|
Forum: Sold Items
08-03-2017, 08:01 PM
|
| |
I might be interested as well. Let us know how it goes, ebahle. :)
|
|
Forum: Pentax K-1 & K-1 II
08-03-2017, 02:32 PM
|
| |
I think that's the transition we're going through now.
It used to be that you could buy a K1000, or a Leica M4, or a Rolleiflex TLR, or a Hasselblad, or whatever and you were done. Buy good glass, and improvements we saw in photographic technology were pretty much in new emulsions. Buy into a good system with a good variety of accessories and lenses, and you were set.
Then digital photography came around, and the difference from 2 megapixels to 3, then from 3 to 6, then 6 to 12, and so on offered such an improvement (not just in megapixels but in dynamic range, usability, better screens, better high ISO performance, and the rest) that the lenses were the anchor, and camera bodies didn't exactly become obsolete, but they became something closer to disposable.
I think we're at the point where we can all take a breath, find a camera that offers solid performance and suits our photographic needs, and commit to it for 5-10 years.
It's a nice place to be. Maybe it's not good for the camera manufacturers, but as a photographer I'm digging the plateau we're starting to see in camera tech.
|
|
Forum: Pentax K-1 & K-1 II
08-03-2017, 04:39 AM
|
| |
I would have bought a used Hasselblad H3DII-39, or would have looked seriously at a D810.
|
|
Forum: Pentax SLR Lens Discussion
08-02-2017, 05:35 PM
|
| |
Fenwoodian,
You are the best advertisement for Zeiss lenses on Pentax. When I was browsing that long K1 photos thread thinking about lens purchases the only ones that made me unconsciously say something like "holy $%!&!" were Zeiss lenses - especially a photo of dangling light bulbs with frost on them. The bokeh and overall tonality of that image was just amazing.
I'd love it if you would compile your observations on the available Zeiss lenses in a thread all by themselves that I can reference when my budget increases.
I think your knowledge and perception in this area might be unique, and very valuable. :)
|
|
Forum: Pentax K-1 & K-1 II
07-31-2017, 11:58 AM
|
| |
Let me get the old fuddy-duddy out of the way first: "back in my day" I used to shoot with manual focus everything, meterless bodies, and manual flash, and all those skills work as well better today than they did back then. It's a skill, but there's something to be said for not depending on technology.
With that out of the way, I used to shoot weddings in pretty low light with a Nikon F5 and it nailed focus 90%-95% of the time. It was focus and recompose (just like with the Leica M I moved to), but it worked fine. What was amazing was Nikon's TTL flash system, and that's gotten better with time. The flash could tell that a wedding dress or cake was supposed to be very reflective, and it just nailed exposure all the time. If you need great flash without thinking about it, I doubt you can do a whole lot better than Nikon.
I can't help with noisy images - I'm still of the opinion that 35mm Tri-X looks great, and that's probably an intolerable amount of noise to folks who never processed their own film, and/or whose standards were set here in the digital age. (And yes, Tri-X did look better in 6x6, even though it was generally Tri-X Pro.)
I suppose my advice would be this:
As a general rule, seeking technological solutions to photographic problems is expensive and not as effective as finding other solutions. Technology is required, but camera makers have been promising that the smarts in their latest cameras will solve all your problems automatically for decades, and it's still not true. Changing systems is a huge decision, and it's not something to make lightly. A decade ago I was active in a community of wedding photographers. I had accepted the failings of my Fuji S5 Pro system and was doing my thing, but there were a number of folks who were hopping from Nikon to Canon to Nikon over a 2-3 year period. This was great for the camera makers, but it's bad for the bottom line. I still believe for the most part that it's worth finding the lenses you like, committing to that system, and making do with the rest.
If you're shooting in low light and can't nail focus with your current body, how about focusing manually? You don't need the old split-image thingie we used to have in the middle of the focusing screen - you don't even need a traditional focusing screen - just focus manually with your subject wherever it is in the finder and shoot. You'll probably want to practice until it feels natural and fast, and you'll want to use a reasonably fast lens, but this still works. It's not sexy though, unless you're buying those dreamy Zeiss lenses and converting them, in which case you're an eccentric with high standards as far as image quality. Expect your hit rate will be lower than you like at first and improve over time, so shoot a LOT to compensate at first.
Manual flash is something that pretty much always just works too. I am not a master of mult-flash techniques, but I'm amazed by what skilled practitioners can do, and for the most part they shoot by setting flash power manually. They might set those flashes remotely, but they're still set manually.
Image noise is either an issue of managing expectations, or finding a way to process the "noisy" images that is aesthetically pleasing and meets the technical specifications you're shooting for. Is a Nikon D810 going to have lower noise than a K1? I doubt it pretty seriously.
Fuji? Nope. I love the Fuji X cameras but the K1 I just picked up is more capable in just about every way. The Fuji is perfect for a small, light, portable kit you can carry over your shoulder for 18 hours per day and not get back pain while producing great looking photos. But it's not as flexible as a DSLR.
But the advantages of moving to Nikon are as listed above by other posters: more capable (but pricy) flash solutions, big lens selection, big market, more training and support. Will that help you enough to justify the switch?
I can't say. Will your photos be better as a result? Probably not meaningfully better, but you might be happier and more content and that's worth a lot too.
Sorry I can't comment on the D750 directly.
|
|
Forum: Pentax DSLR Discussion
07-31-2017, 08:41 AM
|
| |
Thanks, folks. Sounds like the V600 is back to the front of the line for digitizing old negs. Now, back to our discussion of K1s for sale. :)
(Sorry for the diversion)
|
|
Forum: Pentax DSLR Discussion
07-31-2017, 07:55 AM
|
| |
Well, speaking for myself...
I like to print big - I've never gone larger than 30x40", but I like that size quite a bit. I also like the "look" of medium format - the 80mm Zeiss Planar for Hasselblad is one of those lenses that I just loved the rendition of, but all of the medium format gear I owned rendered things well whether we were talking about Hassy, Rollei, or even the cheap Bronica 150mm lenses that were never that sharp but really took advantage of the short DOF medium format offered with the way it handled the transitions between in-focus and out of focus areas.
So photography for me the last few years has been squeezing in the time to take photos on vacations (which we took a lot of), and that's it. I've been shooting with a Fuji XT1 kit because the lenses were amazing and the kit size was so small, but that meant my prints were never quite capable of the enlargement I wanted. I've got a 30" print from the XT on the wall that looks good, but it's about as big as it's going to get.
So now that I'm taking fewer vacations, and photography can be a more deliberate pursuit all on its own, it was time to re-evaluate medium format. And I discovered that I could purchase my old, beloved Hasselblad 500 bodies and lenses again and use a digital back with it, but those digital backs are out of production, with limited support, and high prices that show the value others place on them. But 10 year old autofocus hasselblad bodies that resolve under 40 megapixels were in my price range, so I started asking about those on another forum, and lots of the responses recommended the K1 or D810 as more practical alternatives.
So in my limited case, I want to be able to print to 40-45" along the longest edge of a print, and while I'd love to have the detail to allow for nose-to-print evaluations, I know I'm pretty comfortable with around 180DPI at a print level. So 36 megapixels work for me, and the K1 is just a gem of a camera. I would love the 645Z, but when you talk about the cost of a K1 versus a 645Z each with a basic lens kit (call it a wide prime, normal lens, portrait lens, macro, and maybe a zoom) you're talking about a huge difference in cost. One that I just can't afford or justify.
TLDR: the resolution of the K1 is good enough for photographers who print at even large sizes, and is affordable enough for most everyone. The 645Z looks like an amazing imaging machine, but the additional bang-for-the-buck isn't there for most people, unless we're talking about the 1% of working photographers or well-heeled individuals who don't find it hard to write a $30,000 check for something that brings them joy and pride of ownership.
|
|
Forum: Pentax SLR Lens Discussion
07-30-2017, 09:23 PM
|
| |
Hrmmm. New here too.
In general, every lens involves trade-offs, and the "best" lens is the lens with the trade-offs you are happiest with. I'm looking for a good normal lens, and as far as I can tell the Zeiss Milvus line is about perfect. Great build quality, sharp, contrasty, great transitions and beautiful renditions of out of focus areas. Of course it's expensive, is manual focus only, and doesn't come in Pentax mount so it needs to be converted, so what's best for me isn't best for you. Possibly.
SO it's not as easy as "buy Pentax DFA primes," or anything like that. There'll be research involved. So for me I liked the 100mm you're talking about, and the 31mm and 77mm Limiteds so I bought those. But the 43mm limited which should be perfect shows some weird renditions of out of focus highlights that really bug me in some images, and I've held off on purchasing that one. I may still get one, but I know sometimes it'll disappoint me if I can trust the images others are showing.
So, you want to buy lenses that are known to be good on full-frame cameras, which means FA or D FA lenses, or some of the DA lenses that are known to still work with a larger image circle (like the 55mm DA) in Pentax brand. The FA limiteds are well loved, but they were made for film cameras and many will argue that digital is more demanding, and we can build better lenses now than we could at the turn of the century, and that there are some obvious "flaws" in those lenses that show up in testing. And those people are right, but most of us don't shoot test charts and are concerned with how well the scenes we choose to photograph render, and we're willing to give up perfect sharpness across the frame wide-open for a visually pleasing rendition.
Again, it's subjective. There are folks who claim the 31mm FA Limited is one of the best wide angles ever, and it's the reason to get into the Pentax system. Others point out that Sigma's 35mm ART is outstanding and is objectively better than the Limited in just about every way. They're both right. Which do you choose? Or, do you get the 15-30mm zoom instead, which you can see from the K1 images thread is capable of very strong images too?
I'm not helping, am I?
Well, I'm a prime lens guy who likes to print big, so when I traded my Fuji stuff away for Pentax last week I opted for:
31mm Fa Limited
77mm FA Limited
50mm f1.8 -- temporary placeholder --
100mm DFA Macro
28-105mm zoom
I'm still undecided on the normal lens. 55mm? 43mm? Maybe the new 50mm DFA will be optimal? Opt for the Zeiss, convert it, and use manual focus? No idea.
But those picks, while possibly not optimal, are all solid performers that I know are capable of stellar work. And that's enough for now.
Maybe the best advice: check out the 700+ pages of the K1 photos thread, notice those images that you really like, and note the lenses they come from. You'll be surprised, but you'll also walk away from your 12 hour investment with a solid feel for what the lenses are capable of and what you prefer visually.
And that's the best you can do. :)
|
|
Forum: Pentax DSLR Discussion
07-30-2017, 06:10 PM
|
| |
I don't want to derail this conversation much, but I'd love to know more. I've got negatives going back to '91 that I need to scan, and if a K1 + 100mm Macro can outperform something like an Epson flatbed scanner (and it probably can,) then I really need to know more. :)
|
|
Forum: Digital Processing, Software, and Printing
07-28-2017, 02:13 PM
|
| |
Bumping this to say "thanks." I just bought a used K1 and the seller forgot to include the CD, and this worked perfectly today with the current version of the software. :)
|
|
Forum: Pentax News and Rumors
07-26-2017, 10:07 AM
|
| |
I'm not sure I should wade into this, seeing as I haven't received my first Pentax camera system yet, but maybe the opinion of a mostly-outsider will be of use.
Fuji is doing exceptionally well, in large part because they're delivering the lenses that photographers want. It started with a decent wide-medium-long/macro kit, then expanded to some zooms, and some very nice prime lenses. Photographers are eating them up because Fuji lets one buy into a small, portable kit with reasonably high quality. It's still a bit weird and not fully accepted by third-party processing tools, but it works great and keeps folks happy.
A big part of the happiness here is that Fuji has been completely open with their lens roadmap.
Now, my outsider's opinion on Pentax is that they believe in making affordable cameras that are indestructible and give superb image quality, at least at the high end. The 6x7 film camera was probably the archetype here - simple, tough, known limitations (like that monstrous shutter's impact on slower shutter speeds), but affordable, well-loved, and capable of images that rival the best of them. The 645D then 645Z continued this line, and now the K1 is pushing the same philosophy into more photographers' hands (like mine).
So how does this relate to the upcoming 50mm and its importance? I think in a few ways:- It shows users what Pentax is willing and capable of producing.
- It takes the first step toward producing a set of prime lenses capable of taking advantage of the K1's sensor (and hopefully future sensors)
- It builds momentum toward shifting users toward newer lenses instead of competing with legacy lenses. After all, Pentax makes no money on used lens sales.
If Pentax can produce a 50mm that's waterproof, well-armored, and tests as well as (or better than) the Sigma Art 50mm then they have a winner. It doesn't need to be Zeiss quality; it just needs to be something so special that every potential user, and every reviewer can see enough that's appealing about it that their mouths start to water.
I think it's very possible that a normal lens of Sigma Art quality, priced appropriately, and follow-up delivery timelines for a matching portrait lens, wide, and super-wide would get more commitment to the K1 system from users and potential users, even if it meant waiting 3 years for the follow-up lenses to get delivered according to the timeline, which would help sell gear now (and support near-term cash flows to keep the business flowing smoothly.)
I sense some pessimism among some of y'all, and maybe it's warranted. But the up-coming 50mm could be a really good thing for the Pentax ecosystem, and for Pentax as a platform and company.
|
|
Forum: Pentax SLR Lens Discussion
07-25-2017, 01:13 PM
|
| |
Well, I found a 28-105mm (thanks for the correction on the focal length) for $328 used from a dealer I trust, so I'll do that and see how it goes from here. I've got the 50mm f1.8 coming as well for when that works best, and I'll re-evaluate once the new 50mm comes out.
As an aside, I'm disappointed there's no Pentax mount of the Art series of lenses. Is there bad blood between the two companies? I can't figure out why Sigma would just choose to exclude one mount type, but there you go.
|
|
Forum: Welcomes and Introductions
07-25-2017, 11:07 AM
|
| |
It'll be here Friday. Anticipation is high. :)
|
|
Forum: Pentax SLR Lens Discussion
07-25-2017, 04:33 AM
|
| |
Thanks, guys. Everything you're showing me looks marvelous, so I'm impressed with the number of options available:- People love the 43mm and it draws well
- The 28-120 is a solid performer
- The DA 55mm has some vignetting sometimes, but not a distracting amount
But the renditions of that Milvus lens have my mouth watering. Does the AF work once it's converted to Pentax mount, or is it manual focus only? AF would be nice in most situations. Of course, then I need to be able to justify that sort of cost for a simple normal lens, but still...
---------- Post added 07-25-17 at 04:39 AM ----------
Never mind - it looks like the Zeiss are MF only. Still, they look compelling. Lloyd Chambers: ZEISS Milvus 50mm f/1.4 and 85mm f/1.4 Anchor a Gorgeous New Lens Line - LENSPIRE - The new ZEISS photography platform
As compelling as a 28-120 and a 43mm with some money left over? That's a tough question. I'm not sure I can justify that lens right now. :(
|
|
Forum: Pentax SLR Lens Discussion
07-24-2017, 04:36 PM
|
| |
I'm making a leap of faith here, trading off my beloved Fuji X system to buy into a K1. The Fuji was just about a perfect travel camera, and back when my wife hated her job we traveled a lot. Now, we don't travel so much, and I'm looking for a camera for more deliberate work, instead of something to throw in a bag and carry around for 14 hours. So the folks on GetDPI convinced me a modern full-frame made more sense than a decade old Hasselblad, and *poof* - here I am. I'm hoping the system is up to 40" prints from a single exposure when I do everything right - the X topped out at around 30" when I did a photomerge...
Anyway, I've found a K1, 100mm macro, 31mm, 77mm, and a 50/1.8 to get started. That should do just about everything in the short term while I work on learning the kit and re-acquainting myself with the SLR world. I'm still thinking about the optimal normal lens though, and I am seeing mixed messages in past discussions and in the occasional photo that looks off.
So I'm asking the experts for help. :)
My favorite normal lens ever was the Konica M-Hexanon 50mm F2 (for the Hexar RF system), which none of y'all have probably ever used. 50mm Summicrons draw pretty nicely, but I'm not necessarily looking for a Leica knock-off - I like buttery bokeh, but something like the Hasselblad 80mm Planar would create images that were just terribly striking, even if the bokeh was a little off on occasion.
What I don't want is something that takes out of focus highlights and creates terribly distracting designs with them, like some Nikon lenses I won't name have been known to do. Well-drawn subject, smooth transitions, and backgrounds that are (ideally) pleasing or (at least) not distracting. With the added requirement that my best images might get printed BIG, so focus/sharpness might really matter sometimes.
So maybe the 43mm? Or is there a 50 (even a Sigma) that does this better? Or is the 28-120mm zoom just that good? I don't particularly like zooms, but it would certainly be convenient at times as a walk-around lens...
What say the experts? If the answer was not "buy them all," which one would you commit to if you knew you were going to have to stick with it for a few years?
|
|
Forum: Welcomes and Introductions
07-23-2017, 11:57 AM
|
| |
You know, I don't doubt this for a second. :D
|
|
Forum: Welcomes and Introductions
07-23-2017, 09:06 AM
|
| |
I'm currently a Fuji X user that's let life get in the way of photography of late, and I'm devoting more time to it again. Wall prints from the X series are great and I love the system, but I would like a bit more resolution so I have more options printing and cropping. Typically the X cameras were used as travel cameras, but lifestyle changes of late mean I'll be working in a more deliberate way now that I travel less. Well, that plus the Sony RX100 is good enough as a carry-around camera that's always accessible, so it's not a choice of "carry a smallish kit when you might be interested in photography" versus a big bag all the time.
What shocked me was that I could finally afford decade-old digital medium format gear, but that a full-frame Pentax made more sense and might offer better quality! Who'da thunk it?
Anyway, I'm here and looking around. If I pull the trigger tomorrow I'll probably have quite a few questions about the lens line-up (I'm thinking the 3 limited lenses plus the 100mm macro), and I hope to be able to contribute once I have things figure out.
Thanks. :)
|
