|
Forum: Pentax K-3 Photo Contest
07-16-2014, 07:45 AM
|
| |
I only reed this now. Saw the image and liked it a lot. Even better work and more complicated then I was thinking and a great job done.
|
|
Forum: Pentax K-3 Photo Contest
07-16-2014, 04:39 AM
|
| |
You use a digital camera (photography computer), that at a minimum makes a digital interpretation of light and color, which is manipulated by camera software/hardware. So, if one person takes a more enhanced approach with their photo computer, they are somehow doing computer graphics, and you're not? Odd thought process you have there.
Such arguments are probably very appropriate in some threads and/or some forums, but to pick out one photo in a contest and berate the entry is just plain rude. You won't gain much respect with your tactless technique.
|
|
Forum: Pentax K-3 Photo Contest
07-16-2014, 02:08 AM
|
| |
Well I hope I get to the next round. There are some pretty amazing images in the competition.
|
|
Forum: Pentax News and Rumors
06-27-2014, 03:53 AM
|
| |
The winner's PF user Darrell Raw. Congratulations! :)
|
|
Forum: Pentax Full Frame
06-14-2014, 06:12 AM
|
| |
I'd go one better, and have the built in telecompressor move, just like the AF1.7x teleconverter, then you'd get limited autofocus with manual glass, but there's zero market incentive for Pentax or any other dedicated manufacturer to do something like this.
If I had some venture capital to play with, I'd contract some Chinese company to build such a device, because it would be fun, and while we're at it, throw in a high speed leaf shutter.
|
|
Forum: Pentax SLR Lens Discussion
07-06-2014, 04:03 PM
|
| |
It's hard manually nail focus with any f1.4 lens, in my opinion. Using live view helps, when you can. Here's a screen shot from my copy of the lens, at f1.4 (shooting video on a Canon dslr).
---------- Post added 07-06-14 at 04:04 PM ----------
Note: I was focused on the specular highlight in his eye.
|
|
Forum: Pentax SLR Lens Discussion
08-17-2013, 04:03 AM
|
| |
I stopped by the local camera store a few days ago just to poke around, and to my surprise they had the 18-35! I returned this morning with my camera bag with the hopes of being able to do a comparison (physically only, since it was a Canon mount). In no way shape or form is this meant to be a review, however for those on the fence of pre-ordering (I still haven't made the plunge but I am *VERY* seriously considering it right now), here are my first impressions:
- AUTOFOCUS: Super quick on the Canon 700D (which the store owner let me play with, and I must say - wow...the Chinese plastic is strong with that one), although with such a short focus throw (it's 18-35mm), it isn't expected to be too slow. The DA*16-50 was only a bit slower although the 18-35 was obviously the winner. No focus accuracy issues I saw, but I only played with it for maybe 10 minutes.
- AF/MF SWITCH: Without any question the toughest switch to activate of any lens I've ever tried. The sound is a very *sharp* click. Very sharp. I like it, and there is NEVER any chance of it accidentally being switched to MF or AF without you consciously doing so.
- WEIGHT: This baby is heavy. Made the 700D a bit front heavy, but I think with the Pentax K-5 it would be a perfect balance. Heavier than the 16-50, although when I picked them up one in each hand, it didn't seem to be too far off. According to B&H the difference is quite a bit - 565g vs 811g, but in the hand the difference appeared much closer. Must be because I've been working out, though, huh? ;)
- SIZE: It's not small. It is taller than the DA* 16-50 and even taller than the Sigma 8-16. Below are photos for reference. But it isn't fat, which I was expecting for an f/1.8 zoom lens. Granted "fat" is relative, but I expected it to have a bit more girth.
- BUILD: The build quality is beautiful. Super tight tolerances and a beautiful finish. Yes it's mostly plastic and rubber, but there's nothing cheap about it, except maybe the rear lens cap (I hate Sigma's caps - the epitome of cheap).
- ZOOM AND FOCUS RINGS: The tightest rings I've ever felt on a lens, but in no way in a bad way. Beautifully damped and again, the super tight tolerances are apparent here. Makes me think if you put a rubber o-ring on the mount it might be weather sealed. Honestly... Also, I noticed that the zoom ring "zooms" in the same direction as Pentax lenses, however the focus ring is in the opposite direction. I didn't notice it until today, but my Sigma 8-16 is the same way, so I guess it would be safe to say that you won't find that a hindrance :)
- FRONT LENS OBJECTIVE/GLASS: It is bulbous, but not much. No where near as much as a fisheye or the Sigma 8-16, but it is far more bulbous than any standard rectilinear I've ever seen. Not an issue, but I did notice it.
- LENS HOOD: A super tight to screw on for both regular and reversed on the lens. I liked the grip along the edge of the hood's widest part - nice touch. Still no CPL window that is standard among Pentax's lens hoods though! I also liked that it was narrower to the body when reversed, something the DA 12-24 and the DA* 16-50 could learn a lot from...
Here are photos I took. From left to right, also with their focusing windows so you can see what I meant by the direction of travel. The store owner was very nice to let me use a DA 16-45 he had on the shelf because I didn't have anything wide enough to get all of them in the same shot from so close :)
DA* 55, Sigma 8-16, Sigma 18-35, DA* 16-50, FA 77 LTD, K-30
Attachment 184233
Attachment 184224
Attachment 184225
A top down look with the Sigma 8-16 to show its size when mounted. I lined up the Sigma 8-16 and its cap to mimick the exact placement of when mounted as well.
Attachment 184234
Each of these are different shots, all at f/1.8 with their 100% crops included, no sharpening applied - the only processing was RAW into Lightroom with slight exposure fixes - nothing more. Canon 700D. Keep in mind that glare also is a bit of an issue with reducing sharpness because they are through glass windows with a lot of overhead store lights. Also there is a bit of noise because I didn't get a chance to change the ISO. I had a hard enough time changing settings. I settled for Av mode and RAW (which was another pain to try to change - whomever claims Canon's menus are superior to Pentax's is out of their damn minds).
Focus about 2.5m away
18mm
Attachment 184228
35mm
Attachment 184227
Focus about 10m away
18mm
Attachment 184229
35mm
Attachment 184230
Close focus, about .5m away.
Attachment 184231
Super shallow DOF at close distance.
Attachment 184232
My biggest gripe - I would have preferred if they made it 16-30 f/1.8, but that won't change the fact I will most likely get it sometime around Christmas time after seeing some comparisons against the FA 31 and maybe even the Sigma 30 f/1.4 ART (not the old version) should Sigma decide to release it for Pentax. If the lens were weather sealed, though, I'd have one on pre-order to replace the DA* 16-50.
Like I said - this is *not* a review at all, just a hands on for a lens that most haven't seen in person yet. With that in mind, I hope this was beneficial to you :)
-Heie
|
|
Forum: Pentax SLR Lens Discussion
07-05-2014, 01:24 AM
|
| |
Glad you figured it out. Have fun.
|
|
Forum: Pentax K-3 Photo Contest
06-22-2014, 01:23 AM
|
| |
It's an awesome shot, made with great creativity. I like that it captures how our little girls look at their teddy bears... just a little bit bigger than life, and that's OK!
|
|
Forum: Pentax K-3 Photo Contest
06-21-2014, 08:56 PM
|
| |
With all due respect, screw you.
Photography is about capturing your vision in a tangible format, digitally or on film. I only started becoming a decent photographer recently because I've acquired the technical ability to capture what I envisioned in my mind into something I can hold (a photograph). You could be the most creative person in the world, but lack the ability to convey your vision through the lens (and post processing), and that would disqualify you from being a photographer, imo, because you failed to achieve that vision. And you lack the ability to do so. Just like if I have that same image in my head but can't paint - well guess what, I can't call myself a painter. Or I have the greatest idea for an iPhone app in the world but can't code, I can't call myself a programmer.
Going back to your initial "issue," I would (somewhat) concur with you if Usuqa took a whole bunch of images from Google and then pieced them together in a creative composite. Or just made them from scratch in Photoshop/another digital program, assuming he could render images from thin air that well. But that is not what he did. Not even close. Which begs the question - do you have any concept of what he actually achieved? Because there's two major themes going on - circumventing limitations that cannot be overcome naturally.
First, he overcame physics. The "Brenizer" type photo means that he stitched several images in a panoramic fashion (is that considered "graphic wizardry" by you? are all panorama shooters not photographers then?) to overcome the camera's limitation of not-shallow-enough depth of field. For that field of view, it is absolutely impossible to achieve the isolating depth of field that he did with just one shot. Cue in the panorama stitching to allow for the same effect as if it was shot with a lens and aperture that doesn't exist. But hey, since it doesn't exist, that means he can never be a photographer with the above image because it can never be naturally captured in one shot...
Second, he overcame the real world. Unless you work for Disney or Hollywood, chances are you don't have a 2 meter tall bunny that can hold a person's hand while walking through a field and also look down at the person holding its hand. The shots that were taken were pieced together (painstakingly, I might add), to convey an original image and creation that cannot be achieved in the real world. But he did it so expertly that it sure as hell looks real and causes you to do a double take and truly give the image your attention. At least that's what it did to me (and still does every time I see it). So again, he shouldn't be considered a "real photographer" because he couldn't take the above image in one shot. But let's just ignore that every part of it was taken using a camera, and just like the Brenizer technique, they were just carefully pieced together without the manipulation ("wizardry") you so abhor and conveniently use as the basis for determining one's rightful claim to be a "real photographer."
That's exactly what you did. Every single vitriolic word you typed out did exactly that. No one is saying that you have to like his image and think it deserves to win. (No offense, Usuqa, but you've got your work cut out for you - man what a gallery of amazing images in this competition!) But to discredit the man and the fruit of his labor, and his entire craft at that.
You should be utterly ashamed of yourself.
Very Respectfully,
Heie
|
|
Forum: Pentax K-3 Photo Contest
06-21-2014, 07:08 PM
|
| |
Really great image, my entry for round 2 is also a composite. I see absolutely nothing wrong with composition shots, as long as the photographer uses their own images. Photography is a form of art, and consists of being creative and different, trying out new things in order to show a story through the image. Anyway great shot and best of luck.
|
|
Forum: Pentax K-3 Photo Contest
05-09-2014, 04:13 AM
|
| |
Awesome pic...nominated for technical skills, pov, colors, fun factor, lighting....
|
