune on the body.
Right now however, the KP isn't a whole lot more expensive than a K-70 while its quite a bit better IQ wise. I would go KP or skip Pentax to be honest.
It's nice they keep their developing fullframe with the K-1 mark II, but no word yet on the K-3 III and not like Ricoh has been very active in bringing out new aps-c lenses. Not even sure a new flagship body is even coming at all. Right now, if you want something better as a K-3/K-70-owner but you dont wanna go for the K-1 or KP, then ye, there aren't really any options. Especially if you care for flagship model features such a dual card slots, bigger battery, more durable body, higher fps, etc.
|
|
Forum: Troubleshooting and Beginner Help
01-25-2018, 12:53 AM
|
| |
Like mikesbike already mentioned here, perhaps it isn't even such a bad idea to wait a bit longer to see if a k-3 II replacement is finally coming this year.
Normally waiting for a new unannounced successor is ill-adviced, but if it comes this year, and damn it should :), then you will really get a significant upgrade on just about any level.
|
|
Forum: Pentax DSLR Discussion
01-21-2018, 03:27 PM
|
| |
Well I kind of had the same issue near Tidbinbilla Nature Reserve (not too far from Canberra) a year ago. Heaps of kangaroos there.
However, I guess my humble K-70 and the 16-85mm lens were enough to beat Volvo on this occasion :) Even through the windshield of the car.
But ye, with the 55-300PLM I had lots which were similar to yours: fine when looking at the picture as a whole, but not so great as a crop. But I suppose the difference in lenses (150-450 vs 55-300), camera (K70 vs K1) and my relative inexperience were also part of the story.
The last one was actually a little scary. Quite a big one looked us straight in the eye, after running a bit towards us. I just had to quickly get a shot, wasn't ideal, but at least he didn't charge any further :)
But hey, cheer up! You get the chance to go back there and try again...I have to fly a bloody 16.000 km's for that :P
|
|
Forum: Pentax K-1 & K-1 II
01-03-2018, 07:15 AM
|
| |
Perhaps he means this thread where some people are rightfully complaining about shutter shock with the K-1.
|
|
Forum: Troubleshooting and Beginner Help
01-17-2017, 02:44 PM
|
| |
Used several different third party batteries for the K-70. Ansmann, Patona, mtb. Pretty much all the same. Not as good as the original, but it's not a huge difference. And considering the price they can't be beaten.
|
|
Forum: Pentax DSLR Discussion
01-11-2017, 12:23 AM
|
| |
If you are out in the woods 3-4 days a week, then perhaps de K-3ii also has a slight edge regarding battery power. If there is one thing I dont like about my K-70, it is the battery.
|
|
Forum: Pentax K-S1 & K-S2
01-11-2017, 12:18 AM
|
| |
Nice shots. What settings and focussing/tracking method did you use for the BIF pics?
|
|
Forum: Pentax K-70 & KF
01-10-2017, 09:29 AM
|
| |
I tried the JJC S-PK1 recently, works flawlessly. And of course much cheaper than the official CS-310.
|
|
Forum: Pentax DSLR Discussion
11-28-2016, 06:14 AM
|
| |
Yep, exactly my thinking. Might need legal proceedings to fight this, but it's rubbish if a non-independant witness counts as an objective witness, or a witess in the first place. You'd be screwed if it was a police officer, but that's not the case. Getting a lawyer might be costly, but it could be worth it since you already lose so much on the car.
|
|
Forum: Troubleshooting and Beginner Help
11-22-2016, 08:02 AM
|
| |
Being a beginner, I was just fooling around with the HDR mode on the K-70. I don't remember if I used HDR auto or HDR 1 or 2, but this was the JPEG (I shot RAW+) end result straight out of the camera, with some pp afterwards. Shot with the Pentax 18-55 WR lens.
I also tried the manual way of creating an HDR stacked image. I seperated the 3 RAW images through DCU5, loaded them into both Affinity and FDRTools, and did my best to create an image looking as bright and with (leaf) colors as vivid as seen in the JPEG image.
But whatever I tried, whichever combination, whatever slider I pulled, I wasn't able to get close to the out of camera JPEG image. Which was actually pretty close to how it actually looked.
Most of all, I had a hard time to make the foreground with the trees and leaves brighter/lighter without losing details in the sky.
Should I post-process each of the 3 individual RAW images first (creating TIFF-files?), before merging/stacking them in HDR photography software? Will that generally improve things?
Or is it safe to say that the in camera HDR mode of the K-70 isn't bad at all?
Btw, I am sure I did a million things (slightly) wrong. Camera settings maybe, composition, trying an HDR stacked image while the leaves were moving slightly of course, etc.
|
|
Forum: Pentax SLR Lens Discussion
11-18-2016, 09:17 AM
|
| |
Does anyone have experience with the Samyang 16mm T2.2 D AS UMC CS cine lens for astrophotography?
I reckon the racks for follow focus and the stepless aperture control shouldn't really have any downsides for shooting the stars right? Also no downsides when compared to the normal Samyang 16mm f/2.0?
It is actually quite a bit cheaper than an ordinary Samyang 16mm f/2.0. So am I giving up anything in usability/optical quality? Or is it pretty much exactly the same as the Samyang 16mm f/2.0 and thus perfectly suitable for pin point star shooting?
|
|
Forum: Pentax SLR Lens Discussion
11-15-2016, 06:20 AM
|
| |
Shot the not so super moon two days ago with K-70 and the 55-300 PLM: 1/160, ISO 200, 300mm, f/11, (easy) autofocus at the moon, handheld. This is a crop of course, and done some pp aferwards.
I was quite impressed I could achieve these results without a tripod. Guess the K-70's stabilised sensor and the 55-300 PLM's quality were a good tandem here.
|
|
Forum: Pentax SLR Lens Discussion
11-15-2016, 05:56 AM
|
| |
You could even throw the Sigma 17-70 f/2.8-4 in the mix :) And the Tamron 17-50.
|
|
Forum: Post Your Photos!
11-13-2016, 04:40 PM
|
| |
Not hijack this topic or anything, but I just tried the same. K-70, 55-300 PLM, handheld at 300mm, and the super moon results were rather impressive if you'd ask me.
Your shot is much more blurry than what I managed. Probably just luck on my part. Although, I think you can narrow down the aperture from f/6.3 to something like f/11 for better results. Also, a slightly slower shutter speed might help.
|
|
Forum: Post Your Photos!
11-13-2016, 04:01 PM
|
| |
Cloudy skies are on the Dutch forecast for tomorrow, so tried to capture the supermoon this evening. First is original crop, second is crop with pp. May have overdone the pp a bit, but I am totally new to all this.
Both these pictures are handheld. Shot with the 55-300 PLM. I was quite amazed how well these results looked. Because I was lazy and didn't bother with a tripod, I though the results would be significantly less sharp.
All I did was roughly 1/160, f/11, ISO 200, M mode, 300mm, autofocus on the moon, and tried to steady things a bit by positioning the left side of the lens against a structure. But still it was pretty much totally unstabilised.
|
|
Forum: Pentax SLR Lens Discussion
11-10-2016, 08:44 AM
|
| |
Say I just ignore the Samyang wide angles for now, is there anyone who may shed some light on the Sigma/Tamron 17-50 vs Sigma 17-70 vs Pentax 16-85 for wide angle astrophotography?
Adam suggested the Pentax at 16mm might be a better option than the Sigma/Tamron at 17mm (wider, only half a stop slower, and better wide angle performance). But that seems to suggest the Sigma 17-70 is perhaps a good/the best option here, since optically it easily matches the Pentax, and its faster, cheaper, better for macro.
Nice images! Well I have the SMC Pentax 135mm f2.5 and the SMC Pentax 200mm f4. Should be ok with those too I guess.
Well those trackers aren't really helping to counter light pollution do they? :) And you probably ain't seen nothing yet....the night sky here is often bright orange. Nothing gets through :(
|
|
Forum: Pentax SLR Lens Discussion
11-09-2016, 07:32 PM
|
| |
Ye, perhaps there is no way of getting around buying a second fast wide angle prime lens :)
Main reason why I was hoping to do the astro stuff with a fast standard zoom lens, is the problem of light pollution in Holland, my home country. It's just worse than terrible here. That problem combined with the frequent cloud cover will severely limit the times I can really practice astrophotography here. That's why spending another 400 euros on a Samyang 10mm 2.8 for example isn't too attractive, as I probably can't really use it all that often. Luckily I will be visiting your home country soon. Should be plenty of opportunities to get cracking there. A Samyang wide angle will be put to great use down under, but as soon as that trip comes to an end, the Samyang would probably mostly collecting dust....Which is why I was hoping to get away with astrophotography with a Sigma 17-50 or the 17-70, and skipping any of the Samyang wide angles.
|
|
Forum: Pentax SLR Lens Discussion
11-09-2016, 06:47 PM
|
| |
Great picture, I already came across that one somewhere around here :)
Yup, the AF issues are exactly what kept me from even considering this lens. If you invest such a price on a lens, then mechanically it should be near flawless imo. Sadly, it's not. Also a bit heavy as a walkaround daytime lens, and too expensive to just use it as a manual focus single purpose astro lens.
What would you suggest? I know a wide angle Samyang gets better astro results, but I really want to try save some cash by buying the Sigma/Tamron 17-50, the Sigma 17-70 or the Pentax 16-85 for daytime stuff and wide angle astrophotography.
Edit: this post is perhaps an indication that the Sigma 17-70 is slightly better for wide angle astrophotography. I can't really see a whole lot of coma in the corners, certainly not as much as the picture of the 17-50 shows.
|
|
Forum: Pentax SLR Lens Discussion
11-09-2016, 06:35 PM
|
| |
True that, seems like I really need to consider the 16-85 more seriously now :)
But isn't the Sigma 17-70 still a better choice then? In a review here on this website, the comparison between the Sigma 17-70 and the Pentax 16-85 led to a clear conclusion: if you don't need the WR of the Pentax, go for the Sigma. Reasons: comparable IQ, faster aperture, better macro, nicer bokeh, and cheaper.
However, I doubt the Sigma 17-70 is better/sharper (perhaps less coma in the corner?) at 17mm than the higher end Sigma/Tamron 17-50 right? But you seemed to suggest the 16-85 might be a better option than the Sigma/Tamron 17-50. So now it's getting interesting :)
So mainly considering the astro wide angle performance, how should I decide between these 3 or actually 4 lenses?
|
|
Forum: Pentax SLR Lens Discussion
11-09-2016, 05:00 PM
|
| |
Stunning images, that's for sure! Interesting suggestion too, but I guess it's coming at least one year too early :) Basically I am still a beginner at serious photography, and especially in stuff like astrophotography. So I guess it makes more sense to try and get the best results with the more common and regular APS-C lenses which are easier to use. Using medium format lenses sounds interesting, but I guess I'd better take the time to try and learn the craft before looking into anything like 67 lenses + adapter.
Ye I also considered the 16-85mm, as I have been reading about its sharpness and excellent performance all across the board. However, I kind of figured that the 2/3 stops of less light coming in (f/2.8 vs f/3.5) would automatically make it less ideal than the Sigma/Tamron 17-50 2.8 for wide angle astrophotography.
So basically you are saying that the better performance/sharpness of the he DA 16-85 at the fl of 16mm is preferrable over 17mm at the Sigma/Tamron, even though these two lenses have a slightly larger aperture and thus will let a bit more light in? Interesting point for sure! And perhaps the good ISO performance of the K-70 helps a bit here too, compensating for the f/3.5 aperture at 16mm?
Perhaps I should consider the Sigma 17-70 as well. According to the reviews here, its just as sharp at 17mm, while being a bit faster and atm roughly 150 euros cheaper than the 16-85. Although it seems kind of hard to imagine that that Sigma 17-70 would be better at the wide angle than the Tamron/Sigma 17-50 right?
Well I already have the two Pentax plastic fantastic lenses. The Samyang equivalents are probably better, but pricewise you can't beat these two small Pentax lenses. And a review on lenstip showed that the 35mm 2.4 is excellent when it comes down to coma in the corners. They are both quite fast too.
Ye I already read about the sharpstar on Lonely Speck. Certainly seems like an interesting tool. But isn't the use of the 10x 'ok-button' live view zoom method on a bright star (+ meticulously adjusting focus manually until you have the star as small and sharp as possible) ok too? Probably this is not always the most precise method, but it also seems a bit more fun just using the camera + lens to get the best focus possible.
|
|
Forum: Pentax SLR Lens Discussion
11-09-2016, 01:51 PM
|
| |
I have the gps module, so in theory pin point stars should be possible through the star tracer option, bulb mode, mirror lockup, and possibly a remote/2 sec timer. If I can get the precise calibration right, of course.
I wasn't aware Samyang had a 16mm at f/1.8. Think you mean the 16mm 2.0?
Basically my question is if there will be a significant difference between using the Tamron or the Sigma 17-50 for pin point star shooting.
I am aware that there are several fast wide angle lenses from Samyang, but I am wondering if the results from the Sigma/Tamron will be good enough and if one of these edges ahead when it comes down to coma in the corners.
|
|
Forum: Pentax SLR Lens Discussion
11-09-2016, 08:45 AM
|
| |
Oh ye good you have asked. Definitely trying to get pin point stars. Not really interested in star trails.
|
|
Forum: Pentax SLR Lens Discussion
11-09-2016, 07:29 AM
|
| |
For my new K-70 I am looking for one more lens: a fast standard zoom to cover a couple of things: walkaround/landscape, general low light shooting, and astrophotography.
The Pentax 16-50 is a bit too expensive imo, and the apparent SDM issues ain't too attractive either.
Either the Sigma or the Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 seems like the obvious choice.
However, on this forum you can clearly see evidence of coma in the corners when shooting the stars with the Sigma at wide angle. I suppose it will be the same story with the Tamron? Some external reviews seem to suggest that the Tamron performs slighly better at 17mm than the Sigma. But that doesn't automatically mean less coma, as this review shows. Any people here with experience with these two lenses, and specifically with astrophotography?
Obviously getting a more 'purpose built' astro lens like any of the wide angle Samyangs or the Sigma 18-35mm is the best option. But I am a bit reluctant to spend all that extra money just for an astro lens, especially considering the fact that I am just about to take my first babysteps into astrophotography.
Any suggestions?
|
